This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

15649

Vol. 60, No. 58

Monday, March 27, 1995

1With the passage of the Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and the

Low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980, many States

have organized into regional Compacts. These

Compacts, together with unaffiliated States, are

attempting to facilitate the development and

operation of new disposal facilities.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 20 and 61

RIN 3150–AD33

Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest

Information and Reporting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or Commission) is

amending its regulations to improve

low-level waste (LLW) manifest

information and reporting. The

amendments will: Improve the quality

and uniformity of information contained

in manifests that are required to control

transfers of LLW that is ultimately

intended for disposal at a land disposal

facility; establish a set of forms that

allows LLW to be tracked from its

origin, and serves as a national Uniform

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest

to meet NRC, Department of

Transportation (DOT), and State and

Compact information requirements;

require LLW disposal site operators to

electronically store container-specific

manifest information; and require the

disposal site operators to be capable of

reporting the stored Uniform Manifest

information on a computer-readable

medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective on March 1, 1998.

However, licensees may implement the

regulation at an earlier date, if a LLW

disposal facility or its regulatory

authority, to which shipped LLW is to

be ultimately consigned, desires earlier

implementation of these provisions.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents

relating to the proposed rule that was

published on April 21, 1992 (57 FR

14500), or copies of this document may

be examined and copied for a fee in the

Commission’s Public Document Room

at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC 20555. Copies of NRC’s

Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest forms and the general

instructions can be obtained from the

Information and Records Management

Branch, Mail Stop T–6 F33, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, or

telephone (301) 415–7230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William R. Lahs, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)

415–6756 or Mark Haisfield, Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)

415–6196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Purpose of the Revision

Low-Level Waste Shipment and Disposal

Rulemaking History

II. Implementation

III. Summary of Public Comments and

Changes From Proposed Rule

Part 20

—Section 20.2006 Transfer for disposal

and manifests

—Appendix F to §§ 20.1001 through

20.2402 (Appendix G to §§ 20.1001

through 20.2402 in this final rule)

I. Manifest—Introduction

I. Manifest—Definitions

A. General Information

B. Shipment Information

C. Disposal Container and Waste

Information

D. Uncontainerized Waste Information

E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container

Information

II. Control and Tracking—Appendix G,

paragraph III.A

III. Control and Tracking—Appendix G,

paragraph III.B

Part 61

—Section 61.12 Specific technical

information (as contained in § 61.80)

—Section 61.80 Maintenance of records,

reports, and transfers, Uniform Manifest

Forms and Instructions

—General Comments

—Form 540

—Form 541

—Form 542

National Data Base Comments

Regulatory Analysis Comments

IV. Compatibility Agreement of State

Regulations

V. Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

VII. Regulatory Analysis

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

IX. Backfit Analysis

I. Background

Purpose of the Revision

The purpose of this amendment to 10

CFR parts 20 and 61 is to modify the

NRC’s LLW shipment manifest

information and reporting requirements

to address the regulatory information

needs for the transfer and disposal of

LLW. The amended information defines

the chemical, physical, and radiological

properties of LLW that can be used to

determine the expected performance of

disposal facilities during operations and

following closure. Thus, a principal

objective of these amendments is to

ensure that the information, initially

reported by those generating the LLW,

eventually received and recorded by the

LLW disposal facility operator, and

made available to the NRC or an

Agreement State regulatory agency, is

sufficiently comprehensive and

consistent for its intended use. To

enhance regulatory oversight and assist

regulatory agencies and others in their

assessments of normal operations or

potential problems, such as questions

about the adequacy of a particular

disposal container, the amendment

requires that the manifest information

be stored electronically at the disposal

facility operated under an NRC license

and be capable of being conveyed by a

computer-readable medium. The

specific content and schedule for any

reports containing the stored

information will be established as a

condition of the license or, if necessary,

in a future rulemaking action.

The Commission recognizes that

several entities have legitimate needs for

LLW shipment information that should

reasonably be included on a shipment

manifest. In fact, Compacts,1

unaffiliated States, and an increasing

number of consignees, including

disposal facility operators, have

interests in waste shipment and

disposal information that could be

contained in a shipment manifest. To

provide a degree of standardization in

format and a baseline of manifest
15650 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

2NRC staff interactions with the Compacts and

unaffiliated States has occurred principally with the

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum and the Host

State Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The

TCC requested that the Commission consider the

development of a uniform manifest in this

rulemaking action, and on November 9, 1990,

transmitted to NRC an example manifest with

supporting material.

3Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, the Commission has the authority to

relinquish part of its regulatory authority to a State,

contingent upon making a determination that the

State’s regulatory program is compatible with the

Commission’s. Twenty-nine States, under formal

agreements with the Commission, have assumed

this regulatory responsibility. Negotiations with

other States are underway.

4The Commission’s LLW manifest and tracking

requirements are codified in § 20.2006 and

appendix F to 10 CFR part 20.

information, the amendment requires

the use of an NRC-developed Uniform

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest.

This manifest, to which additional

information can be added, responds to

a request from the Host State Technical

Coordinating Committee (TCC) 2 and the

expressed views of several other parties

having an interest in the information

contained in the manifest. The uniform

manifest meets DOT shipping paper

requirements, contains the information

required by the NRC, and provides a

baseline set of information to address

Compact, unaffiliated State, and

consignee needs.

Low-Level Waste Shipment and

Disposal

LLW may be shipped to a LLW

disposal facility directly from a waste

generator (potentially after the waste has

been sent offsite for processing and has

been returned) or may be shipped from

a waste collector or processor. The

collector is a licensee who typically

handles prepackaged waste from

hospitals, laboratories, or other

licensees who generate only small

volumes of waste. A shipment from a

collector may have been temporarily

stored at the collector’s facility and,

when eventually transported to a

disposal facility, shipped with other

containers of waste obtained from

several generators.

Waste may be shipped from a waste

processor, who has received radioactive

material or waste from other licensees

(generators, collectors, or other

processors), and has repackaged the

waste after possibly changing the

waste’s chemical or physical

characteristics. For example, the waste

processor may have compacted or

incinerated the waste or segregated

contaminated waste from noncontaminated material or waste. A

single container of waste shipped from

a waste processor may contain wastes

from a number of different generators.

Companies generating, collecting,

processing, or disposing of the waste are

licensed either by the NRC or by an

Agreement State.3 Any step in the waste

management chain (e.g., temporary

storage by a collector, processing, or

disposal) may have occurred in a State

different from that in which the waste

was generated. Thus, from a radiological

safety standpoint, several regulatory

entities may have an interest in

particular waste shipments and

disposals.

Each shipment of LLW is currently

accompanied by a multi-page manifest

that describes the shipment contents.

These manifests, which include

specifically formatted versions

developed by the disposal facility

operators, are frequently large multicopy detailed documents that contain

information required by the

Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

part 20,4 DOT regulations in 49 CFR part

172, and State requirements imposed as

conditions on disposal facility licensees.

The manifests also include information

required by the consignee who receives

the LLW or radioactive material

shipment.

Three disposal facilities are currently

in operation. The Barnwell, South

Carolina, disposal facility is operated by

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., the

Richland, Washington, facility is

operated by US Ecology, Inc., (both of

these facilities are only accepting waste

from their respective Compacts), and the

Utah facility near Clive, Utah, is

operated by Envirocare of Utah, Inc.

Upon receipt of a shipment of LLW at

these facilities, operators perform

quality control checks on the shipment

and the information in the manifest.

Portions of the manifest information are

transferred into their computer-based

recordkeeping systems. The existing

disposal facility operators have

developed computer systems to store

and process the voluminous manifest

information because the operators

receive thousands of shipment

manifests each year.

Rulemaking History

In 1989, the NRC initiated this

rulemaking to improve the quality and

consistency in reporting of information

that was contained on manifest

documents. In that same year, a draft of

the proposed rule was provided to the

Agreement States for comment. As a

result of this early interaction, the

Commission became aware that a

significant improvement to the current

manifesting system would be the

development of a national Uniform

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest.

This was described in a letter to former

Chairman Carr in May 1990 from the

TCC and a corresponding letter from the

LLW Forum. The NRC agreed that

incorporation of a uniform manifest

would provide a number of advantages

and agreed to consider this concept. In

November 1990, the TCC provided a

draft uniform manifest for the NRC’s

consideration.

The NRC seriously considered the

recommendations of the TCC in

developing a draft uniform manifest.

The NRC also consulted with the DOT

on those parts of the proposed rule and

uniform manifest that address DOT

radioactive material transportation

(shipping paper) requirements. Based on

these interactions, a draft of the

proposed rule and uniform manifest was

developed and was sent to the

Agreement States in March 1991.

Subsequently, the proposed rule and

uniform manifest forms were sent to

DOT, and in July 1991, the NRC

received DOT concurrence that the

applicable parts of the uniform manifest

met its requirements for shipping papers

in 49 CFR part 172.

The proposed rule was published in

the Federal Register on April 21, 1992

(57 FR 14500). The NRC received 40

comment letters on its proposed rule,

and referenced forms and instructions.

The issues raised by these commenters

are discussed in Section III of this

preamble. During the comment period,

the LLW Forum members also received

input from parties in their respective

Compacts. As a result, the LLW Forum

suggested that, to produce a more

effective rule, the NRC should sponsor

a public meeting to further discuss

concerns raised by commenters, and

thereby clarify the purpose of the rule.

In response to this request, the NRC

noticed a public meeting in the Federal

Register on April 27, 1993 (58 FR

25578), and held the meeting on June

15, 1993, in Bethesda, Maryland. A

transcript and detailed summary are

available in the NRC Public Document

Room.

The two most significant issues

discussed at this meeting dealt with the

format of the uniform manifest and how

and when the manifest will be used.

The formatting issue was a source of

concern because the NRC changed the

‘‘look and feel’’ of the manifest from the

style of the manifests developed by the

LLW disposal facility operators and

used for shipments consigned to these

facilities. Furthermore, the NRC’s

formatting approach would require

some data to be recorded twice on the

same set of manifest forms. It was noted

by NRC that the proposed changes were

made to meet DOT requirements.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15651

Although unable to satisfy individual

commenters who prefer the existing

manifest formats, the NRC staff has

worked with DOT staff and has

minimized any difference in the

reporting burden for completing the

uniform manifest as opposed to the

burden imposed by existing manifests.

As discussed in Section II of this

preamble, before the compliance date

specified in the rule, the NRC intends to

facilitate trial uses of the manifest to

ensure a common understanding of

information reporting requirements.

The ‘‘manifest use’’ issue deals with

industry concerns that the uniform

manifest will be used to track

radioactive material in addition to

radioactive waste. The NRC manifest is

designed to be used for the transfer of

LLW, but the NRC recognizes industry’s

concerns that Compacts or unaffiliated

States may require the NRC’s or some

other manifest format to be used for all

shipments to processors or

decontamination facility licensees.

Existing NRC regulations require the

manifesting of shipments of LLW to

collectors and processors before

eventual disposal. Nothing in these

amendments changes that requirement,

nor adds new requirements for

shipments of material. Compacts or

unaffiliated States may require

additional reporting and this reporting

could be accomplished through use of

the NRC manifest format.

II. Implementation

Sections 20.2006, 61.12(n), and 61.80

(f) and (l) of the amendments to 10 CFR

parts 20 and 61 in this final rule require

NRC licensees to use the Uniform

Manifest in appendix G beginning

March 1, 1998. This late date is

intended to allow existing LLW disposal

facility licensees (all located in

Agreement States), and their respective

Agreement State regulators, to consider

the length of time that the existing

disposal facility will continue to operate

under current rules before closure, and

to make revisions to existing Agreement

State regulations. For example, shippers

to a facility that will close before March

1, 1998 need not use the new manifest

unless required to do so by a disposal

facility operator or its regulatory

authority.

A few of the amendments in this final

rule have been incorporated into the

existing 10 CFR part 20 to be applicable

at the stated future date in a manner that

retains existing requirements in the

interim. The majority of the new

requirements imposed by this final rule

have been included in a new appendix

G to §§ 20.1001 through 20.2402.

NRC Agreement States each have

regulations compatible with the existing

10 CFR part 20. Agreement States

normally amend their regulations to

preserve compatibility within three

years after NRC issues final rules. In the

Commission’s view, it is desirable to

publish this rule before any new LLW

disposal site is licensed and operating.

Even if Agreement State regulations are

not yet final, LLW facility operators will

have knowledge available on NRC’s

future manifesting requirements.

Before the Uniform Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Manifest becomes

mandatory, the NRC intends to initiate

trial use of the manifest to reveal any

practical problems in its use.

III. Summary of Public Comments and

Changes From Proposed Rule

This section presents the principal

issues raised in public comments on the

proposed rule, the Uniform Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Manifest forms, and

the instructions that support the

manifest. This section also contains the

NRC response to the comments and a

summary of the principal changes that

were made to the proposed rule or to the

Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest and its supporting

instructions. This section has been

arranged so that it corresponds to the

structure of the proposed rule. However,

a number of comments addressed

specific aspects of the manifest forms or

the supporting instructions. These

comments are addressed following those

that relate to specific provisions of the

rule. The overall format involves a

listing of the applicable rule section,

any minor changes to that section,

principal comments and issues, NRC’s

response, and the effect on the final rule

section.

The NRC received 40 comment letters.

Fourteen were from States or their

representatives (i.e., LLW Forum and

Compact Commissions). Eight were

from LLW generators or their

representatives. Six were from utilities

or their representative. Four were from

service industries (processors and

collectors) or their representative. Four

were from Federal agencies. Two were

from environmental organizations. And

two were from LLW disposal facility

operators.

10 CFR Part 20

Section 20.2006 Transfer for Disposal

and Manifests

In addition to the changes discussed

in this section of the preamble, the final

rule has been clarified by specifically

stating that the manifesting

requirements apply to any licensee who

ships LLW to a licensed LLW land

disposal facility, a waste collector, or a

waste processor.

Comment: Four commenters believe

that it is too early to promulgate a

uniform manifest rule. These

commenters pointed to the fact that this

rulemaking would change 10 CFR part

20 before the new 10 CFR part 20

regulations have been implemented and

argued that the Compacts and States are

unsure, at this time, as to what

information they need. One commenter

stated that the uniform manifest would

not be accepted by State jurisdictions.

Other commenters believe that, to

facilitate development of Compact or

State LLW tracking systems, the

rulemaking should be finalized without

delay.

Response: These comments on 10 CFR

part 20 have been overtaken by the fact

that all licensees were required to

implement the new standards for

protection against radiation in 10 CFR

part 20 by January 1, 1994. The NRC

sees no other reason to delay

promulgation of this rule. From NRC’s

perspective, the schedule for this rule is,

in large measure, driven by the need to

gain access to the waste form, content,

and disposal container information that

is expected to be useful in assessing the

performance of LLW disposal sites.

Although a significant fraction of this

information is currently collected by the

current disposal facility operators, the

compatibility and completeness of the

existing data was of concern. The NRC

concluded that these drawbacks could

be accentuated if each future LLW

disposal site collected, stored, and

reported data in an uncoordinated

manner. Thus, the timing for

implementation of the rule has

considered the proposed schedules

under which new LLW disposal sites

are being developed.

Other parties also have critical

interests in manifest information. The

DOT imposes regulations applying to

shipping papers for hazardous

materials. The Compacts and States,

given the responsibility for developing

LLW disposal sites under provisions of

the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy

Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA),

are interested in tracking LLW.

Publication of the rule, at this time,

provides these parties the information

requirements needed to effectively

develop their tracking systems and

allows all parties involved in LLW

shipments to become familiar with the

presentation of shipping paper

information that has been found

acceptable by DOT.

Finally, because all the existing

disposal sites are located in Agreement
15652 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

States, these States must be provided

sufficient time to work closely with the

NRC and their licensees, especially

existing LLW disposal facility operators,

to implement this rule. To facilitate a

smooth transition, the rule allows

approximately 3 years from publication

for Agreement States to implement their

regulations. The rule also allows

implementation prior to March 1, 1998

for any LLW disposal facilities that are

operating prior to this date.

On the question of manifest

acceptability by State jurisdictions, the

NRC is not aware of any States that

would not accept the manifest. The NRC

notes that State and Compact groups

have been in the forefront in suggesting

the need for a uniform manifest and that

the manifest has been approved by the

DOT as meeting that agency’s shipping

paper requirements.

Final rule: § 20.2006(b) has been

divided into two paragraphs. The first,

(b)(1), is the existing § 20.2006(b). The

second, (b)(2), reflects the new

§ 20.2006(b), but with added phrases

reflecting the implementation

provisions discussed in Section II,

affecting the change from appendix F to

appendix G. A clarifying paragraph,

§ 20.2006(a)(2), has also been added to

describe implementation provisions,

and a consistent clarifying phrase has

been added to §§ 20.2006 (c) and (d).

Comment: Several commenters

questioned whether implementation of

the rule would provide any significant

public health and safety benefit. These

commenters stated that the rule

identifies no current problems or

concerns that could jeopardize the safe

transportation or disposal of LLW. Two

commenters supported the rule citing

the need for source term and waste

characteristic information. One

commenter believes that the increased

cost of documentation and

recordkeeping is outweighed by the

need to have reliable up-to-date

information.

Response: The benefit of the rule is

tied to: (1) Being able to develop

specific data needed for assessments to

demonstrate compliance with the

performance objectives in 10 CFR part

61, specifically pertaining to protection

of the general population from the

releases of radioactivity at LLW disposal

facilities, and to the understanding of

potential wastes requiring special

consideration, (2) the improvement in

quality and uniformity of data collected

and reported that could affect the

aforementioned performance estimates,

and (3) efficiencies in data recovery and

use when addressing health and safety

issues. Benefits may also occur in

transportation-related emergency

response situations from the use of a

standard DOT shipping paper format

and a reduction in the manifest

paperwork needed to accompany the

LLW shipments. Finally, by providing

information that the States and

Compacts believe necessary to carry out

their responsibilities, a consistency in

view of LLW is fostered that could

minimize the potential creation of waste

that cannot be disposed of (‘‘orphan

waste’’) and assist in efficient and safe

LLW management nationwide.

Final rule: No change.

Comment: Three commenters

questioned whether the rule explicitly

or implicitly expands the authority of

LLW Compacts to regulate the shipment

of radioactive materials that are not

LLW.

Response: The rule does not change

the intent of the regulations as

expressed in § 20.311 of the expired

provisions of part 20 or in appendix F

to part 20. In both cases, the (waste)

generating licensees who transfer waste

to a licensed waste processor are subject

to manifesting requirements. In this

context, the rule provides definitions for

‘‘waste generator,’’ ‘‘waste collector,’’

and ‘‘waste processor.’’ The rule is not

viewed as having any impact on the

Compact or State authorities defined in

the LLRWPAA. In fact, the NRC believes

that the manifesting required by the rule

should provide most information sought

by State or Compact LLW tracking

systems. See comment and response

under appendix F, I. Manifest—

Introduction and Definitions sections,

for related discussion.

Final rule: No change.

Appendix F to Sections 20.1001

Through 20.2401 (Appendix G to

Sections 20.1001 Through 20.2402 in

this Final Rule)

I. Manifest—Introduction

In addition to the changes discussed

in this section of the preamble,

corrections have been made to the Title

number referred to in citing

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

regulations and the definition of ‘‘EPA

identification number.’’ The reference to

Xerox copies has been deleted because

the word ‘‘photocopy’’ is sufficient. In

response to a point made by some

commenters, the first paragraph under

‘‘I. Manifest’’ has been amended to be

consistent with the remainder of the

rule in stating that the rule applies only

to shipments of LLW intended for

ultimate disposal at a licensed LLW

land disposal facility.

Comment: Five commenters and

several attendees at the June 15, 1993,

public meeting questioned the need for

licensees to be required to complete the

uniform manifest for shipments to waste

processors, especially in those cases

where the processor could be making

significant changes to the volume, form,

activity, or radionuclide concentration.

These commenters also questioned

whether shipments of LLW from

processors or decontamination facilities

back to the original ‘‘generators’’ for

interim storage should be manifested

using Form 541. One commenter

questioned whether the intent of the

rule was to require manifesting of

‘‘materials’’ (e.g., laundry from a nuclear

facility). Another commenter stated that

the rule is confusing with regard to

when various forms must be used.

Response: The five commenters are

correct in stating that the primary

interest of NRC (i.e., for performance

assessment purposes) is on the

characteristics of LLW that is being

shipped for disposal. However, the

manifesting requirement for those

shipping LLW to processors originated

with the 10 CFR part 61 rulemaking.

One of the reasons for this requirement

was to develop a representative data

base unskewed by large volumes of LLW

that may pass through waste processors

and collectors. Moreover, for waste

being shipped to a processor for

compaction, the information provided

by the waste generator would be the

basis for completing and certifying the

manifest that the processor must

complete when the LLW is forwarded

for eventual disposal at a land disposal

facility. In considering shipments to

incinerators, the NRC agrees that NRC’s

need for incoming manifest information

is not relevant to the gathering of

information useful to conduct

performance assessments but is directed

at waste tracking. The NRC believes,

based on its interactions with the States

and Compacts, that these parties are

primarily interested in large volume or

high activity LLW for which they are

responsible under the LLRWPAA. Thus,

NRC believes the shipments to an

‘‘incinerator’’ processor should not

generally be subject to the manifesting

provisions of this rule and that any

resultant contaminated ash should be

considered residual waste assigned to

the processor. If this interpretation is

agreed to by the appropriate State or

Compact authorities, manifesting of

material sent to incinerators is not

required. The case of shipments of

laundry from a nuclear facility is more

clear-cut. The incoming laundry

shipment is not considered waste and

would not be required by NRC to be

manifested.

For shipments of LLW being shipped

to and subsequently returned by a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15653

processor to the original ‘‘waste

generator’’ or ‘‘generator,’’ the NRC

believes that, under these special

circumstances, completion of the

uniform manifest is not necessary to

meet NRC needs and this exception has

been included in the rule. The potential

need for NRC to track LLW in storage

may result in a reexamination of this

exemption. Licensees should be aware

that, because the shipments in question

are LLW, the States or Compacts may

require completion of manifest

documentation. Note also, that if the

processor ships processed LLW to a

licensee other than the original

generator, manifesting under this rule is

required.

Final rule: A sentence has been added

to the introductory paragraph of

appendix G which states that ‘‘Licensees

are not required by NRC to comply with

the manifesting requirements of this

part when they ship: (a) LLW for

processing and expect its return (i.e., for

storage under their license) prior to

disposal at a licensed land disposal

facility, (b) LLW that is being returned

to the licensee who is the ‘waste

generator’ or ‘generator,’ as defined in

this part, or (c) radioactively

contaminated material to a ‘waste

processor’ that becomes the processor’s

‘residual waste’.’’

Comment: Two commenters noted

that NRC will allow the use of substitute

forms if they are equivalent in all

respects (content, size, shading, color,

etc.). They noted that the requirement

for equivalent color and shading will

create problems for computer generated

forms, and suggested the following

definition, ‘‘ * * * Licensees need not

use originals of these NRC Forms as

long as any substitute forms are

equivalent to the original

documentation in respect of form,

content and location of information.’’

Response: The NRC agrees that the

requirement that any substitute forms

use the same color and shading of the

NRC Forms would likely preclude the

use of licensee generated forms.

Final rule: The NRC is modifying the

definition in a manner consistent with

the commenter’s proposal. The

appropriate part of the definition will

read, ‘‘ * * * Licensees need not use

originals of these NRC Forms as long as

any substitute forms are equivalent to

the original documentation in respect to

content, clarity, size, and location of

information.’’

I. Manifest—Definitions

In addition to the changes discussed

in this section of the preamble,

definitions have been added for the

terms: ‘‘consignee’’ and ‘‘computerreadable medium.’’ The definitions for

‘‘shipper’’ and ‘‘decontamination

facility’’ have been expanded to provide

the basis for deleting the ‘‘Note’’ in the

originally proposed definition of ‘‘waste

generator.’’

Comment: Two commenters stated

that the definitions of ‘‘decontamination

facility,’’ ‘‘waste generator,’’ and ‘‘waste

processor’’ were muddled in that a clear

distinction between these terms may not

be evident. One commenter suggested

that, if waste is created from a service

industry (e.g., decontamination

facilities), the service organization

should be considered the generator of

the waste.

Response: The three definitions were

considered necessary to allow the

Compacts/States the greatest flexibility

in carrying out their authorities to track

low-level waste generated, processed,

decontaminated or disposed of within

their Compact/State. This includes the

possibility that, as the commenters

suggested, wastes created from certain

service organizations in the treatment of

contaminated material could be

attributed to the service organization.

The definition of ‘‘decontamination

facility’’ is included in the rule to

ensure that these facilities complete the

uniform manifest (at a minimum, Forms

540 and 541) if they were shipping

waste to a licensed land disposal

facility. The Compacts or States must

decide whether the radioactivity

resulting from the processes undertaken

at these facilities must be assigned to

originating generators. The rule includes

a definition of ‘‘residual waste,’’ that

provides a basis for this waste to be

assigned to the decontamination facility

for waste tracking purposes. This

approach may also apply to certain

processors. The rule would allow the

Compacts and States to determine what

constitutes ‘‘residual waste,’’ and as a

result, if the decontamination facility or

processor can be considered a ‘‘waste

generator’’ and, therefore, need not

complete Form 542 of the manifest. This

rule does not require shippers of

radioactive materials to either

decontamination facilities or waste

processors to comply with the rule’s

manifesting requirements. The rule does

apply to shippers of radioactive waste to

waste processors. In the context of the

rule, decontamination facilities would

not be expected to be consignees for

shipments of LLW.

Final rule: A phrase has been added

to the definition of ‘‘decontamination

facility,’’ which states that, ‘‘* * *, and

for purposes of this Part, is not

considered to be a consignee for LLW

shipments.’’

Comment: One commenter stated that

the distinction between the terms

‘‘generator’’ and ‘‘waste generator’’ was

confusing and, in view of the definition

of ‘‘residual waste,’’ was not needed.

Other commenters stated that the

phrase, ‘‘* * * for which no further use

is foreseen * * *,’’ used in the

definition of ‘‘waste generator,’’ is

inappropriate. Three commenters and

attendees at the June 15, 1993, public

meeting suggested that the rule focus on

the entity to whom LLW or radioactive

material is being shipped—suggesting

one manifest for shipments to a LLW

disposal site and a different manifest for

shipments to material/waste processors.

One commenter stated that the starting

and ending points for the paper trail for

material/waste shipments were unclear.

Response: All three terms,

‘‘generator,’’ ‘‘waste generator,’’ and

‘‘residual waste’’ are needed. Under the

approach followed in the rule, the

definition of the term ‘‘generator’’ is

included to ensure that information is

collected on Forms 541 and 542 of the

manifest that will allow Compacts and

States to demonstrate that the wastes

disposed of at their LLW sites is that for

which they are responsible under the

LLRWPAA. In the rule, the term ‘‘waste

generator’’ is used to define a category

of licensees who must use the uniform

manifest. The term ‘‘generator’’ defines

the licensee to whom specific LLW must

be attributed in the context of the

LLRWPAA. A ‘‘waste processor’’

(including ‘‘decontamination facilities’’)

must reasonably attempt to assign the

waste shipped from the processor’s

facility to the originating ‘‘generator.’’

The rule provides an exception to this

accountability provision if the waste

being shipped by the processor can be

categorized as ‘‘residual waste’’; that is,

waste originating as a result of

processing or decontamination activities

performed for others, but which cannot

be easily categorized into distinct

batches attributable to specific

‘‘generators.’’ Conceptually, the

definition of ‘‘residual waste’’ would be

used for small volumes of waste

containing minimal levels of

radioactivity. The NRC has encouraged

the Compacts and States to develop a

common definition of what constitutes

‘‘residual waste.’’ The rule would not be

affected if different Compacts or States

impose a different definition. However,

‘‘waste processor’’ or ‘‘decontamination

facility’’ licensees could be required to

complete Form 542 of the uniform

manifest.

The phrase ‘‘* * * for which no

further use is foreseen * * *,’’ was

included in the definition of ‘‘waste

generator’’ to provide one basis upon
15654 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

which a licensee can decide if a

shipment to a waste processor is

considered a LLW shipment that must

be manifested under the provisions of

this rule. The intent of the rule is to

require manifesting if the licensee

considers the entire shipment to be

LLW.

The commenter’s suggestion for a

‘‘two-manifest’’ approach, although

theoretically feasible, was considered a

less justifiable regulatory approach,

because it would impose manifesting

requirements for certain material

shipments. The NRC did not consider it

necessary to require manifesting of

material shipments sent for

decontamination or sorting, or coupled

to energy recovery, because the waste

processor would be manifesting the

subsequent outgoing LLW shipment. In

the outgoing shipment from the waste

processor, the assignment of the

radioactivity on the manifest, completed

by the waste processor, would be to

either a particular ‘‘generator’’ or if

appropriate, to the waste processor, as

‘‘residual waste.’’

The starting and ending points for the

paper trail may not be completely clear

because different Compact/States may

impose different requirements based on

their authorities. The approach taken in

the rule was to provide a manifesting

system that could accommodate these

differences.

Final rule: The phraseology of the

‘‘waste generator’’ definition has been

changed to clarify that, under this

definition, the shipping licensee, absent

any regulation or guidance to the

contrary, must decide if the shipment

constitutes a LLW shipment.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the definition of ‘‘waste type’’ be

expanded to cover ‘‘chemical’’

description.

Response: The chemical description is

reported separately for each waste type

and therefore, the definition of ‘‘waste

type’’ does not need to be expanded.

The major purpose of defining ‘‘waste

type’’ in the rule is to identify the detail

needed when describing the contents of

containers including two or more

specific waste types as further discussed

in the response to comments under

‘‘Disposal Container Information.’’

Final rule: No change.

A. General Information

Corrections have been made in

appendix G, paragraph A.2 to change

‘‘identifier’’ to ‘‘identifiers’’ and

appendix G, paragraph A.3 to properly

refer to the EPA identification number

for the carrier transporting LLW.

Comment: Six commenters expressed

views on whether the Uniform Manifest

and its supporting instructions should

be incorporated in the rule. Some

commenters stated that because

completion of the manifest forms is

required by the rule, the forms should

be incorporated in the rule. This action

was suggested to facilitate comments on

the forms and to allow Agreement States

appropriate opportunity for their

involvement and sufficient time to make

any changes that NRC may make to the

forms over time. One commenter stated

that the failure to include the manifest

forms in the rule could be considered

arbitrary. Three commenters argued that

the Manifest and its supporting

instructions should not be a part of the

regulation. With this approach, the NRC

would retain the flexibility to make nonsubstantive changes to the Forms or

instructions without a rulemaking

action.

Response: Although the uniform

manifest forms are not physically a part

of the rule, their availability was noticed

and they were widely distributed. The

advantage of separating the forms from

the rule is that minor changes to the

forms, such as additions to the container

description, waste descriptor, or

sorption, solidification, and

stabilization media codes that appear at

the bottom of Form 541, can be made

without the need for a rulemaking

action or the replacement of the

manifest forms then in use. Minor

changes, or any changes in the format or

instructions for the uniform manifest,

would be treated as NRC currently treats

regulatory guides. Regulatory guides are

issued for public comment and these

comments are analyzed before the guide

is issued in final form. As one

commenter presumed, the minor

revision and changes to the manifest or

instructions would be tracked (e.g., a

form revision number). Any significant

changes to the uniform manifest forms,

such as a request for further basic

information on the waste or disposal

container, would be accomplished

through a rulemaking.

The NRC recognizes the importance of

input from those most immediately

affected by the requirement to complete

the uniform manifest. It was principally

this reason that led to the NRC holding

the public meeting on June 15, 1993.

Thus, the NRC does not consider

separation of the Forms and instructions

from the rule arbitrary.

Final rule: No change.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the rule should require the

generators to provide the ‘‘generator

type’’ code called for in item 5 of Form

540.

Response: Because this information

would be obtainable through the

generator ID or user permit number, the

need to complete the block in question

was not sufficiently important for the

NRC to require its completion. The

States, Compacts, or the consignee

could require this information to be

completed.

Final rule: No change.

B. Shipment Information

Comment: One commenter questioned

the need to report small quantities of

Tc-99 on manifests while another

commenter was unclear on why certain

nuclides were singled out in reporting

source and special nuclear material.

One commenter stated that the reporting

of § 20.311 radionuclide LLD values and

the delisting criteria, as described in the

instructions for uniform manifest

completion, should be incorporated in

the rule.

Response: The need to report Tc-99

represents an existing manifest

requirement in § 20.2006 and appendix

F to §§ 20.1001 through 20.2402 and

was addressed in the 10 CFR part 61

rulemaking; that is, the nuclide’s long

half-life, mobility, and influence on

performance assessment results. The

singling out of specific nuclides for

source and special nuclear material was

done to emphasize that it was the

weight of these nuclides that was being

requested and not the weight of any

compound or media with or within

which these nuclides may be associated

or contained. The instructions for the

uniform manifest specify the minimal

levels of activity that must be reported

on the manifest and, without a specific

reason to include this information in the

rule, this information continues to be

addressed in the instructions.

Final rule: No change.

C. Disposal Container [and Waste]

Information

In addition to the changes discussed

in this section of the preamble, the

heading has been broadened to more

precisely reflect the general types of

information being requested and the

listing of items has been reorganized

and clarified to describe the variations

in required information that are

dependent on whether: (1) The waste is

containerized or uncontainerized, and

(2) the consignee for the waste is a

licensed low-level waste disposal

facility. Furthermore, a clarification has

been made in Appendix G, paragraph

I.C.4 to indicate that the gross weight of

the waste and disposal container is

required. The NRC requirement to

report contamination levels on the

surface of disposal containers has been

deleted to correct a typographical error.

This item still appears on the manifest
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15655

as a non-Federal informational need

because it is required by one of the

current disposal facility operators for

operational safety reasons.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the level of reporting required in

the current appendix G, paragraph I.C.9

(previously appendix F, paragraph I.C.8)

did not go far enough and that Class A

sorbed or solidified waste should be

reported in a similar manner to Class B

and C wastes. Other commenters stated

that shippers of Class A waste were

being unduly impacted. One commenter

stated that it was impractical and/or not

meaningful to provide separate isotopic

breakdowns for all mixtures of Class B

and C wastes. Another commenter

believes the requirements for nuclide

reporting of Class A versus B and C

wastes was unclear.

Response: The principal purpose of

requiring wastes to be described by

individual waste descriptors is related

to the capability of performance

assessment methodologies to

distinguish between certain types of

wastes in terms of their public health

significance. The commenter who

indicated that the proposed rule was too

broad in its requirement to distinguish

between all Class B and C waste types

is correct. The data likely to have the

greatest significance are those associated

with waste types from which

radioactivity releases could reasonably

be limited. The ability to distinguish

differing radioactivity release rates from

Class A wastes could also be significant

to site performance assessments.

Final rule: Appendix G, paragraph

I.C.9 (previously appendix F, paragraph

I.C.8) has been modified to delete the

phrase at the end of the proposed

paragraph which stated, ‘‘if the media is

claimed to meet stability requirements

in 10 CFR 61.56(b)’’; and paragraph

I.C.10 (second sentence) has been

modified to read, ‘‘For discrete waste

types (i.e., activated materials,

contaminated equipment, mechanical

filters, sealed source/devices, and

wastes in solidification/stabilization

media), the identities and activities of

individual radionuclides associated

with or contained on these waste types

within a disposal container shall be

reported.’’

Comment: One commenter asked that

the need to identify each drum (disposal

container) of waste be reconsidered

because of the impact on small

generators. Another commenter noted

that the proposed disposal container for

most new disposal sites is a concrete

overpack and stated that, although each

container of each shipment must be

indicated on the manifest, tracking of

the waste by overpack is more relevant.

One commenter believes that

accountability necessitated a drum/

container number.

Response: The need for disposal

container information is not only to

provide data that could be useful for

performance assessment purposes but is

required by DOT if the disposal

container and transport package are

identical. Identification of each drum

would provide a basis for associating a

waste generator with specific waste in a

shipment. The suggestion regarding

tracking of waste by overpack at the

disposal site is allowed under the

provisions of this rule if the container

description code indicates, through use

of the symbol ‘‘-OP,’’ that disposal in an

approved structural overpack is

required.

Final rule: No change.

D. Uncontainerized Waste Information

Final rule: The introductory language

of appendix G, paragraph I.D. has been

made consistent with the revised

paragraph I.C, and paragraph I.D.1 has

been modified to require that

information on the approximate volume,

as well as the weight of the

uncontainerized waste, be provided on

the manifest.

E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container

Information

Final rule: The wording of appendix

G, paragraph I.E.2 has been changed to

be consistent with the change made to

appendix G, paragraph I.C.10. The

‘‘note’’ has been clarified to state that,

‘‘The origin of the LLW resulting from

a processor’s activities may be

attributable to one or more ‘generators’

(including ‘waste generators’) as defined

in this part.’’

III. Control and Tracking—Appendix G,

Paragraph III.A

Appendix G, paragraph III.A.2 has

been modified to allow the label

indicating classification of the waste

(including the potential for a ‘‘greaterthan-Class C classification’’) to be

provided on the transport package

(instead of the container) for those

shipments for which labeling of the

disposal container presents a potential

radiation hazard.

Comment: Two commenters stated

that Form 541 of the manifest may

contain information important to

emergency response teams responding

to a transportation accident involving a

LLW shipment and may be required by

State agencies to accompany shipments.

One commenter indicated that the New

York State Department of

Environmental Conservation requires

information that is found on both Forms

540 and 541.

Response: The DOT has the Federal

responsibility to determine what

information must accompany a

shipment to meet potential emergency

response needs. The NRC has obtained

DOT concurrence that the information

provided on Form 540 meets their

requirements for shipping papers.

However, the rule does not preclude

Form 541 from accompanying the

shipment. Thus, if authoritative State

requirements exist for information

contained on Form 541, this information

could accompany the shipment as Form

541 or a separate additional item of

paperwork.

Final rule: No change.

Comment: One commenter stated that

60 days between a consignee’s receipt of

an advance manifest and a requirement

to inform the NRC and the shipper that

the consignee has not received the

shipment seemed like a long time.

Another commenter questioned what,

exactly, needed to be completed within

the one week window provided in the

acknowledgement of shipment receipt.

Response: Advance notification can

take place weeks before a shipment

leaves the consignor’s facility. As a

result, 60 days is not considered too

long a period. This period has not been

changed from the current regulation.

The rule states that the consignee must

send the acknowledgement of receipt (a

signed copy of Form 540) within one

week of shipment receipt. Paragraph E

of the existing rule, which has not been

changed, addresses actions to be taken

if acknowledgement of receipt is not

received.

Final rule: No change.

Comment: One commenter asked who

would be responsible for verifying and

assuring the currentness of generators’

QA programs.

Response: As indicated in the

‘‘Certification’’ section, the person

signing the shipment manifest is

certifying that the transported materials

are properly classified, described,

packaged, marked, and labeled. To the

extent that a processor must rely on the

information supplied by the waste

generator, the processor must assure

that the information received is

sufficient, accurate, and current. Any

QA program mandated by this rule, as

adopted by Agreement States, would be

subject to either NRC or Agreement

State inspection and enforcement. On

this subject, this rule has not instituted

any substantive change.

Final rule: No change.

Comment: One commenter stated that

the rule, in the current appendix F,

paragraphs III.A.5, III.B.3, and III.C.6,
15656 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

requires that a manifest both precede

and be delivered to the consignee at the

time the LLW is transferred. This

commenter also suggested that the

licensing authority be informed of a

shipper’s failure to receive

acknowledgement of receipt of

shipment at the time the shipper begins

the required investigation or when the

shipper has reason to believe a problem

exists.

Response: The NRC does not see an

NRC need to transmit both manifests.

However, States or Compacts could

impose this requirement. Similarly,

because failure to receive

acknowledgement is highly likely to be

an administrative problem, the NRC

sees no reason to change the existing

regulation that requires reporting within

two weeks of completion of the

shipper’s investigation.

Final rule: No change.

III. Control and Tracking—Appendix G,

Paragraph III.B

Comment: Two commenters

questioned whether the chain of

custody of wastes handled by waste

collectors can be determined under the

requirements of this rule if more than

one entity was involved with the waste

before its handling by the collector.

Another commenter stated that the

identification of the original generator of

LLW sent through processors or

collectors must be ensured.

Response: Under the final rule, all

waste collectors and processors must

complete NRC Manifest Forms 540, 541

and 542. The information on these

forms (including previous manifest

numbers of shipments in which

radioactive material was received)

would allow any waste the collector or

processor handles to be tracked back

through one or more manifests to the

originating ‘‘generator’’ or ‘‘waste

generator,’’ as defined in the final rule.

Final rule: No change.

10 CFR Part 61

Section 61.12 Specific Technical

Information (As Contained in Section

61.80)

Comment: Nine commenters

discussed the concept of requiring that

the storage of data be kept on electronic

recordkeeping systems and reporting of

data be accomplished on a machine

(computer) readable medium. This

requirement only applies to LLW

disposal facilities. Eight of these

commenters supported the requirements

in the proposed rule. One commenter

agreed with the NRC view that

Agreement States should determine

whether or not they will require their

licensees to report stored information on

a computer-readable medium. One

commenter stated that there will be a

need for quality assurance programs for

both hardware and software of both the

disposal facility operator and the

generator of the waste. This commenter

asked who would be responsible for

verifying the generator’s quality

assurance programs. Because the

disposal facility operators have different

hardware and software, this commenter

was concerned that information

transfers may be so garbled as to be

unusable.

Response: This rule does not change

the existing requirement in 10 CFR Part

20 for a quality assurance program by

any licensee who transfers radioactive

waste to a land disposal facility. The

appropriate licensing authority is,

therefore, responsible for verifying that

an acceptable program is in place. The

disposal site operators currently verify

incoming shipments as part of their

quality assurance program. The NRC

does not envision any change to these

existing procedures. Any reporting of

the information electronically stored at

the LLW disposal facility would comply

with the American Standard Code for

Information Interchange requirements.

Final rule: No change.

Section 61.80 Maintenance of Records,

Reports, and Transfers

In addition to the change discussed in

this section, the proposed rule made an

administrative correction to § 61.80(i)(1)

regarding to whom the annual report

should be submitted. This correction

has been revised in the final rule to

reflect the most recent NRC

organizational changes. References to

‘‘Appendix F’’ have been changed to

‘‘Appendix G.’’

Comment: One commenter questioned

the need to record and track discarded

material (pallets, bracing, etc.), as the

volume of these materials is

insignificant and does not impact the

performance of the facility. The

commenter also believes this will be a

burdensome chore.

Response: The NRC believes the

commenter is correct and will make this

requirement only applicable to

contaminated material that is disposed

of.

Final rule: The requirement will read,

‘‘* * * the volume of any pallets,

bracing, or other shipping or onsite

generated materials that are

contaminated, and * * *.’’

Uniform Manifest Forms and

Instructions

General Comments

Over two thirds of the commenters

specifically stated their support for the

development of a Uniform Radioactive

Waste Manifest. None opposed the

concept, but a few saw no problem with

the manifests currently being used.

Many commenters went on to identify

specific areas which they believe could

improve upon the NRC’s proposal. The

NRC has incorporated many of these

suggestions into the final rule, the

Uniform Manifest forms, and the

supporting instructions. One of the most

significant comments on the forms dealt

with the format in which the material is

presented. As discussed in the

Rulemaking History Section of this

preamble, the NRC has attempted to

meet the requirements of various

Federal, State, and operator needs.

Several commenters noted that the

proposed forms require some

duplication of reporting between what

is required for the DOT and the NRC. By

far the most significant element of

duplication dealt with reporting

radionuclides and their activity on both

NRC Forms 540 and 541. This resulted

from the NRC staff’s understanding of

DOT’s views of the regulatory

acceptability of manifests currently in

use, and was confirmed in a DOT letter

to the NRC dated January 6, 1994. The

DOT requires all their information to be

together and not commingled with

information requirements of the NRC,

States, or the operating facility. Given

this requirement to separate the

information, the NRC believed that, in

complying with the DOT requirements,

a significant amount of physical

paperwork accompanying the shipment

could also be reduced by the use of

electronic or other transfer of non-DOT

information. Only DOT-required

information must physically accompany

the shipment. Therefore, the concept of

three forms, each with a specific

purpose, was developed.

NRC Form 540 is used to meet DOT

shipping paper requirements for

transportation and NRC waste tracking

requirements. NRC Form 541 is used for

waste and container information needed

for assessing and monitoring disposal of

radioactive waste. NRC Form 542 is

used to collect waste generator

information for LLW shipped from a

waste collector or processor that can be

used by the Compacts to establish the

‘‘generator’’ of LLW in the context of the

LLRWPAA.

The NRC has worked with DOT in an

attempt to minimize the burden of

duplicative reporting. The DOT has
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15657

made an interpretation of its regulations

that the shipping paper need only

include a listing of the significant

nuclides in a transportation package and

document the total activity information

on a ‘‘package’’ basis. The proposed rule

required activity information by

radionuclide. The NRC believes that this

interpretation will significantly reduce

duplicative reporting initially required

for each nuclide and its respective

activity.

Within the Department of Energy’s

(DOE’s) National Low-Level Waste

Management Program, a software

package is under development that will

prompt the user to provide the

information needed to complete the

uniform manifest and will then be

capable of producing the completed

manifest forms. It is intended that this

software will be provided to requesters,

and, if this activity is successful, the

reporting burden will be further

minimized.

Comment: Six commenters noted that

the NRC Forms use a combination of

English and metric (International

System of Units (SI)) units. These

commenters wanted the NRC to

standardize the use of reporting units to

reduce the inherent confusion. Of the

commenters stating a preference,

English units is the preferred choice.

Response: The NRC agrees that the

use of dual units causes confusion. The

proposed forms were designed to

combine proposed requirements of DOT

with standard reporting currently in

use. Based on the presumed final DOT

requirements and NRC’s policy

statement on the use of units (57 FR

46202; October 7, 1992), the forms and

instructions have been revised to

require the use of metric units (except

one column on Form 540 to comply

with a unique DOT requirement). The

NRC has presumed that final DOT

regulations will require the use of

metric units for shipping papers (NRC

Form 540). Because this requirement is

consistent with NRC goals, the NRC

Forms 541 and 542 will also require

reporting in metric units. Note that

reporting in metric units with English

units following would also be

acceptable. The rulemaking also

modifies § 20.2101 (which requires

records required by 10 CFR part 20 to

use the curie, rad, and rem units) to

require use of SI units for the manifest

forms.

Comment: Nine commenters

responded to NRC’s request for

comments on the potential to broaden

the current purpose of the manifest

number to provide information other

than that required for tracking. These

commenters were about equally split on

the advisability of broadening the use of

the manifest number. The supporters

generally believe that a unique number

may reduce some reporting

requirements and would add a degree of

control. One commenter noted that,

while supporting the concept of a

unique manifest number, its

implementation could, however, be

cumbersome, confusing and difficult.

Those commenters not supporting

broadening the manifest number’s

purpose, generally did not see a clear

benefit to the change.

Response: While the NRC believes a

unique manifest number could provide

some benefits, the difficulty in

implementing the concept at this time

does not appear to warrant the resources

that would be necessary. Also, at this

time, the NRC does not have a clear

concept of what a unique manifest

number would include. Therefore, for

this rulemaking, the NRC will not

change the manifest number’s purpose.

After the Uniform Manifest is in use, the

NRC will evaluate all aspects of the

forms to identify potential

improvements. The usefulness of the

manifest number will be reviewed at

that time to determine if changes are

warranted.

Form 540

Comment: One commenter stated that

it appeared that Form 540 is intended to

replace the Bill of Lading.

Response: Form 540 is not intended to

replace the Bill of Lading. However, the

form does provide a format for reporting

information to satisfy DOT’s shipping

paper requirements.

Box 1—Emergency Telephone Number

and Organization

Comment: Several commenters

questioned what organization is to be

identified with the emergency telephone

number. Information in this box was

stated as being insufficient in light of

other information accompanying

shipments.

Response: The organization to be

identified may be the shipper but could

also be an organization, such as

Chemtel. The telephone number is all

that is required on the shipping paper

by DOT. Other emergency response

information required by DOT (49 CFR

172.602), but not as a shipping paper

requirement, would still have to

accompany the shipment.

Boxes 2 and 4—Exclusive Use and

Regulated Waste Checkoff Boxes

Comment: Several commenters

questioned why it is necessary to check

these boxes indicating whether the

shipment is ‘‘Exclusive Use’’ or includes

EPA or State-designated hazardous

waste. One commenter also asked

whether a negative declaration would

satisfy EPA that no material is present.

Response: Box 2 is provided to

comply with the proposed DOT

descriptive requirements for § 172.203

of title 49. The current Chem-Nuclear

manifest contains this information item.

Box 4 provides a crosscheck to ensure

that an EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste

Manifest is attached to the Uniform

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest,

if required. It is not necessarily intended

to provide a basis to satisfy EPA.

Box 5—Shipper—Name and Facility,

Identifiers

Comment: Several commenters

suggested that unique generator ID

numbers should be developed to allow

optimal tracking and possibly reduce

the information required on the

manifest. One commenter supported the

addition of ‘‘Fuel Cycle Industry’’ to the

‘‘Generator Type’’ codes but suggested

that the ‘‘Other’’ Code be deleted.

Response: The development of an ID

system has merit. The NRC has

concluded, however, that the

development of such a system would be

a significant undertaking and would

have a serious impact on the rulemaking

schedule. The NRC may consider

development of an ID system after

implementation of the rule if it appears

necessary or worthwhile. Although the

listed codes should cover the universe

of generators, the ‘‘Other’’ code is being

retained. A review of the use of this

code may lead to appropriate

expansions or clarifications of the

coding system.

Box 6—Carrier Name and Address

Comment: One commenter suggested

that space for more than one carrier was

needed to be consistent with the

requirements on the uniform hazardous

waste manifest.

Response: The NRC believes that the

required tracking can be accomplished

through identification of the original

carrier.

Box 7—Listing of the Number of

Manifest Form Pages

Comment: Several commenters

expressed views on the flexibility

implied by this box that indicates the

possibility of additional information

being appended to the manifest by

disposal facility operators, States, or

Compacts. Four commenters believed

that the rule should specifically prevent

the possibility of unfettered additional

uniform manifest requirements. Four

other commenters supported this

flexibility. However, most of these
15658 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

commenters recognized that wide

ranging additional reporting

requirements would defeat the purpose

of the Uniform Manifest. On a different

point on this box, two commenters

stated that the page numbering system

was absurd.

Response: The NRC believes that the

information being collected on the

uniform manifest may not always be

completely sufficient to meet a variety

of legitimate needs. Because the

manifest data requirements have been

selected to satisfy the great majority of

needs, the NRC believes the need for

additional information should not

present an overwhelming burden. If

additional information is required on

the manifest, it must be appended to the

uniform manifest forms. This

information, along with Forms 541 and

542, if required, may be transmitted

electronically, by mail, or by some other

mutually accepted method. The NRC

agrees with those commenters that

stated that transfer of unnecessary

information would dilute a major

purpose behind the development of a

Uniform Manifest.

The NRC believes there may be some

confusion on the page numbering

system. All that is being asked for is the

total number of pages comprising the

manifest. The NRC believes this is a

standard pagination scheme for

ensuring completeness of a

documentation package.

Box 8—Manifest Number

Comment: One commenter suggested

that further guidance for uniquely

identifying manifests is needed because

LLW can move between several entities

before being shipped to a disposal site.

Two commenters questioned how

tracking would be accomplished if the

chain-of-custody involved more than

one entity.

Response: As currently envisioned, all

collectors or processors must complete

Form 542 and, in so doing, identify a

manifest number associated with the

incoming shipment. Thus, LLW

received at an LLW disposal site will be

traceable back to the original generator,

and no further guidance is needed.

Box 10—Certification

Comment: One commenter suggested

further guidance on whose signature

should appear in this block. One

commenter stated that site-specific

needs may dictate different wording.

Another commenter stated that, in

certain cases, certification to 10 CFR

part 61 requirements is being requested

for shipments not directed to a disposal

facility. One commenter suggested that

the certification statement should

include an appropriate caveat for

collectors who do not alter the form of

LLW. One commenter generally

addressed the responsibility issue.

Response: The NRC envisions that the

person certifying the shipment will not

change from existing practice. If it is

necessary to change the wording of the

statement, an additional certification

sheet may be necessary. The words ‘‘if

applicable,’’ have been added before the

reference to 10 CFR part 61. The NRC

believes the wording in the rule,

appendix G, Section II, provides the

caveat the commenter suggests.

Column 11—U.S. Department of

Transportation Description

Comment: One commenter stated that

the instructions were confusing in

defining whether shipment or package

information was being requested.

Another commenter believes it was not

clear how a shipper would describe a

shipment of multiple disposal

containers contained within a single

transportation package.

Response: All information on Form

540 is on an individual package basis in

compliance with DOT shipping paper

regulations. Thus, Form 540 would

include total package information while

the information called for on Form 541

is on a ‘‘disposal container’’ basis.

Columns 12 and 14—DOT Label and

Physical/Chemical Form

Comment: One commenter suggested

that codes be used in documenting this

information.

Response: The NRC seriously

considered this possibility, but decided

that, given the typical ‘‘single word

entries’’ required, the flexibility

provided without the use of codes

outweighed the minimal savings in

reporting burden that would be

achieved.

Column 13—Transport Index

Comment: One commenter postulated

an accident event involving a Low

Specific Activity (LSA) shipment for

which the information on Form 540

would not be useful because the

Transport Index (TI) is not currently

required to be contained on the

shipping paper documentation. For this

reason, the commenter suggested that

NRC eliminate the requirement to use

Form 540.

Response: The information

requirements on NRC Form 540 are

required by DOT for transportation of

hazardous materials. The principal

information on this form is for use by

the first-on-the-scene responder to a

transportation accident. Identification of

the proper shipping name and U.N. ID

number provides valuable information.

These identifiers correlate with proper

emergency actions. The TI is

information which would be more

useful in controlling normal

occupational exposures.

Column 15 (Now Divided Into Columns

15 and 16)—Individual Radionuclides

and Activity (Now Total Package

Activity)

Comment: One commenter questioned

what is meant by, ‘‘* * * list all

radionuclides that are present in the

transport packaging,’’ and suggested that

guidance be provided on the specific SI

units to be used. One commenter stated

that requirements for listing of a

radionuclide should be included in the

rule. Two commenters stated that

insufficient space is provided for both a

listing of the nuclide and activity. Six

commenters suggested that only a

vertical listing, with one nuclide per

line, should be considered. Another

commenter suggested that the column

be split into nuclide and activity

columns.

Response: Reporting of radionuclides

in the transport packaging is a DOT

shipping paper requirement in which

the instructions reference the

appropriate DOT regulations for more

information. The NRC is not providing

detailed interpretive instructions of

DOT regulations. The NRC has

explained what is meant regarding the

reporting units needed on NRC Form

541 (for NRC use). The NRC believes

that the radionuclides reported on Form

541 should also be appropriate for DOT

purposes. A DOT telephone number is

provided if additional information or

interpretation is needed. On the spacing

issue, the NRC has completed several

manifests from actual shipments and

these examples indicate that more than

enough space is provided for at least a

double columnar listing of nuclides and

respective activities on NRC Form 541,

although the choice on the formatting in

this column is left to the shipper and

consignee. Because the DOT has agreed

that only the total package activity

needs to be reported, the spacing issue

would now only involve Form 541. On

the multiple columnar presentation, the

NRC would note that current

Transportation Shipment Package

Records, that have been used when

conveying radioactive material to

processors, portray nuclides and their

respective activities in a triple columnar

field.

Column 16 (Now Column 17)—LSA/

SCO Class

Comment: One commenter suggested

codes for documenting this information,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15659

while two commenters questioned the

regulatory basis.

Response: The information in this

column is based on a requirement

proposed by DOT in their ‘‘IAEA

Compatibility’’ rulemaking. Coding is

not allowed by DOT for reporting this

information. The NRC has presumed

that this classification system will be

incorporated into DOT’s final rule.

Column 17 (Now Column 18)—Total

Weight or Volume

Comment: One commenter questioned

the multiple number of times that this

type of information was requested on

the three manifest forms.

Response: Although requests for

volume and weight information do

occur on each of the manifest forms, the

volumes or weights requested are not

necessarily identical. For example, the

transportation package volume may not

be the same as the disposal container

volume, if multiple disposal containers

are contained within a shielded

overpack. The total volumes requested

on Form 542 would represent the sum

of all generator volumes which may be

contained in a number of different

disposal containers. This Form 542

summary contains information very

similar to that required on the Manifest

Index and Regional Compact Tabulation

Sheets used by a current disposal site

operator. This information is used for

waste tracking purposes to ensure that

sites are receiving wastes for which

their State or Compact is responsible for

disposal.

Column 18 (Now Column 19)—

Identification Number of Package

Comment: One commenter suggested

that this instruction should be worded

as a requirement.

Response: Although the listing of the

disposal container number on Form 541

is a requirement, this does not generally

carryover to the transport packaging

when the packaging and the disposal

container are not identical. DOT does

not require a package number to be

provided on shipping papers.

Form 541

Box 1—Manifest Totals

In addition to the change discussed in

this section of the preamble, the

headings for the shipment volume and

weight totals have been changed to

reflect that total net values are being

requested for any low-level radioactive

waste shipment to which manifesting

applies.

Comment: Five commenters brought

up the issue of reporting of

radionuclides (specifically Tc–99 and I–

129) that are reported based on lower

limits of detection (LLD). Concerns were

expressed that if the totals, as presented

in this box, represent the sum of the

LLDs, or LLD’s and ‘‘real’’ values in all

disposal containers, a very significant

overestimation of these nuclides in a

disposal facility could result. One

commenter suggested that this block

require entry of net waste volume and

weight.

Response: The NRC believes these

comments have merit. Because it would

be important to distinguish between

‘‘real’’ and LLD values, the instructions

have been modified to indicate that the

sums of the ‘‘real’’ and LLD values

should be separately reported in this

box, with the summed LLD value in

parenthesis. Although the NRC

recognizes that this reporting scheme

does not solve the problem, this

reporting approach will ‘‘flag’’ the

conservative nature of the appropriate

fraction of the inventories of these

nuclides. The commenter is correct in

presuming that net waste volumes and

weights are being requested.

Appropriate clarifications have been

made to the manifest forms and

instructions.

Columns 5 through 10—Disposal

Container Description

Comment: One commenter stated that

repetitive listing of a generator ID

number, if more than one container is

attributed to a generator, is unnecessary.

Another commenter pointed out that the

container described may not always be

the ‘‘disposal’’ container and that, in

these cases (e.g., shipments (of LLW) to

waste processors), this column may not

need to be completed. One commenter

suggested that Column 8 should pertain

to net waste weight. One commenter

asked how a shipper should respond if

more than one container description

code applies. Another commenter asked

if it was intended to use the numeric

codes or the actual verbiage.

Response: The instructions have been

clarified to avoid unnecessary repetition

of generator ID numbers. The

‘‘exemption’’ referred to by the

commenter was included in the

instructions. This ‘‘exemption’’ is now

the subject of a ‘‘Note’’ preceding the

instructions for Column 5. The

possibility that some of the container

information may be required by the

consignee also appears italicized in the

introductory paragraph in the

instructions for Form 541. Instructions

that are not ‘‘tied’’ to information being

required to comply with Federal

regulations also now appear in italics.

Column 8 refers to total container and

waste weight (See discussion pertaining

to Column 12).

The intent is to report code numbers,

if applicable. If more than one container

description code applies, multiple codes

can be reported.

Column 9—Surface Radiation Level

Comment: Two commenters suggested

that this column could be better situated

on Form 540 adjacent to the Transport

Index.

Response: Combining this information

with the information required by DOT

on shipping papers would not, based on

NRC staff interactions with DOT staff,

be accepted by DOT. The information in

this column is also required by one of

the current disposal facility operators.

Column 10—Surface Contamination

Comment: Four commenters

questioned the need for this

information, especially in light of DOT

standards.

Response: The information being

requested in this column is directed at

contamination levels on the surfaces of

disposal containers, not transportation

packagings. This information is

currently requested by one of the

disposal facility operators on their

manifest in order to minimize

contamination and control potential

operational exposures. Through

typographical error, this informational

need was included as an NRC

requirement in the proposed appendix

F, paragraph I.C.10. As indicated in the

response to comments on the rule, this

requirement has been deleted from the

rule but remains as a non-Federal

information item on the manifest.

Column 12—Approximate Waste

Volume(s) in Container

Comment: Two commenters suggested

that if the waste volume information is

only intended to meet disposal site

acceptance criteria, this column could

be deleted because the certification

statement could be used to accomplish

the same purpose. One commenter

questioned whether the information on

the manifest allowed an accurate

estimate of the mass of the waste and

whether the NRC recognized that the

volume of the inner container may be

substantially different from the actual

waste volume. One commenter

suggested that adjustments be

considered so that the weight of the

waste would be documented. One

commenter suggested that this column

be completed if the container fill

volume was less than 90%. One

commenter asked whether, if perlite was
15660 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

used to fill void volume, this volume

should be included in the total.

Response: For discrete waste items

(e.g., activated metals), the volume of

these items is of interest for waste

classification purposes. The instructions

have been expanded to make this clear

and, for homogeneous type wastes, the

instructions indicate that ‘‘>85%’’ can

be entered if this fill volume is

exceeded. The NRC believes that the

weight of the waste can be estimated by

either knowing the volume and density

of the waste or subtracting container

weight from the weight of the waste and

container. If fill material is used, this

volume may be included in the reported

volume, but may not be considered for

waste classification purposes. An

alternative approach would be to report

waste volume, but note that a ‘‘fill’’ has

been used (e.g., to comply with disposal

site acceptance criteria).

Column 14—Weight % Chelating Agent

Comment: One commenter suggested

a code for ‘‘None present’’ and ‘‘O’’ be

provided in this column. Another

commenter asked what methods would

be used to identify chelating agents.

Response: The commenter’s

suggestion was not taken because only

an ‘‘NP’’ or ‘‘O’’ would need to be

entered, and space for providing the

preprinted codes is limited. NRC’s

intent in identifying chelating agents is

described in general terms in the ‘‘Final

Waste Classification and Waste Form

Technical Position,’’ dated May 11,

1983.

Column 15—Radiological Description

Comment: Two commenters

questioned the desirability of reporting

individual nuclide activities as a

percentage of total container activity.

One commenter erroneously thought

that this column limited the recording

of nuclides to three entries. Another

commenter suggested that the NRC

consider establishing reporting

thresholds for H–3, C–14, Tc–99, and I–

129, and stated that explicit instructions

are needed on the reporting of source

and special nuclear material, ‘‘daughter

radionuclides,’’ and the impact of

nuclides with less than 5-year half-life

on waste classification. One commenter

pointed out that the passage of

‘‘Reportable Quantity’’ requirements

should be considered in establishing the

reporting thresholds defined in the

instructions. A number of commenters

questioned the effectiveness of allowing

multiple-columnar reporting of

radionuclides with their respective

activities.

Response: Percentage reporting is not

being mandated, but allowed. This

method of reporting is allowed by a

current disposal facility operator. The

instructions have also been appended to

clarify how the reporting of more than

three significant radionuclides in a

container should be achieved.

Although the concept of establishing

threshold reporting quantities for the

four indicated nuclides has merit, the

analysis needed to support a specific

threshold has not been defined. Thus,

consistent with the existing regulation,

no threshold for the reporting of these

four nuclides is included in the

instructions.

On the reporting of source material,

the instructions have been expanded to

clarify that the ‘‘mass’’ being asked for

applies only to the elemental mass of

uranium and thorium (including

uranium and thorium contained in

‘‘unimportant quantities,’’ as defined in

10 CFR 40.13), and not the weight of the

waste containing these nuclides. The

instructions now also specifically state

that the activities of the nuclides

specifically referred to in the ‘‘Manifest

Total’’ Box (i.e., H–3, C–14, Tc–99, and

I–129) must always be manifested. The

instructions also state that daughter

products must be either individually

reported or, if within a factor of 2 of

being in equilibrium with its (their)

parent, be reported as the parent with its

activity listed, but with the symbol ‘‘D’’

or ‘‘NAT’’ indicating daughter products

in equilibrium (i.e., Cs–137D or

ThNAT). ‘‘Significant quantities’’ of

nuclides with half-lives less than 5

years must be included in determining

the waste classification of a disposal

container (note that this will only apply

in determining whether the Class

should be Class A or B). Finally, the

instructions have been expanded to

indicate that any radionuclide whose

activity represents a Reportable

Quantity under DOT regulations must

be included on the manifest.

In response to comments on

multicolumnar reporting, the NRC has

reconfigured the item 15 column to

indicate the possibility of using two

subcolumns. The first subcolumn must

include the radionuclide and its activity

in metric units. The second subcolumn

may be: (1) Used to include the activity

in English units, if required by the State

or operating facility, (2) left blank if not

needed, or (3) used to report a second

radionuclide and its activity. The line

which splits column 15 is provided to

minimize imputing and checking errors,

if the third option is chosen.

Column 16—Waste Classification

Comment: One commenter suggested

that boxes be provided to check a waste

class. Two commenters stated that the

‘‘Class’’ designations do not establish

whether Class B and C waste has been

stabilized.

Response: The instructions have been

broadened to indicate that Class B and

C waste should be classified as BU or

BS, or CU or CS; the U or S indicating

whether the waste is in stable or

unstable form. Because the combination

of possibilities has been increased to

six, the information to be recorded

would only consist of two letters, and

space on the form is limited, ‘‘checkoff’’

boxes have not been added to the form.

Container, Waste, and Media Codes

Comment: One commenter stated that

the waste descriptor codes should be

consistent with existing NRC

classifications of LLW. Another

commenter pointed out that the codes

do not match directly with those of US

Ecology. One commenter suggested that

‘‘EPA (or State) hazardous’’ should not

be a physical descriptor for waste and

questioned why ‘‘concrete’’ was

specifically identified as an

encapsulation media. One commenter

suggested that the descriptor, ‘‘wooden

box’’ be dropped and ‘‘woven

polypropylene bulk bag’’ be added to

reflect actual practices. This commenter

also believed that the waste descriptors

were excessive for the purposes being

addressed. One commenter suggested

that Zonolite grade 4 be deleted and

‘‘Vinyl Chloride’’ replace ‘‘Vinyl

Toluene.’’ One commenter suggested

that ‘‘State hazardous’’ be added along

with ‘‘EPA hazardous.’’

Response: The NRC believes the codes

are somewhat more detailed than the

waste streams characterized in the

Environmental Impact Statement that

supported the 10 CFR part 61

rulemaking. Although the codes are not

identical to those used by US Ecology,

the NRC staff believes that all the US

Ecology codes can be related to the

codes on Form 541, and the ‘‘other’’

code can also be used. If a rationale for

a specific code, that is not included

exists, it can be added to the list. The

‘‘EPA (or State) hazardous’’ descriptor is

provided as a ‘‘tie-in’’ to EPA’s or a

State’s Uniform Hazardous Waste

Manifest. The specific identification of

concrete as an encapsulation media has

been deleted and the commenter’s

suggestion on container descriptions has

been accepted. The NRC believes that

feedback from the performance

assessment process may indeed lead to

a consolidation of waste descriptor

codes, with time. The suggestions that

Zonolite grade 4 be deleted and ‘‘Vinyl

Chloride’’ replace ‘‘Vinyl Toluene’’ have

been accepted. The phrase ‘‘EPA
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15661

hazardous’’ has been modified to read

‘‘EPA or State Hazardous.’’

Form 542

Column 5—Generator Name, Permit

Number, and Telephone Number

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the ‘‘generator type’’ code should

also be included. Two commenters

questioned why ‘‘permit number’’ is

called for, given that the generator ID

number is provided in Column 4.

Response: Because the generator ID

number should allow the determination

of generator type, the inclusion of this

information was not considered

necessary. Permit number was included

because, for certain generators, the

generator ID number assigned by the

disposal facility operator is not identical

to the permit number assigned by the

appropriate regulatory authority.

Optimization of these identifiers could

lead to elimination of this reporting

need.

Column 9—Waste Code

Comment: One commenter suggested

that boxes be provided to check whether

the waste represents processed or

collected waste.

Response: Given the single letter entry

needed, and the fact that an existing

manifest does not preprint these letters,

the NRC did not see a need to provide

individual ‘‘C’’ or ‘‘P’’ boxes to be

checked.

Column 10—Originating Compact

Region or State

Comment: One commenter suggested

that codes be used for the Compacts or

States. Another commenter stated that if

the Generator ID number included the

two-digit State abbreviation, there

would be no need to report this

information in Column 10.

Response: The NRC’s intent was that

codes be used. The instructions have

been expanded to state this preference.

Because current generator ID numbers

do not uniformly include the State

abbreviation, it was included in Column

10. If generator ID numbers are

systematized, as the commenter

suggests, and as membership in

Compacts stabilizes, this column could

be deleted.

National Data Base Comments

Comment: In the proposed rule, the

NRC discussed possible uses of and

needs for a national computer LLW data

base. The NRC expressed interest in

public views on the benefits in

developing such a system, and if

developed, who would be an

appropriate operator. Eighteen

commenters spanned a spectrum of

responses, from support for a national

data base with NRC as the operator, to

the belief that a national data base is

unnecessary. Comments also spanned

the topic of data availability, from

making sure the information is publicly

accessible to the need to ensure that

sensitive data is protected. One

commenter noted that because disposal

options have been significantly reduced,

much LLW may end up in extended

storage and a national data base as

envisioned (data reported by the LLW

disposal facilities) would not yield the

quantity of data originally expected.

Two commenters noted that LLW data

bases already exist and that the NRC

should use these existing systems and

work with the DOE to make any

necessary modifications to meet the

informational needs of both NRC and

state regulators.

Response: The NRC believes that

because there will only be a few LLW

facility operators in the near future, it is

premature to establish a new national

LLW data base. The NRC agrees with

those commenters that stated that the

existing systems can be the basis for a

broad and uniform national system. The

NRC will work with DOE and

Agreement States to improve the

existing data base, as necessary.

Improvements may result from the use

of the Uniform Manifest and the

improved ability to report and compile

this data.

Regulatory Analysis Comments

Comment: One commenter stated that

the economic impact analysis is unclear

in the ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility

Certification’’ section. The commenter

stated that according to the discussion,

the proposed rule would have a negative

$480,000 to a positive $100,000 impact

on the regulated community. If one back

calculates to the 34,000 cubic feet

generated by hospitals, the range would

be negative $13,600 to a positive $2,400.

These figures deserve to be

substantiated and justified.

Response: The costs and cost savings

associated with the uniform manifest

are mainly associated with additional

entry costs from the uniform manifest

having more fields than the currently

used shipment manifest forms and from

the development of computer software

to generate the forms. The data entry

costs are related to the amount of

additional data entered per shipment,

the number of shipments, and the

degree of automation of data entry. It

appears that data entry costs were

underestimated and the final regulatory

analysis contains updated estimates.

Whether there is a cost or cost savings

related to development of manifest

generation software depends on the

number of different manifest forms there

would be in the absence of a uniform

manifest. If each regional disposal

facility would require its own manifest

forms, a savings in software

development costs would result from

the use of a uniform manifest. If the

current US Ecology and Chem-Nuclear

Systems forms would still be used for

all regional disposal facilities,

additional software generation costs

would result from use of the uniform

manifest. Because costs are not related

to waste volume, the impact of the

proposed rule on hospitals that generate

LLW is not directly related to the

volume of LLW that these hospitals

generate.

Comment: Two commenters

questioned the incremental time and

cost to generate the new uniform

manifest versus current manifests in

use. One commenter stated that the

requirements of Form 540 could

increase the time to generate a manifest

to 5 hours or more for a large shipment

rather than the 0.65 hours shown in the

Federal Register notice (57 FR 14500;

April 21, 1992). One commenter stated

that the response time for collection of

information is substantially

underestimated and that the increased

complexity of the forms is expected to

significantly increase clerical costs well

beyond the estimate of $5,000 to

$15,000.

Response: The estimate of the amount

of time it takes to enter data on the

uniform manifest was based on the

number of fields, the nature of the field

(i.e., whether it contains fixed point,

floating point, or alphanumeric data)

and whether the data is entered

manually on the forms, on a computer,

or from a waste management database.

An experienced data entry clerk was

consulted. From this and other

comments to the notice of proposed

rulemaking, including the comments

made at the public meeting held on June

15, 1993 and subsequent NRC

experience, it appears that the effort

required to complete the manifest forms

was underestimated. In the final

regulatory analysis, the estimated time

to complete a manifest by a generator

(NRC Forms 540 and 541) has been

changed from 2.5 hours to 2.8 hours.

The estimated time to complete the

manifest for a collector/processor (NRC

Forms 540, 541, and 542) has been

changed from 3.1 to 9.2 hours. The

significant change for the collector/

processor comes from information in a

January 1994, report prepared for the

NRC (NUREG/CR–6147) that resulted in

more than twice the estimated size

(number of containers) in collector/
15662 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

processor shipments. The end result,

however, is not as drastic since the total

number of shipments is accordingly

reduced.

Final rule: The Regulatory Analysis

has been updated to reflect more

accurate estimates of effort. The

resulting changes have not changed the

conclusion to implement the final

rulemaking.

IV. Compatibility of Agreement State

Regulations

The Commission is requiring that the

Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest be used by all shippers of lowlevel radioactive waste; that is, by all

waste generators, waste collectors, and

waste processors licensed by either the

Commission or Agreement States. The

Commission and Agreement State

licensees required to use the Uniform

Manifest, therefore, would also be

required to record the minimal

information requirements as called for

on the applicable Uniform Manifest

forms.

In the development of the three sets

of forms comprising the Uniform

Manifest, the NRC staff has coordinated

its efforts with staff at DOT and with

Agreement and non-Agreement States.

Most State representatives have

indicated support for a base set of

information needs and a uniform

manifest. The Commission believes the

information called for on the Uniform

Manifest not only satisfies Commission

requirements and DOT shipping paper

requirements, but also the majority of

requirements of Agreement State

regulatory authorities (and land disposal

facility operators).

The Commission recognizes that a

particular Agreement State may require

additional information for their unique

regulatory purposes and that disposal

site operators may require further

information to satisfy operational and

administrative considerations.

Therefore, this regulation does not

prohibit Agreement States or disposal

site operators from broadening manifest

usage or from imposing additional

manifest requirements which may be

transmitted as additional pages to the

Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest. Serious consideration should

be given to the need for specific

additional information vis-a-vis the

advantages in maintaining a ‘‘uniform’’

manifesting system. Caution must be

taken, however, to ensure that any

additional requirements for information

are reported in a format which does not

conflict with DOT regulations for

shipping papers (i.e., 49 CFR part 172).

Also, the NRC Forms, although

requiring the use of metric units, does

not preclude reporting in metric and

English units.

Accordingly, the Commission

designates 10 CFR 20.2006, Transfer for

Disposal and Manifests (excluding

appendix F)—as Division 1. This

designation maintains uniformity in

manifest format and content while at the

same time allowing flexibility for

additional information being supplied

in the manifest by adding supplemental

pages. 10 CFR 20.2101, which discusses

units to use, is designated Division 2,

since although SI units must be used,

English units can also be reported.

The Commission designates 10 CFR

61.12, Specific Technical Information,

including the new paragraph (n) that

deals with a description of an electronic

record keeping system, as Division 2

because Agreement States can satisfy

the principles using alternate language.

10 CFR 61.80, Maintenance of

Records, Reports and Transfers, remains

designated Division 3, except for

§ 61.80(l)(1) which is designated

Division 2 because it requires that the

disposal facility licensee maintain an

electronic record keeping system. This

designation will help ensure that

manifest information will be available

in an electronic format for both NRC

and Agreement State licensed sites. The

new requirement to report such stored

information on a computer-readable

medium, however, should be the

prerogative of each Agreement State,

and this new requirement in

§ 61.80(l)(2), is designated Division 3.

V. Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

The Commission has determined that

this final rule is the type of action

described in categorical exclusions 10

CFR 51.22(c)(3) (ii) and (iii). Therefore,

neither an environmental impact

statement nor an environmental

assessment has been prepared for this

final rule.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

Statement

This final rule amends information

collection requirements that are subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These

requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget,

approval number 3150–0014, –0135,

–0164, –0165, and –0166.

Public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 1.04 hours per response under

10 CFR parts 20 and 61, including the

time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. The time

to complete standard shipping manifests

required by this rulemaking, NRC Forms

540, 541, and 542, depends upon the

size and complexity of the shipment

and whether the shipment is from a

generator or a collector/processor. A

shipment from a generator is estimated

to require 2.8 hours (63 minutes to

complete Form 540 and 103 minutes for

Form 541—no Form 542 is needed). A

shipment from a collector/processor is

estimated to require 9.2 hours (161

minutes to complete Form 540, 363

minutes for Form 541, and 26 minutes

for Form 542). The representative

collector/processor’s manifest takes

longer to complete primarily because it

is assumed that their shipments have

more than twice as many containers as

from a generator’s shipment. Send

comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

the Information and Records

Management Branch, Mail Stop T–6

F33, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

NEOB–10202, (3150–0014, –0135,

–0164, –0165, and –0166), Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

VII. Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared a

regulatory analysis on this final

regulation. The analysis examines the

costs and benefits of the alternatives

considered by the Commission. The

analysis is available for inspection in

the NRC Public Document Room, 2120

L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. Single copies of the

analysis may be obtained from M.

Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Mail Stop T–9 F33.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility

Certification

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),

the Commission certifies that this rule

does not have a significant economic

impact upon a substantial number of

small entities. A significant number of

hospitals and academic institutions are

LLW waste generators, and most of

these are non-profit organizations.

During 1986–1990, about 4.6% of the

7.8 million cubic feet of disposed of

LLW was generated by hospitals and

academic institutions. Thus, a

substantial number of small entities

could be affected by the rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15663

With an expected disposal fee of

approximately $150/cubic foot, annual

disposal costs for these small entities

will be in the range of $11 million. The

estimated upper limit costs to

implement this rule for the small

entities is approximately $65,000.

Similarly, the estimated upper limit of

annual operational cost for these small

entities is approximately $2,000. These

costs are insignificant relative to the

annual disposal costs (which do not

include costs such as packaging and

transportation). Because the percentage

increases in disposal costs that may be

caused by the rule is substantially less

than 1%, the rule would not have a

significant economic impact on the

small entities affected by the rule.

IX. Backfit Analysis

The Commission has determined that

the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not

apply to this final rule because these

amendments do not involve any

provisions which would impose backfits

as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). The

additional information to be placed on

NRC manifest forms will not require

nuclear power licensees to change

existing procedures used in operation of

their facilities. Therefore, a backfit

analysis is not required.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 20

Byproduct material, Criminal

penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Occupational safety and

health, Packaging and containers,

Radiation protection, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Source

material, Special nuclear material,

Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 61

Criminal penalties, Low-level waste,

Nuclear materials, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Waste

treatment and disposal.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553,

the NRC is adopting the following

amendments to 10 CFR parts 20 and 61.

PART 20—STANDARDS FOR

PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION

1. The authority citation for part 20

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104,

161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936,

937, 948, 953, 955 as amended (42 U.S.C.

2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201,

2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206,

88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42

U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

2. Section 20.1009 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 20.1009 Information collection

requirements: OMB approval.

(a) The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission has submitted the

information collection requirements

contained in this part to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

approval as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.). The OMB has approved the

information collection requirements

contained in this part under control

number 3150–0014.

(b) The approved information

collection requirements contained in

this part appear in §§ 20.1101, 20.1202,

20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1301, 20.1302,

20.1501, 20.1601, 20.1703, 20.1901,

20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1905, 20.1906,

20.2002, 20.2004, 20.2006, 20.2102,

20.2103, 20.2104, 20.2105, 20.2106,

20.2107, 20.2108, 20.2109, 20.2110,

20.2201, 20.2202, 20.2203, 20.2204,

20.2206, and appendices F and G to 10

CFR part 20.

(c) This part contains information

collection requirements in addition to

those approved under the control

number specified in paragraph (a) of

this section. These information

collection requirements and the control

numbers under which they are

approved are as follows:

(1). In § 20.2104, NRC Form 4 is

approved under control number 3150–

0005.

(2). In §§ 20.2106 and 20.2206, NRC

Form 5 is approved under control

number 3150–0006.

(3). In § 20.2006 and appendix G to 10

CFR part 20, NRC Form 540 and 540A

is approved under control number

3150–0164.

(4). In § 20.2006 and appendix G to 10

CFR part 20, NRC Form 541 and 541A

is approved under control number

3150–0165.

(5). In § 20.2006 and appendix G to 10

CFR part 20, NRC Form 542 and 542A

is approved under control number

3150–0166.

3. Section 20.2006 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and

manifests.

(a)(1) The requirements of this section

and appendices F and G to 10 CFR part

20 are designed to

(i) Control transfers of low-level

radioactive waste by any waste

generator, waste collector, or waste

processor licensee, as defined in this

part, who ships low-level waste either

directly, or indirectly through a waste

collector or waste processor, to a

licensed low-level waste land disposal

facility (as defined in part 61 of this

chapter);

(ii) Establish a manifest tracking

system; and

(iii) Supplement existing

requirements concerning transfers and

recordkeeping for those wastes.

(2) Beginning March 1, 1998, all

affected licensees must use Appendix G.

Prior to March 1, 1998, a LLW disposal

facility operator or its regulatory

authority may require the shipper to use

appendix F or appendix G. Licensees

using appendix F shall comply with

paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

Licensees using appendix G shall

comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this

section.

(b)(1) Each shipment of radioactive

waste intended for disposal at a licensed

land disposal facility must be

accompanied by a shipment manifest in

accordance with section I of appendix F

to 10 CFR part 20.

(2) Any licensee shipping radioactive

waste intended for ultimate disposal at

a licensed land disposal facility must

document the information required on

NRC’s Uniform Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Manifest and transfer this

recorded manifest information to the

intended consignee in accordance with

appendix G to 10 CFR part 20.

(c) Each shipment manifest must

include a certification by the waste

generator as specified in section II of

appendix F or appendix G to 10 CFR

part 20, as appropriate. See paragraph

(a)(2) of this section to determine the

appropriate appendix.

(d) Each person involved in the

transfer for disposal and disposal of

waste, including the waste generator,

waste collector, waste processor, and

disposal facility operator, shall comply

with the requirements specified in

section III of appendix F or appendix G

to 10 CFR part 20, as appropriate. See

paragraph (a)(2) of this section to

determine the appropriate appendix.

4. Section 20.2101 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph

(c) and adding a new paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 20.2101 General provisions.

* * * * *

(b) Not withstanding the requirements

of paragraph (a) of this section, when

recording information on shipment

manifests, as required in § 20.2006(b),

information must be recorded in the

International System of Units (SI) or in

SI and units as specified in paragraph

(a) of this section.

* * * * *
15664 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

5. A new appendix G is added to 10

CFR part 20 to read as follows:

Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20—

Requirements for Transfers of LowLevel Radioactive Waste Intended for

Disposal at Licensed Land Disposal

Facilities and Manifests

I. Manifest

A waste generator, collector, or processor

who transports, or offers for transportation,

low-level radioactive waste intended for

ultimate disposal at a licensed low-level

radioactive waste land disposal facility must

prepare a Manifest (OMB Control Numbers

3150–0164, –0165, and –0166) reflecting

information requested on applicable NRC

Forms 540 (Uniform Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Manifest (Shipping Paper)) and 541

(Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest (Container and Waste Description))

and, if necessary, on an applicable NRC Form

542 (Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest (Manifest Index and Regional

Compact Tabulation)). NRC Forms 540 and

540A must be completed and must

physically accompany the pertinent lowlevel waste shipment. Upon agreement

between shipper and consignee, NRC Forms

541 and 541A and 542 and 542A may be

completed, transmitted, and stored in

electronic media with the capability for

producing legible, accurate, and complete

records on the respective forms. Licensees

are not required by NRC to comply with the

manifesting requirements of this part when

they ship:

(a) LLW for processing and expect its

return (i.e., for storage under their license)

prior to disposal at a licensed land disposal

facility;

(b) LLW that is being returned to the

licensee who is the ‘‘waste generator’’ or

‘‘generator,’’ as defined in this part; or

(c) Radioactively contaminated material to

a ‘‘waste processor’’ that becomes the

processor’s ‘‘residual waste.’’

For guidance in completing these forms,

refer to the instructions that accompany the

forms. Copies of manifests required by this

appendix may be legible carbon copies,

photocopies, or computer printouts that

reproduce the data in the format of the

uniform manifest.

NRC Forms 540, 540A, 541, 541A, 542 and

542A, and the accompanying instructions, in

hard copy, may be obtained from the

Information and Records Management

Branch, Office of Information Resources

Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

telephone (301) 415–7232.

This appendix includes information

requirements of the Department of

Transportation, as codified in 49 CFR part

172. Information on hazardous, medical, or

other waste, required to meet Environmental

Protection Agency regulations, as codified in

40 CFR parts 259, 261 or elsewhere, is not

addressed in this section, and must be

provided on the required EPA forms.

However, the required EPA forms must

accompany the Uniform Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Manifest required by this

chapter.

As used in this appendix, the following

definitions apply:

Chelating agent has the same meaning as

that given in § 61.2 of this chapter.

Chemical description means a description

of the principal chemical characteristics of a

low-level radioactive waste.

Computer-readable medium means that the

regulatory agency’s computer can transfer the

information from the medium into its

memory.

Consignee means the designated receiver of

the shipment of low-level radioactive waste.

Decontamination facility means a facility

operating under a Commission or Agreement

State license whose principal purpose is

decontamination of equipment or materials

to accomplish recycle, reuse, or other waste

management objectives, and, for purposes of

this part, is not considered to be a consignee

for LLW shipments.

Disposal container means a container

principally used to confine low-level

radioactive waste during disposal operations

at a land disposal facility (also see ‘‘high

integrity container’’). Note that for some

shipments, the disposal container may be the

transport package.

EPA identification number means the

number received by a transporter following

application to the Administrator of EPA as

required by 40 CFR part 263.

Generator means a licensee operating

under a Commission or Agreement State

license who (1) is a waste generator as

defined in this part, or (2) is the licensee to

whom waste can be attributed within the

context of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (e.g., waste

generated as a result of decontamination or

recycle activities).

High integrity container (HIC) means a

container commonly designed to meet the

structural stability requirements of § 61.56 of

this chapter, and to meet Department of

Transportation requirements for a Type A

package.

Land disposal facility has the same

meaning as that given in § 61.2 of this

chapter.

NRC Forms 540, 540A, 541, 541A, 542, and

542A are official NRC Forms referenced in

this appendix. Licensees need not use

originals of these NRC Forms as long as any

substitute forms are equivalent to the original

documentation in respect to content, clarity,

size, and location of information. Upon

agreement between the shipper and

consignee, NRC Forms 541 (and 541A) and

NRC Forms 542 (and 542A) may be

completed, transmitted, and stored in

electronic media. The electronic media must

have the capability for producing legible,

accurate, and complete records in the format

of the uniform manifest.

Package means the assembly of

components necessary to ensure compliance

with the packaging requirements of DOT

regulations, together with its radioactive

contents, as presented for transport.

Physical description means the items

called for on NRC Form 541 to describe a

low-level radioactive waste.

Residual waste means low-level

radioactive waste resulting from processing

or decontamination activities that cannot be

easily separated into distinct batches

attributable to specific waste generators. This

waste is attributable to the processor or

decontamination facility, as applicable.

Shipper means the licensed entity (i.e., the

waste generator, waste collector, or waste

processor) who offers low-level radioactive

waste for transportation, typically consigning

this type of waste to a licensed waste

collector, waste processor, or land disposal

facility operator.

Shipping paper means NRC Form 540 and,

if required, NRC Form 540A which includes

the information required by DOT in 49 CFR

part 172.

Source material has the same meaning as

that given in § 40.4 of this chapter.

Special nuclear material has the same

meaning as that given in § 70.4 of this

chapter.

Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest or uniform manifest means the

combination of NRC Forms 540, 541, and, if

necessary, 542, and their respective

continuation sheets as needed, or equivalent.

Waste collector means an entity, operating

under a Commission or Agreement State

license, whose principal purpose is to collect

and consolidate waste generated by others,

and to transfer this waste, without processing

or repackaging the collected waste, to another

licensed waste collector, licensed waste

processor, or licensed land disposal facility.

Waste description means the physical,

chemical and radiological description of a

low-level radioactive waste as called for on

NRC Form 541.

Waste generator means an entity, operating

under a Commission or Agreement State

license, who (1) possesses any material or

component that contains radioactivity or is

radioactively contaminated for which the

licensee foresees no further use, and (2)

transfers this material or component to a

licensed land disposal facility or to a

licensed waste collector or processor for

handling or treatment prior to disposal. A

licensee performing processing or

decontamination services may be a ‘‘waste

generator’’ if the transfer of low-level

radioactive waste from its facility is defined

as ‘‘residual waste.’’

Waste processor means an entity, operating

under a Commission or Agreement State

license, whose principal purpose is to

process, repackage, or otherwise treat lowlevel radioactive material or waste generated

by others prior to eventual transfer of waste

to a licensed low-level radioactive waste land

disposal facility.

Waste type means a waste within a

disposal container having a unique physical

description (i.e., a specific waste descriptor

code or description; or a waste sorbed on or

solidified in a specifically defined media).

Information Requirements

A. General Information

The shipper of the radioactive waste, shall

provide the following information on the

uniform manifest:

1. The name, facility address, and

telephone number of the licensee shipping

the waste;

2. An explicit declaration indicating

whether the shipper is acting as a waste
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15665

generator, collector, processor, or a

combination of these identifiers for purposes

of the manifested shipment; and

3. The name, address, and telephone

number, or the name and EPA identification

number for the carrier transporting the waste.

B. Shipment Information

The shipper of the radioactive waste shall

provide the following information regarding

the waste shipment on the uniform manifest:

1. The date of the waste shipment;

2. The total number of packages/disposal

containers;

3. The total disposal volume and disposal

weight in the shipment;

4. The total radionuclide activity in the

shipment;

5. The activity of each of the radionuclides

H–3, C–14, Tc-99, and I–129 contained in the

shipment; and

6. The total masses of U–233, U–235, and

plutonium in special nuclear material, and

the total mass of uranium and thorium in

source material.

C. Disposal Container and Waste Information

The shipper of the radioactive waste shall

provide the following information on the

uniform manifest regarding the waste and

each disposal container of waste in the

shipment:

1. An alphabetic or numeric identification

that uniquely identifies each disposal

container in the shipment;

2. A physical description of the disposal

container, including the manufacturer and

model of any high integrity container;

3. The volume displaced by the disposal

container;

4. The gross weight of the disposal

container, including the waste;

5. For waste consigned to a disposal

facility, the maximum radiation level at the

surface of each disposal container;

6. A physical and chemical description of

the waste;

7. The total weight percentage of chelating

agent for any waste containing more than

0.1% chelating agent by weight, plus the

identity of the principal chelating agent;

8. The approximate volume of waste

within a container;

9. The sorbing or solidification media, if

any, and the identity of the solidification

media vendor and brand name;

10. The identities and activities of

individual radionuclides contained in each

container, the masses of U–233, U–235, and

plutonium in special nuclear material, and

the masses of uranium and thorium in source

material. For discrete waste types (i.e.,

activated materials, contaminated equipment,

mechanical filters, sealed source/devices,

and wastes in solidification/stabilization

media), the identities and activities of

individual radionuclides associated with or

contained on these waste types within a

disposal container shall be reported;

11. The total radioactivity within each

container; and

12. For wastes consigned to a disposal

facility, the classification of the waste

pursuant to § 61.55 of this chapter. Waste not

meeting the structural stability requirements

of § 61.56(b) of this chapter must be

identified.

D. Uncontainerized Waste Information

The shipper of the radioactive waste shall

provide the following information on the

uniform manifest regarding a waste shipment

delivered without a disposal container:

1. The approximate volume and weight of

the waste;

2. A physical and chemical description of

the waste;

3. The total weight percentage of chelating

agent if the chelating agent exceeds 0.1% by

weight, plus the identity of the principal

chelating agent;

4. For waste consigned to a disposal

facility, the classification of the waste

pursuant to § 61.55 of this chapter. Waste not

meeting the structural stability requirements

of § 61.56(b) of this chapter must be

identified;

5. The identities and activities of

individual radionuclides contained in the

waste, the masses of U–233, U–235, and

plutonium in special nuclear material, and

the masses of uranium and thorium in source

material; and

6. For wastes consigned to a disposal

facility, the maximum radiation levels at the

surface of the waste.

E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container

Information

This section applies to disposal containers

enclosing mixtures of waste originating from

different generators. (Note: The origin of the

LLW resulting from a processor’s activities

may be attributable to one or more

‘‘generators’’ (including ‘‘waste generators’’)

as defined in this part). It also applies to

mixtures of wastes shipped in an

uncontainerized form, for which portions of

the mixture within the shipment originate

from different generators.

1. For homogeneous mixtures of waste,

such as incinerator ash, provide the waste

description applicable to the mixture and the

volume of the waste attributed to each

generator.

2. For heterogeneous mixtures of waste,

such as the combined products from a large

compactor, identify each generator

contributing waste to the disposal container,

and, for discrete waste types (i.e., activated

materials, contaminated equipment,

mechanical filters, sealed source/devices,

and wastes in solidification/stabilization

media), the identities and activities of

individual radionuclides contained on these

waste types within the disposal container.

For each generator, provide the following:

(a) The volume of waste within the

disposal container;

(b) A physical and chemical description of

the waste, including the solidification agent,

if any;

(c) The total weight percentage of chelating

agents for any disposal container containing

more than 0.1% chelating agent by weight,

plus the identity of the principal chelating

agent;

(d) The sorbing or solidification media, if

any, and the identity of the solidification

media vendor and brand name if the media

is claimed to meet stability requirements in

10 CFR 61.56(b); and

(e) Radionuclide identities and activities

contained in the waste, the masses of U–233,

U–235, and plutonium in special nuclear

material, and the masses of uranium and

thorium in source material if contained in the

waste.

II. Certification

An authorized representative of the waste

generator, processor, or collector shall certify

by signing and dating the shipment manifest

that the transported materials are properly

classified, described, packaged, marked, and

labeled and are in proper condition for

transportation according to the applicable

regulations of the Department of

Transportation and the Commission. A

collector in signing the certification is

certifying that nothing has been done to the

collected waste which would invalidate the

waste generator’s certification.

III. Control and Tracking

A. Any licensee who transfers radioactive

waste to a land disposal facility or a licensed

waste collector shall comply with the

requirements in paragraphs A.1 through 9 of

this section. Any licensee who transfers

waste to a licensed waste processor for waste

treatment or repackaging shall comply with

the requirements of paragraphs A.4 through

9 of this section. A licensee shall:

1. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is

classified according to § 61.55 and meets the

waste characteristics requirements in § 61.56

of this chapter;

2. Label each disposal container (or

transport package if potential radiation

hazards preclude labeling of the individual

disposal container) of waste to identify

whether it is Class A waste, Class B waste,

Class C waste, or greater then Class C waste,

in accordance with § 61.55 of this chapter;

3. Conduct a quality assurance program to

assure compliance with §§ 61.55 and 61.56 of

this chapter (the program must include

management evaluation of audits);

4. Prepare the NRC Uniform Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Manifest as required by

this appendix;

5. Forward a copy or electronically transfer

the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest to the intended consignee so that

either (i) receipt of the manifest precedes the

LLW shipment or (ii) the manifest is

delivered to the consignee with the waste at

the time the waste is transferred to the

consignee. Using both (i) and (ii) is also

acceptable;

6. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form

540A, if required) with the shipment

regardless of the option chosen in paragraph

A.5 of this section;

7. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt

of the shipment in the form of a signed copy

of NRC Form 540;

8. Retain a copy of or electronically store

the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest and documentation of

acknowledgement of receipt as the record of

transfer of licensed material as required by 10

CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter; and

9. For any shipments or any part of a

shipment for which acknowledgement of

receipt has not been received within the

times set forth in this appendix, conduct an

investigation in accordance with paragraph E

of this appendix.
15666 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

B. Any waste collector licensee who

handles only prepackaged waste shall:

1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste from

the shipper within one week of receipt by

returning a signed copy of NRC Form 540;

2. Prepare a new manifest to reflect

consolidated shipments that meet the

requirements of this appendix. The waste

collector shall ensure that, for each container

of waste in the shipment, the manifest

identifies the generator of that container of

waste;

3. Forward a copy or electronically transfer

the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest to the intended consignee so that

either: (i) Receipt of the manifest precedes

the LLW shipment or (ii) the manifest is

delivered to the consignee with the waste at

the time the waste is transferred to the

consignee. Using both (i) and (ii) is also

acceptable;

4. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form

540A, if required) with the shipment

regardless of the option chosen in paragraph

B.3 of this section;

5. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt

of the shipment in the form of a signed copy

of NRC Form 540;

6. Retain a copy of or electronically store

the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest and documentation of

acknowledgement of receipt as the record of

transfer of licensed material as required by 10

CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter;

7. For any shipments or any part of a

shipment for which acknowledgement of

receipt has not been received within the

times set forth in this appendix, conduct an

investigation in accordance with paragraph E

of this appendix; and

8. Notify the shipper and the Administrator

of the nearest Commission Regional Office

listed in appendix D of this part when any

shipment, or part of a shipment, has not

arrived within 60 days after receipt of an

advance manifest, unless notified by the

shipper that the shipment has been

cancelled.

C. Any licensed waste processor who treats

or repackages waste shall:

1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste from

the shipper within one week of receipt by

returning a signed copy of NRC Form 540;

2. Prepare a new manifest that meets the

requirements of this appendix. Preparation of

the new manifest reflects that the processor

is responsible for meeting these

requirements. For each container of waste in

the shipment, the manifest shall identify the

waste generators, the preprocessed waste

volume, and the other information as

required in paragraph I.E. of this appendix;

3. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is

classified according to § 61.55 of this chapter

and meets the waste characteristics

requirements in § 61.56 of this chapter;

4. Label each package of waste to identify

whether it is Class A waste, Class B waste,

or Class C waste, in accordance with §§ 61.55

and 61.57 of this chapter;

5. Conduct a quality assurance program to

assure compliance with §§ 61.55 and 61.56 of

this chapter (the program shall include

management evaluation of audits);

6. Forward a copy or electronically transfer

the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest to the intended consignee so that

either: (i) Receipt of the manifest precedes

the LLW shipment or (ii) the manifest is

delivered to the consignee with the waste at

the time the waste is transferred to the

consignee. Using both (i) and (ii) is also

acceptable;

7. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form

540A, if required) with the shipment

regardless of the option chosen in paragraph

C.6 of this section;

8. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt

of the shipment in the form of a signed copy

of NRC Form 540;

9. Retain a copy of or electronically store

the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Manifest and documentation of

acknowledgement of receipt as the record of

transfer of licensed material as required by 10

CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter;

10. For any shipment or any part of a

shipment for which acknowledgement of

receipt has not been received within the

times set forth in this appendix, conduct an

investigation in accordance with paragraph E

of this appendix; and

11. Notify the shipper and the

Administrator of the nearest Commission

Regional Office listed in appendix D of this

part when any shipment, or part of a

shipment, has not arrived within 60 days

after receipt of an advance manifest, unless

notified by the shipper that the shipment has

been cancelled.

D. The land disposal facility operator shall:

1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste within

one week of receipt by returning, as a

minimum, a signed copy of NRC Form 540

to the shipper. The shipper to be notified is

the licensee who last possessed the waste

and transferred the waste to the operator. If

any discrepancy exists between materials

listed on the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Manifest and materials received,

copies or electronic transfer of the affected

forms must be returned indicating the

discrepancy;

2. Maintain copies of all completed

manifests and electronically store the

information required by 10 CFR 61.80(l) until

the Commission terminates the license; and

3. Notify the shipper and the Administrator

of the nearest Commission Regional Office

listed in appendix D of this part when any

shipment, or part of a shipment, has not

arrived within 60 days after receipt of an

advance manifest, unless notified by the

shipper that the shipment has been

cancelled.

PART 61—LICENSING

REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND

DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

6. The authority citation for part 61

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 81, 161,

182, 183, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 948,

953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077,

2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233);

secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.

5842, 5846); secs. 10 and 14, Pub. L. 95–601,

92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 2021a and 5851) and

Pub. L. 102–486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42

U.S.C. 5851).

7. Section 61.12 is amended by

adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:

§ 61.12 Specific technical information.

* * * * *

(n) A description of the facility

electronic recordkeeping system as

required in § 61.80.

8. Section 61.80 is amended by

revising paragraph (f) and (i)(1), and

adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:

§ 61.80 Maintenance of records, reports,

and transfers.

* * * * *

(f) Following receipt and acceptance

of a shipment of radioactive waste, the

licensee shall record the date that the

shipment is received at the disposal

facility, the date of disposal of the

waste, a traceable shipment manifest

number, a description of any engineered

barrier or structural overpack provided

for disposal of the waste, the location of

disposal at the disposal site, the

containment integrity of the waste

disposal containers as received, any

discrepancies between materials listed

on the manifest and those received, the

volume of any pallets, bracing, or other

shipping or onsite generated materials

that are contaminated, and are disposed

of as contaminated or suspect materials,

and any evidence of leaking or damaged

disposal containers or radiation or

contamination levels in excess of limits

specified in Department of

Transportation and Commission

regulations. The licensee shall briefly

describe any repackaging operations of

any of the disposal containers included

in the shipment, plus any other

information required by the

Commission as a license condition. The

licensee shall retain these records until

the Commission transfers or terminates

the license that authorizes the activities

described in this section.

* * * * *

(i)(1) Each licensee authorized to

dispose of waste materials received from

other persons, pursuant to this part,

shall submit annual reports to the

appropriate Commission regional office

shown in Appendix D to 10 CFR part

20, with copies to the Director, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555. Reports must be

submitted by the end of the first

calendar quarter of each year for the

preceding year.

* * * * *

(l) In addition to the other

requirements of this section, the

licensee shall store, or have stored,

manifest and other information

pertaining to receipt and disposal of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15667

radioactive waste in an electronic

recordkeeping system.

(1) The manifest information that

must be electronically stored is—

(i) That required in 10 CFR part 20,

appendix G, with the exception of

shipper and carrier telephone numbers

and shipper and consignee

certifications; and

(ii) That information required in

paragraph (f) of this section.

(2) As specified in facility license

conditions, the licensee shall report the

stored information, or subsets of this

information, on a computer-readable

medium.

Dated at Rockville, MD this 20th day of

March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–7302 Filed 3–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 93–CE–35–AD; Amendment 39–

9180; AD 93–15–02 R1]

Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild

Aircraft SA226 and SA227 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment revises

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 93–15–02,

which requires the following on

Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227

series airplanes that are equipped with

a certain Simmonds-Precision pitch trim

actuator: repetitively measuring the

freeplay of the pitch trim actuator and

repetitively inspecting the actuator for

rod slippage; immediately replacing any

actuator if certain freeplay limitations

are not met or rod slippage is evident;

and eventually replacing the actuator

regardless of the inspection results. This

action maintains these requirements,

but reduces the hours time-in-service

(TIS) before the initial inspection is

required, and shortens both the time

period between repetitive inspections

and the actuator replacement

compliance time (unless the

replacement actuator is new or if the nut

tube assemblies have been replaced

during overhaul). An in-flight incident

where the referenced actuator on one of

the affected airplanes failed after

accomplishment of the 5,000-hour

initial inspection (with satisfactory

results) prompted this action. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent the horizontal

stabilizer from going nose-down or

jamming because of pitch trim actuator

failure, which could result in loss of

control of the airplane.

DATES: Effective April 17, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of April 17,

1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

June 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket 93–CE–35–AD,

Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106.

Service information that applies to

this AD may be obtained from Field

Support Engineering, Fairchild Aircraft,

P.O. Box 790490, San Antonio, Texas

78279–0490; telephone (210) 824–9421;

facsimile (210) 820–8609. This

information may also be examined at

the FAA, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Werner Koch, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Airplane Certification Office, 2601

Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas

76193–0150; telephone (817) 222–5150;

facsimile (817) 222–5959.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AD 93–

15–02, Amendment 39–8648 (59 FR

40734, July 30, 1993), currently requires

the following on Fairchild Aircraft

SA226 and SA227 series airplanes that

are equipped with a SimmondsPrecision pitch trim actuator, part

number (P/N) DL5040M5: repetitively

measuring the freeplay of the pitch trim

actuator and repetitively inspecting the

actuator for rod slippage; and, if certain

freeplay limitations are not met or rod

slippage is evident, replacing any

actuator with a new actuator of the same

part number or with a part of improved

design, P/N 27–19008–01 or 27–19008–

02. The requirements of the AD will no

longer apply when an actuator of

improved design is installed.

Accomplishment of the freeplay

measurements and inspections is in

accordance with the instructions in

Fairchild Aircraft SA226 Series Service

Letter (SL) 226–SL–005, and Fairchild

Aircraft SA227 Series SL 227–SL–011,

both Issued: April 8, 1993, Revised:

April 28, 1993, as applicable.

Accomplishment of the pitch trim

actuator replacement is in accordance

with the applicable maintenance

manual.

AD 93–15–02 was issued based on

reports of two in-flight incidents where

the above-referenced pitch trim actuator

failed on Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and

SA227 series airplanes. In one case, the

horizontal stabilizer went full-nose

down, and in the other instance, the

horizontal stabilizer jammed.

Fortunately, the pilots were able to

safely land in both of these instances.

Upon removal and inspection of each of

these pitch trim actuators, fatigued

barrel nuts were found and the actuator

usage time was well over 5,000 hours

TIS.

Since AD 93–15–02 became effective,

the FAA received a report of an in-flight

incident where the referenced actuator

on one of the affected airplanes failed.

The airplane operator had accomplished

the 5,000-hour TIS initial inspection

(with satisfactory results), but had not

reached the 6,500-hour TIS mandatory

replacement threshold.

Fairchild Aircraft has revised SA226

Series SL 226–SL–005 and SA227 Series

SL 227–SL–011 to reflect the revised

compliance times and a change to the

inspection procedure. The revision date

of this service information is March 2,

1995.

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incident described above,

the FAA has determined that AD 93–

15–02 should be revised by (1) reducing

the number of hours TIS before the

initial inspection is required; and (2)

shortening both the time period between

repetitive inspections and the actuator

replacement compliance time, unless

the replacement actuator is new or if the

tube nut assemblies have been replaced

during overhaul.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Fairchild Aircraft

SA226 and SA227 series airplanes of the

same type design that are equipped with

a Simmonds-Precision pitch trim

actuator, P/N DL5040M5, this AD

requires the same repetitive inspections

and actuator replacement as AD 93–15–

02, but revises the compliance times as

previously specified. The inspections

will be accomplished in accordance

with the instructions in Fairchild

Aircraft SA226 Series Service Letter

(SL) 226–SL–005, and Fairchild Aircraft

SA227 Series SL 227–SL–011, both

Issued: April 8, 1993, Revised: March 2,

1995, as applicable.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for public prior comment