Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2009 / Notices 30175 

Stability, scheduled between 12:45 and 

2:45 p.m. on Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 

has been clarified to state ‘‘Applicability 

of TRACE Code to Evaluate New LWR 

Designs.’’ 

The notice of this meeting was 

previously published in the Federal 

Register on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 

[74 FR 28727–28728]. All other items 

remain the same as previously 

published. 

Further information regarding this 

meeting can be obtained by contacting 

Girija Shukla, Cognizant ACRS staff 

(301–415–6855), between 7:15 a.m. and 

5 p.m., (ET). 

Dated: June 18, 2009. 

Andrew L. Bates, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–14833 Filed 6–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0257] 

Notice of Public Workshop on a 

Potential Rulemaking for Safe Disposal 

of Unique Waste Streams Including 

Significant Quantities of Depleted 

Uranium 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public workshop and 

a request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) plans to conduct 

two public workshops to solicit public 

input on major issues associated with a 

potential rulemaking for land disposal 

of unique waste streams including, but 

not limited to, significant quantities of 

depleted uranium in near-surface 

radioactive waste disposal facilities. The 

public workshops are intended to solicit 

the views of representatives of interests 

that may be affected by the rulemaking. 

Members of the public are invited to 

provide written comments on the issues 

presented in this notice and to attend 

the workshops to provide feedback on 

the potential rulemaking. The public 

workshops will be held in Rockville, 

Maryland on September 2–3, 2009 and 

in Salt Lake City, Utah on September 

23–24, 2009. 

DATES: Members of the public may 

provide feedback at the transcribed 

public workshops or may submit 

written comments on the issues 

discussed in this notice. Comments on 

issues for the agenda should be 

postmarked no later than August 1, 

2009. Comments on the issues and 

questions presented in this notice and 

discussed at the workshops should be 

postmarked no later than October 30, 

2009. Comments received after these 

dates will be considered if it is practical 

to do so. NRC plans to consider these 

stakeholder views in the development of 

a technical basis for the planned 

rulemaking. Written comments may be 

sent to the address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Questions about 

participation in the roundtable 

discussion at the public workshops 

should be directed to the facilitator at 

the address listed in the ADDRESSES

section. Members of the public planning 

to attend the workshops are invited to 

RSVP at least ten (10) days prior to each 

workshop. Replies should be directed to 

the points of contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

The public workshops will be held in 

Rockville, Maryland on September 2, 

2009, from 8 a.m. to 

5 p.m. and on September 3, 2009, from 

8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and in Salt Lake City, 

Utah on September 23, 2009, from 8 

a.m. to 5 p.m. and on September 24, 

2009, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The location 

of and final agenda for each public 

workshop will be noticed no fewer than 

ten (10) days prior to each workshop on 

the NRC’s electronic public workshop 

schedule at http://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/public-meetings/index.cfm. 

Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for additional 

information on the issues proposed for 

discussion at the public workshops. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

to the Chief, Rulemaking and Directives 

Branch, Division of Administrative 

Services, Office of Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail 

Stop TWB 5B01M, Washington, DC 

20555–0001, and cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice, or by fax at 301- 492– 

3446. Comments may also be submitted 

electronicallly at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search on docket 

ID NRC–2009–0257. 

Questions regarding participation in 

the roundtable discussions should be 

submitted to the facilitator, Francis 

Cameron, by mail to Mail Stop O16– 

E15, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, by telephone at 301–415–1006 or 

240–205–2091, or by e-mail at 

francis.cameron@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Priya Yadav, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone 301–415– 

6667; e-mail priya.yadav@nrc.gov, or 

Christopher Grossman, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone 301–415– 

7658; e-mail 

christopher.grossman@nrc.gov. 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee, publicly available 

documents at the Public Document 

Room, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at NRC after November 1, 1999, 

are available electronically at the NRC’s 

Electronic Reading Room at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this site, the public can gain entry 

into the NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS), which provides text and 

image files of NRC’s public documents. 

If you do not have access to ADAMS, 

contact the Public Document Room at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. 

L. 99–240) sets forth the Federal policy, 

including responsibilities, for the 

disposal of low-level radioactive waste 

to ensure available disposal capacity for 

all classes of waste, as specified by Title 

10, § 61.55, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). Existing NRC 

regulations in 10 CFR 61.55 specify 

criteria for determining the 

classification of low-level radioactive 

waste for land disposal at a near-surface 

facility. The original development of 10 

CFR 61.55 did not explicitly consider 

the impacts resulting from the disposal 

of significant quantities of depleted 

uranium from the operation of a 

commercial uranium enrichment facility 

(‘‘Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

on 10 CFR Part 61 Licensing 

Requirements for Land Disposal of 

Radioactive Waste,’’ NUREG–0782, 

1981, ADAMS Accession Nos. 

ML060930564 (vol. 1), ML060930573 

(vol. 2), ML060930577 (vol. 3), and 

ML060930583 (vol. 4); ‘‘Final 

Environmental Impact Statement on 10 

CFR Part 61 Licensing Requirements for 

Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,’’ 

NUREG–0945, 1982, ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML052590184 (vol. 1) and 

ML052920727 (vol. 2)). When 10 CFR 

Part 61 was initially developed, there 

were no commercial facilities generating 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium waste. As a result, the analysis 

only considered the types of uraniumbearing waste streams being typically 

30176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2009 / Notices 

disposed by the NRC licensees at the 

time. 

The NRC issued licenses for two 

commercial uranium enrichment 

facilities in 2006 and 2007, which are 

expected to generate significant 

quantities of depleted uranium. 

Depleted uranium is source material, as 

defined by Section 11(z) of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and if 

treated as a waste would fall under the 

definition of a low-level radioactive 

waste under 10 CFR 61.55(a). The NRC 

reaffirmed this waste classification in 

Memorandum and Order CLI–05–20 

dated October 19, 2005 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML052930035). 

Consistent with its policy to increase 

the use of risk-informed decisionmaking in all regulatory matters (‘‘Staff 

Requirements—COMSECY–96–061— 

Risk-Informed, Performance-Based 

Regulation (DSI 12)’’, April 15, 1997, 

ADAMS Accession No. ML003671740), 

the NRC considered in a screening 

analysis (‘‘Response to Commission 

Order CLI–05–20 Regarding Depleted 

Uranium,’’ SECY–08–0147, October 7, 

2008, ADAMS Accession No. 

ML081820762) whether quantities of 

depleted uranium at issue in the waste 

stream from commercial uranium 

enrichment facilities warrant amending 

the waste classification tables in 10 CFR 

61.55(a) or amending 10 CFR 

61.55(a)(6). The NRC decided to pursue 

a limited rulemaking to specify a 

requirement for a site-specific analysis 

and associated technical requirements 

for unique waste streams including, but 

not limited to, the disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium (‘‘Staff 

Requirements—SECY–08–0147— 

Response to Commission Order CLI–05– 

20 Regarding Depleted Uranium,’’ SRM– 

SECY–08–0147, March 18, 2009, 

ADAMS Accession No. ML090770988). 

In pursuing this limited rulemaking, the 

NRC is not proposing to alter the waste 

classification scheme. However, for 

unique waste streams including, but not 

limited to, significant quantities of 

depleted uranium, there may be a need 

to place additional criteria on its 

disposal at a specific facility or deny 

such disposal based on unique site 

characteristics. Those restrictions would 

be determined via a site-specific 

analysis that satisfies the requirements 

developed through this rulemaking 

process. 

In advance of this planned 

rulemaking, NRC will conduct public 

workshops inviting representatives of 

the stakeholders affected by the 

rulemaking in a ‘‘roundtable’’ format. At 

these workshops, NRC plans to discuss 

with stakeholders the issues to be 

considered in the rulemaking and the 

technical parameters of concern for a 

site-specific analysis associated with the 

disposal of unique waste streams, 

including significant quantities of 

depleted uranium. NRC plans to 

consider these stakeholder views in the 

development of a technical basis for the 

planned rulemaking. 

In order to have a manageable 

discussion, the number of participants 

around the table will, of necessity, be 

limited. The NRC, through the facilitator 

of the workshop, will attempt to ensure 

broad participation by the spectrum of 

interests affected by the rulemaking, 

including citizen and environmental 

groups, nuclear industry interests, state, 

tribal, and local governments, and 

experts from academia and other federal 

agencies. Other members of the public 

are welcome to attend. Those not seated 

at the tables, including individual 

members of the public, will have the 

opportunity to provide feedback on each 

of the issues slated for discussion by the 

roundtable participants. Questions 

about participation in the roundtable 

discussion may be directed to the 

facilitator. 

Section II describes issues associated 

with disposal of unique waste streams 

in general, while Section III describes 

specific issues associated with technical 

parameters for a site-specific analysis 

for disposal of significant quantities of 

depleted uranium that were identified 

from the screening analysis (SECY–08– 

0147, October 7, 2008). 

II. Issues With Disposal of Unique 

Waste Streams 

This section discusses issues 

associated with a regulatory definition 

of unique waste streams that should be 

considered before commencing 

regulatory activities related to technical 

requirements for a site-specific analysis 

for land disposal of unique waste 

streams in the near-surface. Each issue 

is assigned a number, a short title, and 

a list of questions and factors for 

consideration. These issues, questions, 

and factors are not meant to be a 

complete or final list, but are intended 

to initiate discussion. Interested 

stakeholders are welcome to 

recommend additions, deletions, or 

modifications to the key issues for 

consideration. These issues and factors 

will focus the discussion at the public 

workshops. All public feedback will be 

used in developing options for NRC 

consideration. 

Issue II–1. Definition of Unique Waste 

Streams 

The NRC plans to propose a 

rulemaking in 10 CFR Part 61 to specify 

a requirement for a site-specific analysis 

for the disposal of unique waste streams 

including, but not limited to, significant 

quantities of depleted uranium. As part 

of this planned rulemaking, NRC will 

solicit stakeholder views on 

considerations for a regulatory 

definition for unique waste streams 

requiring a site-specific analysis. 

Question II–1.1—Should the NRC 

propose a regulatory definition to (a) 

specify general criteria that would 

capture both current and foreseeable 

unique waste streams; or (b) limit the 

definition to a known set of current 

unique waste streams including 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium? What characteristics should 

NRC propose as defining for unique 

waste streams? 

Question II–1.2—What waste streams 

containing radionuclides listed in the 

waste classification tables at 10 CFR 

61.55 are currently, or possibly in the 

foreseeable future, being disposed of in 

quantities significantly greater than 

initially considered in the development 

of 10 CFR Part 61? 

Question II–1.3—What waste streams 

containing radionuclides that are not 

listed in the waste classification tables 

at 10 CFR 61.55 are currently, or 

possibly in the foreseeable future, being 

disposed of in concentrations or 

quantities significantly greater than 

initially considered in the development 

of 10 CFR Part 61? 

Question II–1.4—What waste streams 

that were not considered in the initial 

development of 10 CFR Part 61 should 

be considered under the definition of 

‘‘unique waste streams’’? 

Question II–1.5—Should the NRC 

consider waste streams that result from 

spent fuel reprocessing and are not 

high-level or greater-than-class C waste 

in the definition of ‘‘unique waste 

streams’’? 

Question II–1.6—Are there other 

characteristics besides concentration 

and quantity that NRC should consider 

when defining ‘‘unique waste streams’’? 

Issue II–2. Time Period of Performance 

While a period of 10,000 years was 

initially considered in NUREG–0782 

(1981), 10 CFR Part 61 does not specify 

a period to evaluate performance of a 

near-surface low-level radioactive 

disposal facility, in part due to the 

effects of site and waste characteristics 

on the timing of projected radiological 

doses. NRC continues to consider 

10,000 years a sufficient period, with 

some exceptions, to capture (i) the risk 

from the short-lived radionuclides, 

which comprise the bulk of the activity 

disposed; and (ii) the peak radiological 

doses from the more mobile long-lived 

radionuclides, which tend to bound the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2009 / Notices 30177 

potential radiological doses at time 

frames greater than 10,000 years (‘‘A 

Performance Assessment Methodology 

for Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Facilities’’, NUREG–1573, 

2000, ADAMS Accession No. 

ML003770778). Internationally, 

selection of a time frame for evaluation 

of facility performance has generally 

considered the hazard and longevity of 

the waste, the analysis framework (i.e., 

scenarios, receptors, and pathways), 

socioeconomic uncertainties, and 

uncertainty in extending models and 

data to times beyond those for which 

the underlying assumptions can be 

justified (‘‘Safety Assessment for Near 

Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste’’, 

Safety Standards Series No. WS–G–1.1, 

International Atomic Energy Agency, 

1999, available electronically at http:// 

www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/ 

PDF/Pub1075_web.pdf; ‘‘The Handling 

of Timescales in Assessing Post-closure 

Safety—Lessons Learnt from the April 

2002 Workshop in Paris, France’’, 

Organization for Economic Co-operation 

and Development Nuclear Energy 

Agency, 2004, available electronically at 

http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/reports/ 

2004/nea4435-timescales.pdf). As part 

of a planned rulemaking, NRC is 

soliciting stakeholder views regarding a 

time period to evaluate the performance 

of near-surface disposal of unique waste 

streams. 

Question II–2.1—Should the NRC (a) 

specify a single time period to evaluate 

the performance of facilities disposing 

of all unique waste streams in the nearsurface; (b) specify criteria requiring the 

consideration of how the hazard for 

each unique waste stream evolves over 

time; or (c) permit a licensee to justify 

a period of performance? 

Question II–2.2—If NRC were to 

specify a single time period for sitespecific analysis of facilities disposing 

of unique waste streams in the nearsurface, what would be an appropriate 

period? What factors should NRC 

consider in determining a single time 

period of performance? 

Question II–2.3—If NRC were to 

specify criteria requiring the 

consideration of how the hazard evolves 

over time for each unique waste stream, 

what factors should NRC consider in 

determining these criteria? 

Question II–2.4—If NRC were to 

permit a licensee to justify a time period 

of performance, what factors should 

NRC consider when evaluating a 

licensee’s justification? 

Question II–2.5—If NRC were to 

specify criteria requiring the 

consideration of how the hazard evolves 

over time, or permit a licensee to justify 

a time period of performance, should 

the NRC consider limiting the maximum 

extent of the time period considered? If 

so, what factors should NRC consider 

when specifying a maximum period of 

performance? 

Question II–2.6—What other 

approaches might NRC consider when 

specifying criteria for a period of 

performance for facilities disposing of 

unique waste streams in the nearsurface? 

Issue II–3. Exposure Scenarios for a SiteSpecific Analysis 

Disposal of radioactive waste in nearsurface disposal facilities has several 

performance objectives, specified at 10 

CFR Part 61, including protection of the 

general population from releases of 

radioactivity and protection of 

individuals from inadvertent intrusion. 

In developing the waste classification 

scheme in 10 CFR Part 61, NRC 

performed an analysis (NUREG–0782, 

1981; NUREG–0945, 1982) applying 

several assumptions with respect to 

exposure scenarios and potential 

receptors. Following the period of active 

institutional control, the member of the 

public was assumed to engage in 

residential, agricultural, or other 

activities at the boundary of the 100 

meter (330 feet) buffer zone surrounding 

the disposal area that circumscribes the 

disposal units. These assumed activities 

were consistent with regional practices 

current at the time of the analysis. 

Additionally, the analysis assumed that 

an inadvertent intruder engaged in 

activities on the disposal site rather than 

outside the buffer zone following the 

period of active institutional control. 

The inadvertent intruder exposure 

scenario assumed the exposure via 

either disruption of waste during the 

excavation and construction of a 

residence on the disposal site (i.e., 

intruder-construction) or occupation of 

a dwelling located on the disposal site 

and ingestion of food grown in 

contaminated soils (i.e., intruderagriculture) if the waste had degraded to 

an unrecognizable form. As part of a 

planned rulemaking NRC is considering 

whether to specify criteria or provide 

guidance for appropriate exposure 

scenarios for site-specific analyses 

associated with disposal of unique 

waste streams. 

Question II–3.1—Should NRC specify 

technical criteria for, or permit licensees 

to justify, site-specific exposure 

scenarios for demonstrating compliance 

with the performance objective 

protecting members of the public for 

unique waste streams? What factors 

should NRC consider in specifying 

technical criteria or reviewing licensee 

justifications for exposure scenarios 

associated with members of the public? 

Question II–3.2—Should NRC specify 

technical criteria for, or permit licensees 

to justify, site-specific exposure 

scenarios for demonstrating compliance 

with the performance objective 

protecting individuals from inadvertent 

intrusion for unique waste streams? 

What factors should NRC consider in 

specifying technical criteria, or 

reviewing licensee justifications, for 

inadvertent intruder exposure 

scenarios? 

III. Issues With Disposal of Significant 

Quantities of Depleted Uranium 

This section discusses major issues to 

be considered before commencing 

regulatory activities related to 

requirements for a site-specific analysis 

for near-surface land disposal of 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium, a unique waste stream. Each 

issue is assigned a number, a short title, 

and a list of questions and factors for 

consideration. These issues, questions, 

and factors are not meant to be a 

complete or final list, but are intended 

to initiate discussion. Interested 

stakeholders are welcome to 

recommend additions, deletions, or 

modifications to the key issues for 

consideration and propose 

implementation considerations. These 

issues and factors will serve as the basis 

for discussion at the public workshops. 

All public feedback will be used in 

developing implementation options for 

NRC consideration. 

Issue III–1. Definition of Significant 

Quantities 

The NRC plans to propose a 

rulemaking in 10 CFR Part 61 to specify 

a requirement for a site-specific analysis 

for the disposal of significant quantities 

of depleted uranium (SRM–SECY–08– 

0147, March 18, 2009). As part of this 

rulemaking, the NRC intends to define 

‘‘significant quantities’’ of depleted 

uranium in the regulation. Recently, the 

NRC performed an analysis that 

confirmed that small quantities of 

depleted uranium (approximately 1–10 

metric tons) may be disposed of at 

shallow depths and meet the 

performance objectives specified in 10 

CFR Part 61. This result is consistent 

with the conclusions of an earlier 

analysis that the types of uraniumbearing waste streams typically 

disposed of by NRC licensees in limited 

quantities do not present a significant 

hazard to warrant limitation on the 

concentration of this naturally occurring 

material (NUREG–0945, 1982). Because 

small quantities and lower 

concentrations of uranium were 

30178 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2009 / Notices 

previously evaluated and recently reaffirmed, the rulemaking will focus on 

ensuring additional disposal 

considerations are taken for depleted 

uranium based on the quantity and 

concentration of material at issue. 

Question III–1.1—Should NRC specify 

a lower quantity limit in the definition 

of ‘‘significant quantities’’ for nearsurface disposal? If so, what factors 

should NRC consider in setting an 

appropriate lower threshold for nearsurface disposal? 

Question III–1.2—Should NRC specify 

an upper quantity limit in the definition 

of ‘‘significant quantities’’? If so, what 

factors should NRC consider in setting 

an appropriate upper threshold for nearsurface disposal? 

Question III–1.3—Are there 

alternative methods NRC should 

consider when specifying criteria to 

define ‘‘significant quantities’’? 

Issue III–2. Time Period of Performance 

for a Site-Specific Analysis 

In addition to the issue described 

earlier in Section II for unique waste 

streams, generally, the following 

questions are provided to focus 

discussion on the disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium. 

Question III–2.1—If NRC were to 

specify a single time period for the sitespecific analysis of near-surface 

disposal of unique waste streams (see 

Question II.2.1), what factors associated 

with disposal of significant quantities of 

depleted uranium should NRC consider 

in determining a single time period of 

performance for unique waste streams, 

including significant quantities of 

depleted uranium? 

Question III–2.2—If NRC were to 

specify criteria requiring the 

consideration of hazards for each 

unique waste stream evolving over time 

(see Question II.2.1), what factors 

should NRC consider in determining 

these criteria for disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium? 

Question III–2.3—If NRC were to 

permit a licensee to justify a time period 

of performance (see Question II.2.1), 

what factors should NRC consider when 

evaluating a licensee’s justification for 

disposal of significant quantities of 

depleted uranium? 

Question III–2.4—If NRC were to 

specify criteria requiring the 

consideration of how the hazard evolves 

over time, or permit a licensee to justify 

a reasonable time period of performance 

(see Question II–2.1), should the NRC 

consider limiting the maximum extent 

of the time period considered for 

disposal of significant quantities of 

depleted uranium? If so, what factors 

should NRC consider when specifying a 

maximum period of performance? 

Question III–2.5—What other 

approaches might NRC consider when 

specifying criteria for a period of 

performance for near-surface disposal of 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium? 

Issue III–3. Exposure Scenario(s) for a 

Site-Specific Analysis 

In addition to the issue described 

earlier in Section II for unique waste 

streams, generally, the following 

questions are provided to focus 

discussion on the disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium. 

Question III–3.1—What factors 

specific to disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium should 

NRC consider in specifying criteria or 

reviewing a licensee’s justification for 

exposure scenarios for protection of 

members of the public? 

Question III–3.2—What factors 

specific to disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium should 

NRC consider in specifying criteria or 

reviewing a licensee’s justification for 

exposure scenarios for the protection of 

individuals from inadvertent intrusion? 

Issue III–4. Source Term Issues for a 

Site-Specific Analysis 

Depleted uranium can have a variety 

of chemical and physical forms which 

are dependent on enrichment and 

deconversion processing. For instance, 

depleted uranium is commonly stored 

as a hexafluoride gas byproduct 

material. Depleted uranium 

hexafluoride gas may also be 

deconverted to an oxide form. Recently, 

the NRC performed a screening analysis 

(SECY–08–0147, October 7, 2008) that 

confirmed that small quantities of 

depleted uranium (approximately 1–10 

metric tons) may be disposed of at 

shallow depths and meet the 

performance objectives specified in 10 

CFR 61. This screening analysis 

assumed that depleted uranium would 

be disposed of in an oxide form 

following deconversion. NRC is seeking 

stakeholder views on modeling source 

terms in a site-specific analysis for nearsurface disposal of significant quantities 

of depleted uranium. 

Question III–4.1—Should NRC specify 

or permit licensees to propose physical 

or chemical forms (e.g., UF6, U3O8, 

metal) for disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium? If so, 

what factors should NRC consider in 

specifying criteria for or developing 

guidance to review an analysis of 

physical or chemical forms? 

Question III–4.2—Should NRC specify 

criteria for, or permit licensees to 

justify, stabilizing admixtures (e.g., 

grout) for disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium? If so, 

what factors should NRC consider in 

specifying criteria for, or developing 

guidance to review, an analysis of 

admixtures? 

Question III–4.3—What other factors 

should NRC consider when specifying 

criteria, or developing technical 

guidance, regarding waste forms for 

disposal of significant quantities of 

depleted uranium in near-surface 

facilities? 

Question III–4.4—Should NRC require 

a site-specific analysis to capture 

previously disposed quantities of 

depleted uranium? If so, what factors 

should NRC consider when specifying 

criteria, or developing technical 

guidance, regarding previously disposed 

quantities of depleted uranium? 

Issue III–5. Modeling of Uranium 

Geochemistry in a Site-Specific Analysis 

The NRC plans to propose a 

rulemaking in 10 CFR Part 61 to specify 

a requirement for a site-specific analysis 

for the disposal of significant quantities 

of depleted uranium. Recently, the NRC 

performed a screening analysis (SECY– 

08–0147, October 7, 2008) that 

confirmed that small quantities of 

depleted uranium (approximately 1–10 

metric tons) may be disposed of at 

shallow depths and meet the 

performance objectives specified in 10 

CFR Part 61. The results of this analysis 

noted the dependence of disposal 

facility performance on site-specific 

geochemical conditions. Geochemical 

conditions were represented in the 

screening analysis as epistemic 

uncertainty over a broad range of 

disposal sites and conditions. In reality, 

many of these parameters may be 

constrained at a particular disposal 

facility. 

Question III–5.1—Should NRC specify 

regulatory criteria for, or permit 

licensees to justify, site-specific 

geochemical parameters for the analysis 

of disposal of significant quantities of 

depleted uranium? 

Question III–5.2—If NRC should 

specify regulatory criteria, then what 

factors should NRC consider in 

developing criteria for geochemical 

parameters for a site-specific analysis 

for disposal of significant quantities of 

depleted uranium? 

Question III–5.3—If NRC should 

permit licensees to justify site-specific 

geochemical parameters, then what 

factors should NRC consider when 

reviewing a licensee’s justification? 

Question III–5.4—What new or 

alternative approaches should NRC 

consider regarding the incorporation of 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2009 / Notices 30179 

1Notice of Establishment of Rates and Class Not 

of General Applicability (Priority Mail Contract 11), 

June 11, 2009 (Notice). 

geochemical parameters in a sitespecific analysis for disposal of 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium? 

Issue III–6. Modeling of Radon in the 

Environment in a Site-Specific Analysis 

Over time, the uranium isotopes 

comprising depleted uranium decay to 

multiple progeny radionuclides. Many 

of these progeny radionuclides are 

different elements, and differ from 

depleted uranium in their radiotoxicity 

and mobility in the environment. 

Among the progeny radionuclides 

exhibiting these differing 

characteristics, radon-222 is of 

particular interest because it exists as a 

gas under typical environmental 

conditions and presents a unique 

challenge to evaluate in a site-specific 

analysis of the performance of a nearsurface, low-level radioactive waste 

disposal facility. Analyzing the mobility 

of radon-222 in the environment 

involves demonstrating a reasonable 

understanding of the emanation of the 

radon gas from the depleted uranium 

solids, and migration to the surface of 

the disposal facility. Additionally, NRC 

anticipates that radon migration may 

require policy considerations of societal 

uncertainties in developing appropriate 

exposure scenarios. 

Question III–6.1—What new 

approaches for modeling radon 

emanation, migration, and exposure 

pathways, including the effects of 

differences in the physical and chemical 

properties between radon and its 

progeny, should NRC consider? 

Question III–6.2—Should NRC require 

licensees to evaluate the effects of radon 

in a site-specific analysis for disposal of 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium in near-surface facilities? 

Question III–6.3—Should NRC specify 

by regulation, or develop guidance on, 

the technical parameters for evaluating 

radon emanation, migration, and 

exposure in a site-specific analysis of 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium? 

Question III–6.4—If NRC should 

specify by regulation the technical 

parameters for evaluating radon 

emanation, migration, and exposure, 

what factors should NRC consider in 

specifying technical parameters for a 

site-specific analysis for significant 

quantities of depleted uranium? 

Question III–6.5—If NRC should 

develop guidance on the technical 

parameters for evaluating radon 

emanation, migration, and exposures to 

accompany regulatory criteria, then 

what factors should NRC consider in the 

development of guidance for evaluating 

technical parameters for a site-specific 

analysis for disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium? 

Question III–6.6—What societal 

uncertainties should NRC consider 

when developing guidance for scenarios 

of exposure to radon gas released from 

the disposal of significant quantities of 

depleted uranium? 

Question III–6.7—What alternative 

methods should NRC consider when 

developing guidance on evaluating the 

impacts of radon gas exposures? For 

instance, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency standards at 40 CFR Part 192 for 

the control of residual radioactive 

materials from inactive uranium mill 

tailings sites specify that releases of 

radon-222 to the atmosphere will not 

exceed an average release rate of 20 

picoCuries per square meter per second 

or increase the annual average 

concentration of radon–222 in air at or 

above any location outside the disposal 

site by more than 0.5 picoCuries per 

liter. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day 

of June, 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Patrice M. Bubar, 

Deputy Director, Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management, and 

Environmental Protection Office of Federal 

and State Materials, and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–14820 Filed 6–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CP2009–37; Order No. 222] 

Priority Mail Contract 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request to 

add an additional Priority Mail contract 

to the Competitive Product List. This 

notice addresses procedural steps 

associated with this filing. 

DATES: Comments are due June 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 and 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 11, 2009, the Postal Service 

filed a notice, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5, 

announcing that it has entered into an 

additional contract (Priority Mail 

Contract 11), which it contends fits 

within the previously proposed Priority 

Mail Contract Group product.1 In 

support, the Postal Service filed the 

proposed contract and referenced 

Governors’ Decision 09–6 filed in 

Docket No. MC2009–25. Id. at 1. 

The Notice states that the ‘‘contract 

differs from the contract filed as Priority 

Mail Contract 6 only in regards to 

negotiated prices and a difference in 

termination provisions.’’ Id. at 2. In 

addition, it states that the contract is 

scheduled to become effective the day 

that the Commission issues all 

necessary regulatory approval. Id. at 1. 

The instant contract. The Postal 

Service filed the instant contract 

pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 

CFR 3015.5. It submitted the contract 

and supporting material under seal and 

attached a redacted copy of the contract 

and certified statement required by 39 

CFR 3015.5(c)(2) to the Notice. Id., 

Attachments A and B respectively. 

The Postal Service maintains that the 

contract and related financial 

information, including the customer’s 

name and the accompanying analyses 

that provide prices, terms, conditions, 

and financial projections should remain 

under seal. Id. at 2. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2009–37 for consideration of the 

matters related to the contract identified 

in the Postal Service’s Notice. 

The Notice does not expressly use the 

term functionally equivalent to describe 

proposed Priority Mail Contract 11. 

Instead, it appears to implicitly make 

that claim by distinguishing the instant 

contract from Priority Mail Contract 6, 

filed in Docket No. CP2009–30 as part 

of the proposed Priority Mail Contract 

Group. Id. at 2. As the Postal Service 

recognizes, the scope of the Priority 

Mail Contract Group product is 

currently pending before the 

Commission. To that end, it 

acknowledges that the Commission’s 

decision in Docket No. MC2009–25 may 

have an impact on the sufficiency of the 

Postal Service’s filings in this case. Id. 

at 1, n.1. Depending on the outcome of 

Docket No. MC2009–25, the Postal 

Service may need to file additional 

support as required in 39 CFR 3020 

subpart B. Such filings, if any, shall be 

due within three days of the 

Commission’s order in Docket No.