ML20034G655
| ML20034G655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034G653 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 PROC-930228, NUDOCS 9303100329 | |
| Download: ML20034G655 (53) | |
Text
'
)
i l
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. 20555 l
LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN I
l i
1 Prepared by:
Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning February 1993 9303100329 930225 PDR WASTE WPf-3 PDR
i LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN l
TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae Subject..........................,,,
1 l
Purpose.................................
1
Background
1 Brief History of LLW Disposal...................
1 Congressional Action 3
Take-Title Provision of the LLRWPAA................
4 Status of Currently Operating LLW Disposal Facilities.......
4 Status of Compacts and New LLW Disposal Facility Development 5
LLW Disposal Summary 8
i 3
Agreement State Program......................
9 Emergency Access 10 Discussion 11 i
Scope...............................
11 l
Goal and Objectives........................
12 Assumptions............................
13 Capabilities 15 Planned Actions.............................
15 A.
LLW REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT 16 A.1 LLW Regul ations....................
16 A.I.1 Summary of Existing Regulations.........
16 r
A.l.2 Revisions to Regulations 16 A.I.3 Strategies and Options that Would Encourage the States to Move Forward with LLW Disposal Facility Development 23 A.I.4 Support to the Office of the General Counsel 24 A.2 LLW Program Guidance 4
25 J
A.2.1 Summary of Existing Guidance 25 A.2.2 SF&C and SRP Revisions 26 A.2.3 Performance Assessment 27 A.2.4 Waste Form Guidance...............
28 ~
A.2.5 Mixed Waste Guidance 29 A.2.6 Additional Storage Guidance...........
30 i
A.3 LLW Licensing Support.................
32 A.3.1 Topical Report Reviews 32 A.3.2 Waste Tracking 33 A.3.3 Technical Assistance to Office of State Programs (OSP)......................
34 A.3.4 Agreement State Program Reviews.........
34 A.3.5 Public Participation 35 B.
PRELICENSING CONSULTATIONS AND LICENSE REVIEWS 37 B.1 Prelicensing Consultations 37 B.2 License Application Reviews..............
38 11
B.3 Support for Existing Sites 38 i
B.3.1 SNM License Renewal / Amendments / Maintenance 38 i
B.3.2 Site Closure Reviews 39 i
B.4 Other Licensing Reviews................
39 B.4.1 On-Site Disposal 39 B.4.2 Emergency Access 39 C.
LLW INSPECTION PROGRAM 40 C.1 Inspection Procedures.................
40 C.2 LLW Inspections.....................
42 C.3 National Program Reviews (NPRs) 42 l
D.
RESEARCH PROGRAM'.......................
42 E.
INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER AGENCIES 43 F.
EMERGING ISSUES........................
43 Resources................................
44 FIGURES i
1.
Management Plan Organization...................
2 2.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Status...........
6 a
3.
Pl anni ng Proces s........................ 45 j
.i TABLES I.
Actual and Estimated Dates for Completing Steps in LLW j
Disposal Facility Development 7
2.
Summary of Radioactive Waste' Received by Commercial Disposal Sites in 1991.....................
9 3.
LLW Storage Guidance...................... 30 l
4.
LLW' Inspection Procedures 40 5.
LLWM Program Management Plan Resource Estimate......... 46 APPENDICES A.
Summary of Pl anned Actions...................
48 B.
Acronyms.............................
50 1
iii i
Subject:
Low-Level Waste Management Program Management Plan Puroose:
It is essential that a comprehensive regulatory program be developed and implemented to ensure the safe management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program Management Plan provides the rationale for the program's long-term (5 years) activities and describes planned accomplishments of those activities in relation to the program's goals and objectives.
The plan's organization is shown in Figure 1.
The plan will serve as the technical and programmatic basis for future budget submissions and the basis for managers to develop and implement plans for accomplishing the planned activities. The plan will also provide a structured approach for management and staff to assess the resource and program impacts of events and changes in State and industry act.ivities, such as delays in applications for new disposal facilities, increase in interaction with the public on LLW issues, and delays in special disposal facilities for mixed waste and greater than Class C wastes (GTCC). This plan describes the program's goals, objectives, scope, and activities designed to execute the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's responsibilities in this area.
Backaround:
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the NRC has the responsibility of regulating and licensing the comercial and non-defense uses of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material.
This responsibility extends to licensing commercial disposal of LLW.
LLW is radioactive waste not classified as high-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material as defined in section 11e.(2) of the AEA (i.e., uranium and thorium mill tailings and waste).
Presently NRC and Agreement States license more than 24,000 companies, institutions, laboratories, and government facilities to use radioactive materials as a normal part of their day-to-day activities.
Some of these users generate some form of LLW that must be disposed of gs a result of these activities. Approximately 1,400,000 ft of commercial LLW was disposed of in 1991.
Brief History of LLW Disposal With the growth of commercial applications of nuclear technologies, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (becoming the Department of Energy (DOE) and NRC in 1974) announced in 1960 that regional land disposal sites for commercially generated LLW should be established and that the sites would be operated by the private sector, subject to government licensing authority. At the same time, the AEC began a phase-out of sea disposal operations.
In 1961, the AEC established a regulatory program for licensing the commercial oper; tion of land burial sites for the disposal
LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM l
MANAGEMENT PLAN ORGANIZATION l
LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM l
I REGULATION PRELICENSING COORDINATION C
AND CONSULTATIONS WITH INSPECTIONS yV TH O HE GUIDANCE AND LICENSE RESEARCH AGENCIES DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS PROGRAM
~
REGULATIONS PRELICENSING INSPECTION CONSULTATIONS PROCEDJRESJ GUIDANCE LICENSE NA';ONAL APPLICATION PRUGRAM REVIEWS REVi MS LICENSING SUPPORT FOR
~
SUPPORT EXISTING SITES OTHER LICENSING REVIEWS FIGURE 1 m -
m
- m--
i-**++
i a
of LLW.
In September 1962, the AEC licensed the first commercial land burial site at Beatty, Nevada. During the j
]
period 1962-1971, five additional commercial sites were i
licensed, resulting in a regional distribution of commercial LLW disposal facilities. Three of the facilities have since closed. The other three facilities, located in Beatty, Nevada; Barnwell, South Carolina; and Richland, Washington, l
have been operating successfully and have disposed of most commercial LLW generated in the United States since 1978.
The Beatty, Nevada facility stopped receiving LLW on
)
December 31, 1992.
In 1979, as a result of a series of packaging and i
transportation incidents, the States of Nevada and Washington ordered temporary shutdowns at their facilities.
Faced with the prospect of becoming the sole disposal facility for the nation's LLW, the State of South Carolina ordered a 50 percent reduction in LLW accepted at its facility. Finally, faced with growing public opposition to continued acceptance of.LLW from other States, all three sited States announced plans to implement permanent shutdowns. Although the U.S. Congress (Congress) initially considered constructing LLW disposal facilities on Federal i
land, pressure from the States led it to abandon this approach in favor of a State-oriented solution. A task force headed by seven Governors, working under the auspices of the National Governor's Association (NGA), proposed a State solution to the LLW disposal problem. The NGA presented this proposal to Congress with the unanimous support of its members.
i Conaressional Action The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA)
(Pub. L.96-573) incorporated the States' principal recommendations, making the States responsible for the disposal of commercially generated and certain Federally l
generated LLW. The LLRWPA encouraged the States to form compacts to dispose of LLW on a regional basis. The LLRWPA also designated January 1, 1986, as the date after which compacts could restrict the use of their disposal facilities to waste generated outside the compact region.
However, by 1983, it had become clear that no new disposal facilities would be operational by the 1986 milestone. As a result, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240) was passed.
The LLRWPAA established a series of milestones, penalties, and incentives to ensure that regional compacts and States make adequate progress toward being able to manage their LLW by 1993. Among other provisions, the LLRWPAA requires the sited States of Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington to 3
,?
make disposal capacity available to LLW generators until December 31, 1992, subject to the States and compacts meeting the other milestones of the LLRWPAA, the sites remaining operational, and received waste being within site-specific volume limitations.
The LLRWPAA also assigns NRC and DOE responsibilities for implementing the act. NRC's responsibilities are addressed in the " Discussion" section of this plan. DOE is
)
responsible for disposing of GTCC waste, managing the j
collection and distribution of LLW disposal surcharges i
mandated by the act, providing specific financial.and technical assistance to compacts and States, and generating i
required reports.
Take-Title Provision of the LLRWPAA i
Section 5(d)(2)(C) of the LLRWPAA provides that if a State or compact cannot provide for disposal of its LLW after January 1, 1993, generators can request the State to take_
title to, and possession of, the generated waste. The State also becomes liable for damages'as a consequence of failure to take possession of the waste.
In 1993, States may avoid-taking title and possession of the waste and assuming liability, but will forfeit the surcharge rebates i
established by the LLRWPAA. However, after the final deadline of January'1,1996, the States, upon request by the generator or owner, shall take title to, and be obligated to take possession of, the waste. Also, a State will be liable
- for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by the generator or owner, if it fails to take possession as soon after January 1,1996, as the generator or owner notifies the State that the waste is available for shipment (the "take-title" provision).
In June 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) issued its decision, in a lawsuit brought by the State of New York, challenging the constitutionality of the LLRWPAA, especially the take-title provision. The Supreme Court decided that the take-title provision of the LLRWPAA, which was to take effect on January 1, 1996, is unconstitutional, but severable from the remainder of the act. The Court upheld the remainder of the LLRWPAA including the other incentives for States to assume responsibility for low-level radioactive waste generated within their borders.
Status of Currently Operatina LLW Disposal Facilities The facility in Beatty, Nevada stopped accepting LLW on December 31, 1992. Although originally scheduled to close on that date as well, the South Carolina legislature has authorized the LLW disposal facility at Barnwell, South 4
e
Carolina to remain open until January 1, 1996, subject to various conditions.
However, under both State law and a Southeast Compact Commission agreement, the Barnwell facility will close permanently to out-of-region waste on July 1, 1994 The facility will accept out-of-region waste prior to that date if the importation of such waste is approved by the Southeast Compact Commission. The Southeast Compact Commission has stated that compact regions and unaffiliated States that had access to the Barnwell facility on December 31, 1992, pursuant to their status of compliance with the LLRWPAA, are eligible to contract with the Southeast Compact Commission for access to the facility, for generators in their respective regions or States.
Currently, this means that the States of Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico will be denied access.
Although the facility in Richland, Washington will remain open indefinitely, it ceased accepting LLW from other than the Northwest and Rocky Mountain Compacts effective January 1,1993.
Status of Compacts and New LlW Disposal Facility Development Forty-two States have formed 9 compacts.
Seven compacts (31 States) plan to develop eight disposal facilities, and two compacts (11 States) will be served by the existing facility in Richland, Washington.
In addition, five States not affiliated with compacts (unaffiliated States) intend to develop their own disposal facilities. Two States - New Hampshire and Rhode Island -and the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are not planning to develop an LLW disposal facility and are at various stages of securing access for disposal of their waste. The remaining State - Michigan -
was expelled from the Midwest Compact on July 24, 1991, and has not announced plans to manage or dispose of its LLW.
The LLW compact status is shown on Figure 2.
The status of new LLW disposal facility development follows.
5
'Il
]
l 1
~
~
~
st e o e s d
s e
e tmh b
t n
H n
C a
d Ss ot We a
a dde t
S N,
e endW d
gt Ss b
n n a nR ty y
nnne s
a W
ra e s
o o' gt a abnl T pp Weoh" nS S m
m WWSBiWbn See Rny" s d bb aa s
a s
y r e o
Aas l mb ua C x
a ed eh N ri ETT nt e tax y
P t
SSS t a t
CC od n d
f S
WN Ddd mea e
SnWb ta t
e WWL %
Rnn e
se n
eN m m Wn TssL n t
Ln U
RLLW1 t
aas pe a
oal l ann O JJa%ee*
N erb Sh a a S
Ll s
At r
T aS At dnm R
laan a
NNNS9Dd3 I tal t
)s f
en nodh e
n o
oos nt HS nL Eedbod P
A Ssa s
s oS HmteaV e
s ams Ctsi EtS o aNe m s t c
L NG Uos%A Q
th T
A o a V, T
aNG e
et e T 0NN%N g
A I h
S A1 D%
Ai%
O E
s A OCC1M T( %%1 da MR SW73<1%n ato PA8M S*N2E S
r e
T h.~
PP1E c
DRee eP,i s
r e
l D
A*.*
f u
e f
C a
e n
n El ts s oM o
T a
C S
nt st CW t
A Aa s
st I
ahhhos D, L
\\
g N I ss oo o L
L y
L P
T y
9 F
his H
FNoo o to H, a N g
5 e
t t S
o A
ta M A 6 N MMVNM t
\\
F%YAETH1 s
E Wl d o e G
S d
%DDeCWsLde
~
t e
eL n n N1 O
U**
A nl md o n s
a a P
e n
C MtSnl en N
g hWa I
soisme n T
s b
Lot mda aM E
AhNpe a
b aW o
S dl T
R i. % e b B n
/- M Le Na8DtoS Adon S, e
T t
d RsohV S3 a
9 S
E***
Te aG t
9 C
NsNA A1 t
E%M 2
s H
A E
WY hW IL A
L o
N C*4E E
R s
A aR z
R EU dl d U
e ae VN T dnn WI K
G on S
O A
Sn teb I
Ee a
o E
I x
I O M
l y
N F
TJ WsN e
A B
N d
C DH%t e
A M*8S
}
W s
7 c
m o
nR p
_l e
O s
slaB t
g w
E ts nL t
I Shso e S, e
t D
J Ao aC e
O X tN C f
A e
W C
g Ex%G b
R mR g
T T4B u
e c
Tas T
y n
lt Se u
L S t n M
w d
o as h
vr Eso e
d et E
Wha N
p e
oic m
m ds V
V isN I
N A d o 4
r a I
u ar ni E
A %S U
T HW1 0
N pmC W gc e
1 0t onL e e L
N*.s O
U mwl L
=
vt 1
o el oe O Cwsn a 1
br W
u n 9
a nc g
M duo o 9 ldo Z
sM u w
R A
Y e
1 a ec e
O O
K utyN o ndJ s
r h e& %
f u nw C
t m ebus L
O omo1
- rnmr r
. ndoso R N eR <
N a
Ala g
s h
A R W a
wt w
\\
C E
- s. L g
r Wloao D
T mL l
,Ra=b a
l Ee a.
.sI Wol i
SSi s
Et n r
h
- H o
wl sV=
s e
h, e
- u. n = G C f
s o
i tin e
AC 2dBetMG a
U a %t O c. 7 S cNSEB S
e
- toN n
c
l l
l l
Table 1 Actual and Estimated Dates for Completing Steps in LLW Disposal Facility Development Submit Select License Operate Compact / Host State Site Apolication Facility Appalachian /PA Late 1994 Late 1994 Mid-1997 Central /NE Dec 1989 Jul 1990 Unscheduled Central Midwest /IL Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled Midwest /0H Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled 1
Northeast /CT &
Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled NJ 1994 Mid-1995 Late 1997 l
Southeast /NC End 1993 Dec 1993 Jan 1996 Southwest /CA Mar 1988 Dec 1989 Jul 1994 l
Unaffiliated States Maine 1993 Jan 1994 End 1996 Massachusetts Jun 1994 Nov 1994 Late 1996 i
New York Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled Texas Aug 1991 Mar 1992 Jun 1996 Vermont Feb 1994 Oct 1997 Aug 1999 Notes:
1.
The following States do not have a site under development - District of Columbia, Michigan, New Hampshire, l
Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island.
2.
Scheduled dates have been supplied by the States.
On October 9, 1992, the Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Siting Commission (Siting Commission) voted unanimously to reject the LLW disposal site proposed 3
by the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS).
The Siting Commission found that the site, with a facility of the proposed design, does not meet all the criteria set forth in Illinois law.
In support of this decision, the Governor directed the IDNS to stop all efforts to locate a facility at the selected site. A license application had been submitted in May 1991. This application had been found to be complete, for review purposes, in December 1991. The facility had been scheduled for operation early in 1995.
On December 8, 1992, the Boyd County Local Monitoring Committee sponsored a straw poll of county residents to measure the level of public acceptance of the Boyd County site in Nebraska. Over 90 percent of those voting in the election opposed the construction of the facility. After the poll results were announced, Governor Nelson stated that he intends to seek a court ruling on whether the vote allows 7
)
i t
Nebraska to stop the siting process.
In a letter to the Central' Interstate LLW Compact Commissioners, dated December 23, 1992, Governor Nelson requested the Commissioners to withdraw Boyd County from consideration.
If the site is not withdrawn from consideration by January 8,1993, Governor Nelson stated that he would request the i
Nebraska Attorney General to take the matter to court to l
determine if there are. legal avenues that would allow the l
State to preveat siting of the facility in Boyd County. The Nebraska Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
l District Court, on January 13, 1993, when the Central Compact Commission refused to withdraw the site. On January 22, 1993, the prospective licensee was notified, by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and the Nebraska Department of Health, that-its license application may be denied because of the presence of wetlands on the proposed site.
The experience, to date, of all compacts and States, is that schedules or target dates have slipped, at all pnases of development of the sites, for facilities, because of technical reasons, litigation, and public and political concern. Consequently all future dates should not be viewed with a high degree of confidence, but, rather, as the best estimates that are currently available.
LLW Disposal Summary LLW is generated by nuclear power plants and related industries, hospitals, medical and educational research institutions, private and governmental laboratories, and other commercial activities that use radioactive materials as a part pf their normal operations. Approximately 1.4 million ft of LLW was disposed of. in 1991. A regional summarv follows.
8
~
t j
e Table 2 I
Summary of Radioactive Waste Received by Commercial Disposal Sites in 1991 Percent of l
Number Totg)l National i
Compact of States (ft Total Appalachian 4
244,934 17.9 Central 5
56,733 4.1 Central Midwest 2
104,297 7.6 Midwest 6
112,682 8.2 Northeast 2
106,332 7.8 Northwest 7
137,934 10.1 l
Rocky Mountain 4
4,783 0.3 Southeast 8
?85,764 20.9 Southwestern 4
100,602 7.3 j
i Total 42 1,154,061 84.2 Percent of Totg)l National State (ft Total District of Columbia 1,206 0.1 Maine 9,457 0.7 Massachusetts 34,275 2.5 Michigan 0
0.0 New Hampshire 244
<0.1 New York 99,310 7.3 Puerto Rico 0
0.0 Rhode Island 361
<0.1 Texas 53,162 3.9 Vermont 17,138 1.3
{
Total 215,153 15.8 (Source:
- Report to Congress in Response to Pelic Law 99 240. 1991 Amuel Report on Low-Level Radioactive Weste Manopement Progress", U.S. Departme,4t of Energy (DGE), Of fice of Environmental Restoration and Weste Management, DOE /EM-0091P, November 1992)
Aareement State Procram In discharging its responsibilities, the AEA empowers NRC to relinquish part of its regulatory authority, over source, byproduct, and special nuclear material (SNM), to the States. Under Section 274 of the AEA, before NRC enters into such an agreement, the State must have a radiation control program that is compatible with NRC's, and NRC must 9
l
(
Judge the State's program as adequate to protect the public
)
health and safety. Current NRC regulations, regarding NRC's i
relationship with Agreement States, are contained in 10 CFR Part 150.
Presently there are 29 Agreement States. Four additional States plan to become Agreement States.
The licensing of commercial LLW disposal facilities is part of NRC's authority that may be assumed by an Agreement State. Although the State of Meine is an Agreement State, l
NRC retains LLW disposal facility licensing responsibility, in this State. The two currently operating LLW disposal l
facilit hs are located in Agreement States and are principally regulated by the respective State. NRC t
separately licenses the SNM disposal at the Barnwell and Richland facilities.
i Emeraency Acces.s I
The LLRWPAA u ntains an emergency access provision (Section l
- 6) by which, "Any generator of low-level radioactive vaste, or any Governor... may request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grant emergency access to a regional disposal facility... for specific low-level radioactive waste." As a precondition to requesting an emergency access determination from NRC, however, a LLW generator or governor must be denied access to all existing LLW disposal facilities. Congressional concern that a serious and immediate threat to the public health and safety could result from denial of access to a LLW disposal facility led to inclusion of the emergency access provision. Under milestones of the LLRWPAA, States with currently operating LLW disposal sites are permitted to deny access to their l
facilities, beginning January 1, 1993.
1
)
On February 3, 1989, NRC published an emergency access rule (10 CFR Part 62; that defines the criteria and procedures used for emergency access to non-Federal and regional LLW disposal facilities. Concerned that licensees and State Governors recognize the strict requirements governing implementation of the emergency access provision, the staff published NRC Information Notice 91-65, " Emergency Access to Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities," on October 16, 1991. The staff emphasized that emergency access is to be used only under very limited and rare circumstances.
Instances where such action is necessary to eliminate a serious and immediate threat to the public health and safety, or to the common defense and security, and where there are no other alternatives available than emergency access, would be unlikely.
10
Discussion:
This plan has been developed to ensure the effective and efficient discharge of NRC responsibilities under the AEA, the LLRWPA, and the LLRWPAA. NRC responsibilities associated with the LLW include:
Develop and maintain the regulatory framework necessary to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment in management and disposal of LLW.
Enforce associated regulations.
Coordinate and consult with other Federal and State agencies and the public on protection of the public health and safety and the environment associated with LLW.
Perform safety and environmental evaluations, of license applications and prelicensing documents for 4
LLW disposal, that will include site suitability; 1
facility design, construction, and operation; waste form packaging and stability; facility closure; and verification of acceptable performance.
Develop regulatory guidance and technical positions to address difficult licensing issues.
Provide technical assistance to Agreement States and I
compacts.
Ensure that interim storage is conducted safely and that regulatory requirements and guidance for storage do not encourage storage over disposal.
Inspect and assess LLW generators and existing and new LLW disposal facilities.
Identify and conduct research to investigate technical and regulatory issues, promising technical developments, and confirm the safety of the regulatory program.
Scope This plan encompasses NRC public health and safety, and environmental activities related to the safe management and disposal of LLW, the licensing and inspection of LLW disposal facilities, and associated prelicensing activities.
The program, designed to execute these responsibilities and achieve the program's goals and objectives, consists of the following five major elements, each of which is discussed 11
under " Planned Actions."
LLW Regulation and Guidance Development LLW Facility Prelicensing Consultations and License Reviews LLW Inspections LLW Research Program Coordination with Other Agencies This plan's focus is on developing and implementing a regulatory framework for disposal of LLW. The plan also recognizes that States are having difficulty siting and licensing new disposal facilities and that storage of LLW will likely be increasingly relied upon, for the management of LLW. The plan recognizes that the future may be different from what is planned and has a means for
)
redirecting our efforts in response to the national program.
Goal and Ob.iectives The goal of NRC's LLW Management Program is:
Provide adequate protection of public health and safety, the environment, and the common defense and l
security in the management of LLW, in conformance with the AEA, LLRWPAA, and other applicable legislation.
This goal will be fulfilled by achieving the following program objectives.
Establish and implement a regulatory program that is consistent with national priorities and encourages permanent disposal, rather than long-term storage.
1 Assess program impacts of changes in related activities and evolving issues, such as delays in applications for new disposal facilities, increased i
reliance on storage, increased public interaction, and delays in special disposal facilities for mixed and GTCC wastes.
Involve and inform the public to enhance confidence in the LLW regulatory program.
Provide active leadership and technical assistance to the States and compacts to:
Facilitate the timely development and 12
construction of safe LLW disposal facilities Address LLW storage issues faced by the States.
l Strengthen and maintain the staff's safety and environmental evaluation capability to review an LLW disposal facility license application.
Develop an inspection program that systematically inspects the waste handling and disposal activities of generators and facility operators.
Develop common approaches and acceptable models for evaluating risks, by working closely with DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Remain responsive and flexible to technological change and regulatory and international experience.
Assumotions The LLRWPAA will remain in effect and will not be amended or be subject to further challenges during the planning period.
l Some States will continue their efforts to develop regional LLW disposal facilities.
i An increased reliance on interim storage, until new j
disposal facilities are operational, will require increased attention to technical and regulatory issues ociated with LLW storage.
. sere will continue to be overlapping responsibilities ind interest in the nation's LLW management program.
hw will be required to coordinate certain activities with 00E, EPA, Agreement and non-Agreement States, and waste generators.
EPA will promulgate LLW standards. However, these standards will.not apply to NRC-and Agreement State-licensed disposal facilities.
The number of Agreement States will likely increase by two, during the planning period. NRC will work closely with the States to ensure effective transfer of regulatory authority.
The licensing work load for the planning period will increase significantly.
Seven non-Agreement States (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Vermont) could submit license 13 1
~
applications for LLW disposal facilities during the planning period. However, staff assumes that no more than one license request will be received from non-Agreement States, during the planning period, because some States will select alternative methods for disposal, such as contracting with other States, compacting, or requesting licensing authority as Agreement States, and anticipated slips in States' schedules.
LLWM will be responsible for establishing and communicating specific NRC policies as they relate to storage of LLW.
In coordination with the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety (IMNS), the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), and OSP, LLWM will be responsible for developing information notices and guidance directives that relate to NRC broad LLW storage and disposal policies.
There will not be a need to issue NRC SNM licenses in those Agreement States developing new LLW disposal facilities.
Any change in NRC compatibility policy will not significantly affect the LLW management program.
Requests for LLW disposal guidance and training from States and compacts may increase during the planning period.
NRC will not regulate naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material (other than source material and uranium and thorium mill tailings) during the period covered by this plan.
NRC will have no regulatory responsibility for DOE disposal of LLW.
Although permitted by regulation, staff is not expecting an application for a GTCC waste disposal facility during this planning period. DOE will prepare for, and begin operation of, a centralized storage facility or regional storage facilities for commercial GTCC wastes, in 1997.
Technologies proposed in LLW disposal license applications reviewed by NRC will be those addressed in the Standard Format and Content (SF&C) Guide and the Standard Review Plan. (SRP).
NRC, itself, will not develop or maintain a national database for LLW.
14
Efforts to harmonize risk assessment and objectives throughout the Federal government will continue throughout the planning period.
DOE will reach a decision, within the planning period, to accept commercially generated mixed waste.
)
The need for public participation will increase, during the planning period, in response to siting and licensing activities.
Capabilities Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning (LLWM technical staff have expertise in many diverse areas)(i.e.,
geology, hydrology, surface water hydrology, nuclear engineering, materials engineering, soils engineering, structural engineering, health physics, geochemistry, performance assessment, environmental engineering, quality assurance, financial assuranco, and licensing project management). This core technical ability is augmented, as necessary, with staff support from RES, IMNS and the Division of High-Level Waste Management, and with contracts with private firms and DOE laboratories.
LLWM staff has the primary responsibility for licensing LLW disposal facilities under 10 CFR Part 61. NUREG-1274,
" Review Process for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal License Application under Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act," identifies the resources, personnel, and disciplines needed to evaluate a license application and defines the stages necessary to complete the review in the 15-month period mandated by the LLRWPAA.
It is currently estimated that a review will require approximately 8 staff-years (exclusive of hearing support), encompassing approximately 22 technical disciplines. Contractor support in many of these disciplines will be required to augment staff capabilities. However, even with this level of effort, it will be difficult to complete the review in 15 months.
Planned Actions: This section includes detailed descriptions of the activities that will be accomplished during the planning period for each of the five program elements: (1) LLW Regulations and Guidance Development; (2) LLW Facility Prelicensing Consultation and License Reviews; (3) LLW Inspections; (4) LLW Research Program; and (5) Coordination with Other Agencies. These activities, which are based on the previously stated assumptions, are designed to achieve the LLW Management Program goal and objectives. Appendix A provides a summary of the actions.
15
~
A.
LLW REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT A.1 LLW Reaulations A.I.I Summary of Existino Reaulations Part 20 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reaulations (10 CFR Part 20) contains NRC's general requirements and procedures for the disposal of licensed material. Sections t
301 through 306 of Part 20 (sections 2001 through 2005 of the new Part 20) address general radiation protection requirements, disposal approval procedures, disposal by release into sanitary sewer systems, disposal by incineration, and disposal of specific wastes. The principal NRC regulation governing the disposal-of LLW is Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for the Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes." 10 CFR Part 61 sets forth the procedures, criteria, terms, and conditions on which NRC will review and issue licenses for new LLW disposal facilities.
Licensing the storage of LLW is accomplished under the general provisions in 10 CFR 20, 30, 35, 40, 50, and 70.
A.I.2 Revisions to Reaulations A number of rulemakings could be considered or are under development to clarify and strengthen regulations related to LLW. These are:
Major Part 61 revisions Minor Part 61 revisions Part 61 financial assurance On-site storage of LLW after 1995 LLW manifest revisions to Parts 20 and 61 Each of these revisions is discussed below.
Ma.ior Part 61 Revisions In 1982, NRC promulgated the regulations of Part 61 containing licensing requirements for the land disposal of LLW. The basic framework of Part 61 applies to any land disposal technology for LLW.
Specifically, the performance objectives, and the institutional control, financial, and procedural requirements are applicable to all land disposal technologies. Part 61 includes specific technical requirements for near-surface land disposal which includes 16
I shallow land burial (SLB) and engineered land-disposal methods such as below-ground vaults (BGVs), earth-mounded cancrete bunkers (EMCBs), and augured holes. However, the rule lacks specificity regarding the maans by which the performance objectives and some of the technical requirements can be met by near-surface engineered facilities.
Licensing of disposal in above-ground vaults (AGVs) and mined cavities or similar deep disposal methods l
would benefit from additional technical criteria to cover i
features unique to these methods of disposal.
Given that the specificity of Part 61 requirements is useful i
in facility licensing and that the focus of Part 61 does not reflect the approach most States are currently using, l
revisions to Part 61 could facilitate licensing. SLB is currently banned by the host States in six of the seven compacts developing new LLW disposal facilities. SLB is also banned in all the unaffiliated States that have plans l
for developing an LLW disposal facility. The only SLB l
design being considered is one that employs engineered l
enhancements. All other new facility designs include some form of engineered enhancement. One State is considering an I
AGV and another is considering mined cavities. More detailed and appropriate technical criteria, not currently l
available in Part 61, are needed to conduct licensing i
reviews in a manner similar to which earthen trench disposal facilities would be reviewed (i.e., using technical criteria in Part 61).
There are a number of other areas in which Part 61 could be improved. These include:
i Providing credit for multiple barriers, in the
[
evaluation of facility performance.
I Clarifying the degree _to which engineered enhancements can be used to compensate for less than ideal site conditions Adding requirements for resistance to leaching or to chemical changes within the waste form Adding concentration-averaging requirements for specific waste types such as sealed sources or non-homogeneous wastes Adding a more specific reference to ground-water protection Reexamining the length of the institutional control period and addressing expected maintenance activities which may arise including facility repairs 17 R
Incorporating performance assessment experience Placing a greater emphasis on containment as a goal Adding requirements to assure that retrieval of wastes, if planned, can be conducted safely.
There is no evidence that the limitations of Part 61 have impeded the development of new LLW disposal facilities.
However, public confidence in regulatory authorities, including NRC, is broadly and generally lacking. Although the States have requested some revisions, there is no apparent consensus that a major revision is currently required to support or enhance current siting and licensing efforts.
It has been the staff's historical position, as well as several Agreement States' position, that a major revision to Part 61, along with the requirement for conforming Agreement State revisions, could create considerable instability in licensing efforts. However, considering the current status and the lack of progress by States in providing new disposal capacity and considering i
the national program's need to establish greater public confidence in regulatory programs, there appears to be a need for a major revision to Part 61.
If current LLW disposal facility siting and licensing efforts continue to fail or develop additional delays, the concern about the creation of instability in licensing efforts would tend to diminish. Development efforts in Michigan and Illinois have been halted or significantly delayed.
Failures to site, license, and operate facilities, or additional delays in those activities, in some or all of the States of California, Nebraska, Texas, and/or North Carolina could indicate that the potential disruptive effects of a major revision to Part 61 would be minimal. While some costs, in terms of licensing instability are likely to be unavoidable, the benefits of a Part 61 revision, in terms of improving assurance of safety, could prove to be considerable.
LLWM staff will closely monitor States' progress to determine when a rulemaking should be considered.
The proposed EPA LLW Standard could also necessitate a revision to Part 61.
The EPA LLW Standard is discussed, in more detail, later in this section.
Revisions to Part 61 will be developed, if authorized, when budgeted resources allow.
Minor Part 61 Rulemakina The staff has identified two instances, in the regulation, where the wording is imprecise and does not convey the actual intent of the staff, when the regulation was originally adopted. These provisions are contributing to 18
1 E
regulatory uncertainty. One instance is that Part 61 incorrectly uses the term " quality control program," instead of " quality assurance program," as intended by the staff responsible for developing the regulation. The second is l
the question of the regulatory applicability of Part 61 to above-ground disposal facility designs, such as AGVs, which may be considered by the States and compacts. Staff has also identified two places where administrative changes are necessary to update the regulation. Accordingly, Part 61 is being revised to make the following changes:
Revise the definition of " land disposal facility," in j
10 CFR 61.2 to include facilities constructed on the surface of the land, and.evise the " Concepts" section, in 10 CFR 61.7, to discuss the applicability of the rule to above-ground disposal facilities.
Replace the phrase " quality control program," in 10 CFR 61.12(j), with the phrase " quality assurance program," tailored to LLW disposal.
Revise 10 CFR 61.8 to indicate that NRC obtained l
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the -
information collection requirements in Part 61.
Revise 10 CFR 61.80(i)(1), to identify the correct NRC l
Headquarters recipient of copies of the annual j
reports.
The amendments were published as a proposed rule on March 6, 1992. Several comments were received, responses have been prepared, and it is anticipated that the final rule will be promulgated in mid-to late FY93. This activity is very l
nearly completed; however, if necessary, LLWM will continue to assist the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) in promulgation of this final rule.
l Financial Assurance The Part 61 regulations (10 CFR 61.62) include a requirement i
that license applicants provide assurance that sufficient funds will be available to carry out disposal site closure and stabilization. There is currently no comparable requirement for long-term maintenance activities during the post-closure period. The regulations do require, however, L
that a license applicant have a binding arrangement with the disposal site owner that ensures that sufficient funds will be available to cnver the costs of monitoring and any required maintenance during the institutional control period.
19 l
4 When the Part 61 regulations were being developed in the 1978-1982 time frame, NRC did not have statutory authority to require that applicants for a license to construct and operate an LLW disposal facility establish a fund for long-term care of the facility. NRC acquired the requisite authority with passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
t NRC has determined, through its existing financial assurance requirements for the institutional control period (10 CFR 61.63), that the disposal site owner is to conduct any required maintenance of the site during the institutional control period. Having made these determinations, Section 151(a)(2) of the NWPA, requires NRC l
to ensure that financial arrangements are in place to provide for monitoring and long-term maintenance.
Section 151(a)(2) requires financial arrangements to be in place before transfer of the license to the site owner, as provided for in 10 CFR 61.30. Accordingly, RES staff is developing a proposed amendment to 10 CFR 61.63 to specify i
that the LLW disposal site licensee make available adequate financial arrangements to cover any long-term maintenance and monitoring deemed necessary by the Commission.
Regulatory guidance is also being developed, in support of the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is a major action in terms of NRC policy implications. This revision to Part 61 is critical because it will help to resolve many of the controversial long-term financial liability issues that States are currently facing.
i Moreover, Section 151 of the NWPA appears to provide NRC with sufficient authority to require Agreement State i
programs to have equivalent financial standards for long-term care, as a matter of compatibility.
Financial t
assurance requirements to cover long-term activities could increase public confidence in the assurance of safety.
However, these requirements could increase disposal costs or l
discourage facility. developers. This is a high-priority I
rulemaking, to be completed in early FY94.
1 On-Site Storace after 1995 l
In a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated December 17, 1992, the staff was informed that the Commission had approved publication of the proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations for reactor, material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees. The proposed rule would establish a regulatory framework containing the procedures and criteria that would apply to on-site storage of LLW, beyond January 1, 1996. These changes are required
{
because of potential health and safety concerns associated I
with the increased reliance upon on-site storage of LLW.
20 I
L l-
The proposed rule is intended to support the goals that have been established by the LLRWPAA and is consistent with the June 19, 1992, Supreme Court decision, in New York v. United States.
Under the provisions of the proposed rule, on-site storage of LLW would not be permitted after January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay, or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility), unless the licensee can documcut that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options.
NRC's proposed regulations would require that the licensee attempt to contract, either directly or through the State, for the disposal of its waste.
In addition, reactor licensees would have to document that on-site storage i
activities would be consistent with, and not compromise, the safe operation of the licensee's activities, and would not decrease the level of. safety provided by applicable regulatory requirements.
The rulemaking would amend 10 CFR 30.34, 40.41, 50.54, 70.32, and 72.44. These sections of the regulations identify standard conditions for reactor, materials, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licenses. This proposed rule would supplement, but not supersede, the existing regulations and guidance applicable to storage of l
LLW.
The conditions, in themselves, would not authorize on-site storage. The existing regulatory and licensing framework will continue to be applicable.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Reaister on j
February 2, 1993 (58 FR 6730). The staff will review the public comments and recommend to the Commission final action on the rule in late FY93 and early FY94.
LLW Manifest All shipments of LLW to disposal sites must be accompanied by a manifest that describes the contents of the shipment.
Manifests are detailed documents containing information required by NRC (i.e., 10 CFR 20.2006), the Department of Transportation (DOT), State regulatory agencies, and LLW compact commissions. NRC has identified needed improvements j
in the content of the manifests and procedures for reporting that manifest information of interest to NRC.
Because of the planned expansion in the number of LLW disposal facilities and the varied needs for manifest information by several regulatory and other organizational entities, there is a need to standardize the content and format of manifest information. Development of a 21 I
I
standardized manifest would also be responsive to DOT views that the existing shipping paper information may not be properly formatted on some existing manifests. With the concurrence of DOT, NRC has proposed amendments to Parts 20 and 61, which would provide for the reporting of specific LLW information and would include the requirement to use a uniform manifest for all shipments of LLW intended for disposal at an LLW disposal facility. This proposed rule, which included changes to shipping paper information contained in a separate proposed DOT rulemaking action (54 FR 47454), was published in the Federal Reaister on April 21, 1992.
Comments on NRC's proposed rule have led NRC to seek further interpretation of D0T requirements. These D0T interpretations have been requested and are expected to be received in early FY93.
Presuming finalization of the DOT rulemaking action in the same time frame, any substantial modifications to the Uniform Manifest could be submitted for further public comment in mid-1993, if necessary, and a final NRC regulation could be promulgated during late FY93.
EPA LLW Standard EPA is proposing to publish, for comment, a proposed LLW standard, that currently has some substantial differences from 10 CFR Part 61 in terms of specific requirements for ground water protection. The EPA standard would apply to both management and disposal of commercial and DOE-generated LLW.
It is part of a package that also includes standards for disposal of below-regulatory-concern (BRC) and discrete i
NARM wastes, although NRC staff understands that EPA currently plar to remove the BRC provisions prior to proposing the 'andards. The principal difference between EPA's proposal ind Part 61 involves the inclusion of groundwater pri ection criteria that would regulate dose through the grt. 1dwater pathway, in certain aquifers, to 4 mrem / year, compi ed to a 25 mrem / year overall dose limit in Part 61.
NRC believes that a standard may result in little or no improvement in puti.c health and safety.
EPA believes that the standard is reasonable and is needed to fill gaps both for the management of commercial LLW before disposal and for l
disposal of DOE LLW, which is not subject to 10 CFR Part 61.
EPA considers the standards necessary to provide a stable l
regulatory framework. Once EPA promulgates final standards, NRC would need to make conforming changes to rules, and Agreement States would need to adopt compatible regulations.
Staff recognizes that the proposal of new EPA standards, similar to the development of revisions to Part 61, would probably have a minimally disruptive effect on State 22
development of new disposal facilities, given the limited develcpment progress made to date.
At a meeting with NMSS staff in November 1992, EPA staff stated that the proposed rule package needs to be substantially revised to delete the discussion of BRC and to make other revisions, regarding the groundwater protection provisions.
EPA staff has stated that EPA may be willing to consider not applying the standards to NRC-and Agreement State-licensed facilities, if NRC would take certain actions to address groundwater protection (e.g., issue gui6ance).
Resolution of this issue is expected to require either a conforming revision to Part 61 or the development of guidance, addressing groundwater protection. This action would be accomplished in FY93 and FY94, in conjunction with the development of the EPA standards.
A.1.3 Strateaies and Options that Would Encouraae the States to Move Forward with LLW Disposal Facility Development In February 1993, the staff prepared an analysis of the strategies and options that the Comission might pursue (in addition to the on-site storage rulemaking) that would encourage the States and compacts to move forward with the development of LLW disposal facilities. This analysis includes a wide-ranging evaluation of the options available to the agency to be more proactive in advancing the objectives and goals of the LLRWPAA, and in increasing the likelihood that regional LLW facilities will be developed.
The analysis also includes an evaluation and recomendation with respect to the usefulness of seeking further input from the States and compacts, and other affected interests, before a Comission decision on implementation of any of the recomended options. These strategies and options discussed include:
Revisions to Part 61 Enhanced program of public participation Legislative proposals for:
Amending the LLRWPAA Providing for third-party liability protection Increased technical assistance to the Agreement States Subsequent staff action is anticipated in FY93 and FY94 to implement the Comission's decision concerning the proposed options.
23
A.I.4 Support to the Office of the General Counsel During the planning period, LLWM will provide technical assistance to the Office of the General Counsel (0GC), as requested, when NRC is named as a defendant in lawsuits concerning LLW disposal. A summary of pending litigation follows.
Burton v. NRC This lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that NRC's Part 61 site-ownership regulations are invalid, an order requiring the NRC to issue regulations implementing the NWPA provision authorizing the Secretary of Energy to assume titlo and custody of LLW disposal sites, and an order requiring the NRC to establish technical requirements for methods of LLW disposal in addition to those now covered by Subpart D of Part 61.
NRC and the Department of Justice (D0J) are working together on this case. After the Government filed a motion to dismiss last September, the plaintiffs amended their complaint.
The Government filed another motion to dismiss on January 8, 1993, and is awaiting plaintiffs' response.
Michican v. United States In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the LLRWPAA, and also argued that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the NRC to supplement the 1982 final environmental impact statement, prepared in connection with the issuance of Part 61 and to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement relating to development of LLW disposal facilities. NRC and the D0J are also working together on this case, which was dismissed by the district court, and is now on appeal. The constitutional argument was resolved by the Supreme Court's decision in New York v. U.S.
Briefs have been filed by the parties, and oral argument has been scheduled for March 19, 1993.
A ruling for the plaintiffs, in either of these lawsuits, would likely delay the development of new LLW disposal facilities, particularly if new regulations or environmental impact statements are required to be developed.
In addition, there are at least nine other lawsuits, involving development or operation of LLW disposal facilities, currently pending in State and Federal courts. The NRC is not a defendant in any of those lawsuits, but the lawsuits may also result in significant delays in the development of new LLW disposal facilities.
It is difficult to estimate the number and scope of lawsuits that may be filed in the next several years. However, it is likely that lawsuits of this nature will continue to be 24
filed until the compacts and unaffiliated States have developed LLW disposal capabilities.
Support is expected to consist primarily of research and technical positions associated with draft briefs, motions to dismiss, or related documents. The principal NRC source documents are the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements on 10 CFR Part 61 (NUREGs 0782 and 0945). Several LLWM staff members will develop and maintain the necessary capabilities for providing support to OGC in the limited time that is usually available.
A.2 LLW Prooram Guidance j
A.2.1 Summary of Existina Guidance LLWM has developed numerous LLW regulatory guidance i
documents.
For the licensing of LLW disposal facilities, this regulatory guidance defines acceptable approaches for meeting NRC regulations and, if adopted by applicants, will result in expedited reviews of applications. LLWM has i
developed guidance documents applicable to the license application (safety analysis report (SAR)) and the i
environmental report (ER), which must accompany the license application.
Two key SAR-related guidance documents issued by NRC are-(1) " Standard Format and Content of a License Application j
for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility" (NUREG 1199) and (2) " Standard Review Plan for the Review o, a License Appl 5 cation for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility" (NUREG-1200). The SF&C provides guidance to the applicant on the type of information that should be included, in the SAR, to address the regulatory requirements of Part 61. The purpose of the SF&C is to explain in more detail the information that should be provided in the SAR and to establish a standard fomat for presenting the information.
In addition, the sap and SF&C are used by Agreement States as guidance in their LLW licensing programs and help to ensure a consistent review of license applications for LLW disposal facilities.
The SRP provides guidance to staff reviewers on how to perform safety reviews of applications to construct and operate LLW disposal facilities and provides implicit guidance to licensees and applicants.
LLWM, in an effort parallel to SAR guidance, has also developed two key ER-related guidance documents. These are:
(1) " Standard Format and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (Regulatory Guide 4.18), and (2) " Environmental Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a low-Level 25
Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility" (NUREG-1300) (ESRP).
Regulatory Guide 4.18 provides guidance to the applicant on the type of information that should be included, in the ER, to address the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The ESRP provides guidance, to Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) staff reviewers, on performing i
environmental reviews in support of license applications to construct and operate LLW disposal facilities.
Each ESRP section includes applicable references to related Federal agency regulations, guidelines, or acts that will affect the staff's environmental review.
LLWM has developed many other guidance documents related to licensing LLW disposal facilities under Part 61. Most of this guidance is referenced in the SRP and SF&C.
Examples of NRC technical guidance developed specifically for the LLW program include:
" Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization" (NUREG-0902);
" Alternative Methods for Disposal of low-Level Radioactive Wastes" (NUREG-3774, Vols.
I to 6); " Parameters for Characterizing Sites for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste" (NUREG/CR-2700);
" Recommendations to the NRC for Soil Cover Systems over Uranium Mill Tailings and Low-Level Radioactive Wastes" (NUREG/CR-5432, Vols. I to 3); and " Quality Assurance Guidance for a low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility" (NUREG-1383).
A.2.2 SF&C and SRP Revisions The current version of the SRP and SF&C are primarily directed toward traditional near-surface LLW disposal methods. To further ensure that shared NRC-State objectives are met, NRC is continually improving this guidance through updates and revisions, to the SRP, to provide greater clarification and more information for applicants and NRC reviewers. States, industry groups, licensees, and others have been helpful in developing and revising this guidance.
Periodic revisions of the SRP and SF&C are necessary to reflect changes in Federal legislation, technical knowledge and NRC policy. These updates often involve only limited 4
sections of the documents, although provisions will also be made to review and revise both, in their entirety. These revisions may require contractor support from private firms or DOE National Laboratories and may be in the form of confirmatory research or procedure development.
Updates to the SRP and SF&C will take place on an as-needed basis, depending on the significance of the identified changes.
Revision 2, to both the SRP and SF&C, was 26
completed in January 1991. A third revision to the SRP is scheduled for completion in FY93. The staff is currently identifying sections of the SRP that will require additional changes (this will be Revision 4 to the SRP) in FY94.
In addition, plans are being developed to periodically review each chapter of the SRP, to ensure the chapters contain the latest information and guidance, and that the entire document is properly integrated. However, much or all of l
this activity may be delayed if a major revision to Part 61 is initiated.
These revisions are not expected to be disruptive to the States siting and licensing efforts.
In 1992, the Agreement States were sent a proposed SRP revision package for comment. The responses indicated that the States strongly support these revisions.
A.2.3 Performance Assessment To assess the ability of a site to meet the performance objectives specified in Part 61, NRC must have the methodology in place to evaluate a LLW disposal site's future beh;. ior in terms of the annual dose to off-site individuais, ac specified in 10 CFR 61.41. This is the effort undertaker. by the Performance Assessment Working Group, composed of members of LLWM and RES, which is defining the mettadology appropriate for describing the release, transpott, and impacts to humans and the environment, from +'se inventory of radionuclides accumulated in a LLW disposal site.
This methodology will employ a i
number of computer codes.
Extensive contractor support is i
being provided to supply input and develop multiple models l
used in performance assessment, i
LLWM and RES will prepare a BTP focusing on PA strategy and resolving policy issues in mid-FY93.
In addition, LLWM and RES will continue to conduct the test-case modeling in FY93 using both staff resources and contractual technical assistance.
In FY94, LLWM and RES will incorporate revised sub-modeling area technical positions into the draft BTP.
Simultaneously, the staff will develop a NUREG on the test-case simulations to document the technical basis for the sub-modeling area technical positions. This schedule will allow the concurrent publication of the revised BTP and l
public access to test-case simulations which provide i
l technical support for the BTP.
l The development of: (1) a " Regulatory Guide for LLW Performance Assessment;" and (2) revisions to NUREG-1200 to address PA are scheduled to be completed in FY95.
PA techniques are undergoing continual development and refinement.
Even after the guidance documents are published 27 l
l.
1 in final form, it is expected that ongoing staff effort will be necessary to update the guidance and maintain staff capability.
l The Performance Assessment program is described in greater detail in the Performance Assessment Development Program i
Plan forwarded to the Commission by SECY-92-060, dated February 21, 1992. This plan will be updated in early FY93.
A.2.4 Waste Form Guidance 10 CFR Part 61 contains requirements for waste classification and characteristics of waste to be placed in disposal facilities.
LLWM has developed, and will continue to develop, guidance for generators, licensees, and States in these areas, specifically in waste form stability, radionuclide concentration averaging, and waste encapsulation.
I LLWM plans to prepare an appendix to the " Technical Position on Waste Form" to specifically address the solidification of waste in bitumen. Additional guidance, in the form of testing procedures and acceptance criteria, will be developed, by LLWM, to provide a way for waste generators to demonstrate that their waste forms meet the stability requirements of Part 61. The technical position appendix on bitumen will be prepared by LLWM staff, in FY93 and FY94.
This activity will be delayed if a major revision to Part 61 is initiated.
i l
Part 61 establishes a waste classification system based on l
the concentrations of specific radionuclides contained in t
the waste. The rule states that the concentration of the i
radionuclide in the waste may be averaged over the volume or weight of the waste. A " Technical Position on Radioactive i
Waste Classification" was developed in 1983.
It included guidance to waste generators on the interpretation of the i
rule as it applies to a variety of types and forms of LLW.
NRC has proposed a revision to this technical position, to achieve consistent waste classification practices among the Commission and Agreement State regulatory authorities, and to resolve issues concerning_the impact of waste classification positions on other programs (e.g., DOE's program to accept GTCC waste).
This revision, titled " Draft Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Waste Encapsulation," issued for i
comment A.ie 26, 1992, was coordinated with State regulators through the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD). This new position expands upon, further defines, and replaces specific guidance on concentration averaging and waste encapsulation, that was initially 28 l
f.
provided in the 1983 Technical Position.
Comments on the proposed revision indicated a potential need to further expand the revised position. This broader position will again be issued for comment in FY93. A discussion of LLWM's analysis of, and response to, comments and the draft final position, will be submitted to the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, for its review, in mid-FY93.
Publication of the revised position is planned for the end of FY93.
During FY93 to FY97, NRC will continue to update waste form l
guidance by modifying and adding to the " Technical Position l
on Waste Form." In 1994-97, NRC will consider updating the l
technical position, to provide specific guidance on polymer I
solidification and resin dewatering.
A.2.5 Mixed Waste Guidance Mixed waste is defined, in the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992, as waste that contains both hazardous waste and source, special nuclear, or byproduct material subject to the Atomic Energy Act 6f 1954. Mixed waste is subject to regulatory oversight 'sy both NRC and EPA, or the comparable State regulatory auti.ority. Although no inconsistencies in the regulatory requirements of the two agencies have been identified to date, the different regulatory requirements of the two agencies make management of mixed waste under this dual framework difficult and costly. Currently, because of the lack of adequate treatment and disposal capacity, mixed waste generators are unable to dispose of their mixed waste and must store their mixed waste on-site, sometimes in violation of EPA's hazardous waste storage regulations.
In I
addition, EPA's hazardous waste management requirements can significantly increase the potential for increased radiation exposures to workers, if these requirements are not modified in consideration of the radiological hazard.
NRC and EPA have been working together, since the mid-1980s, to resolve the issues associated with the management of mixed waste. To date, this inter-agency cooperation has resulted in the development of several mixed waste management guidance documents, a profile of commercial mixed waste generation rates and characteristics to support the development of treatment and disposal capacity by DOE and i
commercial facilities, and workshops and seminars on the regulation of mixed waste for NRC and EPA staffs and commercial mixed waste managers. Currently, NRC and EPA staffs are finalizing the development of additional guidance documents on the testing and storage of mixed waste, performing a regulatory program review in support of a generator petition to allow limited, short-term storage of commercial mixed waste and publishing the results of the
" National Profile on Commercially Generated Mixed Waste."
29
4 4
In addition, NRC has E.
' the scope of the " National Profile" to include the ment of tailored data tables
.w to surport the States (or DOE) developing treatment and disposal capacity for commercial mixed waste. These i
activities are scheduled for completion in FY93.
DOE's large-scale acceptance of mixed waste from licensed nuclear facilities, for treatment and disposal, is estimated to occur no earlier than 1995.
LLWM will continue to I
support DOE's consideration of such acceptance by providing DOE with information on the characteristics and volume of commercially generated mixed waste.
In addition, LLWM will work with EPA and DOE to resolve specific technical and legal issues associated with transfer of this waste.
LLWM will also continue to provide technical support to State regulatory authorities and technical guidance to commercial I
mixed waste generators during the planning period. This technical support is expected to embrace a variety of activities, including: regulatory interpretations and issue i
resolution; reviewing and commenting on proposed regulations that affect mixed waste; completion of mixed waste guidance documents on storage and testing issues; and, as the statutes implementing the regulation of mixed waste change, the development and presentation of additional workshops on mixed waste regulation.
A.2.6 Additional Storaae Guidance The following guidance documents for the storage of LLW have been developed jointly with NRR and IMNS.
Table 3 LLW Storage Guidance TyAt No.
Title Generic Letter 81-38
" Interim Storage of
)
Utility Licensee-1 Generated Low-Level Radioactive Waste at Reactor Sites" Generic Letter 85-14
" Commercial Storage at Power Reactor Sites of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Not Generated by the Utility" 30 9
" Alternative kode Management Procedures in Case of Denial of Access to low-level Waste Disposal Sites" Information Notice 90-09
" Extended Interim Storage of Low-level Radioactive Waste by Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees" In an SRM dated January 30, 1992, the Commission directed the staff to assess the need for additional guidance o'e licensing requirements, to supplement the existing regulatory framework for LLW storage, and to inform the Commission when significant needs are identified. The Agreement States were consulted and input was received from the regional offices. No significant need for additional storage guidance was identified by the Agreement States that responded. Three regions identified a need for additional guidance.
Region III recommended that minimum LLW storage facility design standards for reactor licensees be established and communicated to the licensees.
Region IV requested guidance for licensees that request "for-storage-only" of sealed sources, pending transfer to authorized i
recipients and termination of their licenses. Region I I
suggested that an information notice may be appropriate to remind licensees of their responsibility to train personnel in packaging and preparation of LLW to be stored on-site 1
and/or transported off-site. NMSS is consulting directly with Regions I, III, and IV to resolve their concerns. NMSS is drafting an information notice to provide the guidance l
requested by Region IV. NRR and NMSS are reviewing Region III's request for additional design standards, and Region I's suggestion for an information notice on training.
In October 1992, the staff reported to the Commission that, aside from these regional items, there is no significant need for additional LLW storage guidance or licensing requirements.
To date, the need for extended storage of LLW has been small to almost non-existent, because LLW has been shipped to the existing warte disposal sites in operation. As a result, industry experience and staff reviews and guidance have not addressed longer term storage.
Because no new LLW disposal facilities hr.ve been developed, and the compact commissions that control the existing LLW disposal sites have either closed their sites or set conditions on receiving LLW from outside their regional compacts, some licensees who generate LLW have been forced to store their LLW on-site. The LLW disposal facility at Barnwell is expected to close to 3I l
l out-of-region generators on July 1,1994, which will result in more widespread and possibly long-term storage.
Specific hazards and technical considerations may need to be l
addressed if long-term storage is to be used (e.g.,
container degradation from storage in humid environments, L
and gas generation from radiolysis). Addressing all of i
these concerns with indefinite long-term storage could I
require safety measures analogous to those for permanent disposal. Guidance for acceptable LLW storage practices, for periods significantly beyond five years, may need to be i
reviewed and assessed.
t The Divisions of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS) and Operating Reactor Support (DORS) in NRR, LLWM, FCSS and IMNS in NMSS, and the Regions share the primary responsibility for LLW storage licensing and inspection activities, and for LLW storage policy. The Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards in each Region implements assigned LLW storage licensing and inspection activities, and assesses the i
adequacy and compliance of licensees within their regions as they relate to LLW storage.
In addition, OSP and Regional l
State Liaison Officers provide coordination and communication with Agreement and non-Agreement States concerning LLW storage issues.
LLWM is working with DRSS, 00RS, IMNS, FCSS, OSP, and the Regions to better define areas of responsibility for policy, licensing, and inspection 5.ssues associ:sted with LLW storage. A clearer division of responsibility among NRC offices and divisions should enable NRC to better coordinate efforts and address LLW storage issues and requests for staff involvement as i
these needs arise. This division of responsibilities will be defined in FY93.
Working in conjunction with NRR and IMNS, LLWM staff will closely monitor the LLW storage situation throughout the planning period and will develop additional storage guidance that may be required to address long-term storage of LLW.
As discussed in section A.2.5 of this plan, NRC and EPA are finalizing the development of additional guidance documents on the testing and storage of mixed waste. This activity is scheduled for completion in FY93.
A.3 LLW Licensino Support A.3.1 Topical Report Reviews Part 61 establishes a waste classification system based on the radionuclide concentrations in the wastes. Classes B and C wastes are required to be stabilized; Class A wastes must be stabilized if they are disposed of with Classes B or C wastes. Class A wastes need not be stabilized if they are 32 l
l
segregated for disposal. Structural stability is intended to ensure that the waste does not degrade and promote failure of the disposal unit cover or an increase in leach rates from the waste form.
Stability is also a factor in limiting exposure to an inadvertent intruder, because it produces a recognizable and non-dispersable waste form.
Structural stability can be provided by the waste form itself, by processing the waste to a stable form, or by placing the waste in a container or structure that provides stability.
The " Technical Position on Waste Form," developed in 1983 and revised in 1991, provides guidance to waste generators on waste form test methods and results acceptable to NRC staff for implementing the waste form requirements of Part 61.
Section 20.311 requires waste generators and processors to certify that their waste forms meet the requirements of Part 61. The guidance in the technical position provides an acceptable basis for this certification. One way to demonstrate conformance with the recommendations in the technical position is to reference an approved topical report.
Such topical reports are reviewed and approved by LLWM in accordance with the acceptance criteria contained in the technical position.
Since the initial BTP on Waste Form was issued in 1983, LLWM has reviewed 35 topical reports on waste forms produced by a number of waste solidification process vedors. These waste forms have included high integrity containers (HICs) (21 reports) constructed of a variety of materials, as well as waste forms produced by solidification in cement, polymers, and other materials (14 reports). Nineteen of these reports have been either voluntarily withdrawn or have not been found acceptable by the staff.
LLWM has approved 10 topical reports and has prepared technical evaluation reports (TERs) in support of the approvals. Six other topical reports, including three HICs and three solidification media, are under review or are under revision by the vendor, in response to an LLWM request for additional information.
LLWM plans to issue decisions on four of these topical reports in FY93 and the remaining two in FY94.
LLWM anticipates receiving two or three new topical reports each year in FY94 to FY97, based on past experience. Direct contractor support, in specific technical areas, is used to perform detailed reviews to support the LLWM topical report review process.
A.3.2 Waste Trackino l
l LLWM is developing technical positions for LLW disposal l
sites to defend current regulations or to assess or comment on existing and proposed future LLW disposal sites.
l 33
i l
Information and supporting assessment capabilities are needed to address these activities. To remain current on volumes, activities, and other pertinent. characteristics of LLW being disposed of at the existing LLW disposal sites, NRC has contracted with the site operators to provide annual reports summarizing this information. NUREG-1418,
" Characteristics of low-Level Radiation Waste Disposed Survey, 1987 through 1989," a frequently referenced source of LLW information, was developed from this summary data.
The contracts currently in effect will allow NRC access to disposal information. This information is provided to DOE which conducts the assessments. The need to renew these contracts will be reviewed in early FY94 in light of the status of the uniform manifest rulemaking and the potential use for the information.
A.3.3 Technical Assistance to Office of State Procrams (OSP) l LLWM will continue to provide technical assistance to Agreement States in their regulatory activities. This technical assistance is provided on an as-needed basis and may occasionally involve contractor support.
Technical assistance may take the form of staff time or contractual assistance, depending on the technical discipline of concern. For example, technical assistance for States involved in performance assessment may involve contractual assistance from NRC contractors.
LLWM staff also participate in a wide variety of workshops, seminars, and forums discussing topics related to LLW management. These include: participation in the quarterly LLW Forum meetings and the LLW Regulators' Workshop held annually by NRC; attendance and presentations at workshops and seminars i
sponsored by DOE and various users' groups; participation in public meetings; and other interactions between NRC staff, regulators, and other interested parties.
During FY93 and FY94, LLWM anticipates providing technical assistance to North Carolina and Texas in their efforts to i
review license applications for disposal facilities in these States.
It is anticipated that the States of Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania will become Agreement States in the next few years. Generally, the staff anticipates extensive i
technical assistance requests from two to three States.per year, during the planning period.
A.3.4 Aareement State Procram Review 1 LLWM staff participates in Agreement State Reviews and visits conducted by OSP. OSP requests LLWM support in assessments that require specific technical support in the LLW area.
In-depth reviews of each State program are 34
l conducted at intervals of 12 to 18 months.
These reviews cover organization, administration, personnel, regulations j
and legislation, licensing, compliance, and enforcement.
As a result of participating in a review, LLWM staff prepares a written input to a transmittal prepared by OSP 1
and sent to the State official responsible for that State's radiation protection program. This input identifies deficiencies in the State's program, poses questions to the State regulatory staff (unanswered during the review l
period), and suggests approaches to be followed (consistent with NRC guidance), on appropriate issues. Guidance is also provided to States on associated issues such.as waste-classification, concentration averaging, and site selection.
LLWM staff will continue to be involved in OSP program reviews during the period encompassed by this management-pl an. The schedule identified in this plan for licensing of LLW facilities by Agreement States shows that the States will be involved in licensing throughout the program period.
It is anticipated that the staff will be involved and resources will be required for this activity at a level i
commensurate with State activity in the licensing area.
A.3.5 Public Participation i
The States that are developing LLW disposal facilities have established their own public participation programs. Using 1991 LLW disposal data, the planned facilities in these States, along with the operating facility in Washington, would dispose of 90% of the nation's LLW.
j LLWM has developed a program for enhanced public involvement and communication related to LLW management. This program d
needs to be coordinated with the Agreement States or implemented in response to a request of the State.
NRC's largest direct role will be in the review of license applications for host non-Agreement States. Currently these include Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. However, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Ohio plan to become Agreement States.
Maine is an Agreement State, but not for LLW disposal'. The states of Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont currently account for approximately 10% of the nation's LLW.
Currently established formal public interaction opportunities include: (1) public review and comment on the license application; (2) participation in the license review i
Ny the State or tribal governing body; (3) public review and comment on the draft environmental impact statement; ano (4) public hearings for the initial license and amendments.
35 8
' L.
1 Although opportunities already exist for public involvement in NRC licensing of low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities through the hearing process, significant r
additions can be made to involve the public in NRC's work.
Possible additions are discussed below.
Beginning with the pre-licensing stage, it is important and appropriate for NRC to work with the public, and State and l
local governments, to identify and resolve issues, to explain the regulatory program, to understand public concerns, and to involve the public in the NRC regulatory program. NRC staff has been participating in a range of pre-licensing activities, principally in Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont. These havs included public meetings and meetings with State and local government representatives.
Additional activities can be implemented by the staff to provide greater interaction and public involvement during both the pre-licensing and licensing phases. These activities or initiatives could include:
Provide additional opportunities for information exchange such as information exchange workshops, attendance at State sponsored public meetings, meetings with public interest groups, and meetings with newspaper editorial boards.
Establish local public document rooms for each LLW disposal facility.
t Prepare annual reports to describe the status of site / facility issues, license application status, and any public health and safety concerns.
Establish advisory committees to include community
)
leaders, environmentalists and other concerned citizens.
Expand plans for public meetings to include, for example, meetings upon receipt of a license application or upon development of the draft l
environmental. impact statement.
Develop plans for local community official and citizens to accompany NRC inspectors during i
construction and operation.
Expand training for NRC project managers, supervisors, and other affected NRC personnel on conducting public meetings and press briefings.
Establish detailed procedures and guidance for State and local community involvement in the formal 36 i
t l
i licensing review process in accordance with 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart F.
Examine the feasibility of an oversight role by the State / local community.
[
Many of these activities are applicable only to host non-Agreement States. Those activities that could be implemented in Agreement States, such as information exchange workshops, attendance at public meetings, and meetings with public interest groups, would need the request or concurrence of the Agreement State.
Recognizing the importance of public involvement in LLW disposal, an action item was assigned at the NRC's Senior Executive Service Conference, held in February 1992, to
... establish criteria for involvement of the local community in the waste disposal issue."
In August 1992, LLWM, working in conjunction with OSP and OPA, forwarded recommendations for an expanded program of public participation. These recommendations are currently under j
review.
If these recommendations are approved, LLWM will further refine, develop, and implement an expanded program for public involvement, during the planning period.
l B.
PRELICENSING CONSULTATIONS AND LICENSE REVIEWS i
B.1 Prelicensina Consultations An important element of the' LLW disposal facility licensing review strategy is our prelicensing interaction with potential applicants. To help States fulfill the objectives of the LLRWPAA for the development of new LLW disposal facilities, the States and NRC consult with one another L
before a license application is submitted. This prelicensing consultation will facilitate the licensee's preparation of a high-quality license application and accompanying ER that LLWM can review in a timely manner.
This consultation also enables LLWM staff to identify concerns with the site characterization program, disposal 4
facility design, and other licensing matters, early in the process so they can be addressed early in the licensing process and thereby expedite this process.
l The LLWM scaff has provided a variety of specific regulatory consultation and technical assistance to the non-Agreement host States involved in licensing LLW disposal facilities.
These include Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, and Michigan.
For example, at the request of the respective States, staff completed reviews on the site characterization plan (SCP) for the Vernon/ Vermont Yankee Site in Vermont, the generic SCP for the State of Connecticut, the 37 i
wr
s environmental impact study plan for candidate sites in Connecticut, and the conceptual design report for potential LLW disposal facilities in the State of Maine.
Staff has also completed reviews of quality assurance plans, and other LLW disposal facility-related documents prepared by various 4
States.
Staff anticipates a steady increase in requests, from the host non-Agreement States, for various prelicensing consultations during the planning period. These consultations may range from telephone conferences and brief f
letter reports to site visits and detailed regulatory and technical analyses. Likely topics to be addressed include site suitability, consideration of alternatives to meet NEPA requirements, site characterization, facility design, and r
waste stream characterization.
B.2 License Application Reviews As discussed in the " Capabilities" section of this plan, LLWM is prepared to review license applications and issue licenses for LLW disposal facilities under Part 61. The staff review includes: (1) the evaluation of the applicant's SAR and the issuance of a Safety Evaluation Report (SER);
and (2) the evaluation of the applicant's ER and the issuance of a draft and final EIS. Although staff review work on non-Agreement State projects, to date, has been limited to prelicensing activities, it is expected that the licensing work load for these States will increase significantly during the planning period.
It is expected that one license requests will be received. The review will be conducted in FY96 to FY97.
B.3 Support for Existina Sites B.3.1 SNM License Renewal / Amendments / Maintenance During the planning period, LLWM staff will conduct a major license renewal for the Hanford LLW disposal facility located near Richland, Washington. This renewal will be based on an application, from the licensee, expected before the current license expiration date, November 30, 1993.
The LLW disposal facility at Hanford is the only existing facility currently scheduled to be operating after 1996.
The facility is licensed by both the State of Washington and NRC, for the disposal of source and byproduct material, and SNM, respectively.
In carrying out NRC's regulatory responsibility over SNM disposal, consistent with internal policy on joint regulation of facilities with Agreement States, staff will look at specific technical areas not covered by the Agreement State license. These areas include 38
~
T l
t l
l physical security and SNM waste placement.
The staff must prepare an environmental assessment (EA) and an SER, based on the application it receives. Contractual assistance may be needed to help prepare the EA or develop the SER. Staff will conduct the renewal review in FY94.
4 B.3.2 Site Closure Reviews The staff anticipates assisting in the site closure review for the Barnwell, South Carolina facility, which is expected i
to close on December 31, 1995. The scope of the closure review will depend on the need identified by.the State of l
South Carolina. LLWM will provide technical assistance, upon request from the State. As an Agreement State, South Carolina has the responsibility to conduct the review.
Staff shall determine the level of effort required and resources needed to conduct closure reviews, as the need arises.
B.4 Other Licensino Reviews l
B.4.1 On-Site Disposal NRC has historically provided the option of disposal or i
burial, under 10 CFR 20.302 (new 10 CFR 20.2002), for small quantities of LLW.
Requests for such disposal are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Responsibility for approving these disposals is decentralized, taking place in the regional offices as well as within LLWM, IMNS, and NRR.
LLWM is currently reviewing the criteria used and analyses performed in evaluating on-site disposal, to ensure consistency and uniformity. During FY93, LLWM will develop a computerized inventory of all on-site disposal sites being evaluated throughout the agency.
In late FY93, staff will develop revised guidance on 10 CFR 20.302 disposals. During the planning period, LLWM staff will review four to six LLW on-site disposal requests each year, from fuel cycle and materials licensees. The number of requests may increase as disposal site access becomes more limited.
B.4.2 Emeroency Access Emergency access determinations can be made only by NRC.
Information that NRC requires to' reach a determination is to be provided by the LLW generator, or governor, who has been denied access to all LLW disposal facilities.
Information to be submitted would include: the need for access to LLW disposal sites; the quantity and type of material requiring disposal; impacts on health and safety or common defense and security, if emergency access were not granted; and consideration of available alternatives to emergency access.
39
s j
l Upon receipt of a request for emergency access, NRC would publish a notice in the Federal Reaister. informing the public that Commission action on the request is pending and coordination with potentially involved or impacted States would begin. The LLRWPAA limits NRC to 45 days from the time a request is received, to determine whether emergency access will be granted.
NRC has received no requests for emergency access and does l
not anticipate any situations where the lack of access would create a serious and immediate threat to the public health and safety. The staff has provided waste generators with guidance on how to manage the accumulation of waste in the event of denial of access to waste disposal facilities (Information Notice 89-13). Moreover, licensees have been encouraged to monitor the status of siting and disposal developments in their LLW compacts or States, to better i
foresee potential LLW management difficulties.
If received, LLWM will review and respond to any such request within the t
45 days mandated by the LLRWPAA.
C.
LLW INSPECTION PROGRAM C.1 Inspection Procedures Part 20 establishes general requirements for radiation safety in the disposal of LLW, and is supplemented by Part i
61, which establishes requirements for the licensing and operation of near-surface LLW disposal facilities.
Part 61 also imposes license conditions on generators who may ship i
LLW to those disposal facilities consistent with applicable i
provisions of Part 61. NRC inspects those LLW generators l
and disposal facilities, that are licensed by NRC, to ensure l
their compliance with 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61. A listing of applicable inspection procedures (IPs) follow. These l
procedures, along with the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2401 (MC 2401), form the basis of the LLWM inspection I
program.
Table 4 l
LLW Inspection Procedures IP No.
Title 84100 "SNM Inspections at Near Surface LLW i
Disposal Facilities in Agreement i
States" 84850
" Inspection of Waste Generator Requirements of 10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 61" l
40
\\
86750
" Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of Radioactive Materials" 87100
" Licensed Material Programs" The two currently active LLW disposal sites operate under Agreement State licenses, and NRC has nu primary responsibility for their inspection.
However, NRC does license and inspect SNM disposal at both of these sites.
Future NRC responsibility for inspection of operating sites may be expected, however, as sites in non-Agreement States become licensed by NRC under the provisions of Part 61.
Policy guidance for the inspection of licensed disposal facilities is provided by MC 2401, which presently covers operations and closure.
Sections covering construction, pre-operation, and post-closure are still required, and inspection procedures in support of all sections must be prepared. A detailed procedure for inspection of SNM disposal in Agreement States is provided in IP 84100, and IP 84850, currently under revision, provides a detailed procedure for inspection of waste generator requirements. A second draft of IP 84850 revisions has been completed and is awaiting circulation within NRC for comment.
Inspection of generator requirements is conducted by regional and resident inspectors, under NRR programs for power reactors, IMNS programs for materials licensees, and FCSS programs for fuel cycle licensees.
IP 86750 or IP 87100 is used for oversight inspections.
IP 84850 is used on regional initiative, when more detailed procedures appear justified.
LLWM also provides guidance, upon request, to NRR, FCSS, and IMNS, for enhancement of the waste generator portions of the more general IP 86750 and IP 87100.
During FY93, LLWM will complete the revision to IP 84850 and begin development of associated inspector training materials. LLWM will also begin development of IPs for site operations and closure.
During FY94, LLWM will complete development of inspector training materials for IP 84850, conduct inspector training, and complete IPs on site operations and closure. During FY95 to FY97, LLWM will revise MC 2401 to address inspections during construction, pre-operations, and post-closure phases and develop associated IPs. Beginning in FY94, LLWM will conduct inspector training, as required, for the revised and new IPs.
The development of training materials and the conduct of training will be the responsibility of the Technical Training Center (TTC).
Therefore, this portion of the 41
l inspection program development will be contingent on the availability of TTC resources. LLWM will begin coordination with TTC in FY93.
Throughout the planning period, LLWM will work with NRR and IMNS, as requested, to enhance IPs 86750 and 87100.
C.2 LLW Inspections Throughout the planning period,' inspections will be conducted to evaluate reactor and material licensee effectiveness in processing, packaging, storing, and shipping LLW. Annual inspections will be conducted at the Hanford and Barnwell LLW disposal facilities.
C.3 National Proaram Reviews (NPRs)
To provide continuing oversight of regional activities affecting the regulation of NMSS licensees, NMSS annually 1
conducts program reviews in the NRC regions. These program
)
reviews include the accompaniment of regional personnel, j
during inspections and visits to regional offices, to interview personnel and to review records. Emphasis is j
placed on the level of training of regional inspectors, on early identification of significant regional issues, and on j
the eff?:ctiveness of the inspection program in identifying and securing correction of licensee actions actually or potentially affecting public health and safety.
LLWM i
participation in NPRs is tied to the amount of regional i
effort budgeted for LLW insnections.
l D.
RESEARCH PROGRAM i
Through ongoing interactions with DOE, States, compacts, and technical assistance contractors, LLWM examines technical and regulatory issues and promising technical developments to identify those issues that require further investigation.
Through this process, LLWM identifies general and specific research needs that should be fulfilled to support division responsibilities. These needs are transmitted to RES in the '
form of a Statement of LLWM Research Needs. The statement identifies regulatory issues that require investigative and confirmatory research to provide technical support for the LLWM program. This statement will be revised in FY93.
In response to the needs statement, LLW research, conducted by the Waste Management Branch (WMB) of RES in conjunction with LLWM, includes efforts associated with confirming NRC's understanding of the processes and phenomena that may affect the safety of LLW disposal and ensuring that the regulatory framework is adequate for the long-term protection of the public health and safety and the environment.
LLW disposal 42
issues include waste form stability, waste package integrity, radionuclide transport through the disposal facility environment, and evaluation of long-term doses resulting from radionuclide releases beyond the disposal facility environment.
LLW research is being conducted to: (1) support development of regulatory criteria for use in the licensing process; (2) provide the technical base for review of license applications for LLW disposal facilities; (3) provide the technical base for review of topical reports on waste form stability; and (4) assist in development and maintenance of a performance assessment methodology.
The Branch Chiefs and Section Leaders of LLWM and RES WMB meet frequently (generally weekly), to coordinate research efforts. These meetings are held to keep the respective branches informed about progress on contracted research projects in each branch, and to plan and coordinate future research activities, to avoid duplication and ensure that planned research projects meet the needs of the branches.
These weekly meetings provide working-level coordination in support of bimonthly meetings held at the division level.
LLWM and WMB plan to continue these weekly and bimonthly meetings throughout the planning period.
E.
INTEPACTIONS WITH OTHER AGENCIES LLWM staff has numerous interfaces, with the EPA, on a variety of complex technical and policy issues. These interface activities involve a range of NRC programs across several different offices and at multiple levels. These activities also have a high degree of interest and visibility at high levels within NRC, as well as EPA, OMB, and Congress.
For these reasons, a consolidated approach is being developed separately, in a " Management Plan for Interactions with EPA."
l LLWM staff will continue to work with DOE to ensure the safe interim storage of GTCC wastes and the staff will continue to interact with DOE as they consider accepting commercially generated mixed wastes F.
EMERGING ISSUES LLW management is a very dynamic process which requires a management approach and plan that are responsive to potential program impacts. These impacts include:
(1) changes in resources; (2) legislation; (3) public involvement; (4) State and industry activities and progress; (5) litigation; and (6) actions of other agencies. These potential impacts lead to some uncertainties in the planning 43 1
9
l I
l i
process. Activities which could impact the plan' include:
t Development of revisions to Part 61 Development and implementation of a enhanced program i
of public involvement l
Development of legislative proposals to encourage LLW facility development Increased technical assistance to the Agreement i
States.
l Increased reliance on storage.
l Requests to export LLW.
In addition the program must remain responsive to new technologies, for example, in the area of waste treatment and waste forms. The LLWM planning process,-depicted in I
Figure 3, has been designed to provide the requisite planning flexibility.
Periodic informal program assessments will be conducted to evaluate the program's effectiveness.
The results of these assessments will be used as input to the Five-Year Planning Process with resulting adjustments, as required, to LLWM Program objectives, assumptions, and i
planned activities, to meet the LLWM Program goal.
1 Resources:
The personnel and program support resources needed to execute this plan are identified on Table 5.
l l
l l
44
-9
LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING PROCESS NRC FIVE YEAR m
m PLANNING e
PROCESS 7.............
LLWM l
PROGRAM l
l
} {
MANAGEMENT PLAN l
LLWM l
PROGRAM l
OBJECTIVES l
AND ASSUMPTIONS l
LLWM LLWM l
l PROGRAM PROGRAM l
l ASSESSMENTS ACTIVITIES l
1 l
i f PROGRAM IMPACTS l
LLWM l
8 RESOURCEIMPACTS f
PROGRAM l
GOAL
- LEGISLATION l
e PUBLICINVOLVEMENT l
l
- STATE / INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES &
PROGRESS RGURE3 8 LITIGATION
- ACTIONS OF OTHER AGENCIES 45 1
i
+
Tahle 5 LLWM PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN RESOURCE ESTIMATE t
FY93 EST FY94 EST FY95 EST FY96 EST FY97 EST Prog Supp FTE Prog Supp FTE Prog Supp FTE Prog Supp FTE Prog Supp FTE LLWM PROGRAM 850 15.1 730 15.8 870 18.3 600 16.8 600 13.8 A LLW REGULATIONS AND 760 7.2 650 5.1 550 3.1 400 2.3 400 2.3 GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT A.1 LLW Regulations 0
1.3 0
0.5 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 Major Part 61
[500] [4.0)
[300] [8.0)
[300] [7.0]
0.0 0.0 Minor Part 61 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Financial Assurance 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 t
On-Site Storage 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
[
LLW Manifest 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A.2 LLW Program Guidance 460 3.8 350 2.5 300 1.8 150 1.0 150 1.0 SF&C and SRP Revs 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Performance Assessment 400 2.7 350 1.6 300 1.6 150 0.6 150 0.6 l
(See Note 3)
[100] [1.3]
[2.4]
[2.4]
[50] [1.0)
[50] [1.0]
Waste Form Guidance 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Mixed Waste Guidance 60 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 Add. Storage Guidance
[100] [2.0]
[100] [2.5]
[50] [1.5]
[1.0)
[0.5]
A.3 LLW licensing Support 300 2.1 300 2.1 _
250 1.3 250 1.3 250 1.3 Topical Report Reviews
'225 l ~. 2 225 1.2 175 0.4 175 0.4 175 0.4 Waste Tracking 75 0.1 75 0.l' 75 0.1 75 0.1 75 0.1 Tech Assistance to OSP 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Agreement State Reviews 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Public Participation
[5] [1.4]
[40] [5.0]
[20] [5.3]
[20].[5.3]
[20] [5.3]
46 r
~..
v* -
B PRELICENSING CONSULTATIONS 90 3.6 80 6.6 320 11.1 200 10.4 200 7.4 AND LICENSE REVIEWS e
B.1 Prelicensing Consultations 90 2.7 3.2 2.5 1.7 1.2 B.2 License Application Reviews 0.0 80 1.6 320 6.4 200 7.0 200 4.5 (See Note 4)
B.3 Support for Existing Sites 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.5 B.4 Other Lir nse Reviews 0.2 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 C LLW INSPECTION PROGRAM 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 C.1 Inspection Procedures 0.5 0.1 0.1
[0.5]
[0.5}
(See Note 5)
[0.4]
[0.4]
C.2 LLW Inspections 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 C.3 National Program Reviews 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 RESEARCH PROGRAM Resources included in RES budget.
E INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 AGENCIES NOTES
- 1. Figures in brackets [] are estimates for new, unbudgeted activities indicated in the plan. Revised estimates will be developed when and if these activities are incorporated into the Five Year Plan.
- 2. Cumulative figures do not include estimates for new unbudgeted activities.
- 3. Performance Assessment resource estimates do not include RES requirements.
- 4. The resource estimate has not been revised to reflect the recent change in the strategic plan concerning license application reviews. This change reduced the number of anticipated reviews from two to one during the planning period. The resource estimate will be revised after the budget has been revised to reflect this change.
- 5. Inspection Procedures resource estimates do not include TTC requirements.
i i
t 47 m
mm--.m m
2
..m m
m a
- m.
- s j
I l
APPENDIX A j
j
SUMMARY
OF PLANNED ACTIONS i
a Planned Action Fiscal Year i
REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT Regulations 1.
Develop Major Part 61 Revisions (if authorized) 93-95 l
2.
Minor Part 61 Rulemaking 93 i
3.
Financial Assurance Rulemaking 93/94 4.
On-Site Storage Rulemaking 93/94 3
J 5.
LLW Manifest Rulemaking 93 j
1 6.
Resolve LLW Standards Issues with EPA 93 i
7.
Develop Confor:ning Amendments to Part 61 or Develop Gn hnce Associated with LLW Standards 93/94 Strategies and Optiv.is to Encourage New Facility Development l.
Commission Paper 93 2.
Implement Strategies and Options 93/94 Guidance
.i 1.
SRP Revision 3 93 i
2.
SRP Revision 4 94 i
3.
Draft BTP on Performance Assessment 93/94 J
4.
Update Performance Assessment BTP (as required) 95-97 5.
Regulatory Guide on Performance Assessment 95 6.
Revise NUREG 1200 (for Performance Assessment) 95
{
7.
Performance Assessment Program Plan Update 93 1
8.
Waste Form BTP Appendix on Bitumen 93/94 9.
Revised Technical Position on Concentration i
Averaging and Waste Encapsulation 93' i
i
- 10. Modifications to Technical Position on Waste Form 93-97 i
- 11. Waste Form Technical Position Revision to i
Address Polymer Solidification and Resin Dewatering 94-97
- 12. Mixed Waste Guidance on Testing and Storage 93
- 13. Regulatory Program Review on Generator Petition to Allow Limited, Short-Term Storage of Commercial Mixed Waste 93
- 14. National Profile of Commercial Mixed Waste 93
- 15. Development of Tailored Mixed Waste Data Tables 93
- 16. Provide Mixed Waste Technical Support 93-97
- 17. Additional Storage Guidance (if required) 93-97 t
PRELICENSING CONSULTATION AND LICENSING REVIEWS Prelicensing Consultations 93-97 License Reviews
)
1.
LLW Disposal Facility License Application Review 96-97 2.
Hanford SNM License Renewal 94 3.
Barnwell Site Closure Review 95-96 4.
10 CFR 20.302/20.2002 Disposal Requests 93-97 5.
Emergency Access Requests 94-97 48 I
a n
o-i
,e.
I LICENSING SUPPORT Topical Report Reviews 1.
Four Report Reviews 93 2.
Two Report Reviews 94 3.
Two - Three Report Reviews / Year 95-97 Waste Tracking 1.
Review Contractor Support Requirements 94 Technical Assistance to OSP 1.
Two - Three Technical Support Requests / Year 93-97 Agreement State Program Reviews 93-97 Public Participation Plan l.
Complete Plan 93 2.
Implement Plan 94-97 INSPECTION PROGRAM Inspection Procedures 1.
Complete Revision of IP 84850 93 2.
Begin Development of Inspector Training for Revised IP 84850 93 1
3.
Initiate IPs for Site Operations and Site Closure 93 4.
Complete Development of Inspector Training for Revised IP 84850 and Conduct Training 94 5.
Complete IPs for Site Operations and Closure 94 6.
Conduct Inspector Training for New and Revised IPs 94-97 7.
Revise MC 2401 to Address Inspections during Construction, Pre-operations, and Post-closure and Initiate Development of Accompanying IP 95-97 8.
Enhance IPs 86750 and 87100, as Required 93-97 National Program Reviews 93-97 RESEARCH PROGRAM 1.
Revise Statement of Research Needs
~3 9
2.
Weekly Meetings 93-97 i
49 i
4...
i APPENDIX B ACRONYMS AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954 AEC Atomic Energy Commission l
AGV Above-Ground Vault BGV Below-Ground Vault BTP Branch Technical Position CRCPD Committee of Radiation Control Program Directors i
DOE Department of Energy D0J Department of Justice DOT Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCB Earth-Mounded Concrete Bunken EPA Environmental Protection Agency ER Environmental Report ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan i
FCSS Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards l
GTCC Greater-Than-Class-C HIC High Integrity Container IDNS Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety INNS Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety IP Inspection Procedure LLRWPA Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 LLRWPAA Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 i
LLW Low-Level Radioactive Waste LLWM Division of Low-Level waste Management and Decommissioning MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGA National Governor's Association i
NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NPR National Program Review NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NSD Near-Surface Disposal NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 OMB Office of Management and Budget OPA Office of Public Affairs OSP Office of State Programs j
QA Quality Assurance i
RES Office of Research SAR Safety Analysis Report SCP Site Characterization Plan SER Safety Evaluation Report SF&C Standard Format and Content Guide SLB Shallow Land Burial SNM Special Nuclear Material SRM Staff Requirements Memorandum SRP Standard Review Plan TER Technical Evaluation Report WMB Waste Management Branch 50 l
l
--