history and framework of commercial low-level radioactive
TRANSCRIPT
NUREG-1853
History and Frameworkof Commercial Low-LevelRadioactive WasteManagement in theUnited States
ACNW White Paper
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALSIN NRC PUBLICATIONS
NRC Reference Material
As of November 1999, you may electronically accessNUREG-series publications and other NRC records atNRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.Publicly released records include, to name a few,NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;applicant, licensee, and vendor documents andcorrespondence; NRC correspondence and internalmemoranda; bulletins and information notices;inspection and investigative reports; licensee eventreports; and Commission papers and theirattachments.
NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRCregulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code ofFederal Regulations may also be purchased from oneof these two sources.1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Mail Stop SSOP Washington, DC 20402–0001 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Telephone: 202-512-1800 Fax: 202-512-22502. The National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161–0002 www.ntis.gov 1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000
A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment isavailable free, to the extent of supply, upon writtenrequest as follows:Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer, Reproduction and Distribution Services Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001E-mail: [email protected] Facsimile: 301–415–2289
Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted at NRC’s Web site addresshttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregsare updated periodically and may differ from the lastprinted version. Although references to material foundon a Web site bear the date the material wasaccessed, the material available on the date cited maysubsequently be removed from the site.
Non-NRC Reference Material
Documents available from public and special technicallibraries include all open literature items, such asbooks, journal articles, and transactions, FederalRegister notices, Federal and State legislation, andcongressional reports. Such documents as theses,dissertations, foreign reports and translations, andnon-NRC conference proceedings may be purchasedfrom their sponsoring organization.
Copies of industry codes and standards used in asubstantive manner in the NRC regulatory process aremaintained at—
The NRC Technical Library Two White Flint North11545 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852–2738
These standards are available in the library forreference use by the public. Codes and standards areusually copyrighted and may be purchased from theoriginating organization or, if they are AmericanNational Standards, from—
American National Standards Institute11 West 42nd StreetNew York, NY 10036–8002www.ansi.org 212–642–4900
Legally binding regulatory requirements are statedonly in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, includingtechnical specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series publications. The views expressedin contractor-prepared publications in this seriesare not necessarily those of the NRC.
The NUREG series comprises (1) technical andadministrative reports and books prepared by thestaff (NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors(NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) proceedings ofconferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reportsresulting from international agreements(NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legaldecisions and orders of the Commission andAtomic and Safety Licensing Boards and ofDirectors’ decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’sregulations (NUREG–0750).
NUREG-1853
History and Frameworkof Commercial Low-LevelRadioactive WasteManagement in theUnited States
ACNW White PaperManuscript Completed: August 2006
Date Published: January 2007
Prepared by
M.T. Ryan, M.P. Lee, and H.J. Larson
Advisory Committee on Nuclear WasteU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001
ii
NUREG-1853 has been reproducedfrom the best available copy.
iii
ABSTRACT
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste(ACNW or the Committee) examined issuesassociated with management and the disposal ofcommercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW).As a first step in that examination, the Committeedeveloped this background document, or WhitePaper, that includes a review of the literature.This LLW White Paper is organized into threeparts. Part I provides a historic perspective ofpast programs for the management and disposalof commercial LLW. Part II describes the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission’ s commercialLLW regulatory framework found at Title 10,Part 61, “ Licensing Requirements for LandDisposal of Radioactive Waste,” of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Part III summarizes pastACNW advice in this area, as well as adviceprovided previously by the Advisory Committeeon Reactor Safety before the establishment of theACNW in 1988. This LLW White Paper alsoincludes six appendices which, among otherthings, describe the Department of Energy’ sapproach to the management of Government-owned LLW and the regulatory evolution ofthe “ LLW” definition. The White Paper alsoidentifies several emerging staff initiatives, aswell as other ongoing initiatives by outsideorganizations and agencies that could have abearing on the management of commercial LLW.
iv
v
FOREWORD
In conjunction with the issuance of this WhitePaper, the Advisory Committee on NuclearWaste (the ACNW or the Committee) held aWorking Group Meeting during its 170th meetingin May 2006. The purposes of the 2006Working Group Meeting were to obtain currentinformation on commercial low-level radioactivewaste (LLW) management practices and identifyemerging low-level radioactive wastemanagement issues and concerns. TheCommittee also solicited industry and stakeholderviews regarding the future U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC) role in the areaof commercial LLW management to ensure astable, reliable, and adaptable regulatoryframework for effective management of thosewastes. The NRC staff recently noted that it isupdating its strategic planning in the LLW areafollowing Commission-directed reduction in theprogram about a decade ago. Consequently, aspart of the Working Group Meeting, theCommittee solicited stakeholder views on whatchanges to the regulatory framework formanaging LLW should be recommended forCommission consideration as well as to identifyspecific impacts, both positive and negative, ofpotential future staff activities.
The May 2006 meeting followed from theACNW’ s March 2005 briefing of theCommission. The Working Group Meeting wasdivided into four-sessions covering the followingthemes:
• Current LLW program status;
• Existing regulatory framework formanaging commercial LLW andoperational issues;
• Industry panel discussion on current andfuture challenges in the management ofLLW; and
• Stakeholder perspectives on theforthcoming NRC strategic assessmenteffort.
The ACNW two-day Working Group Meetingdrew an attendance of approximately 100individuals. Formal participation in the meetingincluded representatives of the American EcologyCorporation, the Army Corps of Engineers,EnergySolutions (formerly Envirocare), theCalifornia Radiation (CalRad) Forum,Duratek–Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC,EnergySolutions, the Entergy utilities group, theenvironmental community, Harvard University,the LLW Forum, the Nuclear Energy Institute,the South Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control, the Southwestern LLWCompact, the Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality, and Waste ControlSpecialists, LLC. Staff from NRC’ s Division ofWaste Management and EnvironmentalProtection, and independent stakeholders, alsoparticipated in the discussions.
Participants and stakeholders from the WorkingGroup Meeting offered several observations forthe ACNW to consider. Stakeholders were alsoinvited to comment on the December 2005version of the ACNW White Paper before it wasfinalized; none were received. The Committeesubsequently developed a letter report toCommission addressing stated purposes of theWorking Group Meeting. See Ryan (2006). TheCommittee also intends to comment on the resultsof the NRC strategic planning effort in the areaof commercial LLW management. See NRC(2006c).
vi
vii
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
FOREWORD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
PART I. LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROGRAM HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Commercial LLW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Chemically Mixed LLW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Government-Owned LLW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 EARLY APPROACHES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE. . . 7
2.1 Ocean Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Land Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Early Performance Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 The NRC and 10 CFR Part 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. 5 De Minimis Regulatory Levels and the Below Regulatory Concern Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. EFFORTS TO SITE NEW LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. CURRENT PROGRAM STATUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1 Recent Disposal Facility Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Assured Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3 Low-Activity Radioactive Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.4 Stakeholder Views. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
PART II. THE U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION’ S LOW-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7. APPROACH TO DEVELOPING 10 CFR PART 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.1 Elements of the LLW Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7. 2 Who Should Be Protected and What Should the Level of Protection Be?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.3 10 CFR Part 61 Scoping Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.3.1 NUREG-0456: A Proposed LLW Dose Assessment Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.3.2 NUREG/CR-1005: A Proposed Radioactive Waste Classification System. . . . . . . . 47
7.3.3 NUREG-0782: The Draft LLW EIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.3.3.1 The Waste Streams Considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.3.3.2 The Exposure Pathways Considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
viii
7.4 Assumed Definition of Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7.4.1 EPA Efforts to Promulgate LLW Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7.4.2 The NRC Selection of an LLW Standard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.4.3 The NRC Proposed LLW Classification System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.4.4 Summary of the Final 10 CFR Part 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8. THE MANAGEMENT OF GTCC LLW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.1 NRC Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.2 DOE Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
9. OTHER NRC LLW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.1 LLW Regulatory Guidance and Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.2 LLW Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
9.3 Strategic Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
PART III. PAST U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE REVIEWS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
10. THE ACRS AND THE ACNW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
10.1 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
10.2 Summary of Past ACRS and ACNW Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.2.1 General LLW Management Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.2.2 The NRC’ s LLW Regulatory Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
10.2.3 Ground-Water Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
10.2. 4 Chemically Mixed Radioactive Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
10.2.5 Performance Assessment .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
10.2.6 Waste Package and Waste Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
11. REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
APPENDICES
A. Management of Government-Generated Low-Level Radioactive Waste by the
U.S. Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
B. Regulatory Evolution of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
C. Structure of 10 CFR Part 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
D. A Summary of NUREG-1573: A Performance Assessment Methodology for
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
E. Selected Low-Level Radioactive Waste Technical Reports Sponsored by NRC’ s
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
F. Final Commission Policy Statement on the Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment
Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
ix
FIGURES
1. Lifecycle of a Hypothetical Commercial LLW Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
TABLES
1. Commercial LLW Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of 10 CFR Part 61 LLW Classes and Waste Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Summary of LLW Ocean Disposal Operations in U.S. Territorial Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Past and Current Commercial LLW Disposal Facilities in the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Administrative Process for Establishing LLW Compacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Milestones, Deadlines, and Penalties Defined in the LLWPAA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Federal Responsibilities for the Management and Disposal of Commercial LLW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. LLW Compacts and LLWPA Milestone Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Comparison of a 10 CFR Part 61 Type of Disposal Facility with an Assured Isolation Type
of Storage Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10. Stakeholder Position Papers Concerning Commercial LLW Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
11. Exposure Scenarios Considered in NUREG-0456. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
12. Waste Disposal Classification Categories Proposed in NUREG/CR-1005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
13. DCGs for Waste Classes Proposed in NUREG/CR-1005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
14. Waste Streams Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
15. Radionuclides Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
16. Waste Spectra Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
17. Activity-Limited Exposure Event Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
18. Dose Guideline Options Considered by the NRC in Developing 10 CFR Part 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
19. Additional NRC Technical Guidance and Policy Direction in the Area of LLW.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
20. Potential Candidate Areas in 10 CFR Part 61 Identified for Amendment by the NRC
Staff in 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
21. Past ACRS and ACNW Letter Reports Concerning LLW Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
22. Past ACRS and ACNW Letter Reports Concerning De Minimis Issues and
Below Regulatory Concern Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
x
xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At a 2005 briefing of the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC or theCommission), the Advisory Committee onNuclear Waste (ACNW or the Committee)agreed to examine some of the issues related tothe management of commercial low-levelradioactive waste (LLW). As a first step, theCommittee developed a background paper orWhite Paper that briefly examines the history andcurrent status of commercial LLW disposal in theUnited States, as well as the reasoning andapproach used by the NRC staff to develop itsLLW regulations in Title 10, Part 61, “ LicensingRequirements for Land Disposal of RadioactiveWaste,” of the Code of Federal Regulations(10 CFR Part 61).
The ACNW transmitted a preliminary version ofthis White Paper to the Commission onDecember 27, 2005, following the ACNW’ s166 meeting. See Ryan (2005). The paperth
subsequently underwent an editorial review, aswell as a limited external peer review. Althoughsome minor modifications and revisions to theWhite Paper have been made as a result of thosereviews, the final report contained herein remainssubstantially unchanged from that firsttransmitted to the Commission in December2005. However, there are three keyenhancements. First, the revised report includesan expanded discussion concerning low-activityradioactive wastes. This discussion reviews theNRC’ s earlier de minimis regulatory positionand the subsequent Below Regulatory ConcernPolicy Statements. Second, ACNW staffidentified additional letters prepared by theAdvisory Committee on Reactor Safety (ACRS),the ACNW’ s predecessor, which have now beenincluded in the discussion of past AdvisoryCommittee reviews of the NRC LLW programfound in Part III of this report. Lastly, for thepurposes of comparison, Appendix A includes a
summary describing how the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) manages LLW generated fromformer Government programs.
It should be noted that preparation of this WhitePaper is also intended to satisfy an NRC goal ofknowledge management.
Structure of the ACNW LLW White Paper
The ACNW White Paper provides an abridgedexamination of the NRC’ s LLW regulatoryprogram based on a review of key literaturesources. It also includes a summary of past1
ACNW advice in the LLW area, including theadvice of the ACRS. Other areas of informationpotentially bearing on this review were notexamined because of time constraints or otherongoing reviews. These areas include anexamination of international approaches to themanagement of commercial LLW (i.e., OECDNuclear Energy Agency, 2005) and domesticapproaches to the management of chemicallyhazardous waste mixed with radioactiveconstituents.
The White Paper is organized into three parts.
Part I. Part I is a history of the national LLWprogram. This history reviews early approachesto the management of commercial LLW by thethen Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) andsummarizes Congressional actions following thepoor performance of the first AEC LLW disposalsites. These actions include the NRC’ s efforts
Many organizations and entities have written on1
assorted issues related to the management of LLW in theUnited States and, as a result, a rich body of literatureexists. Thus, the authors faced the challenge ofidentifying those key references that would best describethis history. It should be recognized therefore that otherresearchers may reach different conclusions as to whichreferences are most appropriate to cite in a review of thistype.
xii
in the late 1970s to early 1980s to develop LLWdisposal regulations currently found in 10 CFRPart 61. Following Congressional passage of theLow-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLWPA)and the Low-Level Waste Policy AmendmentsAct of 1985 (LLWPAA), the White Paper tracksstate efforts to site new LLW disposal facilitiesfollowing the establishment of the LLW InterstateCompact system. Part I concludes with a currentstatus of the national program, which includesrecent efforts by the states to site new disposalfacilities.
Several stakeholder organizations have preparedposition papers expressing their views on variousmatters related to the management of commercialLLW. Some of these position papers also call forregulatory changes to the NRC’ s LLWregulatory framework. The White Paperidentifies those organizations with publishedpositions on the issues, but does not attempt tosummarize their respective positions.
Part II. Part II is dedicated primarily to theNRC’ s LLW regulatory framework found at 10CFR Part 61. The purpose of this section is toprovide some general background on the staff’ sapproach to developing the regulation and, indoing so, highlight the key issues it considered inthe development of the LLW rule. The literatureindicates that the Commission’ s intent inpromulgating 10 CFR Part 61 was to develop acomprehensive regulation that addressed allphases of the LLW disposal cycle. This meantthat the regulation had to be sufficient to coverdisposal operations and closure, as well as thelong-term period of waste isolation. TheCommission was also concerned about thepotential for inadvertent human intrusion onceinstitutional control of the site had ended andsocietal knowledge of the hazard ceased. Inrelying on near-surface disposal, the possibilityexists for exposures to ionizing radiationresulting from man’ s efforts to reclaim adisposal site for productive use, such as farming,housing, or natural resource development. It was
therefore recognized early in the 10 CFR Part 61scoping process that because these types ofbehavior could not be predicted, it wasimpossible to guarantee that inadvertent humanintrusion at the site would not occur in the future.Consequently, the Commission determined thatfuture generations, in effect, should be affordedthe same level of protection as the generalpopulation today.
NUREG-0782, “ Draft Environmental ImpactStatement on 10 CFR Part 61: LicensingRequirements for Land Disposal of RadioactiveWastes,” issued September 1981, and NUREG-0945, “ Final Environmental Impact Statementon 10 CFR Part 61: Licensing Requirements forLand Disposal of Radioactive Wastes,” issuedNovember 1982, provide a detailed account ofthe LLW regulation development process and thedisposition of key issues. These two documentsindicate that, in developing 10 CFR Part 61, thestaff gave considerable attention to determiningwho should be protected and what the level ofprotection should be. The literature alsoindicates that radiation protection standards forcommercial LLW did not exist at the time. PartII reviews the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’ s (EPA) efforts to promulgate LLWstandards and the NRC approach to the selectionof a default LLW dose criteria to supportdevelopment of its regulation in the absence ofthose standards. Part II also reviews the 10 CFRPart 61 waste classification system that evolvedfrom these scoping efforts and forms the basis forthe LLW rule today, as well as DOE efforts tomanage commercial greater-than-Class C LLW.The section concludes with an overview of theNRC staff’ s past and current LLW programactivities that are not associated with thedevelopment of the 10 CFR Part 61 regulation.
Part III. The ACNW did not exist at the timethe NRC’ s LLW regulatory framework in 10CFR Part 61 was created. The ACRS, however,had established a subcommittee that monitoreddevelopments in the waste management area.
xiii
Together, both Committees have issued morethan 40 letter reports commenting on variousaspects of this framework. Part III of the WhitePaper summarizes this past advice. The principalobservations presented in past NRC AdvisoryCommittee letters can be generally classified intothe following six areas, with the correspondingnumber of letters:2
• general LLW management issues – 12letters
• NRC LLW regulatory framework – 19letters
• ground-water monitoring – 3 letters• chemically mixed radioactive waste – 3
letters• performance assessment – 7 letters• waste package and waste form – 3 letters
Appendices. This LLW White Paper alsoincludes the following appendices containinguseful background information to refer to whenreading the main body of the White Paper:
• a review of the DOE approach to themanagement of Government-ownedLLW
• a review of the evolution of theregulatory definition of commercialLLW
• a summary of the structure of theNRC’ s LLW disposal regulation in10 CFR Part 61
• a summary of the NRC staff’ srecommendations for the conduct of aLLW performance assessment found inNUREG-1573, “ A PerformanceAssessment Methodology for Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Facilities –Recommendat ions of N RC ’ sPerformance Assessment Working
Group,” issued October 2000, which areconsistent with the performanceobjectives identified in Subpart C of 10CFR Part 61
• a selected bibliography of LLW technicalreports sponsored by the NRC Office ofNuclear Regulatory Research since thepublication of NUREG-1573
• the Commission’ s 1995 policy statementon the use of probabilistic riskassessment methods in nuclear regulatoryactivities
Emerging LLW Issues
Based on discussions with the NRC staff at its165 meeting in November 2005, the Committeeth
became aware of a number of emerging staffLLW initiatives, as well as other ongoinginitiatives by outside organizations and agenciesthat could have a bearing on the management ofcommercial LLW. The White Paper referencesthese additional efforts and reviews. Forexample, the staff is updating its strategicplanning in the LLW area following aCommission-directed reduction in the programabout 10 years ago. In addition, the staff istaking the following actions:
• reviewing past guidance on LLW storage
• responding to a 2005 Commission orderregarding the disposal of large quantitiesof depleted uranium
• addressing 10 CFR Part 20.2002,”Method for Obtaining Approval ofProposed Disposal Procedures, ”exemption issues
Besides the staff’ s internal efforts, a number ofexternal efforts and initiatives are underway thatmay have a bearing on the future of commercialLLW management, including the following:
Some letters address multiple topics.2
xiv
• the recently-completed NationalAcademy of Sciences low-activityradioactive waste study (NationalResearch Council, 2006)
• a new U.S. Government AccountabilityOffice (2005) review of best LLWmanagement practices
• the ongoing EPA (2003) advance noticeof proposed rulemaking on low-activityradioactive waste
xv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the followingindividuals who provided useful information,comments, and reviews that served to enhancethe substance of this report:
A. Campbell/Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards (NMSS)A. Dias/ACNW staffS. Flanders/NMSSJ. Kennedy/NMSSM. Knapp/NMSS (retired)P. Lohaus/NMSS (retired)T. Nicholson/Office of NuclearRegulatory Research (RES)E. O’ Donnell/RESJ. Shaffner/NMSSS. Salomon/Office of State and TribalProgramsM. Thaggard/NMSSD. Widmayer/ACNW staffR. Weiner/ACNW
The authors are especially grateful for thethoughtful reviews provided by D. Kocher/SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., and M. Letourneau/U.S. Department of Energy. In addition, severalindividuals were helpful in locating some of thereferences cited in this report. They include:R. Cady/RES, C. Gorday/Office of InformationServices – Library Services Branch (OIS – LSB),M. Gow/Nuclear Energy Institute Library,M. Kelton/ACRS-ACNW Operations SupportBranch, B. Lee/OGC — Program SupportBranch, E. O’ Donnell/RES, M. Neel/OIS –LSB, T. Nicholson/ RES, and B. Rhodes/OIS –LSB. Contributions to an early version of thisreport by S. Steele and R. Summers, bothformerly of the ACRS-ACNW staff, are alsorecognized.
These individuals do not necessarily approve,disapprove, or endorse the views expressed inthis report.
xvi
xvii
ABBREVIATIONS
ACNW Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste
ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety
AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954
AEC Atomic Energy Commission
AGV above-ground vault
AIF assured isolation facility
ALARA as low as reasonably achievable
ANPR advance notice of proposed rulemaking
BEIR biological effects of ionizing radiation
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BRC below regulatory concern
BWR boiling-water reactor
CAA Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended
CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Ci curie
CORAR Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals
CRCPD Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors
d day
DCG disposal concentration guide
DEIS draft environmental impact statement
DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
DOI U.S. Department of Interior
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DSI direction-setting issue
EMCB earth-mounded concrete bunker
EIS environmental impact statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration
FEIS final environmental impact statement
FFCA Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992
FR Federal Register
FRC Federal Radiation Council
ft cubic feet3
GAO U.S. General Accounting Office (before July 2004); U.S. Government Accountability Office (after
July 2004)
GEIS generic environmental impact statement
GTCC greater-than-Class C (radioactive waste)
xviii
HIC high-integrity container
HLW high-level radioactive waste
HDPE high-density polyethylene
hr hour
ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection
ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation
LAW low-activity radioactive waste
LFRG LLW Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (of DOE)
LLW low-level radioactive waste
LLW Forum Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum
LLWPA Low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980
LLWPAA Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
LSV liquid scintillation vial
LWR light-water reactor
:Ci/cm microcurie per cubic centimeter3
:g/L microgram per liter
m cubic meter3
MAC maximum average concentration
MCL maximum concentration limit
MIMS Manifest Information Management System (of DOE)
MLLW mixed low-level radioactive waste
MOU memorandum of understanding
MOX mixed-oxide (fuel)
mrem/yr millirem per year
MRS monitored retrievable storage
nCi/g nanocurie per gram
NACOA National Advisory Committee on Oceans and the Atmosphere
NARM naturally occurring or accelerator-produced radioactive material
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NBS National Bureau of Standards
NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1970
NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NFS Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
NMSS Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards
NOI notice of inquiry
NORM naturally occurring radioactive material
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NUMARC Nuclear Management and Resources Council
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OTA Office of Technology Assessment
pCi/g picocurie per gram
pCi/L picocurie per liter
PAM performance assessment methodology (for LLW)
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
xix
PNL Pacific Northwest Laboratory
PRA probabilistic risk assessment
PRESTO Protection of Radiation Effects from Shallow Trench Operations (EPA computer code)
psi pounds per square inch
PWR pressurized-water reactor
QA quality assurance
R&D research and development
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
s second
SA specific activity
SLB shallow land burial
SNF spent nuclear fuel
SNL Sandia National Laboratory
SRM staff requirements memorandum
SS source and special nuclear material
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TEDE total effective dose equivalent
TENR technologically enhanced natural radiation
TENORM technologically-enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials
TRU transuranic (radioactive waste)
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WCS Waste Control Specialists, LLC (of Texas)
WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
yr year
xx
1
PART I. LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROGRAM HISTORY
1 INTRODUCTION
Most establishments working with radioactivematerials produce radioactive wastes, sinceradioactive material contaminates anything withwhich it comes into contact. In the UnitedStates, thousands of establishments, bothgovernment and private, are licensed to useradioactive materials. The volume and level of1
activity in the wastes produced varies in directproportion to the amount of radioactive materialused. Historically, the greatest proportion ofradioactive waste produced domestically is low-level radioactive waste (LLW), although LLWonly accounts for about 0.1 percent of the totalradioactivity being disposed (Moeller, 1992,p. 118).
The term “ low-level radioactive waste” or“ LLW” has carried a changing meaning over theyears. At the time the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC or the Commission)promulgated the LLW disposal regulations foundat Title 10, Part 61, “ Licensing Requirementsfor Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” of theCode of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 61),the term LLW was exclusionary. It generallymeant that portion of the radioactive wastestream that did not fit the prevailing definition ofhigh-level radioactive waste (HLW) orintermediate-level radioactive waste, withconcentrations of transuranic (TRU) elements lessthan 100 nanocuries per gram (nCi/g). SomeLLW has radioactive material concentrationscomparable to that of spent nuclear fuel (SNF),and the NRC considers this waste to be greater-than-Class C GTCC) LLW.The U.S. Departmentof Energy (DOE) is responsible for managingsuch wastes.
LLW is currently defined at 10 CFR Part 61 inthe same way that it is defined in the Low-LevelWaste Policy Act of 1980 (LLWPA – Public Law96-573) and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of1982, as amended – specifically, radioactivewaste that is not classified as HLW, TRU waste,SNF, or byproduct material as defined in Section11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA– i.e., uranium or thorium tailings and waste).
1.1 Commercial LLW
LLW typically consists of contaminatedprotective shoe covers and clothing, wiping rags,mops, filters, reactor water treatment residues,equipments and tools, luminous dials, swabs,injection needles, syringes, and laboratory animalcarcasses and tissues (see Table 1). Theradioactive material concentration can range fromjust above background levels found in nature to,in certain cases, very high concentrations ofradioactive material, such as parts from the insideof a nuclear power plant reactor vessel. About97 percent of LLW decays to safe levels within100 years, although a small percentage of longerlived radionuclides persist at potentiallyhazardous concentrations for thousands of yearsor more. Licensees typically store LLW on site,either until it has decayed and can be disposed asordinary (municipal) trash or until amounts arelarge enough for shipment to an approved LLWdisposal site. The NRC has historicallydiscouraged the use of onsite storage of LLW asa substitute for permanent disposal (NRC, 1996a,p. 6-44). 2
The Nuclear Energy Agency (1998) provides an1
overview of the beneficial use of radioactive materials.
In Generic Letter 81-38 (NRC, 1981e), the NRC2
staff first noted that no nuclear facility should be built tostore waste for longer than 5 years under a licensee' s 10CFR 50.59, “ Changes, Tests and Experiments,”evaluation. The licensee should obtain specific NRCapproval. This limitation was based in part on safetyconsiderations, but was aimed at encouraging the
2
The NRC classifies commercial LLW as Class A,B, or C (see Table 2). Key decision parametersin this classification system are the physicalstability of the waste form and packaging and itsradioisotopic concentration. In any year, theamount of commercial LLW generated can vary.Generally, it is on the order of 10 cubic feet (ft )6 3
or about 28,000 cubic meters (m³ ). In 2004,about 3.8× 10 ft of LLW was generated,6 3
representing about 3.4× 10 curies (Ci) of5
radioactivity. The majority of the volume (morethan 99 percent) was Class A LLW. AlthoughClass A LLW is the greatest in terms of volumeof material generated, Class C wastes containmost of the activity – averaging between 69 and97 percent of all of the curies disposed of overthe last ten years. 3
Technological advances, as well as majorreductions in the extent of contaminated areaswithin power plants, have contributed to thedecrease in waste quantities generated over thepast several decades. However, the volume ofmaterial being disposed has recently increased asa result of the decommissioning of the firstgeneration of commercial nuclear power plants(Buckley, 2005). Utilities have undertakenvolume reduction and waste minimization effortsin response to increased disposal costs for LLW.These effor ts include segr egation,decontamination, minimizing exposure ofmaterials and tools to the contaminatedenvironment, sorting potential contaminatedmaterials, and dewatering and evaporation. See
Strauss (1987), Coley (1987), and Electric PowerResearch Institute (EPRI – 1988a, 1988b). Someof the most effective volume reduction strategiesare compacting, consolidating, and monitoringwaste streams to reduce the volume of LLWrequiring storage and to reduce the exposure ofroutine equipment to the reactor environment.See, for example, Strauss (1987), Taylor (1987),EPRI (1988a, 1988b, 1988c), and Shaw (1988).Based on their economic model, Voth and Witzig(1986) note that waste generators have achievedmost of the waste volume reductions in the pastin unsited LLW disposal site regions.
In anticipation of receiving license applicationsfor the renewal of operating licenses for nuclearpower plants, the Commission published ageneric EIS (GEIS) in 1996. In conjunction withthe GEIS, the Commission examined the volumeof LLW that would be generated as a result ofpower plant refurbishments necessary to supporta 20-year license extension. Although additional(non-routine) volumes of LLW would begenerated as part of any refurbishment process,the Commission concluded that the radiologicaland nonradiological impacts would be small. Inthe matter of the management of those wastes, itwas noted in the GEIS that interim storage mayhave to take place at the reactor sites if(commercial) off-site disposal facilities wereunavailable. See NRC (1996b). Should LLWstorage extend beyond the 5-year guidelineestablished by the staff (in excess activity orvolume limits projected in a power plant licenseapplication), EPRI (1992) has suggested thatlicensees may need to secure additional licenseauthorities under 10 CFR Part 30 (“ Rules ofGeneral Applicability to Domestic Licensing ofByproduct Material”) and/or Part 50 (“ DomesticLicensing of Production and UtilizationFacilities”). Also see Section 5.2 of this report.
development of permanent LLW disposal facilities. However, recognizing that the 5-year limit has notinfluenced the development of new waste disposalfacilities and that the states continue to make slowprogress, the NRC has eliminated any language in itsguidance to suggest that the 5-year term is a limit beyondwhich storage would not be allowed.
These data are taken from the Manifest Information3
Management System (MIMS). DOE uses thiscomputerized system to compile information oncommercial LLW generation and disposal. The MIMSWeb site can be found at http://mims.apps.em.doe.gov/.
3
Table 1 Commercial LLW Profile. Adopted from Office of Technology Assessment – OTA (1989, p. 83), citing
various sources.
Generator Waste Forms Principal Radionuclides
Isotope Half-life (t½) Radiation Type
Nuclear Power Plants Dry solids, used equipment, sludges,organic solvents and other liquids, waterpurification filter media and resins,irradiated hardware, gaseous wastes
Co-58 71.3 d â, ã
Co-60 5 yr â, ã
Cr-51 27.7 yr â, ã
Mn-54 312 d â, ã
Cs-134 2 yr â, ã
Cs-137 30 yr â, ã
Ni-59 80,000 yr â, ã
H-3 12.3 yr â
Zn-65 243 d â, ã
I-131 157,000,000 yr â
Industry Pharmaceutical C-14 5730 yr â
H-3 12.3 yr â
P-32 14.3 d â
S-35 87 d â
Tc-99 6 hr ã
Nuclear Fuel Fabricators U-235 700,000,000 yr á, ã
U-238 4,470,000,000 yr á, ã
Sealed Sources several variable â, ã*
Medical and Academia Dry solids, used equipment, glassware, plastics, scintillation fluids and otherorganic solvents, animal carcasses,medical treatment and research materials,gaseous wastes
H-3 12.3 yr â
C-14 5730 yr â
I-125 60.2 d â, ã
S-35 87 d â
Rb-87 4,900,000,000 yr â
Ca-45 163 d â
Cr-51 27.7 d ã
Tc-99m 6 hr ã
* Most of the isotopes of interest have half-lives on the order of a few seconds (Kr-81m – 13 seconds ) to hours (Y-87 – 80 hours). Thus, they typicallydecay or can be stored on site until such time that they become innocuous and can be disposed of as part of the municipal waste stream or along with LLWas byproduct material. Co-57, however, is an exception at 271 days. Other exceptions include some longer lived gamma-ray emitters, produced throughparticle accelerators (Na–22 – 2.6 years) as well as particle accelerator targets and components.
4
Table 2 Overview of 10 CFR Part 61 LLW Classes and Waste Characteristics. Adopted from NRC (1989, p. 9a)
and OTA (1989, pp. 83–84). Section 7.4.3 of this report describes the overall 10 CFR Part 61 waste
classification process in more detail.
RadionuclideConcentration
Waste Form Examples Intruder Protection* Waste Segregation
Class A low concentrations minimum waste form requirements
no stabilizationrequirements
contaminatedprotective clothing,paper, trash
no measures toprotect intruder
waste decays toacceptable levels tointruder after 100 yr
unstable Class Awaste must besegregated fromClass B and Cwastes
Class B higher concentrations
activity generally 10 –40 times greater thanClass A
minimum wasteform requirements
300-yr stabilizationrequirement
resins and filters fromnuclear power plants,wastes encapsulatedor stabilized inconcrete
requires stabilizationof waste form toprotect intruder
waste decays toacceptable levels tointruder after 100 yr,provided that wasteform is recognizable
need not besegregated fromClass C wastes
Class C highestconcentrations
activity generally 10 –100 times greaterthan Class B
minimum waste formrequirements
300-yr stabilizationrequirement
nuclear power plantreactor components,sealed sources, high-activity industrialwaste
requires stabilizationof waste form anddeeper disposal (orbarriers) to protectintruder
waste decays toacceptable levels tointruder after 500 yr
need not besegregated fromClass B wastes
* The 10 CFR Part 61 regulation assumes a 100-yr caretaker period.
1.2 Chemically Mixed LLW
Some commercial LLW contains chemicallyhazardous constituents and is referred toas“ mixed waste.” Mixed LLW typicallyincludes organic liquids, metallic lead, cadmium,chromates, and waste oils (Bowerman et al.,1985). This type of waste is produced by the fullrange of LLW generators and waste processors.Various estimates (OTA, 1989, p. 85; Klein etal., 1992, p. xiii; NRC, 1999) suggest that 3 to10 percent of commercial LLW is chemicallymixed waste.
Mixed LLW is also subject to regulation underthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA). The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) administers RCRA,along with states with regulations comparable toRCRA.
Section 1004(5) of RCRA defines a hazardouswaste as any substance that is flammable,corrosive, reactive, or toxic. On May 19, 1980,EPA published its final rule defining the generalframework for identifying chemically hazardouswastes beginning at page 33084 of Volume 45of the Federal Register (45 FR 33084). Theapplicable regulations can be found at 40 CFRPart 261, “ Identification and Listing ofHazardous Waste.” Until 1985, chemicallymixed LLW could be disposed of in a facility
5
meeting only the NRC’ s 10 CFR Part 61regulations (OTA, 1989, p. 86). Thereafter, themanagement and disposal of RCRA-classifiedwaste had to comply with EPA regulations aswell. As a result of legislative ambiguity (Parler,1989), both the NRC and EPA regulate themanagement of chemically mixed radioactivewaste. EPA published a final rule in 2001 (66FR 27218) that conditionally exempted mixedlow-activity radioactive waste (LAW) fromRCRA regulations during storage, treatment, anddisposal. See Section 5.3 of this report. In 2003,EPA published an advance notice of proposedrulemaking (ANPR) requesting comment on thesuitability of using RCRA Subtitle-C disposaltechnology (and regulations) for disposing ofcertain “ unimportant quantities” of mixedLAW. See 68 FR 65120.4
The review of mixed LLW issues is beyond thescope of this report. However, other researchershave studied the issue. See, for example,General Research Corporation (1980), Bowermanet al. (1986), Kempf et al. (1986), and OTA(1989).
1.3 Government-Owned LLW
Some LLW is generated in facilities that are notregulated by the Commission’ s authority underthe AEA, but are regulated by NRC AgreementStates. DOE, operating under different rules5
from the commercial sector, also manages anddisposes of Government-owned LLW.Government-owned LLW includes waste createdfrom past nuclear weapons production andresearch, environmental restoration of Federalfacilities, and routine operations of the U.S.Navy’ s nuclear propulsion program.
Although a detailed review of the DOE LLWmanagement program is also beyond the scope ofthis report, Appendix A offers a brief descriptionof this program and provides an alternativeperspective on the management of these wastes.However, unlike commercial LLW, it should benoted that a greater proportion of Government-owned LLW is chemically mixed – estimated tobe between 50 and 80 percent – which affects theDepartment’ s management strategy for thesewastes (National Research Council, 1999, p. 25).
“ Unimportant quantities” is a legal term that applies4
to source material defined in 10 CFR Part 40 (“ DomesticLicensing of Source Material”). It refers to uranium-and/or thorium-bearing materials in concentrations lessthan 0.05 percent by weight that are deferred fromregulation.
Under Section 274 of the AEA, the NRC can5
relinquish portions of its regulatory authority to licenseand regulate byproduct materials (radioisotopes), sourcematerials (uranium and thorium), and certain quantities ofspecial nuclear materials to the states. The mechanism forthe transfer of the NRC’ s authority is an agreementsigned by the Governor of the state and the Chairman ofthe Commission, in accordance with Section 274b of theact. Agreement States therefore are those states whoseGovernors have entered into such limited agreements withthe Commission.
6
(Page intentionally left blank.)
7
2 EARLY APPROACHES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
In the early years of the domestic nuclear energyindustry, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)used three methods to dispose of radioactivewaste — dilution and dispersion, shallow landburial (SLB), and disposal at sea. 6
2.1 Ocean Disposal
Initially, only the AEC disposed of bothcommercial and Government-owned LLW.Commercial wastes were typically disposed in theocean, based on the recommendations of theNational Academy of Sciences (NAS) at the time.See National Research Council (1959, 1962).7
Because most radionuclides have short half-lives,many believed that dilution in ocean water plusdecay would result in innocuous levels ofradiation and pose minimal hazards to man.Furthermore, the sea was readily available andeconomic to use (Raubvogel, 1982, pp. 21–23).The U.S. Navy conducted disposal at sea untilabout 1959. Thereafter, the AEC licensed sevencompanies to dispose of the wastes.
Ocean disposal of LLW occurred in watersgreater than 1000 fathoms (about 6000 feet)following the 1954 recommendations of theNational Bureau of Standards’ (NBS) NationalCommittee on Radiation Protection (NBS, 1954,
p. 2). The disposal container most often usedwas a 55-gallon steel drum. The LLW wasmixed with cement or concrete to assure sinkingand to withstand the deep-sea pressures.Sometimes, prefabricated steel-mesh-concreteboxes of varying sizes were used instead ofdrums. As was the case with the steel drums,cement or concrete was mixed with the LLW toachieve the negative buoyancy necessary toassure sinking. This general design configurationwas not intended to be permanent (U.S. GeneralAccounting Office – GAO, 1981, pp. 2–9). It8
provided an estimated 10 years of radionuclidecontainment in the marine environment9
(National Research Council, 1959, p. 1).
More than 60 LLW disposal sites weredistributed between 5 major disposal locations inthe Pacific Ocean, 1 in the Gulf of Mexico, and11 in the Atlantic Ocean. The waste was notevenly distributed among the sites; three sitesreceived about 90 percent of the LLW, byvolume. Table 3 summarizes the number ofLLW containers and the associated activitydisposed. Overall, it is estimated that about95 percent of the containers disposed in theAtlantic and Pacific Oceans, and the Gulf ofMexico were 55-gallon drums (National ResearchCouncil, 1971, p. 36).
In 1970, the AEC ended its practice of disposingof LLW at sea. Sea disposal was discontinued inconformity with U.S. environmental laws andregulations as well as international agreementsintended to prevent marine pollution, such as the
The AEA initially assigned the AEC the functions of6
both encouraging the use of nuclear power and regulatingits safety. The AEC regulatory programs sought to ensurepublic health and safety from the hazards of nuclear powerwithout imposing excessive requirements that wouldinhibit the growth of the industry.
The NAS generally recommended that no 300-mile7
section of the coast line should contain more than threedisposal areas and that adjacent disposal areas be separatedby at least 75 miles. The NAS also had specificrecommendations on the total quantity of activity disposedat any one location monthly, as well as annually.
In July 2004, the GAO was renamed the Government8
Accountability Office.
With the exception of the radionuclides strontium-90,9
cesium-137, and possibly cobalt-60.
8
Table 3 Summary of LLW Ocean Disposal Operations in U.S. Territorial Waters. Compiled using National
Research Council reports published in 1959 (p. 5) and 1971 (p. 37) and Appendix C to a report published in
April 1984 on this topic by the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. However, the
reader should note that questions have been raised in the past about the accuracy of past recordkeeping and
the accuracy of these statistics (Raubvogel, 1982, p. 23).
Water Body Years ofDisposal Activity
Number ofIndividual
Disposal Sites
Number ofContainers
Estimated Activityat Time of
Packaging (Ci)
Atlantic Ocean 1951–1967 +24 34,203* 79,482.9
Pacific Ocean 1946–1970 +34 56,261 14,980.5
Gulf of Mexico < 1959 2 79 < 25
* Includes unpackaged and liquid wastes.
1972 London Convention. The early 1980s saw10
a renewed interest in sea disposal.
In a report dated April 1984, the NationalAdvisory Committee on Oceans and theAtmosphere (NACOA) recommended that thepresent policy of excluding the use of the oceanfor LLW disposal be reversed (NACOA, 1984,pp. 6–7). These recommendations were neveradopted and the practice of ocean dumping wasnever reinstated in the United States. Consistentwith the applicable regulations, any request for11
ocean disposal of LLW requires a permit thatmust be approved by both houses of Congress.
2.2 Land Disposal
In the 1960s, commercial interest in oceandisposal began to decline and had endedcompletely by 1970. One of the principalreasons for the decline was the adverse publicreaction to polluting the ocean. The othermotivation was economic. Ocean disposal wasreported to cost as much as $48.75 per 55-gallondrum compared to $5.15 per drum for burial onland (Mazuzan and Walker, 1997, p. 367). Forthese reasons, the AEC endorsed a new disposalpolicy permitting land burial using commercialdisposal sites. Under this policy, it wasenvisioned that the private sector would identifysites with favorable geologic and meteorologicconditions and provide the same disposal serviceto commercial generators, but at lower cost. Theintent was to locate disposal sites in those regionsof the country generating the wastes. At thetime, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory(ORNL) and the National Reactor Testing Station(now the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory)were the principal handlers of LLW generated bythen-AEC licensees. LLW generated there andat other Federal facilities was being disposed atabout 16 major and lesser Federally owned sitesrather than in the ocean (National ResearchCouncil, 1976, pp. 18–19).
Known more formally as the “ Convention on the10
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastesand Other Matter, 1972," the London Convention hasbeen in force since 1975. Currently 80 Member states(including the United States) are parties to this convention. In 1996, a protocol was developed to amend the LondonConvention to ban ocean disposal of radioactive wastesand incineration at sea. See DOE (2005b, pp. 17–18).
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries11
Act of 1972 (Public Law 95-532) authorizes EPA to issuepermits and promulgate regulations for disposing ofmaterials into United States territorial waters. Thoseregulations (EPA, 1977a) can be found in 40 CFR Part220 (“ Ocean Dumping”).
9
Because of concerns about the long-termeffectiveness of institutional controls at potentialdisposal sites, in January 1960, the AECproposed that commercial disposal facilities belocated on Government-owned land and regulatedand licensed by the Federal Government(Mazuzan and Walker, 1997, p. 366). As atemporary measure, until a commercial disposalcapability became available, the AEC decided toaccept nongovernment LLW for disposal as partof an “ Interim Radioactive Waste BurialProgram” (Op cit., p. 367). In September 1962,the AEC authorized private firms to dispose ofcommercial LLW on land. The first privatelyoperated LLW land-burial service was nearBeatty, Nevada, on state-owned land. NuclearEngineering, Inc., which the AEC had alreadylicensed to commercially dispose of LLW at sea,operated the site. At the time, licensing criteriaspecific to the disposal of LLW did not exist.The only applicable licensing criteria were thegeneral AEC regulations at 10 CFR 20.302(a),10 CFR 20.302(b), and 10 CFR 20.304.12
In May 1963, the AEC announced its intent towithdraw its interim disposal services forradioactive wastes shipped on or after August 12,1963, because of the establishment of acommercial disposal alternatives at Beatty and atMaxey Flats (AEC, 1963). Interim disposalservices were terminated in November 1963.The AEC also announced its intention to usecommercial disposal sites for its wastes, to theextent that it could obtain “ fair and reasonable”prices for the service (Lennemann, 1976,p. 268). Although additional disposal sites werelater established (see next paragraph),Lennemann (1976, p. 269) notes that at no timedid the AEC believe that more than two regionalLLW disposal sites were necessary.
By 1971, a total of six shallow-burial LLWdisposal facilities were licensed and operated todispose of the Nation’ s commercial LLW (seeTable 4). Most of these facilities were locatedwithin the boundaries of or adjacent to a muchlarger Federal reservation operated by the AEC.Four of the disposal sites — Beatty, Barnwell,Maxey Flats, and West Valley — were licensedby their respective host states through theAgreement State program with the AEC underSection 274 of the AEA. The AEC licensed thetwo remaining sites (Richland and Sheffield)because Washington and Illinois had not becomeAgreement States at the time of licensing.
The commercially operated sites adopted thepractice of near-surface, SLB disposal technologyadhered to at existing AEC facilities at the time.This disposal method relies on relatively simpleengineering designs to isolate wastes frominfiltrating groundwater. The natural (geologic)characteristics of the site are the principalattenuators of any radioactive material that mightbe released to the accessible environment. Therewere no systematic site selection criteria ordesign requirements that could be used toestablish the best mix of features necessary tocontain and isolate the wastes (Robertson, 1984,p. 105). Disposal generally involved clearingand grading the land and excavating shallowunlined trenches – generally less than 50-feet(15-m) deep – that would be used to receive thewaste.
At the time, no specific packaging requirementsexisted for LLW disposal. LLW was packaged13
in a variety of container types that wererandomly dumped or stacked into the trenches.The waste was generally placed into the trencheson a first-come, first-served basis. Trencheswere then backfilled using materials removed
Title 10, Section 20.2002, “ Method for Obtaining12
Approval of Proposed Disposal Procedures,” of the Codeof Federal Regulations supercedes these requirements.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)13
promulgated its regulations for the transportation ofradioactives wastes in 1979 (44 FR 1851).
10
Table 4 Past and Current Commercial LLW Disposal Facilities in the United States. Taken from EG & G Idaho, Inc. (1994), unless otherwise noted.
Site OperationalPeriod
OriginalLicensingAuthority
(year)
Status Area(acres)a
DisposalVolume(10 ft³)6
Waste Form Characteristics Comments
By-product material(10 Ci)6
SourceMaterial(10 lbs)6
SpecialNuclearMaterial
(lbs)
Beatty, Nevada 1962–1992 AEC (1962) Closed 80(60)
4.7 0.64 4.0 605 A site adjacent to the now-closed LLW disposal facilityis currently operated as a RCRA- and PCB-approveddisposal facility. b
Maxey Flats, Kentucky 1963–1977 State (1962) Closed 280 4.7 2.4 0.533 950 Designated as an EPA Superfund site in 1986. Remediation completed in 1991.
West Valley, New York 1963–1975 State (1963) Closed 3345(22) c
2.5 1.3 1 125 LLW operations ceased in 1975 when burial capsleaked contaminated water.
Richland, Washington 1965–present AEC (1965) Open 100 13.6 36.1 d e e 13.5
f
351 f
Collocated within the Hanford nuclear reservation. Disposal site leased from the Government. Disposalfees lower than Barnwell, but higher than Envirocare.
Barnwell, SouthCarolina
1969–present State (1971) Open 300 24.8 12.8 e e 33.6 6739f
Originally licensed for above-ground LLW storage. Inf
1971, LLW burial was approved. Highest disposal feesin the country.
Sheffield, Illinois 1968–1978 AEC (1967) Closed 170(20)
+3 3 0.06 126 Attempts to expand disposal capacity in 1975 wereunsuccessful because contaminated leachate wasdetected, effectively ending site operations. In 1988,the Sheffield operator agreed to a 10-year monitoringplan with the state.
Clive, Utah 1991–present State (1991) Open 540 25.0 11.3g NA NA Initially approved as a DOE uranium mill tailingsg
disposal site. Subsequent license amendments werereceived for the disposal of naturally occurringradioactive material (NORM – 1987), LAW (1991),mixed LLW (1993), AEA Section 11e.(2) materials h
(1994), and Part 61 Class A LLW (2000).
a. Actual disposal area, in parentheses, smaller than area comprising disposal site. Reported disposal volumes can be converted to units of cubic meters by multiplying values by 0.028317.b. In June 1988, the site operator, U.S. Ecology received a joint State-Federal RCRA permit to dispose of hazardous chemical wastes at a location adjacent to the LLW disposal site (Howekamp, 1996, p. 3). Pre-RCRA classified waste types had been disposed at this site since 1970. In 1978, the company also received EPA approval to operate a PCB storage and disposal facility at the Beatty site.c. Site owned by New York State includes multiple radioactive waste management areas.d. Hanford nuclear reservation encompasses an area of 1000 acres.e. Data for the period 1995–98 taken from Fuchs (1996, p. 6; 1997, p. 6; 1998, p. 6; 1999, p. 7). Data for the period 1999 though June 2005 taken from MIMS.f. Data only through 1994. g. Data for period June 1992 through May 2005 taken from MIMS.
11
during trench excavation, compacted, and gradedto create an earthen mound cap necessary toprevent rain water ponding and to promoterunoff. The earthen cap was then seeded togrow a short-rooted protective grass cover. Topreclude inadvertent human intrusion, a securityfence surrounded the disposal sites. The near-surface disposal method assumed that the natureand rates of natural processes acting on theearthen trench system would be sufficient to slowthe movement of radionuclides from the disposaltrenches to the accessible environment until theyhad decayed to acceptable background levelsfound in nature (EG&G Idaho, Inc., 1994, p. 4).
In 1973, the AEC asked the NAS toindependently review the shallow-land disposalpractices at its facilities. The AEC wasparticularly interested in identifying “ undesirableexisting conditions and disposal practices...” aswell as identifying corrective actions, such as“ changes in current burial practices, changes inconditioning of [LLW] materials for burial, andspecial treatment of the ground prior todisposal... .” See Pittman (1973). The AECrequested the review because routine monitoringat some of the AEC sites had begun to reveal thatthe disposal trenches were not containing thewastes and that radionuclides were being released(NRC, 1977b, p. 17). At the time, the AEC wasparticularly concerned about the long-termmanagement of the TRU constituents of itswastes (National Research Council, 1976). In1976, the NAS published its findings andrecommendations following the review of solidLLW management practices at AEC facilities.Although the NAS found no serious deficienciesin past Federal disposal practices, it did makenumerous administrative, as well as technicalrecommendations for the AEC to consider.14
2.3 Early Performance Issues
After several years of operation, the WestValley, Maxey Flats, and Sheffield sites began15
to encounter surface and/or ground-watermanagement problems (Fisher, 1986). Theseproblems, coupled with other early LLW disposalpractices, resulted in the unexpected release andtransport of radionuclides from the disposal sites.Key failure modes included waste containerexhumation due to surface erosion, groundfailures (subsidence) caused by inadequate wastecontainer compaction, and the migration ofcontaminated leachate from unlined disposaltrenches. Because the disposal units were ineffect “ leaking,” decisions were made tosuspend operations and close the sites in the1970s. Carter et al. (1979) describes forensiccase studies of past performance for several ofthe early disposal sites.
The remaining LLW sites had problems of adifferent type. The Governors of Nevada andWashington temporarily closed the Beatty andRichland sites, respectively, in 1979 as a result ofwaste packaging violations and transportationsafety issues. When the volume of waste shippedto the South Carolina site began to increasebecause of closures and interruptions at the othersites, coupled with a large increase in thegeneration of LLW following the Three MileIsland incident (NRC Special Inquiry Group,1980), the State was concerned that the facilitywould bear sole responsibility for the disposal ofthe Nation’ s commercial LLW. As a result, in1979, the Governor of South Carolina orderedthat waste acceptance operations be scaled backby 50 percent over a 2-year period (EG&GIdaho, Inc., 1994).
Later, as part of the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking14
process, the NRC conducted its own independent reviewof early LLW disposal site performance. Clancy et al.(1981) documented this independent review.
Actually, contaminant transport was not discovered15
at the Sheffield site until after operators of the closed siteattempted to reopen with expanded disposal capacity(EG&G Idaho, Inc., 1994, pp. 37–38).
12
To address some of the past performanceconcerns and to develop geohydrologicguidelines that could be used to establish16
technical criteria for selecting, evaluating,licensing, and operating new LLW disposal sites,the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) receiveddirect LLW appropriations for the first time in1975 leading to the preparation of various reports(Schneider et al. , 1982, p. 57). These reportsinclude Schneider et al. (1982), Dinwiddie andTrask (1987), Trask and Stevens (1991), Stevensand Nicholson (1996); and Morganwalp andBuxton (1999). To reduce the potential for theenvironmental transport of radionuclides atdisposal sites, the NAS independentlyrecommended that arid sites in the West beconsidered based on the view that thegeohydrologic settings there would be lesscomplex and hence performance could be morereliably predicted (National Research Council,1976, pp. 67–68). Incidentally, the USGSreached this same opinion as early as 1974 when
it recommended 17 types of earth-scienceinformation needed to predict the rate anddirection of radionuclide transport. SeePapadopulos and Winograd (1974). Otherrecommendations were made that some form ofengineered barrier, working in concert with thenatural system (geosphere), be integrated intofuture LLW facility designs (Battelle MemorialInstitute, 1976, pp. 24, 48).
Technical issues notwithstanding, LLWgenerators were still faced with the practicalmatter of a reduction in existing disposal accessbecause of site closures and operationalinterruptions. In addition, the geographiclocation of the remaining disposal facilities(mostly in the West) was mismatched with thegeographic location of most of the wastegeneration (in the East). The three remainingstates with operating sites made it clear that theywould not continue to accept all of the Nation’ sLLW (GAO, 1983, p. 7).
Later published as Bedinger (1989).16
13
3 CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS
Congress abolished the AEC in 1974. The newlycreated NRC subsumed the AEC regulatoryfunctions and the Energy Research andDevelopment Administration (ERDA – whichwas later absorbed into DOE) took over theatomic energy promotional functions.
3.1 Background
In a review prepared for OTA, Metlay (1981a,p. 203) notes that during the formative years ofdomestic radioactive waste management policy(1941–75), the waste management issue did notreceive very high priority. National policyfocused on promoting the civilian use of nuclearenergy (e.g., “ Atoms for Peace”). TheGovernment assumed that SNF would bereprocessed and its residual uranium andplutonium would be recycled as fuel (Op cit.,p. 205). When the management of radioactivewaste finally did receive attention, it focused onthe management of the more toxic, longer livedradionuclides (Metlay, 1981b, pp. 233–239).
In response to the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1970 (NEPA) (Public Law 91-190), as17
well as critical reviews by GAO (1968, 1971,1974), the AEC undertook several initiativesintended to place greater Federal emphasis on the
management of radioactive wastes. In June1969, the AEC proposed for the first time thedevelopment of repositories for the geologicdisposal of solidified HLW on Federal land(AEC, 1970). Next, the AEC issued a plan18
describing how it intended to manage radioactivelegacy waste from the defense program (AEC,1972). In 1974, the AEC issued a rule on theenvironmental effects of the uranium fuel cycleas a result of the increased licensing andoperation of commercial nuclear power plants(AEC, 1974a). This rule was later supported bya draft EIS (DEIS – AEC, 1974c). The AEC19
also proposed to prohibit the burial of TRU-contaminated commercial radioactive wastewhose concentration exceeded 10 nCi/g (AEC,1974b). Waste material exceeding thisconcentration limit would have been consigned toa Federal retrieval storage facility pending thedevelopment of a disposal facility for TRU waste(Op cit.). In 1976, the newly created NRCissued a final EIS (FEIS) to aid in the assessmentof the proposed wide-scale use of mixed-oxide(MOX) fuel in light water nuclear powerreactors. The environmental impacts of potentialradioactive waste management activities due tothe recycling of MOX plutonium were discussedin Volume 3 (Section H). In that FEIS, it wasnoted that LLW volumes were not significantlyaffected by the recycle option (NRC, 1976,
NEPA initially requires Federal agencies to17
integrate environmental values into their decisionmakingprocesses by considering the environmental impacts oftheir proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to thoseactions. NEPA also requires that all Federal agenciesprepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) “ formajor actions significantly affecting the quality of thehuman environment.. . .” To meet this basic requirement,Federal and State Governments, at all levels, nowroutinely prepare detailed EIS. See Leopold et al. (1971).
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) developsregulations that implement NEPA. CEQ defines the“ scoping” of an EIS at 40 CFR 1501.7 as “ an early andopen process for determining the scope of issues to beaddressed and for identifying the significant issues relatedto the proposed action.. . .”
Designated Appendix F, “ Siting of Fuel18
Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste ManagementFacilities” (34 FR 8712). The policy was later finalized in1970 (35 FR 17530).
Following the reorganization of the AEC, ERDA19
issued a revised generic DEIS which, in part, addressedthe earlier public comments received on the version firstissued by the AEC. Later, DOE (1979) updated the DEISfor a second time, acknowledging (pp. 2.1–2.2) LLW aspart of the nuclear fuel cycle, but not addressing theenvironmental impacts of this waste form as it was thesubject of an ongoing NRC rulemaking (i.e., 10 CFR Part61). DOE published the final generic EIS in October1980.
14
“ Executive Summary,” p. ES-10).
Congress abolished the AEC when it passed theEnergy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law93-438). The act placed the AEC regulatoryfunctions into the NRC and placed the atomicenergy promotional functions within ERDA,which was later absorbed into DOE following theDepartment’ s creation in 1977. The NRC wasgiven the authority to regulate certain FederalHLW storage and disposal activities. However,a number of other Federal radioactive wasteactivities were exempted from this independentregulatory authority. In its 1976 report, the NASrecommended greater Federal leadership in themanagement of radioactive wastes (NationalResearch Council, p. 77). In a later review,GAO (1977) noted several continuing problems,including gaps in the NRC’ s regulatoryauthorities; the lack of demonstrated technologiesfor managing certain defense, commercial, andTRU wastes; and technical concerns within thescientific community regarding the feasibility oflong-term geologic disposal. Based onrecommendations for improved coordination ofwaste management policies and programs (U.S.Radiation Policy Council, 1980a), the FederalGovernment subsequently intensified its efforts tocoordinate its radioactive through the U.S. Officeof Management and Budget (OMB). See EPA(1988, pp. 1-3–1-4).
At the direction of Congress (through Public Law95-601), the NRC received appropriations in1978 to undertake a study to assess the possibleexpansion of the Commission’ s licensing andregulatory authority to include categories ofexisting and future Federal radioactive wastestorage and disposal activities not presentlysubject to such authority. In its subsequentreport (NRC, 1979b), the Commissionrecommended that its regulatory authorities beexpanded over certain DOE waste managementactivities. Specifically, the Commissionrecommended (Op cit., p. 3) the following:
• The NRC licensing authorities should beextended to cover all new DOE facilitiesfor the disposal of TRU waste andnondefense (commercial) LLW –designated as Option A.20
• A pilot program should be established totest the feasibility of extending NRCregulatory authority on a consultive basisto DOE waste management activities notcurrently covered by the NRC’ s existingauthorities – designated as Option B.
Congress never adopted the NRC’ s 1979recommendations. Instead, they authorized DOEto build a geologic repository for the disposal ofdefense-generated TRU wastes near Carlsbad,New Mexico. This facility, referred to as theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), has been inoperation since May 1998 and is exempt fromNRC regulation. (See Appendix B of this reportfor a brief discussion of the WIPP program.)
As noted in the next section of this report, theNRC was already developing a LLW regulatoryframework when Congress passed the LLWPA,which established Federal policy concerning themanagement of commercial LLW. DOE was tocontinue to manage Government-owned LLW.(Also see Appendix A of this report.)
Lastly, from time to time, the issue of whetherthe NRC should seek authority to regulate “ lowactivity materials” (and wastes) has been raised.This debate applies to naturally occurringradioactive materials (NORM) as well as tonaturally occurring or accelerator-producedmaterials (NARM). Austin (1988, p. 24), forexample, notes that the Commission soughtauthority to manage such materials in the past,
Before the NRC issued its recommendations,20
Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings RadiationControl Act of 1978 (Public Law 96-604) that furtherextended the NRC’ s licensing authority to includeuranium mill tailings and mill tailings sites. See alsoLanda (1980).
15
which Congress previously declined to provide.However, in recent years, the debate hasreemerged (National Council on RadiationProtection and Measurements – NCRP, 2005)and Congress recently directed the Commissionto take action for the first time to regulate someof these materials. Refer to Section 3.5 of thisreport for a discussion of the management ofLAW.
3.2 The NRC and 10 CFR Part 61
The NRC began operations on January 19, 1975.The NRC (like the AEC before it) focused itsattention on several broad issues essential toprotecting public health and safety. Initially, theNRC (and the AEC) regulated LLW using acollection of generic regulations specified in10 CFR Part 20, “ Standards for ProtectionAgainst Radiation,” 10 CFR Part 30, “ Rules ofGeneral Applicability to Domestic Licensing ofByproduct Material,” 10 CFR Part 40,“ Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” and10 CFR Part 70, “ Domestic Licensing ofSpecial Nuclear Material.” However, inresponse to the needs and requests expressed bythe public, the states, Congress, industry, andothers, one of the earliest rulemaking efforts theCommission was a set of comprehensiverequirements for licensing the land disposal ofcommercial LLW.
In 1976, the GAO published a report thatreviewed existing private and Federal LLWdisposal practices in light of the reportedoperational and performance irregularitiesidentified at some disposal sites. Among otherthings, that review identified the need for studiesand criteria to judge the suitability of potentialLLW disposal sites, as well as the need forstandards to determine when releases fromdisposal sites reached unacceptable levels andrequired corrective action (GAO, 1976,pp. 19–21). In parallel to the GAO review, theNRC had formed a task force to examine Federaland Agreement State programs that regulated
commercial LLW disposal (NRC, 1977a).Among other things, the task force (NRC,1977b, p. ii) recommended that the NRC“ accelerate” the development of its LLWregulatory program. Shortly thereafter, the NRC(1977d) published a program plan that describedthe elements and schedules for implementing anintegrated LLW program. This program planincluded the development of an EIS and a yet-to-be-defined LLW regulation.
The NRC began to develop its LLW regulation in1978 by relying on an extensive NEPA scopingprocess. Early in that process, the Commission21
determined that comprehensive standards,technical criteria, and licensing procedures wereneeded to ensure public safety and long-termenvironmental protection in the licensing of newsites, as well as the operation and closure ofexisting ones. The staff determined that the mostviable regulatory approach would be to developa regulation generally applicable to land disposalof most types of commercial LLW. Onechallenge was that the regulation had to apply toa broad range of geologic/geomorphic conditionswithin the United States as well as to disparatewaste streams. Another challenge was that earlyin the scoping process, the NRC staff determinedthat inadvertent human reentry into a LLWdisposal area could not be precluded (NRC,1980, 45 FR 13105). Consequently, the staffexplored ways of classifying LLW for use instandardized exposure scenarios as a way ofpredicting potential doses to receptors. SeeRogers (1979) and Rogers et al. (1979). Thestaff also considered both generic and specific
In deciding to develop a LLW regulation, the NRC21
determined that the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 61qualified as a major Federal action, as defined by NEPA.
CEQ is responsible for developing regulations thatimplement NEPA. CEQ defines the scoping of an EIS at40 CFR 1501.7 as “ an early and open process fordetermining the scope of issues to be addressed and foridentifying the significant issues related to the proposedaction.. . .”
16
disposal methods in the context of an EIS thatexamined the costs, benefits, and impacts of abase-case and alternative disposal concepts.From those analyses and studies, the staffproposed performance objectives and technicalcriteria in a draft regulation designated as10 CFR Part 61 (NRC, 1981b).
Following several years of development, theCommission issued a final 10 CFR Part 61 rulein December 1982 (NRC, 1982b). The“ umbrella” regulation covered all phases ofshallow, near-surface LLW disposal from siteselection through facility design, licensing,operations, closure, and postclosure stabilizationto the period when active institutional controlsend. The regulation requires the use ofengineered features in concert with the naturalcharacteristics of the disposal site to contain andisolate the wastes. The regulation alsoestablished the procedures, criteria, and termsand conditions on which the Commission wouldissue and renew licenses for the SLB ofcommercially generated LLW. (See Section 6 ofthis report.) Among other things, 10 CFR 61.55,“ Waste Classification,” introduced a three-tierwaste classification system for LLW based on theconcentrations of the longer lived radionuclides.These classes are designated Class A, Class B,and Class C in ascending order of potentialradiological hazard, and the regulation includesspecific design standards applicable to each wasteclass.
3.3 The Low-Level Radioactive WastePolicy Act of 1980
At the same time the NRC established a LLWregulatory framework, Congress passed theLLWPA. This act set forth a Federal policy thatLLW disposal was best handled on a regionalbasis. The act made states responsible fordisposing of commercial LLW generated within
their borders and encouraged the states to form22
interstate compacts to establish regional disposalsites, rather than establishing 50 separate disposalsites. The act was passed in response to policyrecommendations that addressed past and presentLLW management issues from several states23
and state-supported organizations, including theNational Governors’ Association and theNational Conference of State Legislatures. Theother key provision of LLWPA allowed compactsto exclude commercial LLW generated outsidetheir borders. Following passage of the act, the states began toenter into negotiations to form the requiredcompacts. The states were generally committedto the compact arrangement. Shortly after theact’ s passage, 40 states had entered intoagreements or were negotiating to form sevenrequired compacts (GAO, 1983, p. 16).However, in its review of the compact-formingagreement process, GAO observed that theadministrative agreement process (Table 5) was“ slow and drawn-out.” They also observed thatonly three of the tentative compact regions hadoperating disposal sites, and those sites had beenin existence before the passage of the act. GAO(1983, pp. 20–21) estimated that once a compactagreement had been entered into, it would takean additional 5 years before the disposal site wasready to receive LLW. Nevertheless, despite theprogress being made, GAO (1983, p. 15)concluded that no new disposal sites would beoperating until sometime after 1988, 2 years afterthe Congressionally-mandated date of January 1,1986.
By January 1, 1986, except for LLW generated by22
the Federal Government.
Washington State, in conjunction with Nevada and23
South Carolina, sought passage of the LLWPA because ofthe imbalance between the volumes of LLW those stateswere generating and the wastes they were receiving fordisposal from outside their borders. See Washington StateDepartment of Health (2004, p. 43).
17
Table 5 Administrative Process for Establishing LLW Compacts. Taken from GAO (1983, p. 10). Compacts formed
through this process are described later in Table 6 of this report.
Step Description of Activity
1 States negotiate among themselves to form regional Interstate Compacts of two or more states. a
2 Once formed, proposed Interstate Compacts draft Interstate Compact Agreements.
3 Drafted Interstate Compact Agreements are approved by the state legislatures and signed by the Governors in each stateparticipating in the Interstate Compact.
4 Ratified (approved) Interstate Compact Agreements are to be approved by a majority of both Houses of Congress.
5 Following Congressional approval, each Interstate Compact is to form a commission to administer the compact agreement. b, c
a. Alternatively, if a state chooses not to participate in the Interstate Compact process, it must indicate its intent not to do so. States deciding to act aloneto meet their own LLW disposal needs still need to undertake the process steps outlined in Item b, below. b. Once formed, the Interstate Compact Commission is responsible for ensuring that its member states (i) screen the region defined by the InterstateCompact to identify candidate disposal sites, (ii) select a preferred site and perform the required environmental assessment, (iii) prepare a LLW licenseapplication, and (iv) construct and operate the disposal facility, once the license application is approved.c. Compacts can choose to refer the site selection/license application development process to a private entity.
One of the problems with the existing law wasthat it did not specify penalties, such as denial ofaccess to existing disposal facilities, ifCongressional deadlines for developing newdisposal facilities were not met. When it becameapparent that the deadline for operating newdisposal sites would not be met, decisionmakersrecognized that adjustments to the 1980 act wereneeded. Moreover, the three states withoperating disposal sites made it clear that theywould not continue to accept all of the Nation’ scommercial LLW. But before Congress couldamend the 1980 act, an “ understanding” wasnecessary between Nevada, South Carolina, andWashington — the states with operating disposalfacilities — and the 47 unsited states. Followingnegotiations, these three states agreed to continueto receive out-of-state wastes for an additional7 years, subject to certain conditions laterreflected in the 1985 amendments to the act(NRC, 1989c, p. 13).
3.4 The Low-Level Radioactive WastePolicy Amendments Act of 1985
On January 15, 1986, Congress passed the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act
of 1985 (LLWPAA) (Public Law 99-240). TheLLWPAA extended the original January 1, 1986,deadline to develop new disposal facilities by7 years to January 1, 1993. Because newdisposal facilities were expected to be operationalby the 1993 date, the existing states withoperating LLW disposal facilities had the right,at that time, to decline commercial LLW fromoutside of their respective compacts. Inexchange, the unsited states and regions wererequired to meet newly established milestonesand deadlines. See Table 6. If states failed to24
comply with the specific LLWPAA milestones,the three states operating disposal facilities wereauthorized to deny disposal access to those statesin violation of the milestones. The LLWPAAalso included the following provisions:
• establishing financial penalties on wastedisposed of at existing disposal facilitiesif certain milestones were not met
In a 1992 decision [New York vs. United States et24
al. (505 U.S. 144)], the U.S. Supreme Court struck downthe “ take title” provision requiring that states must taketitle to their LLW if a disposal facility were not availableby 1996.
18
Table 6 Milestones, Deadlines, and Penalties Defined in the LLWPAA
Milestone Date LLWPA Requirement Penalty(ies)
By July 1, 1986 Each state shall join a regional compact by ratifying compact legislation or, by theenactment of legislation or the certification of the Governor, indicate its intent todevelop its own LLW disposal facility.
2× the surcharge ($20/ft ) for3
the period July 1, 1986,through December 31, 1986.
Access to existing disposalsites may be denied afterJanuary 1, 1987.
By January 1,1988
Each compact region or the host state in which its LLW disposal facility is to belocated shall develop a siting plan for such a facility providing detailed proceduresand a schedule for establishing a facility location and preparing a facility licenseapplication and shall identify a developer to implement such plan.
2× the surcharge ($40/ft ) for3
the period January 1, 1988,through June 30, 1988.
4× the surcharge ($80/ft ) for3
the period July 1, 1988,through December 31, 1988.
Access to existing disposalsites may be denied afterJanuary 1, 1989.
Each nonsited compact region shall identify the state in which its LLW disposalfacility is to be located, or shall have selected the developer for such facility and thesite to be developed, and shall identify a developer to implement such plan.
By January 1,1990
Each state (or the designated disposal facility developer) shall have submitted acomplete application (as determined by the NRC or the appropriate agency of anAgreement State) for a license to operate an LLW disposal facility or, in lieu of thelicense application, the Governor’s written certification to the NRC that such statewill be capable of providing for, and will provide for, the storage, disposal, ormanagement of any LLW generated within such state and requiring disposal afterDecember 31, 1992, and include a description of the actions that will be taken toensure that such capacity exists.
Access to existing disposalsites may be denied afterJanuary 1, 1990.
By January 1,l992
A complete application (as determined by the NRC or the appropriate agency of anAgreement State) shall be filed for a license to operate an LLW disposal facilitywithin each nonsited compact region or within each nonmember state.
3× the surcharge ($120/ft3
maximum) for the periodJanuary 1, 1992, untilcomplete application is filedor until December 31, 1992.
By January 1,1993
Each state (or its compact region, where applicable) is expected to have provided adisposal facility for all the LLW it generates, and disposal rights at the three existingdisposal facilities (Barnwell, Beatty, and Richland) will end.
1/36 of the rebates collectedfor the period from January 1,1990, through December 31,1992, returned to generatorsmonthly, with interest.
Rebates to generators tocontinue until January 1,1996, or until state providesfor disposal.
If a state (or, where applicable, a compact region) is unable to provide a disposalfacility for its LLW, those states in the compact region shall, upon the request of theLLW generator or owner, be obligated to take title to and possession of the waste,or assume financial liability for costs associated with its storage and maintenance.
If a state (or, where applicable, a compact region) is unable to provide a disposalfacility for its LLW, the state (or states) will have to forfeit rights to rebates ofprevious surcharge payments made by LLW generators (or owners) because of thestate’s failure to meet earlier LLWPAA milestones.
By January 1,1996
If a state (or, where applicable, a compact region) is unable to provide a disposalfacility for its LLW, those states in the compact region shall, upon the request of theLLW generator or owner, be obligated to take title to and possession of the waste.
In 1996, the US SupremeCourt found that this provisionof the LLWPAA wasunconstitutional.
19
• assigning responsibility to the FederalGovernment for disposing of commercialLLW exceeding 10 CFR Part 61 Class Cconcentration limits
• specifying which categories of LLWwere exempt from commercial disposalfacilities
The act also gave Federal agencies expandedresponsibilities in the area of commercial LLW(see Table 7) and assigned specific newresponsibilities to DOE and the NRC. Under theLLWPAA, DOE is required to do the following:
• dispose of GTCC-designated wastes
• manage the collection of and disbursal ofLLWPAA-levied surcharges25
• provide financial and technical assistanceto the states and compacts
• prepare certain status reports on themanagement of national LLW inventories
For its part, the NRC was required to do thefollowing:
• review all LLW disposal facility licenseapplications
• develop standards and procedures forexempting certain LLW from disposal inlicensed facilities
• provide regulatory and technicalassistance to Agreement States
• determine procedures for grantingemergency access to LLW facilities forwastes generated in other regions26
3.5 De Minimis Regulatory Levels and theBelow Regulatory Concern Policy
Section 10 of the LLWPAA also requires that theNRC establish standards for determining whenradionuclides are present in waste streams insufficiently low concentrations or quantities as tobe “ below regulatory concern” (BRC), therebypotentially exempting them from NRC LLWregulation. Before the passage of the LLWPA in1980, the staff had already indicated its intent toformally establish a de minimis level for27
commonly used, short-lived radioisotopes whenit announced the availability of a preliminarydraft version of the 10 CFR Part 61 regulation(NRC, 1980). The staff provided additionalclarification of its de minimis position in the draft10 CFR Part 61 DEIS. As discussed in thatposition, radionuclides with very short half-livescould, on a case-by-case basis, be exempt fromdisposal under 10 CFR Part 61. Alternatively, ifauthorized, the exemption would generallyrequire storage of the waste for a duration of 10half-lives of decay (for the dominantradionuclide). Afterwards, the licensee coulddispose of the wastes in a manner consistent withits nonradiological properties (NRC, 1981c,Volume 2, p. 2-8). Following public review ofthe DEIS, over one-fourth of the commentersendorsed the de minimis concept (NRC, 1982b,47 FR 57452). However, the fundamentalconcern was not whether a generic or a case-by-case approach should be taken, but rather the
“ Surcharges” were financial penalties imposed by25
DOE on waste generators if certain LLWPAA milestoneswere not met. These penalties were in addition to thebasic disposal charges imposed by the disposal facilityoperator. See Table 6.
Promulgated as 10 CFR Part 62, “ Criteria and26
Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal andRegional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities” (NRC,1989a).
The staff defined a de minimis level as one in which27
the radioactivity in the waste is sufficiently low that it canbe disposed as ordinary, nonradioactive trash (45 FR13106).
20
Table 7 Federal Responsibilities for the Management and Disposal of Commercial LLW (as defined by various
Federal statutes)
Agency Responsibility
U.S. Department of Energy Overall lead agency for national planning of commercial LLW management and disposal. Assist in the formation of Interstate Compacts and establishing site selection procedures. Also undertake (or sponsor) research and development (R&D) in the area of LLW disposaltechnology, and transfer that technology to the private sector.
U.S. Department of Transportation Regulate waste containers, transportation vehicles, and other interstate aspects of LLWtransport. a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Establish overall Federal radiation protection guidance and environmental standards. b
U.S. Geological Survey No basic responsibility for the management of LLW. Conduct basic research in the geologicalsciences and develop basic data for application in the development of disposal criteria. Alsoprovide technical advice in the assessment of specific disposal sites.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulate and license the commercial and nondefense governmental use of source, by-product, and special nuclear material, including the licensing of commercial LLW disposalfacilities.
a. Through a memorandum of understanding, the NRC and DOT have delineated their respective responsibilities for the transportation of radioactivewastes. The NRC regulates packaging for wastes containing high amounts of radioactive materials to assure safety and safeguards during transportation. DOT regulates all other aspects of radioactive waste transportation.b. See Section 7.4.1 of this report for more information.
need for Commission action to develop deminimis standards as soon as possible (47 FR57453).
In its draft rule, the Commission expressed itspreferred position to review de minimis wastestreams on a case-by-case basis, consistent withthe recommendations of the U.S. RadiationPolicy Council (1980b). In doing so, theCommission provided guidance in the FederalRegister notice on what should be included in anyexemption petition. See 47 FR 57453. The28
Commission also noted that it intended to workover the next several years to define genericlimits for de minimis waste streams (Op cit.). Insupport this statement, the staff subsequentlypublished an impacts analysis methodology(Oztunali and Roles, 1984) that prospectivepetitioners could use to determine radiologicaldoses for de minimis waste streams. Thecalculational approach employed in thatmethodology (Oztunali et al., 1981) was similarto that used in the development of the 10 CFRPart 61 DEIS. Later, a compendium computercode (Forstom and Goode, 1986) thatimplemented the methodology was issued forpublic comment.
In August 1986, the Commission issued a policystatement outlining its plans to establish certainnew rules and procedures to exempt specificradioactive waste streams from regulation due to
In a different regulatory context, the Commission28
had already established the precedent for grantingregulatory exemptions to disposal of certain radioactivewaste streams (NRC, 1981a). At 10 CFR 20.306, forexample, the Commission set regulatory exemption levelsfor specified concentrations of tritium and carbon-14without regard to their radioactivity (46 FR 16231). TheCommission was already aware of the academic view thatcertain radioactive waste streams could be considered ofno regulatory concern from a public health and safetystandpoint and, as such, they could be exempt from
regulation on a case-by-case basis depending on therecommendations of the Radiation Policy Council.
21
the presence of radionuclides in sufficiently lowconcentrations or quantities as to be BRC. Thesubsequent BRC Policy Statement (NRC, 1986b)contained criteria that, if adequately addressed,would allow the Commission to act expeditiouslyin providing the needed regulatory relief. TheNRC published these criteria as Appendix B ,29
“ Procedure for Imposing Requirements byOrder, or for Modification, Suspension, orRevocation of a License, or for Imposing CivilPenalties,” to 10 CFR Part 2, “ Rules of Practicefor Domestic Licensing Procedures and Issuanceof Orders.” To establish a consistent regulatoryframework for decisionmaking, the Commissionlater issued a second BRC Policy Statement inJuly 1990 (NRC, 1990). In that policy statement,the Commission proposed that if radioactivematerials did not expose individuals to a dose ofmore than 1 millirem per year (mrem/yr), or apopulation group to more than 1000 person-remper year (collective dose), the waste stream inquestion could be eligible for an exemption fromfull-scale regulatory control (55 FR 27526–27527). However, this exemption would not begranted automatically; the NRC would considerrequests from licensees that met the dose criteriathrough its rulemaking (licensing) process under10 CFR Part 2.
The Commission intended that its BRC policywould apply to consumer products containingsmall amounts of nuclear materials and othersources of very-low levels of radiation, such thatthose types of wastes could safely be disposed insanitary landfills. The policy also provided aframework for making future exemptiondecisions and reviewing previous exemptions bywhich small quantities of LLW materials could belargely exempted from existing regulatorycontrols (NRC, 1986c, p. 1). Johnson (1988)noted that unlike the de minimis position, which
allowed the disposal of trivial amounts of LLW,the Commission’ s BRC policy implied the use acost-benefit analysis, taking into account currenttechnology, when deciding on regulatory controlexemptions.
Both Congress and the public received theNRC’ s proposed BRC policy unfavorably. SeeWalker (2000, p. 120) and National ResearchCouncil (2002, pp. 52–53). Later, Congressenacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992(H.R. 776) to revoke the Commission’ s earlierpolicy statements. As a result, the Commissionofficially withdrew the policy in June 1993(NRC, 1993b).30
Both the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety(ACRS) and the Advisory Committee on NuclearWaste (ACNW) commented on the staff’ s de
Entitled “ General Statement of Policy and29
Procedures Concerning Petitions Pursuant to §2.802 forDisposal of Radioactive Waste Streams Below RegulatoryConcern.”
It is also worth noting that the Federal Radiation30
Council (FRC or the Council) had previously focused onthe matter of how to regulate very-low levels of radiation. The FRC was established by Congress in 1959 (PublicLaw 86-373) to provide recommendations to the Presidenton Federal policy on radiation matters affecting health. Their charter also included developing guidance for allFederal agencies in the formulation of radiation standardsand in the establishment of cooperative programs with thestates.
Between 1960 and 1970, the FRC issued nine reports on anumber of radiation protection issues. In all of thosereports, the FRC expressed the philosophy that “ guidancefor radiation protection involves achieving a balancebetween the risk of radiation-induced injury and thebenefits derived from the practice causing the exposure toradiation. An implicit part of such a balance is a necessityfor considering the relation between the difficultiesinvolved in reducing the radiation exposure by a givenamount and the risk that might be associated with thatamount of exposure.. . .” However, in at least three oftheir reports – Report No. 5 (FRC, 1964, p. 13), ReportNo. 7 (FRC, 1965, p. 6), and Report No. 8 (FRC, 1967,p. 43) – the Council essentially acknowledged that there issome (yet-to-be-defined) radiation exposure level at orbelow which individuals may be exposed withoutexperiencing a significant increase in some risk of injury.
The FRC was abolished in December 1970 and itsfunctions were transferred to the EPA Administrator.
22
minimis position and the BRC Policy Statements.Nearly one-fourth of their past letters (10 letters)were dedicated, wholly or in part, to these issues.See summary in Section 10.3.2 of this report.
23
4 EFFORTS TO SITE NEW LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The objectives of the LLWPA and LLWPAA areto provide for more LLW disposal capacity on aregional basis and distribute the responsibility forthe management of LLW equitably among thestates. By 1998, in response to these two acts,44 states entered into 10 interstate compactagreements. Compact membership varied fromtwo to eight states per compact. As part of thecompact agreement process, host states for thefuture disposal facilities were agreed-to and site-screening commenced. For those that had notdone so, designated host states entered intoAgreement State programs with the NRC andsubsequently developed the regulatory andtechnical capabilities necessary to administertheir respective programs. By definition, this31
included developing a regulatory frameworkcompatible with the requirements of 10 CFR Part61 and other NRC guidance (Section 6 of thisreport). In most cases, host states assigned theresponsibility for implementing their respectiveprograms to existing state agencies or creatednew or quasi-state authorities. Two regionalcompacts (Nebraska and California) delegated thedisposal facility development responsibilities toprivate sector firms, but retained the regulatoryfunctions.
As a result of these efforts, 7 out of 10 of theregional compacts met the first three milestonesof the LLWPAA leading to the submission oflicense applications. Regulatory authorities infour states (California, Illinois, Nebraska, andTexas) received license applications requestingauthorization to construct new disposal facilities.However, the host state for the SouthwesternInterstate LLW Compact, California, was theonly state able to proceed sufficiently in the
licensing process to authorize the issuance of aconstruction authorization. See Table 8. Citingindustry sources, GAO (2004, p. 9) reported thatnational expenditures on various disposal facilitydevelopment efforts since the passage of theLLWPAA may have reached approximately $1billion.
Despite these overall efforts, none of the states orcompacts have successfully developed new LLWdisposal facilities under the LLWPAAframework. In its 1989 review, OTA found thatsome states enacted bans to legally restrict SLBdisposal even though Federal regulations foundthis disposal method technically sound. OTAcited other issues, including the rising costs ofLLW disposal (at the time of the study, it hadtripled in 20 years) and the management of mixedwastes. For example, the State of Californiagranted a contingent construction authorizationfor a new facility at Ward Valley in 1993, but thenecessary land transfer from the Federal to thestate Government was never completed,effectively ending the facility’ s startup.Administrative Law Judges in Texas denied alicense application to construct a LLW disposalfacility at the proposed Sierra Blanca site(Hudspeth County) in 1998 citing both geologicand socio-political factors (State of Texas, 1998).As a consequence, commercial LLW generatorscontinue to rely on the existing disposal sites.Only one new disposal facility has actually beenlicensed – the Envirocare LLW disposal facilityin Clive, Utah – and this was accomplishedoutside of the LLWPAA framework.32
Title 10, Part 150, “ Exemptions and Continued31
Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in OffshoreWaters Under Section 274,” of the Code of FederalRegulations contains the current Commission regulationsregarding the NRC’ s relationship with the AgreementStates.
S.K. Hart Engineering (later to become Envirocare32
of Utah) was licensed by the Utah Department ofEnvironmental Quality in 1987 to accept NORM waste, inthe form of uranium mill tailings, for disposal. In 1991,the state amended the Envirocare license to permit thedisposal of Class A LLW, including mixed wastes, fromall states except those in the Northwest InterstateCompact. See Table 4.
24
Table 8 LLW Compacts and LLWPA Milestone Status. Host state for the disposal facility is designated in bold type. “C” means completed disposal facility
development milestones. Compiled using GAO (1992, 1999, and 2004) and other cited sources.
Interstate Compact Region
Member States
Compact Formed
Select Site
Submit License Application
License ApplicationApproved
Operate Facility
Comments
APPALACHIAN DelawareMarylandPennsylvaniaWest Virginia
1985C see Comments ---- ---- ---- Voluntary siting process suspended in 1991because no municipality volunteered to host thedisposal site.
CENTRAL ArkansasKansasLouisianaNebraskaOklahoma
1982C 1989C 1990C see Comments ---- A 1998 Nebraska denial of an application toconstruct was overturned in April 1999 by a U.S.district court. In May 1999, Nebraska legislaturevoted to withdraw from Central InterstateCompact.
In 2004, a Federal appellate court ruling affirmedan earlier Federal district court decision thatNebraska, as a designated host state, is liable for$151 million in damages for reneging on itsobligations to the Central Interstate Compact tobuild a disposal facility by denying a licenseapplication for reasons not related to the merits ofthe initial application. See Central InterstateLow-Level Radioactive Waste Commission(2004, pp. 8–9).
CENTRAL MIDWEST IllinoisKentucky
1984C 1991C 1991Csee Comments
---- ---- In October 1992, the Illinois legislature rejectedthe conclusions of an earlier siting decision,effectively ending the license application reviewprocess for the Martinsville site (New JerseyLow-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal FacilitySiting Board, 1999, p. 27). Since then, a newsiting review process has been established, aswell as a cost-benefit analysis to determinewhether a disposal facility should be built basedon current LLW volumes.
Interstate Compact Region
Member States
Compact Formed
Select Site
Submit License Application
License ApplicationApproved
Operate Facility
Comments
25
MIDWEST IndianaIowaMichigan a
MinnesotaMissouriOhioWisconsin
1982C see Comments ---- ---- ---- In 1997, the Midwest Interstate CompactCommission decided to suspend the sitingprocess noting that certain waste managementactions had taken place to reduce the volumes ofLLW being generated within the compact.
NORTHEAST (later renamed ATLANTIC)
Connecticut 1985/2001C b
see Comments ---- ---- ---- State legislature terminated siting efforts in 1992
citing the availability of out-of-state disposalcapacity.
New Jersey b see Comments ---- ---- ---- State siting board terminated siting efforts in1992 also citing the availability of out-of-statedisposal capacity.
South Carolina C C C 1969 C In 2001, South Carolina legislation restricted theuse of the Barnwell disposal facility to generatorsin the three-member Atlantic Interstate compactafter mid-2008.
NORTHWEST AlaskaHawaiiIdahoOregonMontanaUtahWashingtonWyoming
1985C C C C 1965 C The compact’s regional disposal facility is theexisting Richland (Washington) facility.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ColoradoNevadaNew Mexico
1985C C C C 1965 C Since the closure of the Beatty site, the compactc
has contracted with the Northwest InterstateCompact to dispose of LLW at the existingRichland facility.
SOUTHEAST Alabamad
FloridaGeorgiaMississippiNorth CarolinaTennesseeVirginia
1985C see Comments ---- ---- ---- South Carolina withdrew from compact in 1995. State siting board terminated operations in 1997because of insufficient funding. In 1999, NorthCarolina withdrew from the compact (GAO, 1999,p. 72). In 2000, North Carolina joined therenamed Atlantic Compact (GAO, 2004, p. 28).
Interstate Compact Region
Member States
Compact Formed
Select Site
Submit License Application
License ApplicationApproved
Operate Facility
Comments
26
SOUTHWESTERN ArizonaCaliforniaNorth DakotaSouth Dakota
1985C 1988C 1989C 1993C seeComments
From 1993–96, the Secretary of the Interiordeferred making a land-transfer decisionnecessary to construct and operate the state-approved Ward Valley site while the Governmentand NAS undertook a number of technicalreviews and administrative activities (seeGAO,(1977). A 1999 court decision, brought onby California, found that the FederalGovernment was not required by Federal law totransfer (sell) the land. Since that decision, therehave been no additional siting activities by thestate.
TEXAS MaineTexasVermont
1998C 1987-91C 1992C see Comments ---- Fort Hancock site selected by State in 1987. State court issued a permanent injunction againstthe selection of site for a LLW disposal facility in1991 (Goodell and Caskey, 1991). Following its1991 selection, 1992 license application for theSierra Blanca site was rejected by State Court inJuly 1998 (LeMone et al., 2002).
In 2003, the Texas legislature designated asecond geographic area in Andrews County asacceptable for a new disposal facility, and thehost state’s regulator developed a licenseapplication process for this new facility.
UNAFFILIATED District of ColumbiaNew HampshireRhode IslandPuerto Rico
These states do not intend to build LLW disposal facilities. They will seek storage and disposal arrangements with other states.
Massachusetts n/a see Comments ---- ---- ---- In 1995, the state hired a contractor to conduct astatewide screening process. In 1996, theprocess was terminated because of renewedaccess to the Barnwell disposal facility (GAO,1999, p. 76).
Interstate Compact Region
Member States
Compact Formed
Select Site
Submit License Application
License ApplicationApproved
Operate Facility
Comments
27
UNAFFILIATED(continued)
New York n/a see Comments ---- ---- ---- In 1988, the state’s independent sitingcommission conducted a multistep screeningprocess to identify candidate sites for evaluationas LLW disposal sites. In its independent reviewof the site selection process, GAO (1992) foundthat the state did not adhere to its administrativeprocedures for selecting candidate sites. TheGovernor later suspended the siting process. In1995, the state legislature declined to fund thesiting commission (GAO, 1999, p. 76).
a. Michigan expelled from compact in 1991 for not acting in good faith to locate an acceptable disposal site. Ohio is the alternate host state.b. Originally intended as dual host states in 1985 as part of the Northeast Interstate Compact region. In 2001, the two states, along with South Carolina, formed the Atlantic Interstate compact region.c. The Beatty facility provided disposal service to the Rocky Mountain Interstate Compact until 1992.d. The Barnwell site in South Carolina provided the Southeast Interstate Compact region with disposal service until 1995, at which time it withdrew from the compact.
28
In its 1999 review of the national LLWprogram, GAO (p. 5) identified some commonreasons for the lack of success in providing newdisposal facilities, including the following:
• the controversial nature of nuclearwaste disposal and public opposition tothe siting of new LLW disposal facilities
• the declining volumes of commercialLLW being generated as a result ofwaste minimization and processing intosafer forms
• the high costs associated with siting,licensing, constructing, and operating anew disposal facility
• the continued availability of existingdisposal capacity
• the consideration of alternatives todisposal (e.g., assured storage)
29
5 CURRENT PROGRAM STATUS
In the mid-1990s, the NRC significantly scaledback its LLW program for budgetary reasons.The actions were justified at the time because theNRC had a regulatory framework in placesufficient to review a 10 CFR Part 61 licenseapplication and the Commission had33
relinquished its licensing authorities to those hoststates with a lead role in developing newcommercial LLW disposal facilities. In addition,there was a lack of national progress in sitingnew disposal facilities.
To keep abreast of national LLW developmentsunder the current reduced program, the staff hasdone several things. For example, the staffregularly monitors developments within thenational program by attending regular meetingsof the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (orthe LLW Forum). The staff has also performed34
several specific tasks, as directed by theCommission. They include efforts to improvethe transparency of NRC decisionmaking as itrelates to 10 CFR 20.2002 requests and to35
determine whether depleted uranium needs to beadded to the 10 CFR Part 61 waste classificationsystem. In addition, NRC’ s Office of State36
and Tribal Programs monitored state progress inimplementing LLWPAA milestones. See Combs(1992).
Consistent with earlier Congressional direction,DOE established a National Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Management Program todevelop and make available useful informationconcerning LLW management. Under contractto DOE, the operating contractor for the IdahoNational Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory prepared technical reports coveringmany LLW areas [e.g., SLB corrective measures(EG&G Idaho, Inc., 1984), LLW laws andadministration (EG&G Idaho, Inc., 1985), andenvironmental monitoring (EG&G Idaho, Inc.,1989)]. From 1979 to 2000, the Department37
sponsored publication of annual state-by-stateassessment reports that provided information onthe types and quantities of commercial LLWbeing generated (e.g., Fuchs, 1999). In 1986,DOE developed MIMS to monitor themanagement of commercial LLW. Thiscomputerized data base later subsumed the annualstate-by-state assessment reports series. In 2000,Congress stopped appropriating money forDOE’ s national LLW program with theexception of the funds necessary to maintainMIMS. In its 2004 evaluation of the national
Sections 7.4.4 and 8.1 of this report discuss the33
framework in more detail.
Until 1985, representatives of the Governors34
worked to achieve the goals of the LLWPA through acommittee of the National Governors’ Association. Afterpassage of the LLWPAA, representatives of compacts andstates established the LLW Forum to promote theobjectives of the new Federal law and the compacts. In2001, the LLW Forum became an independent nonprofitorganization.
From time to time, the Commission receives35
requests to permit the disposal of small quantities of low-activity radioactive materials, on site, at existing NRC-licensed facilities. The NRC regulations at 10 CFR20.2002 allow disposal exemptions to 10 CFR Part 61. Staff guidance regarding the onsite disposal of smallqualitites of radioactive waste can be found in Goode et al.(1986), Neuder (1986), and Neuder and Kennedy (1987). The Commission can grant other types of disposalexemptions under 10 CFR 20.2003, “ Disposal by Releaseinto Sanitary Sewerage,” 10 CFR 20.2004, “ Treatment or
Disposal by Incineration,” and 10 CFR 20.2005,“ Disposal of Specific Waste.”
In a decision dated October 19, 2005, the36
Commission directed the staff to determine whetherdepleted uranium produced by uranium enrichmentfacilities warrants consideration under 10 CFR 61.55(a) ofthe NRC waste classification tables. See Diaz et al.(2005).
Time limitations in the development of this report37
did not permit a review of the DOE-sponsored technicalliterature.
30
program, GAO (pp. 14–16) found shortfalls inthe quality of the MIMS data and recommendedthat the NRC take responsibility for generatingthe required reports. The GAO was particularlyconcerned that the unreliability of the data wouldmake it difficult to forecast future disposal needsfor all classes of LLW.
In its 1994 and 2000 reports described earlier,the GAO assessed the following threemanagement options to respond to concerns aboutlimited or no disposal access for commercialLLW generators:
(1) retain the existing compact approach andallow it to adapt to the changing LLWsituation
(2) repeal the existing LLW legislation andallow market forces to respond to thechanging LLW situation
(3) use existing DOE facilities for thedisposal of commercial LLW
Most recently, in November 2005, Congressdirected GAO to report on approaches toimprove the management of commercial LLWwithin the United States. This examination isexpected to include a review of international bestpractices (GAO, 2005b).
5.1 Recent Disposal Facility Developments
An order of the state’ s Governor permanentlyclosed the Beatty LLW disposal site in 1992.The site is currently operated as a RCRA andpolychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste disposalfacility. The nation’ s only remaining disposalfacilities are at Barnwell, Richland, andEnvirocare. Only the Envirocare facilityreceives mixed LLW. The Barnwell facilitypresently receives Class A, B, and C LLW. In2000, the South Carolina Legislature restricteddisposal access to the facility to members of theAtlantic Interstate Compact after mid-2008. In
2001, the State of Utah regulatory authorityapproved a license amendment to allow theEnvirocare facility to dispose of Class B and CLLW. However, state law requires the approvalof the legislature and Governor before Class Band C waste can be received (GAO, 1994,p. 33). In late 2005, the Governor voiced hisopposition and placed a moratorium on theacceptance of these wastes. With the imminentclosure of the Barnwell site, there is growingconcern about access to disposal facilitiesespecially for Class B and C LLW (GAO, 2004).To address the pending shortfall in commercialdisposal capacity, the GAO (2004, p. 42)proposed using existing DOE facilities for LLWdisposal, as is currently the case for HLW, TRUwaste, and GTCC waste. Other disposal development activities areunderway but these are taking place outside ofthe LLWPAA framework and focus mostly onnon-Part 61 types of waste. Some notableexamples include the following:
• In February 2001, U.S. Ecologyacquired an existing RCRA Subtitle-Cdisposal facility in Owhyhee County,Idaho, near Grand View, fromEnvirosafe Services of Idaho. (Thefacility received interim RCRAauthorization first in 1980, followed byformal authorization in 1988.) Shortlythereafter, U.S. Ecology sought approvalfrom the Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality to modify theexisting Grand View RCRA permit toreceive commercial NARM, NORM,and certain NRC-exempt items anddevices. The approved site permit now38
NRC’ s regulations at 10 CFR Part 30 and 10 CFR38
Part 40 allow for both general and specific disposalexemptions, upon application to the Commission, forcertain products, devices, or items containing smallamounts of low-activity radioactivity.
31
allows radiologically-contaminated wastefrom NRC or NRC Agreement Statelicensees to be disposed of if the materialhas been specifically exempted fromregulation according to a clearlydescribed set of waste acceptance criteriaestablished by U.S. Ecology andapproved by the state. This permit39
change has also expanded commercialdisposal options available to the ArmyCorps of Engineers (or the Corps) forsome of its FUSRAP waste , and the site40
is now a major recipient of these wastes.Since 2001, the Grand View facility hasreceived about 16,200 ft (459 m ) of3 3
FUSRAP waste and about 9700 ft3
(275 m ) of non-FUSRAP NORM3
(National Research Council, 2006,p. 70). About 160 acres of the 1250-acre Grand View site are used fordisposal operations.
• In 2003, Texas law-makers passedlegislation that allows private interests toapply for an NRC Part 61 LLW disposalsite license (Lauer, 2003, p. 13). Inresponse to the new law, on August 4,2004, Waste Control Specialists (WCS),LLC, submitted a license application tothe Texas Commission on EnvironmentalQuality (TCEQ) for authorization toconstruct a near-surface LLW disposal
facility in Andrews County, Texas. TheWCS site is located on a 14,400 acretract with more than 1340 acres currentlypermitted to treat and dispose of RCRAwaste and Toxic Substances Control Actmaterials. The Andrews WCS site isalso permitted for GTCC LLW storage,PCB-contaminated waste treatment,storage and land disposal, AEA Section11e.(2) waste storage, and NRC41
exempt and exempt-mixed waste landdisposal, including selected NORMwaste. TCEQ has reviewed the AndrewsWSC license application and found it tobe complete. Public hearings are thenext step in the license applicationreview process. If approved by the state,the new Andrews County disposalfacility would receive commercial LLWfrom generators within the Texas LLWCompact system as well as theGovernment-owned LLW from DOE.The Andrews WSC site is the onlycommercial LLW disposal facility underconsideration in the United States at thistime.
• In April 2006, the Colorado Departmentof Public Health and Environment(CDPHE) issued a radioactive materialslicense amendment to the Clean HarborsDeer Trail Facility, an industrialhazardous waste landfill. Coloradoregulatory authorities have in the pastallowed some radioactive materials to goto industrial solid waste landfills on acase-by-case basis, after reviewing a site-specific risk assessment and the facilitydesign and operating procedures. Thelicense amendment authorizes thereceipt, possession, processing and
The conditions concern both the concentration and39
total quantity of specific radionuclides to be disposed of. See http://www.americanecology.com/pdf/grandview/USEI_WAC.pdf, dated May 4, 2005.
FUSRAP refers to the“ Formerly Utilized Sites40
Remedial Action Program.” FUSRAP sites are privatelyheld sites that have contaminated soils and structures fromthe refining of radium and Cold War uranium and frombomb development in the 1950s and 1960s. AlthoughFUSRAP waste contains very low concentrations ofradioactive materials, there are large volumes of suchwaste. The Corps is responsible for managing theFUSRAP program. No FUSRAP waste is generated fromthe operation of commercial power plants.
Defined in Section 40.4 of 10 CFR Part 40 as41
“ tailings or wastes produced by the extraction orconcentration of uranium or thorium from any oreprocessed primarily for its source material content.. . .”
32
disposal of NORM and TENORM. Thelicense also authorizes disposal of wastescontaining or contaminated withnaturally occurring radionuclides with amaximum concentration of 2000picocuries per gram (pCi/g). Thespecific radium-226 maximumconcentration is limited to 400 pCi/g.The license prohibits the acceptance ofsource material, waste that is greaterthan 0.05 percent by weight uraniumand/or thorium (Tarlton, 2006). TheDeer Trail facility is the only permittedhazardous waste disposal site in thestate. 42
5.2 Assured Storage
At the time the LLWPA was passed in 1980, itwas expected that the states and Compacts wouldestablish additional LLW disposal capacity andthere would be little need for the continuedstorage of wastes on-site by licensees. To ensurethat de facto storage would not take place atgenerator’ s sites (and thereby undermine theintent of LLWPAA) as well as the need toaddress certain safety considerations (NRC,1981b ), the NRC staff issued guidance in the43
form of Generic Letter 81-38 (Dircks, 1981) thatstated at the time that no facility should be builtto store waste for longer than 5 years under alicensee' s 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation. This policywas later extended to commercial storageoperations (Dircks, 1985), and fuel cycle and
materials licensees (Cunningham, 1990). Later,the staff noted that no law or regulation prohibitsthe storage of commercial LLW for periods oftime in excess of 5 years (NRC, 1994b, p. 5)although doing so could be construed as“ inconsistent with current national policy” (Opcit.). When it became apparent that the LWPAAmilestone dates for the development of newdisposal facilities would not be met, the staffproceeded to develop a proposed LLW on-sitestorage rulemaking because the Barnwell facilityclosed to many LLW generators in the UnitedStates only later to withdraw it. See NRC(1993c). Alternatively, the Commission directedthe staff to make certain proposed changes to theexisting NRC storage guidance framework; butthese changes were never approved as theBarnwell facility reopened at the time to alldomestic LLW generators and the immediateneed for updated guidance was therebyeliminated.
As an alternative to permanent (geologic)disposal, the concept of assured storage has beenproposed by Newberry and others (1995).Unlike the prevailing Part 61 disposal concept,assured storage is considered by the authors to bean acceptable LLW management alternative as itcalls for the indefinite storage of LLW in anassured isolation facility (or AIF) until such timethat the waste no longer poses a significantradiological hazard. The AIF is envisioned tofunction as an engineered, above-groundmonitored storage system, with an indefinite(unspecified) service life. The key differencebetween a 10 CFR Part 61 disposal facility andthe AIF is the provision for caretaker oversight.The AIF is designed to permit the LLW instorage to decay. Waste containment structures,systems, and components are designed to permitregular inspections and maintenance. If needed,any containment feature of the AIF can bereplaced if it fails (i.e. leaks). With greateremphasis on engineering and caretaker oversight,the site (geosphere) is no longer a majorconsideration in the performance of this type
The Clean Harbors Deer Trail, LLC, facility42
(commonly referred to as the Deer Trail facility) providestreatment, storage, transfer, and disposal services for bothhazardous and non-hazardous waste. The facility was firstpermitted for hazardous wastes in April 1987 by CDPHEunder the authority of the Colorado Hazardous Waste Act,and it began accepting waste in July 1991. The Deer Trailfacility is approximately 70 miles east of Denver, inAdams County. Clean Harbors owns approximately 5760acres, of which approximately 325 acres comprise theoperating disposal facility.
Also see Siskind et al. (1985).43
33
Table 9. Comparison of a 10 CFR Part 61 Type of Disposal Facility with an Assured Isolation Type of Storage
Facility. Adopted from Newberry et al. (1996, pp. 21–22).
10 CFR Part 61 Facility AIF Storage Facility
Physical Setting Below grade, near surface Above grade
Disposal Mode Trench disposal, no physical access Concrete vaults, with physical access
Waste Packaging Variable, no overpacks Overpack modules
Retrievablility Nonretrievable Retrievable
Institutional Controls 100-year caretaker period following siteclosure
Indefinite, no prescribed limit
Monitoring and Remediation Not to exceed the 100-year caretaker periodfollowing site closure
Indefinite
Reversibility Disposal essentially permanent Options open
LLW management system. See Table 9. Hence,the need for detailed site characterization,complex performance assessment analyses, andthe development of a long-lived waste packageneeded to achieve disposal is obviated, with a netcost savings to waste generators.
In a September 2002 Staff RequirementsMemorandum (SRM), the Commission directedthe NRC staff to explore interest in the assuredisolation concept and develop a rulemaking planthat could be used to provide a foundation for aCommission decision on whether to develop sucha rule (NRC, 2002). The need for a rulemakingplan was prompted by the development of a draftAIF regulation by the State of Ohio, and thestate’ s subsequent request for NRC to reviewand comment on that draft regulation. At thetime, at least 5 other states were contemplatingsimilar regulations. The Ohio rule (OhioDepartment of Health, 2003) is now the only AIFregulation currently in effect; however, theregulation has never been implemented by thestate. In a 2005 study, the Midwest InterstateLLW Compact questioned the need for an AIF.See Illinois Emergency Management Agency(2005). In a 2005 review of DOE’ s LLWmanagement programs, the GAO (2005a)recommended the use of life-cycle cost analyses
to evaluate competing LLW managementalternatives.
For its part, the NRC has no regulations orcriteria for the design and operation of an AIF.To ensure consistency with any future stateregulations, the staff has previouslyrecommended the development of an AIF rule.However, before proceeding to develop such arule, the staff surveyed the states, InterstateCompacts, and industry representatives todetermine how widespread the support was for anNRC regulation in this area; responses to thatsurvey suggested only limited interest. See NRC(2003). Should NRC promulgate an AIFregulation, Ohio and any other states with similarregulations would be required to modify thoseregulations to be consistent with NRC’ s, basedon the Commission’ s AEC authorities. In aJanuary 2004 SRM, the Commission has directedthe staff to defer action on the development of anAIF rule and annually review the need for furtheraction in this area (NRC, 2004).
For its part, EPRI has publishedrecommendations on the management and interimstorage of commercial LLW. See EPRI (1994,2002).
34
The staff intends to revisit this issue as part of its2006 strategic planning initiative. See NRC(2006c).
5.3 Low-Activity Radioactive Waste
Some radioactive waste streams, by legaldefinition, are not SNF, HLW, TRU, or LLW.Low-activity radioactive waste can occur inconcentrations greater than background levels,but less than Class A materials, which have nospecified lower limit.
In 1975, Gesell and Prichard noted that certainhuman activities can result in the unintentionalyet anomalous concentration of naturallyoccurring radioactivity to levels greater thanthose found in the environment. They citedradiation emissions from coal-fired power plants,radon in harvested natural gas, radium inmanufactured fertilizer, radium in processeddrinking water, and enhanced cosmic rayexposure in high-altitude aircraft as examples ofthese anomalous concentrations. Because of thepotential for significant occupational orpopulation exposures above background levels,Gesell and Prichard recommended that a newcategory of radiation exposure be recognized –technologically enhanced natural radiation(TENR) – to permit evaluation of the incrementalhealth risk of LAW (although not defined as suchat the time). Accelerator-produced radioisotopes44
were later added to the unofficial definition, nowrenamed technologically enhanced naturally-occurring radioactive materials (TENORM).Other slightly contaminated (short-lived)radioactive materials, generated from thedecommissioning of NRC-licensed facilities,including nuclear power reactors (NationalResearch Council, 2002), are now generallyconsidered part of the LAW spectrum.
According to past EPA (1988, p. 3-21) estimates,as many as 70 potential sources of LAW couldexist. Although existing commercial LLWdisposal sites can accept LAW for disposal, themanagement of these waste streams has gainedincreased attention in recent years because of thesubstantial volume of material they represent,estimated to be on the order of 10 ft³ (10 m³ )9 7
annually (EPA, 2000a, p. 2) compared with 105
ft³ (10³ m³ ) of LLW generated annually (NRC,2001a, p. 3). However, a comprehensiveregulatory framework to guide the managementof these non-AEA materials does not exist. Acomplex patchwork of regulations, some Federal,but mostly state, applies to these wastes. Ingeneral, this framework is based more on thegeneration (source) of LAW rather than on itsradiologic hazard or health risk. The questionhas thus been raised from time to time as towhether greater Federal responsibility is neededfor the management of LAW to ensure aconsistent integrated approach to controllinghuman exposures to such materials commensuratewith the health risks.
As early as 1974, NRC Agreement Statesrecommended that the AEC (or its successor)undertake the overall responsibility for regulatingLAW (Lacker, 1974). In response, NRC staffperiodically reviews the matter. See Nussbaumeret al. (1977), Bolling et al. (1984), and Austin(1988). Following these reviews, SECY papersissued April 1978 (NRC, 1978a), December1978 (NRC, 1978c), March 1988 (NRC, 1988a),and September 1992 (NRC, 1992d) made staffrecommendations to the Commission on whetherit should seek to extend the NRC’ s statutoryauthority in this area. In September 1996, aspart of its Strategic Planning Framework (NRC,1996d), the staff identified options for theCommission to consider for whether to continueto regulate or to revise its oversight of themedical uses of nuclear byproduct materials
LAW is unofficially defined to include low activity44
materials defined as NORM, NARM, and TENORM. See Appendix B to this report for an expanded discussionof LAW.
35
including NARM. On each occasion, though,45
the Commission has decided not to seek anexpanded statutory authority to include LAW.See NRC (2006a).
Citing inadequate regulatory coverage, theConference of Radiation Control ProgramDirectors (CRCPD) began to develop“ suggested” state regulations for LAW(specifically TENORM) in the 1980s. Althoughthe recommendations have no legal authority, theproposed regulations, issued in December 1999,are intended to serve as a model for future stateregulations. The suggested regulations (CRCPD,1999a) were supported by a rationale (technicalbasis) document (CRCPD, 1999b) andimplementing guidance (CRCPD, 2004). In itsproposal, the CRCPD recommended thatcompanies which possess, use, manufacture, ormake products or wastes in which the radium-226content is greater that 5 pCi/g would requirelicensing.
In 2002, the NAS initiated a review of theregulatory and guidance framework for managingLAW at the request of 10 Federal, state, andforeign organizations. The NAS issued an46
interim report in late 2003 (National ResearchCouncil, 2003) and a final report in 2006. In itsfinal report (National Research Council, 2006),the NAS investigating committee found thatcertain categories of LAW had not receivedconsistent regulatory oversight and management,and, for those categories that were regulated, theregulations were not commensurate with the
hazard posed by the waste. Consequently, theNAS recommended that a more “ risk-basedapproach” (e.g., Kaplan and Garrick, 1981) forthe management of LAW to be undertakenthrough an integrated, incremental process.
With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of2005 (Public Law 109-58), Congress decided toextend NRC control over some types of LAW,specifically, concentrated yet short-lived NORMand NARM waste residues. The act amendedSection 11e. of the AEA to include certain typesof NARM. However, this extended authority didnot address the diffuse, more abundant sources ofLAW. In response to the new Congressionaldirection, the Commission is currently reviewingthe proposed rule package and will be voting onit at a later date. See NRC (2006b).
For its part, EPA attempted to develop radiationstandards for the management of LAW in the1980s in parallel with the development of LLWradiation standards. The EPA proposed LLWand NARM regulations (EPA, 1983a) nevercleared the Federal interagency review process.(See Appendix B of this report.) However, morerecently, EPA has undertaken several regulatoryinitiatives to address the management of mixedLAW. See EPA (2003).
5.4 Stakeholder Views
In addition to the national program reviews bythe GAO and OTA, some LLW stakeholderorganizations and entities have prepared positionpapers expressing their views on various mattersrelated to the management of commercial LLW.Some of these position papers also call forchanges to the NRC’ s LLW regulatoryframework. An Internet search summarized inTable 10 indicates that there are severalpublished position papers. These position papersprovide different perspectives and sometimesconflicting stakeholder positions on the issues.
Direction-Setting Issue 7 discussed five options,45
including an expanded regulatory responsibility for x-ray,accelerators, and NARM.
Sponsoring organizations included the Corps of46
Engineers, the California Environmental ProtectionAgency, the U.S. Department of Defense, DOE, EPA, theJapanese Institute of Applied Energy, the French Institutede Radioprotection et de Surété Nucléaire, the MidwestInterstate LLW Compact, the NRC, and the SoutheastLLW Compact Commission.
36
Table 10 Stakeholder Position Papers Concerning LLW Management
Organization/Entity Internet Homepage LLW Policy Statement
Title Date
American Nuclear Society http://www.ans.org/ “Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Position Statement No. 11” November 2004
Association of Media Accuracy http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/Wastes.htm
“Nuclear Energy – Storage, Disposal and Transportation of RadioactiveWastes” (includes a discussion of LLW)
No date
California Radioactive MaterialsManagement Forum (Cal Rad Forum)
http://www.calradforum.org/ “A National Solution for a National Problem” 2003
Council on Radionuclides andRadiopharmaceuticals (CORAR)
http://www.corar.org/ “Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals Position Paperon Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal”
April 6, 2001
Health Physics Society http://www.hps.org/ “Low-level Radioactive Waste Management Needs a Complete andCoordinated Overhaul”
September 2005(revision)
League of Women Voters http://www.lwv.org//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home
“Environmental Protection and Pollution Control”(general subject of LLW management)]
July 5, 2005
LLW Forum http://www.llwforum.org/ “Management of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste” September 22, 2005
National Governor’s Association http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga NR-19 Policy Position, “Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Policy” February 26, 2004
National Mining Association http://www.nma.org/ “The National Mining Association’s and the Fuel Cycle FacilitiesForum’s White Paper on Direct Disposal of Non-11e.(2) ByproductMaterials in Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments” (includes adiscussion of LLW)
No date
Nuclear Information and Resource Service http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/llwfct.htm “Low-Level Radioactive Waste” March 1992
Sierra Club http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/low.asp#A%20Responsible%20Response
“Low-Level" Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Management” No date
Southeast Interstate LLW Compact http://www.secompact.org/ “Management of Low-Level Radioactive Waste” November 30, 2005
37
No attempt has been made to summarize theopinions expressed. The reader is referred tothe individual papers to better understand therespective views of the organizations that haveprepared these papers.
38
(Page intentionally left blank.)
39
PART II. THE NRC’ S LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
6 INTRODUCTION
Without exception, all past case studies of LLWdisposal pointed to the need to improve itsmanagement to ensure that the wastes, oncedisposed of, would not create a public healthhazard. This meant not only protecting workersand the public during the operational phase ofwaste disposal, but also assuring that once afacility was closed, the disposal “ system” wouldcontain the waste for a period of time sufficientto ensure that it no longer posed a hazard.
In response to the needs and requests of thepublic, the states, industry, and others, theCommission promulgated specific requirementsfor licensing the near-surface land disposal ofcommercial LLW at 10 CFR Part 61. Theserequirements were developed during a 5-yearperiod from 1978 to 1982, following the 1977recommendations of an internal NRC task force(NRC, 1977d). The Commission published itsfinal commercial LLW disposal regulation in theFederal Register on December 27, 1982 (47 FR57446). The rule applies to any near-surfaceLLW land disposal technology. This includesSLB, engineered land disposal methods such asbelow-ground vaults (BGVs), earth-moundedconcrete bunkers (EMCBs), and augered holes.The regulation emphasizes an integrated systemsapproach to commercial LLW disposal, includingconsideration of site selection, disposal facilitydesign and operation, minimum waste formrequirements, and disposal facility closure. Tolessen the burden on society over the longperiods of time contemplated for the control ofradioactive material, 10 CFR Part 61 emphasizespassive rather than active systems to minimizeand retard releases to the environment. Varioussubparts of the rule cover general provisions andprocedural licensing aspects, while other subpartscover the performance objectives; financialassurances; state and tribal participation; and
records, reports, tests, and inspections. TheNRC did not require existing LLW disposal sitesto conform to the 10 CFR Part 61 requirements,although many of the features of the regulationwere incorporated as license conditions forexisting facilities.
Since 1983, the NRC staff has developed severaldocuments intended to aid in the implementationof 10 CFR Part 61. Foremost among these areNUREG-1300, “ Environmental Standard ReviewPlan for the Review of a License Application fora Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility(Environmental Report)” (Pangburn et al., 1987);NUREG-1199, “ Standard Format and Contentof a License Application for a Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Facility” (NRC,1991a); and NUREG-1200, “ Standard ReviewPlan for the Review of a License Application fora Low-Level Radioactive Waste DisposalFacility” (NRC, 1994a). NUREG-1199 detailsthe components and information required by10 CFR Part 61 for a license application for anLLW disposal facility. NUREG-1200 providesguidance on the process that the staff would useto review a 10 CFR Part 61 license application.Consistent with the requirement in the LLWPAto review a 10 CFR Part 61 license applicationwithin 15 months of its receipt, the staffprepared NUREG-1274, “ Review Process forLow-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal LicenseApplication under Low-Level Radioactive WasteAmendments Act” (Pittiglio, 1987), whichdescribes the NRC’ s approach to reviewinglicense applications. To enhance the staff' scapability to review and evaluate licenseapplications within the required 15-monthtimeframe, the staff also developed a LLWperformance assessment program plan. See NRC(1992a).
40
In issuing a 10 CFR Part 61 LLW disposalfacility license, the NRC would be required toprepare an EIS. NRC Regulatory Guide 4.18,“ Standard Format and Content of EnvironmentalReport for Near-Surface Disposal of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste” (NRC, 1983d), andNUREG-1300 (Pangburn et al., 1987) guide thestaff as to what to include in the EIS. Because ofthe key role quality assurance (QA) has played inthe nuclear program, the NRC staff has alsodeveloped specific QA guidance for the LLWregulatory arena. NUREG-1293, “ QualityAssurance Guidance for a Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Facility” (Pittiglio and Hedges,1991), provides specific guidance on how to meetthe 10 CFR Part 61 requirements. NUREG-47
1383, “ Guidance on the Application of QualityAssurance for Characterizing a Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Site: Final Report,”(Pittiglio et al., 1990) provides QA guidancerelated to site characterization activities. Chapter9 of both NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200provides additional QA guidance for potential10 CFR Part 61 applicants.
Section 8 of the LLWPA, as amended, alsodirects the NRC to identify and publish technicalinformation for disposal methods other than SLB.The NRC complied with this requirement bypublishing NUREG-1241, “ Licensing ofAlternative Methods of Disposal of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste – Branch Technical Position”(Higginbotham et al., 1986), and the NUREG/CR-3774 series, “ Alternative Methods forDisposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes”(Bennett et al., 1984; Bennett, 1985; Bennett andWarriner, 1985; Miller and Bennett, 1985;Warriner and Bennett, 1985). In addition, theNRC revised NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200 toaddress disposal in BGVs and EMCBs.
The criteria described in NUREG-1293 are similar47
to the criteria contained in Appendix B, “ QualityAssurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and FuelReprocessing Plants,” to 10 CFR Part 50. AlthoughAppendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 is not applicable to theNRC' s LLW disposal regulation, the criteria it containsare basic to any nuclear regulatory QA program.
41
7 APPROACH TO DEVELOPING 10 CFR PART 61
Before the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 61, nonational or international standards defined whatlevel of safety was necessary to protect the publicfrom disposed LLW. The only comparableregulations in place that defined “ safety”were the AEC generic criteria, found at 10 CFRPart 20, which related to occupationally exposedworkers during the operation of licensed nuclearfacilities. These criteria define the maximumpermissible levels of radiation in unrestrictedareas. Although 10 CFR Part 20 does notcontain technical criteria or standards specific tothe disposal of licensed materials such as LLW,it was nevertheless used to license early LLWdisposal facilities because the regulation wasgenerally intended to protect both workers andmembers of the public.48
Consistent with the staff’ s 1977 Program Plan(NRC, 1977d), the Commission published anANPR, in October 1978, inviting advice,recommendations, and comments fromstakeholders on the scope of the EIS the staff wasdeveloping in support of the new 10 CFR Part 61regulation (NRC, 1978b). The proposed EIS wasnot intended to be a generic EIS on LLWdisposal vis-a-vis the NEPA process. Rather, itwas intended to serve as the document that wouldprovide the bases and record for Commissiondecisions on the requirements to be set out in theforthcoming regulation. To ensure that no viableLLW disposal alternatives would be overlooked,as part of the scoping process, the NRCsponsored a technical study (Macbeth et al.,1978) that was included as part of the 1978ANPR. Also see Denham (1988).
The Commission used the comments receivedduring the ANPR to scope and form the contentof NUREG-0782, “ Draft Environmental ImpactStatement on 10 CFR Part 61: LicensingRequirements for Land Disposal of RadioactiveWastes” (NRC, 1981c), as well as thepreliminary draft regulation which becameavailable for public comment on February 28,1980 (45 FR 13104). The draft regulationidentified the licensing procedures, performanceobjectives, and technical requirements necessaryfor the licensing of commercial LLW disposalfacilities. The proposed regulation also reflectedthe NRC’ s longstanding ALARA or “ as low asreasonably achievable” regulatory principles (TheWhite House, 1987). During the summer and49
fall of 1980, the Commission also sponsored fourregional workshops to give stakeholders anopportunity to discuss the issues addressed in theproposed 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking. TheCommission received 36 comments from thepublic on the ANPR. The respondents stronglysupported the Commission’ s development ofspecific standards and criteria for the disposal ofLLW (NRC, 1981b). Among the commentsreceived were specific recommendations that asystem was needed for classifying or segregating
This section provides some general background on48
the approach used to develop 10 CFR Part 61 and, indoing so, highlights a few key issues considered importantat the time. This summary is not intended to beexhaustive. NUREG-0782 (NRC, 1981c) and NUREG-0945 (NRC, 1982a) provide a more detailed account ofthis development process, as well as the disposition of keyissues related to that development.
10 CFR Part 20 establishes standards for protection49
against radiation hazards arising out of NRC-licensedactivities. A guiding principle for 10 CFR Part 20 is thatNRC licensees make every reasonable effort to maintainradiation exposures and releases of radioactive materialsas low as is reasonably achievable or ALARA [see 10CFR 20.1101(b)]. As defined in 10 CFR 20.1003,ALARA requires that every reasonable effort be made tomaintain exposures below the 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits,taking into account the state of the technology, theeconomics of improvements in relation to the benefits tothe health and safety of the public and occupationalworkers, other societal and socioeconomic considerations,and the utilization of nuclear energy in the public interest. However, a review of how ALARA principles wereconsidered and applied to the development of the 10 CFRPart 61 LLW regulation is beyond the scope of this report.
42
the waste based on (radiological) hazard (46 FR38082). After considering the informationreceived, the Commission published its proposed10 CFR Part 61 LLW regulation on July 24,1981 (46 FR 38081). The NRC staff and one ofits technical assistance contractors, ORNL,conducted a series of three symposia between1981 and 1983 to examine technical issuesrelated to the siting, design, and/or performanceof LLW disposal facilities, as well as theproposed draft 10 CFR Part 61 regulation. SeeYalcintas and Jacobs (1982) and Yalcintas(1982b, 1983).
The Commission received comments from 107individuals, organizations, and entities on theproposed regulation and considered the generalresponse to the proposed rule to be favorable (47FR 57447). For the most part, the commentswere evenly split, either explicitly supporting therule and the Commission’ s proposed overallregulatory approach, or offering constructivecomments on specific aspects of the proposedrule without taking a general position on the ruleitself, or offering support with reservations. Nostate group or existing LLW disposal siteoperator expressed opposition to the proposedrule. Only 15 commenters expressed outrightopposition to the rule or some significant portionof it. As a result of the generally favorablecomments received, the Commission finalized 10CFR Part 61 in 1982 (47 FR 57446). To supportpublication of the final rule, the staff also issuedNUREG-0945, ”Final Environmental ImpactStatement on 10 CFR Part 61: LicensingRequirements for Land Disposal of RadioactiveWastes,” (NRC, 1982a), which contained adetailed analysis of the comments received on theDEIS, as well as the decision bases and staffpositions in support of the final regulation. Aseries of independent analyses also supported theEIS.
7.1 Elements of the LLW Regulation
The 10 CFR Part 61 regulation applies to anynear-surface and above-ground disposaltechnology for commercial LLW. The regulationcovers all phases of LLW disposal from siteselection through facility design, licensing,operations, closure, and postclosure stabilization,to the period when active institutional controlsend. The regulation also establishes theprocedures, criteria, terms, and conditions thatthe Commission would use to issue and renewexisting licenses. The requirements emphasizean integrated systems approach to LLW disposal,including consideration of site selection, sitedesign and operation, waste form, and disposalfacility closure. Because of the long periods oftime contemplated for the control of radioactivematerial, 10 CFR Part 61 also emphasizespassive rather than active systems to minimizeand retard releases to the environment. Toprovide flexibility in siting and designing disposalfacilities, the Commission devised an LLWclassification system based on the half-lives andconcentrations of radioactive materials that areexpected to be in the wastes. All commercialLLW classes are subject to minimum waste formcharacteristics.
The 10 CFR Part 61 regulation is organized intoseveral subparts. Various subparts cover generalprovisions and procedural licensing aspects,while other subparts cover the performanceobjectives; financial assurances; state and tribalparticipation; and records, reports, tests, andinspections. In addition, the regulation specifiesrequirements that the waste generator must meet,including requirements for waste form andcontent, waste classification, and wastemanifests. See Appendix C to this report formore details on major subject areas in theregulation.
As noted previously, the 10 CFR Part 61regulation focuses on the long-term disposal ofcommercial LLW. The Commission employed a
43
top-down, integrated systems approach todeveloping the regulation. It proposedperformance goals (objectives) that accounted forboth short-term and long-term radiologicalexposures. The regulation was oriented towardsoverall performance objectives that define thesafety goals (regulatory policies) to be achievedin waste disposal. (See next section of thisreport.) The performance objectives aresupported by a narrow (minimum) set ofprescriptive technical standards that, based onpast operating experience, are judged to beimportant to meeting the overall performanceobjectives. The intent of this regulatoryapproach was to give flexibility to LLW disposalfacility developers, consistent with a particulargeologic and/or geographic setting, in choosingadvantageous siting and design features andoperating practices necessary to achieve theperformance objectives (46 FR 38083). TheCommission chose not to include too muchspecificity in the technical standards as thatwould require considerable detailed knowledgeabout the spectrum of designs, techniques, andprocedures for disposing of commercial LLW.Alternatively, the Commission chose to provideprospective applicants with flexibility in decidinghow they would meet the performance objectives.
Through the earlier scoping process, the site(geosphere) was considered to be part of thecontainment system which, in concert withspecific design features (e.g., clay liners,engineered barriers), would slow the expectedrelease of LLW to acceptably small quantities ofradioactive material over time. The technicalrequirements apply to site suitability, specificfeatures of the facility design, operations andclosure, waste classification, waste form, andcertain institutional assurance measures.Requirements for environmental monitoring inthe postclosure phase would ensure theassessment of the overall system’ s performance.Based on past reviews and experience, theCommission deemed these minimum technicalrequirements collectively important to achieving
successful waste disposal. Because there aremultiple barriers (including a stabilized wasteform), reliance is not placed on any onecomponent of the LLW disposal system to ensurethat the performance objectives are met. Rather,all components of the system, acting in concert,are intended to contain and isolate the wastes.This concept of multiple barriers is consistentwith the Commission’ s traditional viewsregarding defense-in-depth and aids in the50
decisionmaking for issuing a 10 CFR Part 61license using the standard of “ reasonableassurance.”51
“ Defense-in-depth” is more of an NRC design50
principle and operational philosophy than a regulatoryrequirement per se. A review of the literature indicatesthat there is no official or preferred definition (Sorensen etal. , 1999, p. 1). One of the essential features of theprinciple is the concept of employing successivecompensatory measures to prevent accidents or mitigatedamage if a malfunction or accident occurs. (As appliedto a disposal system containing LLW, the compensatorymeasures would be multiple physical barriers that provideredundancy in containment.) The net effect ofincorporating defense-in-depth into design, construction,maintenance, and operation is that the facility or systemtends to be more tolerant of internal failures and externalchanges. As applied to the NRC’ s regulatory programs,this principle is discussed in more detail in NRC (1983c,48 FR 28196–28197), NRC (1998b), and Powers (1999).
Section 61.23, “ Standards for Issuance of a51
License,” of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulationsdefines the standards the Commission will use todetermine if it can issue a 10 CFR Part 61 licenseapplication to operate an LLW disposal facility. In issuingany license, the Commission would apply the standard ofreasonable assurance. Historically, the Commission hasused the concept to describe the acceptability ofinformation submitted in a license application that woulddemonstrate that the licensed facility would perform asintended and, in doing so, protect public health and safety. The Commission, at 48 FR 28204, describes how it woulduse the standard in the context of 10 CFR Part 60,“ Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in GeologicRepositories,” the NRC’ s generic geologic disposalregulations for SNF and other HLW. See also Schweitzerand Sastre (1987, pp. 4–5).
44
7.2 Who Should Be Protected and WhatShould the Level of Protection Be?
As noted earlier, the Commission’ s intent inpromulgating 10 CFR Part 61 was to develop aregulation that addressed all phases of the LLWdisposal cycle. This meant that the regulationhad to be sufficient to cover disposal operationsand closure, as well as the long-term period ofwaste isolation.
The Commission developed the performanceobjectives defined in Subpart C expressly forcommercial LLW. They define the overall52
level of safety to be achieved by disposal.Although the Commission’ s requirements in10 CFR Part 20 were considered appropriate forexisting types of nuclear facility operations, theywere not considered appropriate for the long-term disposal of LLW (NRC, 1989c, p. 7). The10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives areintended to provide protection from normaldisposal facility operations as well as longer termprotection from the release of radioactivematerials after facility closure, includingaccidental exposures caused by inadvertenthuman intrusion and waste exhumation, in whichthe intruder is unaware of the presence of thedisposal site. The technical requirements inSubpart D are minimum requirements intended tohelp ensure compliance with the performanceobjectives.
The Commission was also concerned about thepotential for inadvertent human intrusion onceinstitutional control of the site had ended andknowledge of the hazard ceased. Near-surfacedisposal raises the possibility of exposures toionizing radiation resulting from man’ s efforts toreclaim a disposal site for productive use such asfarming, housing, or natural resource
development. Archeological activities andscavenging could also lead to waste exhumation.The staff recognized early in the EIS scopingprocess that because these behaviors could not bepredicted, there was no way to guarantee thatinadvertent human intrusion at the site would notoccur at some point in the future (46 FR 38083).Consequently, the staff determined that futuregenerations, in effect, should be afforded thesame level of protection as the general populationtoday. Although widely used today in theevaluation of radioactive waste disposalsystems, the human intruder scenario was a53
unique concept when the Commission firstproposed it.
In another type of intergenerational equityconcern, the Commission took the position thatfuture generations should not bear theresponsibility for managing wastes produced bypast generations. The Commission stated that thedisposal facility, its components, and even certaintypes of LLW should be robust (physically stable)and recognizable for some minimum period oftime into the future while the radiological hazardstill exists so as to preclude the potential forreleases into the environment (NRC, 1982b,47 FR 57457, 57459).
As a result of these considerations, during therulemaking scoping process, the Commissionproposed the following performance objectivesfound in Subpart C:
• Protect members of the public (at 10CFR 61.41, “ Protection of the GeneralPopulation from Releases ofRadioactivity”).
In the absence of applicable environmental radiation52
standards promulgated by EPA, the NRC developed thefour performance objectives through rulemaking. SeeSection 7.4.2 of this report for further information.
By evaluating the disruptive consequences of53
borehole drilling, the robustness of radioactive wastedisposal designs to human intrusion scenarios can beevaluated. For example, see Charles and McEwen(1991), Nuclear Energy Agency (1991), Berglund (1992),and Wescott (2001).
45
• Protect inadvertent human intrudersentering the facility once disposaloperations have ceased and the facilityhas been decommissioned (at 10 CFR61.42, “ Protection of Individuals fromInadvertent Intrusion”).
• Protect occupationally exposed workersduring facility operation (at 10 CFR61.43, “ Protection of Individuals duringOperations”).
• Assure the long-term physical stability ofthe disposal facility to obviate the needfor long-term maintenance afterdecommissioning of the facility (at10 CFR 61.44, “ Stability of the Siteafter Closure”).
These performance objectives effectively definedthe Commission’ s policy on who would beprotected (and when) as the result of theoperation of a commercial LLW disposal facility.The first performance objective applied to short-term exposures associated with the preclosurephase of facility operations. As noted earlier, theintent of this requirement was to ensure thatLLW disposal facilities would be operated inconformance with the same standards forradiation protection that the Commission alreadyapplied to existing nuclear materials licensees.As a consequence, this performance objectiverequired compliance with existing 10 CFR Part20 criteria for radiation exposure to workers.
With the update of 10 CFR Part 20 (NRC,1991c), there are now two different bases fordoses in 10 CFR 61.41 and 10 CFR 61.43. Thewhole-body and organ dose limits specified in10 CFR 61.41 are based on the older system ofdose calculation methods as documented in theInternational Commission on RadiologicalProtection (ICRP) Publication 2 (ICRP, 1960).This system is based on the principles ofmaximum organ burdens and intakes so annualdoses are limited to the maximums allowed for
critical organs. Currently, 10 CFR Part 20 isbased on ICRP Publications 26 and 30. SeeICRP (1977 and 1979–88, respectively). The54
principles in these reports are based on estimatingdoses for 50 years for intakes that occur in a yearof practice and limiting exposures so that theassigned dose for intakes in that year does notexceed limits.
The practical result is that under the new system,long-lived radionuclides are more restricted thanunder the old system. In short, a dose expressedin mrem/yr to the whole body using the conceptsin 10 CFR 61.41 is not necessarily equivalent to25 mrem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE)assigned to a year of practice using the conceptsin 10 CFR Part 20. The difference is greater ifmore long-lived radionuclides are involved ininternal exposures.
Although appropriate for the preclosure phase ofoperations, the Commission did not consider10 CFR Part 20 adequate for the postclosurephase, as the manner, the timing, and the natureof potential radioactive releases for specific typesof LLW would be more difficult to predict underany scenario – natural or otherwise – for anyparticular repository design. The determinationof what specific technical requirements might beneeded to achieve safety during the postclosurephase required a more definitive assessment ofthe potential radiological hazard. To conduct thisassessment, the Commission postulated twological exposure scenarios, (a) an event in whichradioactive material is transported off-site (i.e.,ground-water migration) as a result of the naturalevolution of the disposal system and its environs(this is now commonly referred to as theundisturbed or “ base case” scenario) or (b) apotential event similar to the one alreadydescribed above in which individuals come into
ICRP Publication 30 was issued in four parts54
between 1979 and 1988. See ICRP (1979, 1980, 1981,1988). Including indexes and supplements, eight volumesare associated with the Publication 30 series.
46
unintentional, direct contact with the buriedwaste (this is now commonly referred to as adisturbed or “ human intrusion” scenario).
The Commission thus intended the remainingthree performance objectives (Sections 60.42,60.43, and 60.44) to address potential long-termexposures that might be encountered during thepostclosure period of the disposal facility lifecycle. In proposing these performance objectives(and the supporting technical requirements), theCommission recognized that the period ofgreatest reliance on the disposal system would belong after the facility had been closed as someLLW can remain hazardous for many hundredsif not thousands of years. Because of thepotential for humans to inadvertently enter adisposal facility and come into contact withradioactive waste, the Commission quicklyrecognized that, when taking into account thelong timeframes of concern, the intruder scenariowould likely be the key scenario drivingdecisions on what combination of siting anddesign requirements was necessary to providesufficient protection to ensure the safety of thepublic and the environment.55
7.3 10 CFR Part 61 Scoping Activities
Based on the review of the past performance ofsome commercial and Federal waste disposal
sites, the Commission recognized that certainLLW management practices (i.e., siting anddesign decisions, preferred waste forms,packaging techniques) had already producedfavorable disposal outcomes. At some sites,LLW had been contained in disposal cells, andno releases of radioactive material to theaccessible environment had occurred. Thechallenge in developing the new regulation wasto understand what combination(s) of practicesand/or standards could be relied on to producethe same favorable outcomes at future disposalsites. Understanding the answers to thesequestions would help determine what level ofprotection was necessary for the operation of aLLW disposal facility.
7.3.1 NUREG-0456: A Proposed LLW DoseAssessment Model
In developing the technical criteria and standardsfor SLB, the Commission recognized that itwould need to define the concentrations andquantities of waste acceptable for disposal underan LLW regulation. This meant developing ananalytical methodology that allowed theinterfaces between key components of an LLWdisposal system (i.e, specific siting and designfeatures, performance objectives, and sourceterms) to be defined quantitatively. Morespecifically, for certain key radionuclides andwaste forms, the staff needed to identify theexisting LLW management practices and/ordisposal methods that worked best in containingwastes and limiting doses.
One of the early analyses the staff conducted aspart of the DEIS scoping process was thedevelopment of a generic LLW dose assessmentmethodology. For certain key radionuclides andwaste forms, the staff sought to identify (andquantify) an optimal set of model parameters(e.g., disposal practices) that could be used tocontrol doses. Using a consistent set of relativelysimple exposure pathways, the staff proposed adeterministic dose assessment methodology inNUREG-0456, “ A Classification System for
If there were complete assurance that a commercial55
LLW disposal site would not be subject to humanintrusion, then the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking effortwould have been reduced to determining what technicalcriteria were necessary to ensure that the disposed wasteswould remain within the confines of the disposal facilityuntil such time that the LLW had decayed to backgroundlevels. However, because complete assurance in thisregard was not possible, the rulemaking effort needed toaccount for the eventuality that there would be humanintrusion into a disposal site and exhumation of or contactwith the wastes. The Commission recognized that specificdesign precautions and/or waste form specifications mightbe necessary to protect against the more hazardous, longerlived LLW forms, specifically Class B and C wastes (47 FR 57451).
47
Radioactive Waste Disposal – What Waste GoesWhere?” (Adam and Rogers, 1978). It wasapplied to two reference disposal methods (sites)and a preliminary three-tier LLW classificationsystem. Analysts could compare estimated doseimpacts with dose guidelines developed for thestudy to determine maximum allowable56
concentrations (limits) of radionuclidesappropriate for each of the proposed wasteclassification tiers through “ what-if” types ofanalyses.
The most likely release path of radionuclidesfrom a near-surface disposal facility to thebiosphere is transport by groundwater followingdissolution of the LLW form. However, near-surface disposal facilities are also subject toexhumation by geologic processes, as well as byinadvertent human intrusion. To account forthese scenarios, the dose methodology developedwas the traditional release-transport-exposure-consequence model. The methodology consistedof a basic dose model, dose guidelines, exposurescenarios, and calculational basis. Analystsconsidered two mechanisms or exposurescenarios in which individuals could come intocontact with the waste. They were the “ onsitereclaimer” scenario and the “ offsite transporter”scenario. The onsite reclaimer scenarioconsidered six potential exposure pathways,while the offsite transporter scenario consideredfour. See Table 11. These exposure scenarioswere believed to be reasonably conservative. Allfeatures of the NUREG-0456 dose methodologywere deterministic. The intruder scenario was
assumed to occur with a probability of one, 150years after the end of institutional controls at thedisposal site, when most of the short-livedradionuclides would have already decayed. Theoffsite transporter scenarios were also calculateddeterministically and were assumed to be initiatedimmediately after the waste was disposed. In thislatter scenario, there is essentially no credit forradionuclide decay, and the releases thereforecan be considered instantaneous exposures.
Once developed, the overall methodology wasbenchmarked against existing analog sites tovalidate the computational features of theanalysis. The analog locations selected were theMaxey Flats LLW disposal site (in Kentucky) andthe Latty Avenue uranium mill tailings site (inMissouri). In addition, based on the study’ sdose guidelines limits, the methodology was ableto provide preliminary estimates of the maximumconcentrations or inventories of radioactivematerial in commercial LLW that werepermissible to ensure that exposures did notexceed the assumed safety goals for maximumindividual and total population doses. Beforepublication, all features of the NUREG-0456methodology and results underwent a peer reviewto provide a critical, independent assessment ofthe work.
7.3.2 NUREG/CR-1005: A ProposedRadioactive Waste ClassificationSystem
Having defined a generic methodology forunderstanding the sensitivity (coupling) betweenkey disposal system interfaces, analysts needed tomove to the next phase of the EIS scopingprocess. This involved devising a wasteclassification system that would allow acorrelation between the hazard posed by thewaste, the safety goal to be achieved by disposal,and some prescriptive regulatory requirementsnecessary to achieve the safety goals. Anydisposal solution must recognize thatradiotoxicity and environmental mobility are key
By law, EPA was responsible for the development56
of radiation exposure standards and criteria to be appliedto LLW. However, at the time of the staff’ s scopinganalyses, such criteria were not available. Consequently,the NRC staff postulated a reasonable set of guidelines toprovide protection from the effects of ionizing radiation,based on a review of the recommendations of national andinternational standard-setting organizations, consistentwith ICRP Publication 26 (ICRP, 1977). See Adam andRogers (1978, pp. 6–10) and the discussion in Section7.4.1 of this report for more information.
48
Table 11 Exposure Scenarios Considered in NUREG-0456. Taken from Adam and Rogers (1978, pp. 15–17).
Scenario Event Pathway Comments
Onsite Reclaimer Inhalation Worker Inhalation of contaminated dust
Resident
Ingestion Well Water Consumption Ingestion of contaminated groundwaterand/or consumption of food grown in soilirrigated with contaminated groundwater Food Consumption
Direct Exposure Worker Direct exposure to gamma radiation
Resident
Offsite Transporter Inhalation Continuous Operational Release Atmospheric transport
Accidental Release
Ingestion Groundwater-to-River Ingestion from contaminated groundwaterresource
Surface Erosion
parameters in defining the magnitude of exposurehazards to the public.
For example, analyses from NUREG-0456already indicated that certain disposal practices,such as increasing the timeframe when the firstexposure occurs through the use of institutional(administrative) controls, can limit the magnitudeof those exposures or obviate the significance ofcertain exposure scenarios altogether.Alternatively, burying wastes at greater depthscan achieve similar dose outcomes by eliminatingthe potential for certain types of intruderscenarios, as well as providing some shielding ofthe wastes (Adam and Rogers, 1978, pp. 5–7).Hence, by focusing on the length of institutionalcontrols and limiting the physical accessibility ofthe wastes, analysts were able to formulatedisposal categories that indicated how specifictypes of waste should be treated, as well as torecommend radionuclide concentration limits foreach disposal category.
Thus, in considering the importance of half-life(decay) and environmental mobility to potentialdose outcomes, King and Cohen (1977)
suggested that any one of the following threedisposal actions could occur:
(1) The radioactive waste does not posesignificant radiological health risk to thepublic, and the waste can be disposed ofas part of the municipal waste stream.
(2) The radioactive waste does pose somelevel of radiological health risk to thepublic, and the waste needs to beconfined in some controlled manner toallow limited releases to the environmentat predictably low rates, consistent withlevels of background radiation found innature.
(3) The radioactive waste poses a significantradiological health risk to the public,over an extended period of time, and thewaste needs to be isolated so thatbiologically significant releases ofradioactive material to the environment(or inadvertent human intrusion) wereunlikely.
49
Thus, for the purposes of scoping the 10 CFRPart 61 regulation, NUREG/CR-1005, “ ARadioactive Waste Disposal ClassificationSystem,” proposed a “ what type of radioactivewaste goes where” disposal classification system(Rogers, 1979). Five types of disposal solutionswere proposed applicable to all types ofradioactive waste. The principal considerationsin defining the proposed disposal categories werethe duration of institutional controls (caretakeroversight) and reclaimer accessibility (Rogers,1979, p. 24). As previously noted, it wasbelieved that governmental institutions couldrestrict public access to disposal sites and thus thepotential for coming into contact with hazardouswastes if a caretaker oversight period wasspecified. If this oversight period weresufficiently long, potential exposures to thehazard would be reduced by virtue of theinevitable radioactive decay of the wastes.Similarly, if the wastes were buried at depthsgreater than those routinely reached duringconstruction activities, this geologic “ isolation”would also help to reduce potential exposures.Both considerations were key to the NRC’ s10 CFR Part 61 regulatory concept.
Building on the earlier work of NUREG-0456,analysts proposed deterministic disposalconcentration guides (DCGs) applicable to each57
disposal class consistent once again with somespecified safety goal. The DCGs are the front-end parameters of the dose assessment model andrepresent the activity of the waste available forconsideration in the assessment at the time ofdisposal. Analysts derived the DCGs by startingwith a specified dose limit and workingbackwards through the dose model, pathway-by-pathway, to the initiation point of the analysis.Another important interface value was themaximum average concentration (MAC), which
represents the back-end of the dose assessmentmodel. It corresponds to the radionuclidecontaminant concentration found in a particularexposure pathway. Both concentration58
parameters are expressed in units of microcuriesper cubic centimeter (:Ci/cm³ ). By using arevised dose assessment model (Rogers et al.,1979) , analysts demonstrated that DCGs and59
MACs could be used to derive a five-tier systemof disposal recommendations taking into accountduration of institutional controls and reclaimerexposure pathways. See Table 12. In general,the NUREG/CR-1005 analysis indicated that forhigher-calculated DCGs (Table 13), additionalcaretaker oversight and isolation measures wereneeded to ensure the safe disposal of the waste.The analysis also showed that for some exposurescenarios, the MAC can be the limiting factor inthe specification of a radionuclide-specific DCG.The analysis also demonstrated that by comparingpotential doses with study guidelines, the wasteconcentrations, waste volumes, or disposalmethods could be modified to provide adequateprotection to the public, which is anotherimportant EIS scoping consideration.
7.3.3 NUREG-0782: The Draft LLW EISThe last step in the rulemaking process was toprepare an EIS consistent with NEPA. As notedearlier, the purpose of the 10 CFR Part 61 DEISwas to fulfill the NRC’ s NEPA responsibility, aswell as to demonstrate the decisionmakingprocess applied to the development of the LLWdisposal regulation. Using the EIS process (e.g.,Rau and Wooten, 1980), the NRC staff was ableto evaluate the potential health impacts of LLWdisposal, possible means for limiting the impacts,
Because it is not practical to perform a radioisotopic57
survey for every type of LLW configuration, doseconversion factors for individual isotopes were developedfor NUREG/CR-1005.
In NUREG/CR-1005, analysts considered only four58
dose pathways (reclaimer dust inhalation, food ingestionfrom reclaimed soil, well water consumption, and directgamma radiation), because they believed these pathways tobe the most restrictive in limiting doses to receptors.
Similar to or derived from the NUREG-0456 dose59
model.
50
Table 12 Waste Disposal Classification Categories Proposed in NUREG/CR-1005. Taken from Rogers (1979,
p. 25).
DisposalClass
InstitutionalControl
Accessibility Comments
A None No reclaimer access Default class. No upper limit for DCGs. Understood to be deepgeologic isolation.
B 150 years No reclaimer accessexcept well water after150 years
Ready access to reclaimer is unlikely. Understood to representintermediate-depth land burial (about 30 ft). Offsite-transport,well-water ingestion is controlling exposure scenario after 150years. DCGs are from Class C and adjusted using a 150-yeardecay factor.
C 20 years No reclaimer accessexcept well water after 20years
Ready access to reclaimer is unlikely. Understood to representintermediate-depth land burial. Offsite-transport, well-wateringestion is controlling exposure scenario after 20 years.
D 150 years Reclaimer accessfollowing institutionalcontrols
Understood to represent shallow land burial (about 10 ft).
E None Worker/reclaimer access Understood to correspond to a sanitary municipal landfill.
and considering these measures, the potentialreduction (benefit) that could be achieved. TheEIS contained an exhaustive and detailed analysisof alternatives such as disposal facilityenvironments, waste characteristics, disposal facility designs, and operating practices.60
Deterministically-derived doses were presentedfor whole body and six organs (bone, liver,thyroid, kidney, lung, and gastrointestinaltract). The NRC published its DEIS for theproposed 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking asNUREG-0782 (NRC, 1981c). In preparing thisfour-volume report, the NRC followed both CEQregulations for preparing an EIS, as well as theNRC’ s NEPA-implementing regulations set outin 10 CFR Part 51, “ Environmental Protection
In conducting the 10 CFR Part 61 DEIS scoping60
calculations, the staff assumed a reference disposal facilityrepresentative of existing LLW disposal facility designsand operating and management practices throughout theUnited States. To summarize, the staff decided that theDEIS reference design would be an SLB facility located ina humid environment characteristic of the eastern UnitedStates. The staff selected this general location becausethat part of the country was generating most of the LLWand thus was likely to have the largest number of disposalfacilities in the future. The site had four distinct climateseasons, although the winters were considered short andmild with an average annual precipitation of about 46inches. The reference facility covered an area of 148acres with a disposal capacity of about 35,000,000 ft (103 6
m ). The staff assumed the disposal facility would have a3
20- to 40-year operational life. At the end of operations,the disposal site would be stabilized using existingconservation practices, and the site closed and
decommissioned. Following decommissioning, the NRCoperating license would be terminated, and title of the sitewould be transferred to a government agency that wouldprovide active institutional controls (surveillance,monitoring, and custodial maintenance) for a period ofabout 100 years. During this 100-year caretaker period,there would be no incidents involving inadvertent humanintrusion.
Appendix F, “ Description of a Reference DisposalFacility,” to Volume 2 of NUREG-0782 describes in moredetail the reference facility and other applicable modelparameters.
51
Table 13 DCGs for Waste Classes Proposed in NUREG/CR-1005. Taken from Rogers (1979, p. xiv).
Radionuclide Waste Class DCGs (in ìCi/cm³)a b
A B C D Ec
H 2.9×10 4.3×10 94 94 0.053 9 5
C 7.1×10 140 140 2.4×10 1.2×1014 6 -3 -3
Fe 1.9×10 SA SA SA 1255 10
Co 9.7×10 SA SA 2.1×10 2.5×10 66 9 6 -4
Sr 3.6×10 38 2.4 0.02 2.3×10 90 8 -4
Tc 1×10 64 64 0.1 0.0599 4
I 850 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.024129
Cs 2.4×10 20 20 0.2 0.10135 3
Cs 1.7×10 SA SA 0.9 4.2×10137 8 -3
U 41 11 11 0.03 0.015235
U 6.4 SA SA 0.03 0.015238
Np 1.3×10 0.3 0.3 0.02 5.4×10237 4 -4
Pu 3.4×10 SA SA 0.4 3.4×10238 8 -4
Pu 1.2×10 90 90 0.1 3.0×10239 6 -4
Pu 4.7×10 810 810 0.1 3.0×10240 6 -4
Pu 2.2×10 SA SA 5.9×10 0.015241 9 3
Pu 7.6×10 13 13 0.1 3.1×10242 4 -4
Am 6.4×10 SA SA 0.4 9.2×10241 7 -4
Am 3.6×10 SA 600 0.3 9.2×10243 6 -4
Cm 2.6×10 SA SA SA 0.024242 10
Cm 6.2×10 SA SA 130 1.5×10244 8 -3
a. The list of radionuclides found in this table are not identical to those found in Table 10 of Rogers (1979, p. xiv).b. Waste classes are defined in Table 12 of this report.c. Specific activity (SA) of the isotope.
52
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and RelatedRegulatory Functions.” The deterministicanalyses in NUREG-0456 and NUREG/CR-1005provided a generic methodology for evaluatingthe risks of different types of radioactive wastesand proposing disposal solutions commensuratewith those risks. NUREG-0782 relied on thosemethodologies and integrated them into theNEPA-EIS framework necessary to support theproposed rulemaking. However, unlike theearlier analyses, NUREG-0782 consideredinformation viewed as more representative of thetypes and kinds of LLW being managed at thetime, as well as pervasive LLW managementpractices. Volume 1 of NUREG-0782 was asummary report; Volume 2 described the NEPA-required analyses. Volumes 3 and 4 of the DEIScontained the technical analyses and othersupporting information that addressed therequired elements of an EIS.61
The following sections of this report discuss twokey features of the analytical framework used toevaluate the performance of a hypothetical LLWdisposal facility. They are the commercial LLWstreams and exposure pathways considered in theDEIS (Sections 7.3. 3. 1 and 7.3.3.2,respectively).
7.3.3.1 The Waste Streams Considered62
At the time the NRC was developing theregulation, an estimated 20,000 NRC materialslicensees were producing commercial LLW in awide variety of waste types, forms, and amounts.This LLW was not a uniform physical quantity.It contained both short-lived and long-livedradionuclides and ranged from trash that was
only suspected of being contaminated to highlyradioactive material such as activated structuralcomponents from nuclear power reactors. Itcould be in solid, liquid, or gaseous forms. SeeWild et al. (1981).
For the purposes of the DEIS scoping processand analyses, the NRC staff separated existingcommercial LLW into 36 distinct waste streams(Table 14). Each waste stream represented aseparate type of LLW generated by a particulartype of waste source and had distinct physical,chemical, radiological, and other characteristicsunique to that waste stream. The staff alsoanalyzed the isotopic content of various wastestreams and then identified the most importantradionuclides present in each stream forconsideration in the DEIS analysis (Table 15).To allow for the required consideration ofdisposal impacts and alternative managementoptions, the staff also considered the volumes ofcommercial waste in each stream. In developingthe regulation, the Commission noted that a keysafety concern was the mobility of certain long-lived radioisotopes (iodine-129, technetium-99,carbon-14, and tritium) in the environment,especially in groundwater. By definingradionuclide concentration limits for a LLWdisposal facility, the Commission sought toensure that the proposed 10 CFR Part 61performance objectives related to groundwaterwould be met (47 FR 57455).
As discussed earlier, another of the Commissionobjectives in developing the LLW regulation wasto identify existing as well as new LLWmanagement practices and designs that couldcontribute to meeting the overall performanceobjectives. For example, certain waste formsand processing options may reduce the potentialfor radionuclide dissolution and subsequentbiosphere transport. Consequently, theCommission decided to also consider waste formand processing options as part of the DEISscoping analysis. It achieved this by categorizingexisting commercial LLW into four waste
Specifically, the purposes, scope, and need for the61
rulemaking action, description of the affectedenvironment, and discussion of a preferred action, as wellas consideration of alternatives, costs, and impacts.
Appendix D, “ Low-Level Waste Sources and62
Processing Options,” to Volume 2 of NUREG-0782describes in more detail the waste stream definitionprocess.
53
Table 14 Waste Streams Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. Taken from NRC (1981c,
Volume 2 , p. 3-11).
Waste Stream Group Group Description
Group I: LWR Process Wastes PWR Ion Exchange ResinsPWR Concentrated LiquidsPWR Filter SludgesPWR Filter CartridgesBWR Ion Exchange ResinsBWR Concentrated LiquidsBWR Filter Sludge
Group II: Trash PWR Compactible TrashPWR Noncompactible TrashBWR Compactible TrashBWR Noncompactible TrashFuel Fabrication Compactible TrashFuel Fabrication Noncompactible TrashInstitutional Trash (large facilities)Institutional Trash (small facilities)Industrial SS Trash (large facilities)
Industrial SS Trash (small facilities)Industrial Low Trash (large facilities)Industrial Low Trash (small facilities)
Group III: Low Specific Activity Wastes Fuel Fabrication Process Wastes
6UF Process WastesInstitutional LSV Waste (large facilities)Institutional LSV Waste (small facilities)Institutional Liquid Waste (large facilities)Institutional Liquid Waste (small facilities)Institutional Biowaste (large facilities)Institutional Biowaste (small facilities)Institutional SS Waste Institutional Low-Activity Waste
Group IV: Special Wastes LWR Nonfuel Reactor ComponentsLWR Decontamination ResinsWaste from Isotope Production FacilitiesTritium Production WasteAccelerator TargetsSealed SourcesIndustrial High-Activity Waste
Abbreviations: LWRPWRBWRSSLSV
light-water reactorpressurized-water reactorboiling water reactorsources and special nuclear materialliquid scintillation vial
54
Table 15 Radionuclides Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. Taken from NRC (1981c, Volume 2,
p. 3-12).
Radionuclide* Half-Life(years)
RadiationEmitted
Principal Means of Production
H 12.3 â Fission; Li (n, á)3 6
C 5730 â Ni (n, p)14 14
Fe 2.60 ã Fe (n, ã)55 54
Co 5.26 â, ã Co (n, ã) 66 59
Ni 80,000 ã Ni (n, ã)59 58
Ni 92 â Ni (n, ã)63 62
Sr 28.1 â Fission90
Nb 20,000 â, ã Nb (n, ã)94 93
Tc 2.12×10 â Fission; Mo (n,ã), Mo (â))99 5 98 99
I 1.17×10 â, ã Fission129 7
Cs 3.0×10 â Fission; daughter Xe135 6 135
Cs 30.0 â, ã Fission137
U 7.1×10 á, ã Natural235 8
U 4.51×10 á, ã Natural238 9
Np 2.14×10 á, ã U (n, 2n), U (â))237 6 238 237
Pu 86.4 á, ã Np (n, ã), Np â)); daughter Cm239 237 238 242
Pu 24,400 á, ã U (n, ã), U (â)), Np (â))239 238 238 239
Pu 6580 á, ã Multiple n-capture 240
Pu 13.2 â, ã Multiple n-capture 241
Pu 2.79×10 á Multiple n-capture; daughter Am242 5 242
Am 458 á, ã Daughter Pu241 241
Am 7950 á, ã Multiple n-capture 243
Cm 32 á, ã Multiple n-capture 243
Cm 17.6 á, ã Multiple n-capture 244
* The list of radionuclides in this table is not identical to the list in Table 10 of Rogers (1979, p. xiv).
55
Table 16 Waste Spectra Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. Adopted from NRC (1981c,
Volume 2, p. 3-21). Each waste spectrum represents a cross section of all waste streams that might be
generated and disposed of in an LLW disposal facility.
WasteSpectrum
Description
1 This spectrum assumes a continuation of existing and some past waste management practices. Some of the LWR wastesare solidified. However, no processing was done on organics, combustible wastes, or streams containing chelating agents. LWR resins and filter sludges are assumed to be present at disposal sites in a dewatered form. LWR concentrated liquidsare assumed to be concentrated in accordance with current practices and are solidified with various media. No specialeffort is made to compact trash. Institutional waste streams are shipped to disposal sites after they are packaged withcurrently utilized absorbent materials. Resins from LWR decontamination operations are solidified in a medium with highlyimproved characteristics.
2 This spectrum assumes that LWR process wastes are solidified using improved solidification techniques. LWRconcentrated liquids are additionally reduced in volume through an evaporator/crystallized. All LWR concentrated liquidsare evaporated in 50 weight percent solids, and all LWR process wastes are solidified. In the case of cartridge filters, thesolidification agent fills voids in the packaged waste but does not increase the volume. Liquid scintillation vials are crushedat large facilities and packed in absorbent material. All compactible trash streams are compacted; some streams arecompacted at the source of generation, and some are compacted at the disposal facility. Liquids from medical isotopeproduction are solidified.
3 This spectrum assumes that LWR process wastes are solidified and that further improved waste solidification agents areused. LWR concentrated liquids are first evaporated to 50 percent weight solids. All possible incineration of combustiblematerial (except LWR process wastes) is performed; some incineration is done at the source of generation (fuel cycle trash,LWR decontamination resins, institutional wastes from large facilities, and industrial trash from large facilities) and some atthe disposal site (institutional and industrial trash from small facilities). All incineration ash is solidified.
4 This spectrum assumes extreme volume reduction. All wastes amenable to evaporation or incineration with fluidized bedtechnology are calcined and solidified; LWR process wastes, except cartridge filters, are calcined in addition to the streamsincinerated in Waste Spectrum 3. All noncompactible wastes are reduced in volume at the disposal site or at a centralprocessing facility using a large hydraulic press. This spectrum represents the maximum volume reduction that can bepractically achieved.
“ spectra” representing generic processingoptions to be considered. See Table 16.
7.3.3.2 The Exposure Pathways ConsideredBased on a review of exposure pathwaysconsidered in earlier studies, the NRC staffselected a limited number of exposure events forevaluation in the DEIS. As stated previously, theintent was to determine which waste streams aswell as which hypothetical exposure scenariosproduced the highest doses. Two exposurescenarios considered: concentration-limited andactivity-limited exposure pathways (or events).Concentration-limited exposure events wereinadvertent human intruder exposures thatresulted from the direct contact with LLW. Doseswere restricted to a few individuals and were a
function of the concentration of radionuclidesfound in the particular waste stream that theintruder came into contact with. By contrast,activity-limited exposure events were inadvertenthuman intruder exposures that resulted from theindirect contact with LLW. In this exposurescenario, surface water and groundwatermobilize the radioactive waste leaching from adegraded disposal facility and environmentallytransport it by dispersive forces to some distantreceptor location. Doses to a small populationare estimated based on some estimate of totalactivity of the LLW inventory, in all wastestreams, initially present at the disposal facility.
56
As noted earlier, all of the human intruderscenarios described in the DEIS were assumed tooccur with a probability of one some hundreds ofyears following waste disposal, whengovernmental controls end and institutionalknowledge about the LLW facility ceases. It wasassumed that the probability of human intrusionwas one and that the probability of intruding intoClass C waste was also one (for concentration-limited exposure pathways). Further, in all cases,the conditions of intrusion, the lack of hazardrecognition, and exposure routes to the intruder(or receptor) can be best characterized asbounding.
For each of the exposure scenarios studied, thestaff addressed the following four potentialmitigation actions in the context of the DEIS:
(1) controlling the concentrations of theradionuclides in the specific wastestreams
(2) considering alternative waste formand/or waste packaging configurations
(3) evaluating the effectiveness of theduration of institutional controls
(4) examining the effects of engineeredand/or natural barriers to humanintrusion
Consistent with the DEIS scoping process andrulemaking objectives, the intent was tounderstand what effect, if any, potentialmitigation actions would have on predicted doseoutcomes based on expected waste streams. Ifeffective, these actions might make reasonableregulatory recommendations to advance for the10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking. The Commissionwould decide on these recommendations byidentifying which exposure scenarios were themost restrictive (i.e., produced the highest doses)and then evaluating the effectiveness of thepotential mitigation actions listed above inreducing the estimated doses.
Concentration-limited exposure events. Three63
concentration-limited exposure events wereconsidered in the DEIS. The first was an“ intruder-construction scenario.” For thishypothetical exposure event, it was assumed thatthe inadvertent human intruder constructs ahouse or building directly over the disposalfacility footprint unaware of any potentialradiological hazard. Radiation exposures toconstruction workers were principally from theinhalation of contaminated air and dust, anddirect exposure to gamma radiation.
The second exposure event considered was an“ intruder-agriculture scenario.” Here theinadvertent human intruder is represented by aresident farmer who is also unaware of the LLWdisposal facility. The hypothetical farmer buildsa homestead within the disposal facility footprintand engages in agriculture. Radiation exposuresoccur through the food-ingestion pathway whenfood grown on contaminated soil present at thesite is consumed. Additional exposure pathwaysto the resident farmer included inhalation ofcontaminated air and dust resulting from homeconstruction and soil tilling as well as directgamma radiation exposures from the radioactivitysuspended in the soil. As was the case with theintruder-construction scenario, the intruder-agriculture exposure scenario assumes that theLLW has degraded to a form that isindistinguishable from other indigenous soilsfound at the site.
The last exposure event considered in the DEISwas the “ intruder-discovery scenario.” For thishypothetical exposure scenario, a human intruderunknowingly exhumes a LLW disposal cell,removes a waste package container, and opensthe container only to abandon it shortlythereafter. Now directly exposed to the elements,the contents of the LLW waste package container
Chapter 4, “ Presentation and Analysis of63
Alternatives – Intruder,” of Volume 2 of NUREG-0782discusses in more detail the treatment in the EIS of thesethree exposure scenarios.
57
are transported offsite by wind and/or surfacewater. The focus of the dose analysis is a non-occupational acute radiation exposure tomembers of the general public.
Both the intruder-construction scenario andintruder-discovery scenario were considered byto be acute exposure events lasting less than ayear whereas the intruder-agriculture scenariowas assumed to be a chronic, longer-termexposure event since it was possible that theresident farmer would live at the site for severalyears in order to establish the farm. The relativeseverity of any concentration-limited exposureevent depended on the particular waste stream(spectrum) considered in the dose assessment.
Activity-limited exposure events. This DEIS64
analysis examined potential radiation dosesassociated with drinking contaminatedgroundwater. For this exposure event, LLW wasassumed to leach from a degraded disposalfacility, enter the water table, and migratebeyond the disposal site boundary. Many yearslater, once caretaker oversight at the site endsand institutional knowledge of the site ceases, aninadvertent human intruder in search of adrinking water supply unknowingly drills a wellinto the contaminated aquifer or withdraws waterfrom a stream that receives discharge from theaquifer. The entire LLW inventory present at thesite provided an initial source term for theanalysis. Traditional environment fate andtransport numerical methods (e.g., Codell et al.,1982) were used to estimate temporalconcentrations of radionuclide in the contaminantplume.
Unlike the concentration-limited exposure events,whose dose assessments were limited principallyto locations (and individuals) within the disposalfacility footprint, the dose assessments for the
activity-limited exposure events included receptorlocations beyond the disposal site boundary andconsidered both individuals and smallpopulations. See Table 17.
In general, the DEIS scoping studies found thatthe concentration-limited exposure events(scenarios involving food consumption, dustinhalation, and direct gamma radiationexposures) produced the highest calculated dosesrather than exposure events involving theconsumption of contaminated groundwater(NRC, 1981c, Volume 2, p. 4-5). In addition,the human intrusion analysis was found toprovide a useful “ hazard index” for ranking or“ classifying” the different waste streams fordisposal (Op cit.)
7.4 Assumed Definition of Safety
As noted earlier, EPA was responsible fordeveloping and issuing environmental standards,guidelines, and criteria to ensure that the publicand the environment were adequately protectedfrom potential radiation impacts. PresidentRichard M. Nixon announced the creation ofEPA with the publication of Reorganization PlanNo. 3 of 1970. The intent of this plan was toconsolidate Federal environmental research,monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcementactivities into one agency to ensureenvironmental protection. This plan also grantedEPA its standard-setting authority to establish“ generally applicable environmental standardsfor the protection of the general environmentfrom radioactive material...” (The White House,1970, 35 FR 15624).
7.4.1 EPA Efforts to Promulgate LLWStandards
In 1972, the EPA Office of Radiation Programsbegan a program with the CRCPD to examine thepractice of shallow-land disposal of commercialLLW (EPA, 1988, p. 1-3). From 1977–78, EPAconducted a series of public workshops toexamine the policy and technical issues
Chapter 5, “ Long-Term Environmental Protection –64
Presentation and Analysis of Alternatives,” of Volume 2of NUREG-0782 discusses the analysis of these fourscenarios in more detail.
58
Table 17 Activity-Limited Exposure Event Scenarios. Adopted from NRC (1981c, Volume 2 – Chapter 5; and Volume
4 – Appendix G).
The Water Supply is ... The Exposure Scenario Involves ...
... is an onsite water well located within the disposal site footprint. ... one individual.
... is an onsite water well located at the edge of the disposal siteboundary.
... a few individuals.
... is an offsite water well, located 500 m down-gradient from thedisposal facility.
... a small population of about 100 individuals.
... is an offsite stream, located 1 km down-gradient from the disposalfacility, that receives discharge from a contaminated aquifer that flowsbelow the disposal site footprint.
... a small population of about 300 individuals.
associated with the development of radiationstandards (e.g., EPA, 1978a). As a precursor tothe required standards, and at about the sametime the NRC was developing its LLW disposalstandards, EPA proposed Federal guidance forthe storage and disposal of all forms ofradioactive waste (EPA, 1978c, 43 FR 53262).Meyer (1980, p. 10) described the sources EPAwas consulting in the development of its proposedstandards at the time. They included the NEPAstatutes, the Biological Effects of IonizingRadiation (BEIR) II recommendations (NAS,1977), ICRP Publication 26 (ICRP, 1977), andtwo other reports (National Research Council,1977; EPA, 1978b). However, the Agency laterwithdrew its proposed guidance criteria notingthat the many types of radioactive wastes anddifferent methods necessary to manage anddispose of them made the issuance of genericdisposal guidance too complex and that radiationstandards based on waste type would be the bestapproach (EPA, 1981). Alternatively, EPAdecided to promulgate regulations specific to themanagement and disposal of commercial LLW.
In December 1982, the Commission issued thefinal 10 CFR Part 61 regulation. Following itsrelease, and depending on its final content, thestaff noted its intent to amend 10 CFR Part 61(and potentially other NRC regulations) onceEPA issued its LLW standards if the regulationsdid not comply with the EPA standards (NRC,
1989c, p. 11). In August 1983, EPA publishedan ANPR announcing its plans for establishinggeneral environmental radiation protectionstandards for commercial LLW (48 FR 39563).In connection with the development of thesestandards, tentatively designated as 40 CFRPart 193, EPA developed the PRESTO-EPAcomputer code (EPA, 1989a). Similar to the65
NRC’ s earlier dose modeling efforts in thisregard, the purpose of the EPA-sponsored codewas to model radionuclide transport throughmajor environmental pathways to humans. EPArequested that the Agency’ s Science AdvisoryBoard review a PRESTO-EPA-derived riskassessment prepared as part of the LLWstandards development (EPA Science AdvisoryBoard, 1985). As a result of these efforts, EPAtransmitted a proposed regulation to OMB in1987, which was followed by the publication ofa two-volume DEIS in June 1988.
PRESTO is an acronym for Protection of Radiation65
Effects from Shallow Trench Operations. The computercode incorporated a simple one-dimensional ground-watertransport model (EPA, 1988, p. 8-2), and although thecode could be used to estimate human intruder exposures,EPA expressed the view in its DEIS that the intruderpathway was probabilistic in nature and that safeguardsagainst it should be considered on a site-specific basis. For this reason, EPA did not consider the human intrusionscenario in its DEIS.
59
In describing the proposed LLW standards,Gruhlke et al. (1989, p. 273) noted that EPAproposed the following definition of LLW:66
“ radioactive waste that was not(1) spent fuel, high-levelradioactive waste, or transuranicwaste, as previously defined in40 CFR Part 191, (2) oruranium or thorium mill tailingssubject to 40 CFR Part 192, or(3) or NARM as defined in 40CFR Part 764....”
EPA’ s proposed LLW regulation never clearedthe OMB review process. The rule encounteredsignificant interagency opposition during thereview because of concerns over the groundwaterprovisions of the proposed standard (EPA,2000b, p. 21). Consistent with other regulatoryauthorities, EPA did successfully promulgateregulations in other nuclear waste managementareas – uranium and thorium mill tailings (EPA,1983b) and HLW (EPA, 1985). EPA alsopromulgated standards for the maximumconcentration limits (MCLs) of radioactivematerial in its National Primary Drinking WaterStandard found at 40 CFR Part 141 (EPA,1976), as well as standards for airborne67
emissions of radionuclides under the authority ofthe Clean Air Act of 1977 (CAA) (Public Law95-95), as amended.68
7.4.2 The NRC Selection of an LLWStandard
EPA’ s LLW standards and criteria were notavailable at the time the NRC was developing itsLLW regulatory framework. Rather than delaythe development of its disposal regulations, theNRC staff decided to postulate a reasonable set of“ study guidelines” that could be used assurrogates for the forthcoming EPA standard. Atthe time, there was no nationally accepted set ofsafety guidelines defining what level of safety(protection) disposal facilities should provide thepublic from the health effects of ionizingradiation. Consequently, the staff decided toreview the literature and consider the69
Appendix B to this report provides a more detailed66
discussion of the history and evolution of the LLWdefinition.
EPA first promulgated interim regulations in 197667
that established MCLs for radium-226 and radium-228 of5 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). The most recent MCLs canbe found in EPA (2000c), which also includes an MCL of30 micrograms per liter (:g/L) for uranium.
The CAA provided EPA with the specific authority68
to limit radionuclide emissions to the air. Section 122 ofthe act directed EPA to review all relevant informationand determine whether emissions of radioactive pollutantswill cause or contribute to air pollution that mayreasonably be anticipated to endanger public health.
In 1979, EPA added radionuclides to the list of hazardousair pollutants under the CAA (EPA, 1979). Among theradionuclides included were those defined by the AEA assource material, special nuclear material, and byproductmaterials, as well as TENORM. EPA determined thatradionuclides are a known cause of human cancer andgenetic damage and that radionuclides cause or contributeto air pollution within the meaning of Section 122(a) of theCAA. Once pollutants are listed, Section 112(b)(1)(B) ofthe CAA requires EPA to establish National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) at alevel which provides an ample margin of safety. In 1989,EPA published NESHAPs for eight radionuclide sourcecategories, covering an estimated 6300 sources at 40 CFRPart 61 (EPA, 1989c). Eleven parties, primarilyrepresenting the regulated community, subsequently suedEPA during the development of the radionuclideNESHAPs.
Between 1992 and 1996, EPA evaluated the ALARAprograms at many NRC-licensed facilities. Based on thisevaluation, EPA concluded that radionuclide emissionsfrom NRC and Agreement State licensees did not exceedthe 10 mrem/yr NESHAP-established standard. The NRCsubsequently issued a “ constraint rule” under 10 CFRPart 20 that required licensees to maintain emissionsbelow the 10 mrem/yr standard. EPA found that theNRC’ s regulatory program protects the public health to asafe level with an ample margin of safety and rescindedthe NESHAP regulating air emissions from NRC licenseesin 1996 (EPA, 1996).
Also see EPA (1989b, 1991).
See Appendix N, “ Analysis of Existing69
Recommendations, Regulations, and Guides,” to Volume 4 of NUREG-0782.
60
recommendations of national and internationalstandard-setting organizations to identifysurrogate dose guidelines for the scopinganalyses and later the proposed and final rule.See Table 18.
Then, as now, the ICRP was considered to be theauthoritative body on the subject of radiationphysics. In proposing radiation dose limits, theICRP observed that radiation risks were a veryminor fraction of the total number ofenvironmental hazards to which members of thepublic were generally exposed. Consequently, inconsidering what the acceptable magnitude ofradiation risk to the public might be, the ICRPsuggested that such risks be considered in light ofthe public acceptance of other (involuntary)health risks encountered in everyday life –generally in the range of 10 to 10 per year-6 -5
(Smith, 1995, p. B-2; National Research Council,1995a, p. 50). In its Publication 26 (ICRP,1977,p. 23), the ICRP recommended a whole-body dose equivalent of 500 mrem/yr forindividual members of a critical group (i.e., tensof individuals) provided that the average annualdose equivalent to individual members of thepublic (i.e., hundreds of individuals) did notexceed 100 mrem/yr. 70
In performing the series of hypothetical doseanalyses described in NUREG-0456 andNUREG/CR-1005, analysts used the ICRP 1977recommendations as dose guidelines. See Adamand Rogers, (1978, p. 70) and Rogers (1979,p. 9), respectively. These analyses did not treatseparately the estimated exposures to workersand the (hypothetical) inadvertent intruder.
In developing the 10 CFR Part 61 DEIS –NUREG-0782, the staff decided to rely on
existing EPA standards in related areas ofradiation management and selected a range ofpublic exposure limits from those standardswhich was expected to bound the forthcomingEPA rule. The staff selected 1 mrem/yr as alower dose bound since, at the time, it was lessthan the 4 mrem/yr limit found in the EPA 1976drinking water standards (EPA, 2000c, 65 FR76710). See NRC (1981c, Volume 1, p. 34).
Mindful that the NRC’ s goal was to propose anLLW regulation based on currently availabletechnology, the staff believed that 1 mrem/yrwould provide a limit against which theeffectiveness of current technology could beanalyzed. The staff selected 25 mrem/yr as anupper bound since it was already in use as anexisting radiation standard at 40 CFR Part 190,“ Environmental Radiation Protection Standardsfor Nuclear Power Operations” (EPA, 1977b),applied to routine operating releases from nuclearfuel cycle facilities. In proposing this range, theCommission concluded that the forthcoming EPALLW standards would not be higher than thosealready set out in 40 CFR Part 190 (NRC,1981c, Volume 1, p. 34). The Commissionapplied the specified performance objective in10 CFR Part 20 to worker safety because it wasalready using this standard for other NRC-licensed facilities and therefore considered itapplicable to an operating commercial LLWdisposal facility. Because the human intruderscenario was deemed an unusual (rare) event,likely to involve only one or two individuals, theCommission considered the whole-body doseequivalent of 500 mrem/yr (assuming a 100-yearperiod of institutional controls) acceptable andprotective, which was consistent with the earlierrecommendations of the ICRP.
From the DEIS scoping analyses, the staffconcluded that a limit in the range of existingEPA drinking water regulations (4 mrem/yr) wasachievable at the nearest public drinking watersupply given some modest increased costs andchanges to the reference disposal facility design.
ICRP Publication 26 also introduced a weighted70
sum dose equivalent to specific organs or tissues thatwould apply to internal exposures. This weighted sum,which could also be applied to external exposures, becameknown as an “ effective dose equivalent” in ICRPPublication 28 (ICRP, 1978).
61
Table 18 Dose Guideline Options Considered by the NRC in Developing 10 CFR Part 61. Taken from the references cited.
Receptor NUREG-0456(Adam and Rogers, 1978)
NUREG/CR-1005(Rogers, 1979)
NUREG-0782(NRC, 1981c)
Draft Part 61(NRC, 1981b)
Final Part 61(NRC, 1982b)
Public(GeneralPopulation)
Individual exposures to a fewindividuals (-10s) – 500mrem/yr a
Individual exposures to a fewindividuals (-10s) – 500mrem/yr a
25 mrem/yr whole-bodyexposure to an individual atthe disposal site boundary c
25 mrem/yr whole-body, 75mrem/yr thyroid, and 25 mrem/yrto any other organ exposures toan individual at the disposal siteboundary
25 mrem/yr whole-body, 75mrem/yr thyroid, and 25mrem/yr to any other organ exposures to an individual atthe disposal site boundary
Individual exposures to manyindividuals (-100s) – 100mrem/yr a
Individual exposures to manyindividuals (-100s) – 100mrem/yr a
Meet EPA requirements of 40CFR Part 141 for the nearestdrinking water supply e
Worker 10 CFR Part 20 10 CFR Part 20 10 CFR Part 20 b b b
Intruder 500 mrem/yr 500 mrem/yr Not specified but implied d d f
a. NUREG-0456 dose guidelines based on recommendations of the ICRP (1977).b. Includes consideration of ALARA principles.c. Based on view that releases would not be higher than standards already established for fuel cycle facilities found at 40 CFR Part 190 (EPA, 1977b). Commission considered a range of 1 mrem/yr to 25mrem/yr.d. Considered to be an unusual event. Dose guidelines in NUREG-0782 and Draft 10 CFR Part 61 based on recommendations of the ICRP (1977). e. Specifically, maximum radiation concentration limits of 10pCi/L above background levels (or 4mrem/yr whole-body exposure). See EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Standards (EPA, 1976).f. Tied to Table 1 concentration limits in draft 10 CFR Part 61 regulation but 500 mrem/yr retained as one of the bases for limits specified in the tables in the final regulation.g. Note that the technical bases for dose limits under 10 CFR 61.41, the basis for the concentration limits in the intruder scenario, and the current 10 CFR Part 20 are different. For short-lived radionuclides, thedifference is negligible; for long-lived radionuclides, the difference may be significant.
62
The staff also concluded that meeting the EPAdrinking water standards at the nearest publicdrinking water supply would result in annualpotential exposures of less than 25 mrem wholebody, 75 mrem thyroid, and 25 mrem to anyother organ of an individual who might consumewater from a well located at the site boundary.Therefore, the staff selected an annual exposurelimit of 25 mrem whole body, 75 mrem thyroid,and 25 mrem to any other organ to the maximallyexposed individual at the site boundary, coupledwith an annual population limit of 4 mrem at thenearest public drinking water supply, as thepreferred performance objective when theproposed regulation was published for publiccomment (46 FR 38063).
Following a review of the public comments on itsproposed regulation, the NRC made two changesto the Subpart C performance objectives in thefinal rule. The first change was in response to acomment from EPA, which expressed the viewthat it was inappropriate to apply the agency’ sdrinking water standard in the manner proposedin draft 10 CFR 61.41 (47 FR 57448). TheCommission deleted that provision from its finalrule. The second comment concerned theproposed 500-mrem limit for whole-body dose tothe human intruder. Many commenterssuggested that the intruder performance objectivewas too restrictive. They also argued that alicensee would not be able to monitor ordemonstrate compliance with a specific dose limitfor an event that might occur several hundredyears in the future (47 FR 57449). TheCommission deleted this provision from theSubpart C performance objectives but retained500-mrem limit as a basis for the wasteclassification limits.
7.4.3 The NRC Proposed LLWClassification System
As a means of relating waste characteristics tothe Subpart C performance objectives, the NRCdevised and incorporated a simple wasteclassification scheme into the proposedregulation. It based this three-tier classification
system on the earlier thesis demonstrated duringthe rulemaking scoping process that wastecharacteristics provide some level of assurancethat the performance objectives will be met. Keydecision parameters in the waste classificationsystem were the physical stability of the wasteform and its isotopic concentration. The NRC71
viewed these parameters as important for theyprovide the minimum information necessary forbasic decisions on the safe handling and disposalof commercial LLW.
The three classes of LLW defined in 10 CFR61.55 as acceptable for disposal in near-surfacefacilities were designated Class A, B, and C,with the highest being Class C. Certain minimumrequirements and stability requirements and72
In the Statements of Consideration for the final rule71
(NRC, 1982b), the Commission noted that “ waste that isstable for a long period helps to ensure the long-termstability of the site, eliminating the need for activemaintenance after the site is closed. This stabilityrequirement helps to assure against water infiltrationcaused by failure of the disposal covers and, with theimproved leaching properties implicit in a stable wasteform, minimizes the potential for radionuclide migrationin groundwater. Stability also plays an important role inprotecting an inadvertent intruder, since the stable wasteform is recognizable for a long period of time andminimizes any effects from dispersion of the waste uponintrusion.. . .” The Commission also noted its belief that“ to the extent practicable, waste forms or containersshould be designed to maintain gross physical propertiesand identity over 300 years, approximately the timerequired for Class-B waste to decay to innocuouslevels.. .” (47 FR 57457).
The minimum requirements that all waste forms72
must meet to be acceptable for near-surface disposalappear in 10 CFR 61.56(a). In addition to these minimumrequirements, certain wastes (i.e., Class B and C wastes,and Class A waste that is to be co-disposed with Class Band C waste) must be physically stabilized and meet therequirements of 10 CFR 61.56(b). Stability is defined interms of the ability to keep the dimensions and form of thewaste material under anticipated disposal conditions. Stability can be achieved by relying on the inherentphysical properties of the waste form itself (e.g., activatedmetals), by rendering the waste into a more stable form(through cement solidification), by placing the waste in ahigh-integrity container (HIC), or relying on the structural
63
specifications for maximum allowableconcentrations of certain radionuclides in eachclass determine the class designations. Bycontrolling isotope concentrations in each wasteclass (and to a lesser degree, the site inventory),the regulation seeks to control radiationexposures to inadvertent intruders (47 FR57455). Class A waste includes primarily lightlycontaminated paper, cloth, and plastics. Thesewastes must be segregated from other LLWduring disposal because of their potential forcompaction over time owing to decompositionand the subsequent potential for subsidence of theground surface above disposal cells. The isotopeconcentrations in this class of wastes are not toexceed the values listed in the regulation. ClassB waste by definition meets more rigorousphysical stability requirements than Class Awaste. This waste class is also permitted higherisotope concentrations. The physical form andcharacteristics of Class B waste must also meetthe minimum and stability requirements of theregulation. Class C waste is generally consideredintruder waste (46 FR 38085). Although thishigher activity, longer lived LLW is generallysuitable for SLB, it requires special measures toprotect against human intrusion after institutionalcontrols lapse. The regulation requires that anyClass C waste, which could have concentrationsthat would cause exposures greater than 500mrem/yr, be protected from human intrusion bydeeper burial and/or through the use of sometype of engineered intruder barrier. Wastes73
exceeding the Class C concentration limits are,by regulation at 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv),“ generally not acceptable” for SLB.
As noted earlier in this report, the 10 CFR Part61 regulation is deliberately structured around the
three-tier LLW classification system defined bythe concentration of radionuclides in the wasteform, as well as the physical characteristics ofthe waste form. This classification system isintegrated with the stylized human intrusionscenarios that form the basis for the Subpart Cperformance objectives. Despite this rigor, theCommission decided to allow for theconsideration of alternative LLW classificationschemes at 10 CFR 61.58, “ AlternativeRequirements for Waste Classification andCharacteristics,” on a specific (case-by-case)basis so long as compliance with the Subpart Cperformance objectives can be demonstrated. In10 CFR 61.58, the Commission acknowledgesthe need to allow for the future disposal ofdifferent waste types, physical forms, andquantities that were not necessarily foreseen atthe time the regulation was being developed.
Following promulgation of the commercial LLWdisposal regulation, the NRC staff began to workwith Agreement States on the development ofcomparable regulations. See Ratliff et al. (1985).
7.4.4 Summary of the Final 10 CFR Part 61The Commission developed the final LLWdisposal regulation at 10 CFR Part 61 with theintent of addressing some of the past LLW siteperformance concerns and developing guidelinesfor establishing technical criteria for selecting,evaluating, licensing, and operating newcommercial disposal sites. The final regulationcovers all phases of shallow, near-surface LLWdisposal from site selection through facilitydesign, licensing, operations, closure, postclosurestabilization, to the period when activeinstitutional controls end. See Figure 1.
Key provisions of the Commission’ s commercialLLW disposal regulation include the following:
stability of the disposal unit itself (e.g., vault disposal).
The calculation performed to establish the Class C73
limits was based on a postulated SLB disposal method. The Commission considers these limits conservative, sincethere may be near-surface disposal methods (and costs)other than SLB (NRC, 1987a, 52 FR 5999).
64
Figure 1 Lifecycle of a Hypothetical Commercial LLW Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.
Taken from NRC (1989, p. 2c).
65
• specifying minimum geologic/geomorphic characteristics of anacceptable LLW disposal site using thesite suitability requirements at 10 CFR61. 50, ”Disposal Site SuitabilityRequirements for Land Disposal”
• defining a three-tier waste classificationsystem for commercial LLW disposalbased on the concentrations of longerlived radionuclides at 10 CFR 61.55,“ Waste Classification”
• specifying the minimum requirementsthat all commercial LLW forms mustmeet to be acceptable for near-surfacedisposal at 10 CFR 61.56(a), “ WasteCharacteristics”74
• introducing requirements for caretakeroversight of LLW disposal sites for aperiod of 100 years following facilityclosure at 10 CFR 61.59,”InstitutionalRequirements”
The regulation also establishes procedures,criteria, terms, and conditions under which theCommission would issue and renew licenses forthe SLB of commercially generated LLW.
In issuing its final LLW regulation, the NRCstaff prepared a FEIS in response to publiccomments received on the DEIS (NUREG-0782)and the earlier proposed rule. The FEIS,designated NUREG-0945, was not an updatedversion of the DEIS. Rather, it referenced thatearlier document and presented the staff’ sdecision bases and conclusions (costs andimpacts) for the Commission’ s final regulation.Consistent with NEPA, the staff also prepared acomparative evaluation of alternatives tohighlight the costs and impacts of the 10 CFR
Part 61 regulation. These alternatives included areview of past LLW disposal practices, existingLLW disposal practices, disposal practices basedon proposed final 10 CFR Part 61 regulatoryrequirements (the preferred alternative), and anupper-bound example. Lastly, the earlier impactsanalysis methodology (Oztunali et al., 1981) usedto estimate radiological doses was updated.
Although the Commission left many of theproposed 10 CFR Part 61 regulationssubstantially unchanged following the publiccomment period, some rule changes were madein response to those comments. The specific rulechanges in response to public comments weredescribed in the Commission’ s 1982 FederalRegister notice (47 FR 57446). Volume 2,Appendix B (“ Staff Analysis of PublicComments on Proposed 10 CFR Part 61Rulemaking”) of the FEIS report also provides adetailed accounting of the staff’ s viewsconcerning individual stakeholder comments.
In addition, the FEIS clarified several specificrule provisions, including the following:
• Doses were generally presented only forthe whole body, thyroid, and bone.
• Waste classification represented acombination of waste form, radionuclidec h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , r a d i o n u c l i d econcentration, method of emplacement,and to some extent, site characteristics.
• The concentration limits for Class A andC waste disposal were reevaluated.75
• The Class C waste concentration limitswere raised by a factor of 10 (to 100nCi/g) for all radionuclides, except for
In addition to these minimum requirements, certain74
LLW classes must be physically stabilized and meet therequirements at 10 CFR 61.56(b).
The Commission established the concentration limits75
based on the staff’ s understanding at the time of thecharacteristics and volumes of LLW reasonably expectedto the year 2000, as well as potential disposal methods(52 FR 5999).
66
cesium-137.76
• A fourth class of LLW (GTCC LLW)was considered generally unacceptablefor near-surface, shallow-depthdisposal. 77
In 1992, the staff proposed to amend 10 CFRPart 61 to clarify that the regulations would alsoapply to the licensing of an above-grounddisposal facility (i.e., an above-ground vault –AGV). See NRC (1992b). The staff amended
the definition of “ land disposal facility” (at10 CFR 61.2, “ Definitions”) to clarify that LLWdisposal facilities also include those that are on orprotrude through the ground surface and do nothave an earthen cover (57 FR 8094). However,in adopting the amendments (definition), theCommission chose not to develop specific above-ground technical criteria until actual plans todevelop such a facility existed. See NRC(1993a, 58 FR 33888).
Based primarily on two considerations: (a) the76
reduced likelihood of significant human intruder exposuresbecause of the regulatory requirement for the adoption ofpassive warning devices at a LLW disposal facility, at 10 CFR 61.31(c)(2) (“ Termination of License”); and (b) the expected difficulty (and remote likelihood) ofcoming into contact with relatively small volumes of ClassC LLW, at depth. See NRC (1982a, Volume 1, p. 5-33;and Volume 2, pp. B-83 – B-89).
In 1986, the NRC staff updated impacts analysis77
methodology (Oztunali et al., 1981) to allow for improvedconsideration of the costs and impacts of treating anddisposing of LLW that was close to or exceeding the ClassC concentration limits. See Oztunali and Roles (1986) andOztunali et al. (1986). The updates included the use of themore recent health physics guidance found in the ICRPPublication 30 series.
67
8 THE MANAGEMENT OF GTCC LLW
As defined in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(4)(iv) (“ WasteClassification”), quantities of LLW withradionuclide concentrations in excess of certainvalues are referred to as GTCC. Small volumesof GTCC LLW result primarily from theoperation of commercial nuclear power reactorsand other fuel cycle facilities. Examples includeactivated metal hardware (e.g., nuclear powerreactor control rods), some spent fueldisassembly hardware (Stellite balls), some ionexchange resins, filters, evaporator residues,some sealed sources that are used in medical andindustrial applications, and moisture and densitygauges. The radionuclides that frequentlycontribute to wastes being classified as GTCCLLW include those found in 10 CFR 61.55,Table 2. By law, DOE is responsible fordisposing of GTCC LLW.
8.1 NRC Activities
In a 1987 ANPR (52 FR 5992), the Commissionproposed to redefine the existing definition ofHLW in a manner that would apply the term“ high-level radioactive waste” to materials inamounts and concentrations exceeding numericalvalues that would be stated explicitly in a table.The Commission proposed to classify wastes asHLW or non-HLW. Wastes that could not bedisposed of safely in a hypothetical“ intermediate” disposal facility would beclassified as HLW (52 FR 5996). The technicalbasis supporting this proposal was described inKocher and Croff (1987).
Following a review of public comments on theANPR, the Commission adopted an alternativestrategy. In 1988 (53 FR 17709), the NRCpublished its proposed amendments to 10 CFRPart 61 recommending, in the first instance,GTCC LLW disposal in a separate facilitylicensed under 10 CFR Part 60, which are theNRC’ s generic regulations for the disposal ofSNF and other HLW (NRC, 1988c). TheCommission’ s opinion was that, given the
quantities of waste of concern and the likely78
costs of disposal, a separate disposal facilityunique to GTCC LLW was not justified. Thatsame year, OTA (1988) published an independentreport with recommendations on the issue thatgenerally supported the Commission’ s 1988proposed rulemaking position. In summary, bothOTA and the Commission took the position thatif a review determined that the impact of GTCCLLW disposal on any HLW repository wasunacceptable, then DOE should develop analternative disposal concept. The Commissionproposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 61 thatwould require the deep geologic disposal ofGTCC LLW in a HLW repository unless theCommission approved an alternative means ofdisposal elsewhere. The intent of this action wasto obviate the need for amending the existingclassifications of LLW and HLW, therebyinsuring that GTCC waste would be disposed ofin a manner consistent with the protection ofpublic health and safety. Following a review ofpublic comments in 1989, the Commissionamended 10 CFR 61.55(b)(2)(iv) to permit thedisposal of GTCC LLW in an HLW geologicrepository licensed under 10 CFR Part 60 orsome other type of disposal facility designapproved by the Commission (NRC, 1989a,54 FR 22578).
On November 2, 1995, the Commission receiveda petition from the Portland General ElectricCompany (the utility licensed by the NRC tooperate the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant)requesting that the NRC’ s regulations at 10 CFRPart 72 (then titled “ Licensing Requirements forthe Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fueland High-Level Radioactive Waste”) be amendedto specifically provide for storage of GTCC LLW
Expected to be in the range of 70,000 to 170,000 ft³78
(2000 to 4800 m ) through 2030, citing DOE estimates 3
(54 FR 22580). This volume corresponds approximatelyto a single emplacement drift in an HLW repository.
68
at an independent spent fuel storage installation(ISFSI) or a monitored retrievable storage (MRS)facility pending its transfer to a permanentdisposal facility. Because interim storage of theGTCC LLW would be accomplished in a mannersimilar to that used to store SNF at an ISFSI, thepetitioner believed public health and safety andenvironmental protection would be ensured. TheNRC staff evaluated the petition and the sixcomments received during a public commentprocess, which all supported the petition, and79
concluded that the petitioner' s concept had meritbecause there are currently no routine disposaloptions for GTCC LLW. The Commissionsubsequently amended 10 CFR Part 72 to allowlicensing for the interim storage of GTCC wastein a manner consistent with current licensing forthe interim storage of SNF. See NRC (1996a,1997b, 2001b). The amendments applied only toGTCC LLW generated at commercial nuclearpower plants.
8.2 DOE Activities
The 1988 OTA assessment (p. 31) expressed theopinion that it would be 15 to 20 years beforegenerators would have disposal access for GTCCLLW. As an interim measure, OTArecommended extended onsite waste storage for
those generators with the capacity to do so. Forthose without this capacity, OTA recommendedstorage at an NRC-licensed DOE disposal facility(Op cit.). In 1989, an examination of thepotential need for Federal interim storage ofnuclear waste did not refer to the management ofGTCC LLW. See Monitored RetrievableStorage Review Commission (1989).
Section (3)(b)(1)(D) of the LLWPAA directed theSecretary of Energy to issue a reportrecommending safe disposal options for GTCCLLW. In 1987, the Secretary issued such areport (DOE, 1987), which also described thetypes and quantities of GTCC LLW beinggenerated at the time. Hulse (1991) andLockheed Idaho Technologies Company (1994a,1994b ) have updated earlier estimates of current80
and future volumes of GTCC LLW from theoriginal 1987 census.
DOE published a notice of inquiry (NOI) in 1995soliciting public and stakeholder input to thedevelopment of a strategy for the managementand disposal of GTCC LLW. In its FederalRegister notice (DOE, 1995), the Departmentproposed to prepare a preliminary EIS thatindicated its intent to begin the scoping processfor developing GTCC LLW disposal options.The scoping process included three publicmeetings with stakeholders. The 1995 NOIproposed five management options to considerwhen defining any disposal strategy. TheDepartment noted that it would address thedecisionmaking process for selecting thepreferred management option in supplementalNEPA documentation (60 FR 13425). Followingthe conduct of three public meetings, theDepartment took no additional action to developthe preliminary EIS.
The NRC published a notice of receipt of the79
petition in the Federal Register on February 1, 1996(NRC, 1996a, 61 FR 3619), allowing a 75-day commentperiod. The NRC staff evaluated the petition and thecomments and concluded that the petitioner’ s concept hadmerit. The requirements at 10 CFR Part 72 provide onlyfor licensing storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI and storageof SNF and solid HLW at an MRS. Nonetheless, areactor licensee could elect to store GTCC LLW at anISFSI site under licenses issued under other NRCregulations, namely, 10 CFR Part 30 and 10 CFR Part 70. However, the 10 CFR Part 30 and 10 CFR Part 70regulations at the time did not provide specific licensingcriteria for storage of GTCC LLW at an ISFSI, and thusthe petitioner or the commenters may not have known thatGTCC waste can be stored under a 10 CFR Part 30 or a10 CFR Part 70 license.
This study concerned sealed sources, which were80
estimated to number about 250,000 in the United States.
69
Alternatively, in 2005, the Department publishedan advance NOI to prepare an EIS for GTCCLLW. See DOE (2005). As part of the EIS81
development process, DOE proposed that theNRC staff participate as a cooperating agency(NRC, 2005a). After review, the Commissionrejected this proposal and, in a 2005 SRM,directed the NRC staff to comment on DOE’ sGTCC LLW EIS (NRC, 2005b).
It should be noted that in a review of potential waste81
streams for an HLW repository, another DOE programoffice has reviewed the characteristics of GTCC LLW. See ORNL (1992). In the FEIS for the Yucca Mountaingeologic repository, DOE accounted for GTCC LLWdisposal in a bounding analysis that estimated theenvironmental impacts of repository disposal activities(DOE, 2002, pp. A-57–A-61). However, there are nopublished plans at this time suggesting that DOE will placeGTCC LLW in the proposed HLW repository.
70
(Page intentionally left blank.)
71
9 OTHER NRC LLW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
Section 6 of this report describes the regulatoryproducts the staff prepared to help potentiallicensees develop complete and high-qualitylicense applications based on 10 CFR Part 61requirements. Some of these products alsoinstruct the staff in how to review those licenseapplications.
In addition to the development of guidance, theNRC staff has undertaken a number of initiativesintended to aid in the implementation of theNRC’ s LLW regulatory framework. Section9.1 of this report describes these initiatives,which occurred at various times over the years inrelation to the development of the 10 CFRPart 61 regulatory and guidance frameworkpreviously described. The Office of NuclearRegulatory Research (RES) also undertookindependent LLW technical work, summarized inSection 9.2. As part of an agency-wide planninginitiative in the early 1990s, the NRC staffundertook a broad reassessment of its LLWprogram. Section 9.3 of this report describes thisreassessment.
9.1 LLW Regulatory Guidance and Policy
The NRC staff has historically relied on the useof guidance documents such as technicalpositions or branch technical positions (BTPs) asa means of interpreting the Commission’ sregulatory requirements. In addition, theCommission periodically issues policy statementsto communicate its views on some particularissue to licensees and stakeholders. TheCommission does not intend thesecommunications as substitutes for the regulationsand does not require compliance with them.They generally represent the staff’ srecommendations on preferred approaches to
address the requirements or the Commission’ s82
views on issues bearing on its regulatoryactivities. Table 19 summarizes the subject areasfor which the Commission has issued policystatements or the staff has provided additionalregulatory guidance to potential LLW licensees.
The NRC also sponsored many technicalassistance projects intended to provide thepredictive models and analytical tools necessaryto evaluate the performance of LLW disposalfacility systems and components. Areas of pastinterest included waste package containerperformance, evaluation of leaching phenomena,hydr ogeological and hydr ochemica lcharacterization and modeling, and coverperformance. Most of this work focused on SLBdisposal facilities. The use of predictive modelsto evaluate the performance of a disposal systemor its components is generally referred to as“ performance assessment” and has gainedincreased use in the NRC’ s waste managementprograms over the years. See Eisenberg et al.(1999). As early as 1987, the staff recognizedthat it would need to acquire or develop sometype of assessment methodology for estimatingthe performance of 10 CFR Part 61 LLWdisposal facilities (52 FR 5996). To providefocus and integration of the overall program, thestaff developed an LLW performance assessmentstrategy (Starmer et al., 1988). Sandia NationalLaboratories subsequently developed a proposedLLW performance assessment methodology(PAM) based on this strategy.
In terms of measuring the effectiveness ofdisposal facility designs against the 10 CFR Part61 performance objectives, the guidanceprovided by NUREG-1199, NUREG-1200, and
In general, the staff believes that methods and82
solutions differing from those set out in guidancedocuments should be acceptable if they provide a sufficientbasis for the findings requisite to the issuance of a permitor license by the Commission.
72
Table 19 Additional NRC Technical Guidance and Policy Direction in the Area of LLW
Title Scope Reference
Commission Policy / Position Statements
“Policy Statement on Low-Level WasteVolume Reduction” a
Licensees are encouraged to establish programs to result in good volumereduction practices in order to (a) extend the operational life of existingcommercial LLW disposal sites; (b) alleviate concerns regarding existingLLW disposal capacity should there be delays in establishing regionaldisposal facilities; and (c) reduce the number of LLW shipments.
NRC (1981d)
“Regulatory Issues in Low-LevelRadioactive Waste PerformanceAssessment” (SECY-96-103)b
The Commission expressed its views on (a) consideration of future siteconditions, processes, and events; ( b) performance of engineered barriers;(c) specification of a timeframe for an LLW performance assessment;(d) treatment of sensitivity and uncertainty in LLW performanceassessments; and (e) the role of performance assessment during theoperational and closure periods.
NRC (1996c)
Technical Positions / Recommendations
Branch Technical Position on “LLWBurial Ground Site Closure andStabilization” (NUREG-0782)
In closing and stabilizing an LLW disposal facility, the overall objective isto leave the site in a condition such that the need for active ongoingmaintenance is eliminated, and only passive surveillance and monitoringare required to the point when the NRC license is terminated.
NRC (1979a)
Branch Technical Position on “SiteSuitability, Selection, andCharacterization” (NUREG-0902)
Provides the staff’s interpretation of (a) the site suitability requirementsproposed at 10 CFR 61.55; (b) the site selection process as related to theconsideration of alternatives, as required by the NEPA process; and (c) thescope of site characterization activities necessary to develop site-specificdata necessary for a 10 CFR Part 61 license application and environmentalreport.
Siefken et al. (1982)
Technical Position on “RadioactiveWaste Classification”
Provides guidance on procedures to determine the presence andconcentrations of radionuclides listed in 10 CFR 61.55, and therebyclassifying the waste for near-surface disposal.
NRC (1983a)
Technical Position on “Waste Form” Provides guidance on acceptable methods for demonstrating compliancewith the waste form structural stability requirements found at 10 CFR 61.56.
NRC (1991b)
Branch Technical Position on“Concentration Averaging andEncapsulation”
Defines a subset of concentration averaging and encapsulation practicesthat the staff would find acceptable in determining the concentrations of 10CFR 61.55 tabulated radionuclides.
NRC (1995a)
“A Performance AssessmentMethodology for Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Facilities—Recommendations of NRC’sPerformance Assessment WorkingGroup” (NUREG-1573) c
Describes (a) an acceptable approach for systematically integrating sitecharacterization, facility design, and performance modeling into a singleperformance assessment process; (b) five principal regulatory issuesrelated to the interpretation and implementation of the 10 CFR Part 61performance objectives and technical requirements, all of which are integralto an LLW performance assessment; and (c) how to implement the NRC'sPAM.
NRC (2000)
a. The policy statement acknowledged but did not specifically identify LLW volume reduction technologies under review at the time. See Trigilio (1981). Ina report prepared for the ACNW, Long (1990) examined the use of incineration as a potential volume reduction method. b. The Commission later restated its positions in NUREG-1573.c. See Appendix D to this report.
73
NUREG-1300 was general and did not addressmany specific implementation issues andacceptable approaches for resolving them.Moreover, the existing guidance documents didnot explicitly deal with the relationships betweenthe overall 10 CFR Part 61 data and designrequirements and the specific LLW performanceassessment needs. Previously, sitecharacterization, facility design, and performancemodeling were considered separate activities. Toclarify these and other issues for potentialapplicants, the staff developed detailedinformation and recommendations related to theperformance objective concerned with theradiological protection of the general public (at10 CFR 61.41) in NUREG-1573, “ APerformance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities –Recommendations of NRC’ s PerformanceAssessment Working Group,” (NRC, 2000).
9.2 LLW Research
Once the NRC had established its regulatoryframework, the staff focused its attention onconducting technical studies and analysesintended to improve the understanding of thebehavior of a disposal facility and its componentsbased on lessons-learned at commercial andDOE-operated LLW disposal sites. Many of theNRC regulatory products and activities describedelsewhere in this report were conducted by or onthe behalf of NMSS. In addition, RES hassponsored a substantial amount of LLW technicalwork. For example, in 1989, RES staffpublished an research program plan whichpresented its strategy for pursuing LLW researchstudies. See O’ Donnell and Lambert (1989).NUREG-1573 cites many of the RES-sponsoredresearch projects completed through 2000 in thearea of LLW based on that strategy. Appendix Eto this report contains a selected bibliography oftechnical reports and papers sponsored by RES inthe LLW area since NUREG-1573 waspublished.
As noted earlier in Section 2.3 of this report, theUSGS had certain basic and applied researchresponsibilities in the area of LLW. In April1992, the USGS cooperated with RES on basicresearch applied to LLW siting, monitoring, andmodeling issues through an interagencymemorandum of understanding (MOU). A majoraccomplishment of the MOU was the conveningof the joint workshop on research related to LLWdisposal, held from May 4–6, 1993, at the USGSNational Center in Reston, Virginia. Theworkshop covered (a) surface and ground-waterpathway analysis, (b) ground-water chemistry,(c) infiltration and drainage, (d) vapor-phasetransport and volatile radionuclides, and(e) ground-water flow and transport field studies.The workshop and its subsequent proceedings(Stevens and Nicholson, 1996) addressed thecurrent state of the art and practice in researchrelated to LLW disposal hydrogeologic,hydrologic, geochemical, and performanceassessment issues at commercial and military-related facilities. Presenters and participantscame from academia, DOE national laboratories,consulting companies, Federal and state agencies,and international research centers.
Other related workshops on modeling ormonitoring and their published proceedingsinclude (a) NUREG/CP-0163, “ Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Review of Dose ModelingMethods for Demonstration of Compliance withthe Radiological Criteria for LicenseTermination” (Nicholson and Parrott, 1998),(b) NUREG/CP-0177, “ Proceedings of theEnvironmental Software Systems Compatibilityand Linkage Workshop” (Whelan and Nicholson,2002), which helped to initiate the MOU onmultimedia environmental modeling signed bynine Federal agencies , and (c) NUREG/CP-83
0187, “ Proceedings of the InternationalWorkshop on Uncertainty, Sensitivity, andParameter Estimation for MultimediaEnvironmental Modeling” (Nicholson et al.,
See http://www.ISCMEM.org.83
74
2004). These workshop proceedings highlightthe advances in environmental modeling andperformance assessments applicable to LLWissues since the 1993 USGS-NRC LLWworkshop.
RES has issued numerous technical reports andsponsored many technology transfer workshops.Of particular significance to LLW areNUREG/CR-6805, “ A Comprehensive Strategyof Hydrogeologic Modeling and UncertaintyAnalysis for Nuclear Facilities and Sites”(Neuman and Wierenga, 2003), andNUREG/CR-6843, “ Combined Estimation ofHydrogeologic Conceptual Model and ParameterUncertainty” (Meyer et al. , 2004), which discussguidance and tools for modeling hydrogeologicsystems and radionuclide transport relevant toLLW.
9.3 Strategic Planning
In addition to the guidance development activitiesdescribed above, in the early 1990s, the staffundertook a broad reassessment of its LLWprogram which considered factors outside thecontrol of the NRC. This assessment took placeat the same time that other reviews of thenational program were occurring (e.g., GAO,1992a).
As part of the NRC’ s first assessment, the staffcategorized strategies and options for theCommission to consider to advance the goals andobjectives of the LLWPAA. These includedexpanding technical assistance, revising theexisting 10 CFR Part 61 regulatory framework,seeking greater public involvement in the currentLLW program, and passing additional FederalLLW legislation. See Taylor (1993). Focusingon the option to revise 10 CFR Part 61, the staffidentified specific areas in the existing regulationas potential candidates for revision with the goalof enhancing public health and safety through theestablishment of more precise regulations coupledwith addressing the states’ experiences inapplying the rule. Table 20 lists the candidate
areas identified in the current regulation asproposed for revision. These areas include so-called “ active” disposal concepts. 84
At the time these candidate areas were proposed,the staff’ s position was that there was noevidence that the current regulatory frameworkwas impeding the development of new LLWdisposal facilities (Taylor, 1993, p. 6). In fact,the staff and several of the Agreement Statesbelieved that major revisions to 10 CFR Part 61,along with the requirement for conformingrevisions by the Agreement States, could createinstability in current LLW siting and licensingefforts (Op cit., pp. 6–7).
As an alternative to revising specific sections ofthe regulation, the staff proposed to revise10 CFR Part 61 by making it less specific andmore performance-oriented with a greateremphasis on the overall performance objectives.The staff introduced this proposal before theCommission published its Probabilistic RiskAssessment (PRA) Policy Statement. SeeAppendix F to this report. Under such anapproach, the staff would develop guidancedocuments to address siting, design, construction,operation, closure, and waste form issues.85
There is no information to suggest that theCommission responded to the staff’ s 1993analysis. That analysis was first overtaken in1995 by the issuance of a Commission paperSECY-95-201, entitled “ Alternatives toTerminating the NRC' s Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Program” (NRC, 1995c), whichdescribed three options for the future of the
The staff generally defined active disposal concepts84
to include retrievablility, active maintenance andmonitoring, and a longer period of custodial oversight(Taylor, 1993, p. 7).
At the time, the staff estimated that it would take 285
to 3 years to complete a performance-based rulemakingand an additional 3 years for the Agreement States toadopt it.
75
Table 20 Potential Candidate Areas in 10 CFR Part 61 Identified for Amendment by the NRC Staff in 1993.
Adopted from Attachment B to NRC (1993a).
10 CFR Part 61 1993 NRC Staff Recommendation
Requirement Subpart Subject Area
10 CFR 61.29 B Active Maintenance In conjunction with a longer time period of institutional control, includeprovisions in the regulation for more inspections and preventivemaintenance of the disposal facility following closure to assure thatthe facility is performing as intended.
10 CFR 61.41 C Performance Objectives Establish dose requirements more stringent than the current 25mrem/yr for protection of the general population .
10 CFR 61.50 D Technical Requirements forLand Disposal Facilities
Develop specific technical criteria to cover disposal in above-groundvaults, which are not currently addressed in the regulations.
10 CFR 61.50(a) D Site Suitability Requirements Current requirements are considered to be “minimum” basicrequirements. Past experience indicates the need for more specificsiting and design requirements. More credit is also needed forperformance of engineered barriers to compensate for sitedeficiencies.
10 CFR 61.53 D Environmental Monitoring In conjunction with a longer time period of institutional control, includeprovisions in the regulation for a period of environmental monitoringafter the 100-year caretaker period.
10 CFR 61.59(a) D Land Ownership Consider assigning a responsible third party to the caretaker roleother than the government.
10 CFR 61.59(b) D Institutional Control Period Extend governmental caretaker period for more than 100 years.
10 CFR 61.55 and10 CFR 61.56
D Waste Classification andCharacterization
Include specific concentration-averaging requirements in theregulations.
n/a n/a Retrievability Option Currently, there is no provision in the regulation to require that thewastes be recoverable should the disposal facility fail to perform asintended.
n/a n/a Groundwater ProtectionRequirements
The regulation could be made more explicit on how the ground-waterresource would be protected. ACNW has previously recommendedspecific regulatory action in this area.
NRC’ s LLW program. In SECY-95-201, the86
staff recommended reducing the current NRCprogram by eliminating or reducing various partsof the program based on current developments inthe national program and the reduced budgetallocations at the agency. The ACNW provided
its views on these recommendations in a letterdated December 29, 1995. (Also see Section10.2.1 of this report.)
Later, in 1995, the Commission’ s StrategicAssessment and Rebaselining Initiativesuperseded SECY-95-201. This initiative was afour-phase strategic planning exercise, the goalof which was to assess and rebaseline the NRC’ sregulatory activities to provide a soundfoundation for future agency direction and
Briefly described, these options are (a) continue the86
program as currently in place; (b) reduce the program byeliminating or reducing various parts; and (c) terminate allparts of the LLW program.
76
decisionmaking. The principal focus of theinitiative was the identification of key strategicissues associated with the NRC’ s primaryresponsibility to protect public health and safetyand the environment. These key issues werecalled direction-setting issues (DSIs). For eachof the 16 DSIs, the staff developed backgroundpapers containing the Commission’ s preliminaryviews on policy options in the DSI topical areas.The goal in developing these papers was toidentify and classify issues that affected each ofthe NRC programs and, ultimately, the means bywhich the Agency does its work. The StrategicPlanning Framework (NRC, 1996d), acompilation of these 16 DSIs, became availablefor public comment on September 13, 1996.
DSI 5 applied to the NRC’ s LLW program.The position paper superseded the staff’ s earlier1993 program analysis by recommending sixoptions for managing the NRC’ s LLWprograms. The six (unranked) options proposedwere:
(1) The NRC assumes a greater leadershiprole in the national LLW program.
(2) The NRC assumes a stronger regulatoryrole in the national LLW program.
(3) The NRC retains its current LLWprogram.
(4) The NRC recognizes progress in thenational LLW program and reduces thesize of its current program.
(5) The NRC recommends to Congress thatits LLW responsibilities be transferred toEPA.
(6) The NRC encourages the long-termstorage of LLW under the concept of“ assured storage.”
In an SRM dated March 7, 1997, the NRCExecutive Director of Operations informed thestaff of the Commission’ s preference for Option3, to maintain the current LLW program. TheACNW provided its views regarding DSI 5 andother cross-cutting issues outlined in the StrategicPlanning Framework in a letter dated January 30,1997.
77
PART III. PAST NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWS
10 THE ACRS AND THE ACNW
The NRC (and its predecessors) has relied onindependent advisory committees to review itsregulatory activities. Before 1988, the ACRSWaste Management Subcommittee reviewed theNRC’ s LLW activities. In April 1988, theCommission established the ACNW as a separateadvisory committee to continue this oversight.Collectively, both Committees have commentedon various LLW management issues as well asthe implementation of the NRC’ s LLWregulatory framework in more than 40 letterreports. This section summarizes the past adviceof the ACRS and the ACNW in the commercialLLW area.
10.1 Background
The NRC established the ACNW as a Federaladvisory committee to provide independenttechnical advice on agency activities, programs,and key technical issues associated with theregulation, management, and safe disposal ofcertain types of radioactive waste. TheCommittee is independent of NRC staff andreports directly to the Commission, whichappoints its members. Consistent with theNRC’ s regulatory mission, the ACNWundertakes independent studies and reviews ofthe transportation, storage, and disposal of HLWand LLW, including the interim storage of SNF,materials safety, and facility decommissioning.The ACNW also independently evaluates staffefforts to develop and apply a risk-informed andperformance-based regulatory framework to theseprograms , consistent with Commission direction.This includes reviews of and comments onproposed rules, regulatory guidance, licensingdocuments, staff positions, and other issues, asrequested by the Commission.
The provisions of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act of 1972 (FACA) (Public Law 92-463) govern the operational practices of the
ACRS and the ACNW. FACA requires that,with very few exceptions, advisory committeemeetings will be open the public (GeneralServices Administration, 2001). Letter reports87
document the results of the Committees’reviews, consisting of both comments andrecommendations. Each year, the Commissionpublishes the compiled letter reports of the ACRSand the ACNW as updates to NUREG-1125(ACNW, 1985–89) and NUREG-1423 (ACNW,1990–2006), respectively.
The ACNW can trace its history to the ACRS, astatutory Federal advisory committee created inthe late 1940s. The ACRS and its predecessors(the Reactor Safeguards Committee and theIndustrial Committee on Reactor LocationProblems) independently reviewed and evaluatedthe licensing and operation of nuclear powerplants and other major nuclear facilities. Becauseof the large number of projects and subjectsreviewed, the ACRS established genericsubcommittees. In the late 1970s, the ACRSformed the Waste Management Subcommittee toreview increasing staff activities in theradioactive waste management arena (Lawroskiand Moeller, 1979). The ACRS issued its firstletter report on commercial LLW management inApril 1976. Overall, the Committee issued morethan 10 letter reports in this area. In April 1988,the Commission established the ACNW as aseparate advisory committee to continue with thisoversight (NRC, 1988b). The Committee held itsfirst meeting on June 27, 1988. For its part, theACNW has produced about 200 letter reportsover its history. It issued its first letter report on
FACA requires that Committee memberships be87
fairly balanced in terms of the points of view representedand the agency functions being performed. As a result,members of specific advisory committees tend to possessskills that parallel the program responsibilities of theirsponsoring agencies (66 FR 37740).
78
LLW in August 1988 and has prepared about30 additional letter reports on various LLWissues to date.
Table 21 includes a list of past ACRS andACNW letter reports on various commercialLLW management topics. NUREG-1125 andNUREG-1423 contain copies of these letterreports and the exact text of the Committees’recommendations. The following section brieflysummarizes the recommendations from thoseletters. Full-text versions of these letters areavailable on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/advisory/acnw.html.
10.2 Summary of Past ACRS and ACNWReviews
Both the ACRS and the ACNW have closelyfollowed public health and safety issuesassociated with the management of commercialLLW. Most past ACRS and ACNW letters werein response to requests from the Commission, theExecutive Director for Operations, or NRCprogram office staff, although others were inresponse to a perceived need identified by thestaff, members of the public, licensees, or otheragencies. The Committees have also followedinternational LLW practices and developments,as well as considerations arising from proposedor actual activities by the Agreement States.Both Committees have held individual briefingsessions and working group meetings dedicatedto commercial LLW issues.
In addition to the broad experience of theirmembers and supporting staff, the ACRS andACNW have covered in their letters a wide bandof selected commercial LLW management issues– ground-water monitoring, chemically mixedLLW, onsite storage, performance assessment,and site characterization – as well as specifictechnical topics such as LLW inventories and thesuitability of certain types of LLW disposalcontainers. The Committees have alsodeliberated on broad topics concerning the
regulation of LLW and the associated NRCprograms.
The principal observations presented in pastCommittee letters can be generally classified intothe following six areas:
• general LLW management issues• the NRC’ s LLW regulatory framework• ground-water monitoring• chemically mixed LLW• performance assessment• waste package and waste form
10.2.1 General LLW Management IssuesInterim Report on Management of RadioactiveWastes (April 15, 1976). Early in the history ofthe civilian nuclear energy program, the NRCrecognized the need for a plan to manage theradioactive wastes produced (NAS, 1957). Thefirst NRC advisory committee letter commentedon the adequacy of the regulations andtechnologies necessary for managing thesewastes. Although it was expected that the88
longer lived radioactive wastes would be destinedfor some yet-to-be-developed Federal repository(AEC, 1970), the disposal debate at the time hadextended to other fuel cycle waste forms that hadno clearly defined disposal solution (Hileman,1982).
As a result of its reviews during 1975–76, theACRS determined that the regulatory frameworknecessary to manage the radioactive wastes wasnot in place. The Committee also found that thetechnologies necessary for managing the wasteshad yet to be perfected.
The ACRS letter generally defined such wastes to88
include HLW, LLW, and other radioactive wastescontaining TRU elements and fission products.
79
Table 21 Past ACRS and ACNW Letter Reports Concerning LLW Management (listed chronologically)
Letter Report Title Date
Interim Report on Management of Radioactive Wastes April 15, 1976
Report on Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle(NUREG-0116)
January 14, 1977
Low Level Solid Waste Generation April 12, 1977
Report on Proposed Rule on “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste” September 16, 1981
Establishment of De Minimis Values February 13, 1984
ACRS Comments on the NRC Safety and Research Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 1987 June 11, 1985
ACRS Comments on the Definition of Low-Level Radioactive Waste May 13, 1986
ACRS Comments on the NRC Safety and Research Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 1988 June 11, 1986
Additional Recommendations on the Development of De Minimis Levels July 16, 1986
ACRS Comments on Various NMSS and RES Waste Management Topics: August 13, 1986
Report No. 1—ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee Comments on NMSS Radioactive WasteManagement Program
Report No. 6—ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee Comments on NRC Staff Policy Statementand Implementation of NRC Policy on Radioactive Wastes Below Regulatory Concern
ACRS Comments on “Standard Format and Content” (NUREG-1199) and "Standard Review Plan” (NUREG-1200), Guidance Documents for the Preparation of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facility
March 9, 1987
ACRS Comments on Disposal of Mixed Waste June 6, 1987
ACRS Comments on the Development of Radiation Protection Standards November 10, 1987
ACRS Comments on Radioactive Waste Management Research and Other Activities November 10, 1987
ACRS Comments on Selected FY 1988 NRC Radioactive Waste Management Research Programs February 17, 1988
ACNW Comments on Proposed Branch Technical Position Concerning Environmental Monitoring for Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities
August 9, 1988
ACNW Comments on Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Regulatory Control Exemptions for PracticesWhose Public Health and Safety Impacts Are Below Regulatory Concern (BRC)
August 9, 1988
Proposed Policy Statement on Below Regulatory Concern September 15, 1988
Suitability of High Density Polyethylene High Integrity Containers September 16, 1988
Comments on Advance Notice of the Development of a Commission Policy on Exemptions from RegulatoryControl for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts Are Below Regulatory Concern
December 30, 1988
Final Rulemaking on 10 CFR Part 61 Relative to the Disposal of Greater-than-Class C Low-Level RadioactiveWaste
February 24, 1989
Management of Mixed Hazardous and Low-Level Waste (Mixed Wastes) May 3, 1989
Letter Report Title Date
80
Reporting Incidents Involving the Management and Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste July 5, 1989
Comments on Technical Position Paper on Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facilities
September 19, 1989
Low-Level Waste Performance Assessment Methodology October 18, 1989
Commission Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control January 30, 1990
NRC Program on Low-Level Radioactive Wastes January 30, 1990
Revision 1 of Draft Technical Position on Waste Form September 6, 1990
Priority Issues in Radioactive Waste Management January 21, 1991
Regulation of Mixed Wastes February 28, 1991
Comments Regarding 10 CFR Part 61 Proposed Revisions Related to Groundwater Protection June 27, 1991
NRC Capabilities in Computer Modeling and Performance Assessment of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities December 2, 1991
Proposed Expedited Rulemaking: Procedures and Criteria for On-Site Storage of Low-Level RadioactiveWaste
April 30, 1992
Source Term and Other Low-Level Waste Considerations March 31, 1993
Review of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Performance Assessment Program June 3, 1994
Private Ownership of Low-Level Waste Sites February 6, 1995
Regulatory Issues in Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Performance Assessments June 28, 1995
Lessons-Learned from the Ward Valley, California, Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Siting Process August 10, 1995
Comments on SECY-95-201 and the NRC Activities Regarding Low-Level Radioactive Waste December 29, 1995
Elements of an Adequate NRC Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program July 24, 1996
Comments on Selected Direction-Setting Issues Identified in NRC’s Strategic Assessment of RegulatoryActivities
January 30, 1997
Time of Compliance for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities February 11, 1997
NRC Staff Research on Generic Post-Disposal Criticality at Low-Level Radioactive Waste July 30, 1998
Branch Technical Position on Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facilities
August 2, 2000
Opportunities in the Area of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management December 27, 2005
81
To address these and other shortcomings, theACRS recommended several actions, includingthe following: 89
• the development of an updated (andin tegr a ted) r adioac t ive was teclassification system
• the development of both interim andlong-term waste storage, siting, andhandling criteria
• the establishment of an R&D programfor the solidification of liquid radioactivewastes
• the creation of criteria fordecommissioning of nuclear facilities
• the sponsoring of R&D for themanagement of nuclear wastes containingTRU elements and fission products
To ensure the achievement of these goals, theACRS also recommended that the NRC assumean “ aggressive leadership role in thedevelopment and implementation of acomprehensive long-term waste managementprogram....”
Report on Environmental Survey of theReprocessing and Waste Management Portionsof the LWR Fuel Cycle (NUREG-0116)(January 14, 1977). In 1976, the NRC publishedNUREG-0116, “ Environmental Survey ofReprocessing and Waste Management Portions ofthe LWR Fuel Cycle” (Bishop and Miraglia,1976). At the time, the NRC was licensingcommercial LWRs, and the purpose of this reportwas to both fulfill the Commission’ s NEPAresponsibilities and update the AEC’ s earlier1972 generic study with detailed plant-specificdata.
Following a review of the NUREG, theCommittee noted that several areas of the reportneeded further discussion and evaluation. Inreviewing the information on LLW, the ACRScommented that the NUREG’ s discussion aboutthe environmental and public health impacts ofLLW disposal was inadequate. Specific ACRSrecommendations included the need for anevaluation of the migration of LLW withmoderate- and long-lived radionuclides from SLBdisposal facilities, sensitivity studies of the impactof LLW radionuclide inventory on dosecalculations, an evaluation of the potential forand the consequences of radiological accidentsduring waste emplacement (disposal) operations,and better documentation of occupationalexposures during SLB operations. Finally, theACRS recommended that the NRC updateNUREG-0116 to include an analysis of theimpacts of TRU waste reclassification as HLWon a future Federal repository.
Low Level Solid Waste Generation (April 12,1977). Foremost among the responsibilities ofthe ACRS is the independent review andevaluation of license applications for theconstruction and operation of all commercialnuclear power plants. During one such review,the Committee learned that the volume of solidLLW expected to be generated from theoperation of a PWR was about 200 m (7000 ft³ )3
per year per reactor unit. An earlier NRC study(NRC, 1977c) estimated the volume of solidLLW generated to range from 400 to 800 m3
(14,000 to 28,000 ft³ ) per year per reactor unit.As this information was important for forecastingfuture LLW disposal needs, the Committeerequested some clarification of the discrepancy.
ACRS Comments on Radioactive WasteManagement Research and Other Activities(November 10, 1987). During its 331 meeting,st
the ACRS reviewed, among other things, LLWmanagement research activities within RES. Inits letter following that meeting, the ACRS notedthat the staff needed to better define the scientificbases for some of the requirements specified in
The GAO (1977) later studied and commented on89
many of the issues the ACRS reviewed.
82
various technical positions and the connectionbetween these requirements and the NRCregulations they support. The ACRS noted that,in some cases, these requirements appeared tohave been introduced only for the convenience ofAgreement States or the operators of existingdisposal facilities. The Committee believed thatthis practice called for careful examination todetermine whether it established an undesirableprecedent and whether the states’ needs could beaccommodated without the exercise of regulatorypower.
As an example of this problem, the ACRS notedthe staff’ s technical position on waste formundergoing development at that time. The90
Committee commented that the technical positionhad not clearly defined the relationship betweenthe waste form testing requirements and 10 CFRPart 61' s performance objectives. The Committeerecommended that the staff reexamine thefundamental bases of its technical position and itsrequirements, and ensure that the test andperformance requirements pertained to theconditions likely to be found in SLB facilities.For example, the ACRS noted that the staffproposed leach testing of the waste form.However, they were not able to demonstrate anyrelationship between the proposed technicalposition and any 10 CFR Part 61 regulatorycriteria. The Committee recommended that thestaff either define the relationship or withdrawthe proposed technical position. The ACRS alsorecommended that the technical position and thesupporting analyses that form the bases ofperformance evaluation and acceptance of LLWforms readily available for public comment.
Following revisions that addressed theaforementioned concerns, in November 1990 theACNW recommended publication of the finalNRC technical position (NRC, 1991b).
In its November 1987 letter, the ACRS alsoreferred to the (inevitable) decontamination anddecommissioning of domestic nuclear powerplants and the associated LLW generated fromthose activities. The Committee observed thatthe chemical complexity of those future wastestreams required that the staff begin to anticipatepotential problems in their management and toformulate a potential solution. To aid in thisdecisionmaking, the Committee recommendedthat the staff begin to engage outside consultantsand/or RES staff (and its contractors). Finally, the ACRS review of the RES programsat the time revealed only a very modest level ofpeer review of those programs. The Committeealso noted that the ongoing request for proposalfor the Federally Funded Research andDevelopment Center (e.g., the Center forNuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses) appeared todiscourage the contractor from publishing itsresults in refereed journals, thereby disallowingthe usual form of peer review. Theyrecommended that in addition to encouragingjournal publication, the staff should implement acareful, focused, and visible peer evaluationprocess of both the quality of the research resultsand their applicability to regulatory requirements.See, for example, the American ChemicalSociety and the Conservation Foundation (1985).It was also recommended that the staff shouldinitiate such evaluations for each program to theextent feasible, should make the evaluationsperiodic, and should design them to provide clearobjectives for the management of the researchprogram.
ACRS Comments on the NRC Safety andResearch Program and Budget for Fiscal Years1987–88. In its June 11, 1985, letter reviewingthe proposed LLW research programs for fiscalyear (FY) 1987, the ACRS concluded that thecurrent research budget was adequate. In itssubsequent June 11, 1986, letter, the ACRSendorsed the proposed FY 1988 LLW researchprogram, noting that the NRC was one of the fewFederal agencies at the time conducting research
This discussion applied to an early version of NRC90
(1991b). See also Section 10.2.6 of this report.
83
in this field. The Committee remarked that thestates urgently needed the results of the NRC’ sresearch studies because of the strictCongressionally-mandated timetable fordeveloping new LLW disposal facilities.However, the ACRS noted that the program, asoutlined, was the minimum necessary to meetNRC responsibilities in this area. TheCommittee recommended that the NRC allocateadditional funds for research to develop thefollowing:
• a technical basis for defining criteria forthe designation of BRC materials
• radiation protection guidance foralternatives to the SLB of LLW
• an appropriate technical basis formanaging GTCC LLW
ACRS Comments on Selected FY 1988 NRCRadioactive Waste Management ResearchPrograms (February 17, 1988). During its 334th
meeting, the ACRS met with NRC staff todiscuss selected radioactive waste managementresearch programs. These discussions includeda review of research in the LLW area.
The Committee noted that the FY 1988 programplans did not include any research on the effectsof organic chelating compounds on the behaviorof LLW radionuclides. The Committeerecommended that plans and resource allocationsfor FY 1988 be changed to include studies on thissubject. Recognizing that such materials canhave significant effects on radionuclide mobilityand the increasing concerns about themanagement and disposal of chemically mixedLLW that frequently contain such materials, theCommittee also reviewed the jointNRC/Canadian efforts to determine the adequacyand applicability of transport models forpredicting the movement of radionuclides
through groundwater and soils. The Committee91
also made several recommendations concerningthe use of sensitivity studies in these models.The Committee recommended that the work becompleted in a timely manner to address thetechnical needs of the regional compactsevaluating and selecting candidate LLW disposalsites at the time.
The ACRS review included – and identified forfurther discussion – the development of reliablemethods for the solidification of LLW,particularly in a concrete matrix, and improvedenvironmental monitoring programs for LLWdisposal sites.
Reporting Incidents Involving the Managementand Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes(July 5, 1989). It had been previously reportedthat certain physical forms of LLW performedpoorly in disposal facilities (e.g., NationalResearch Council, 1976). To address this issue,the Committee considered recommendations tocharacterize the various LLW streams to allowfor the identification and treatment (stabilization)of problematic waste form compositions. Thedevelopment of a staff technical position on LLWforms (NRC, 1991b) partially addressed thisissue. However, the Committee believed that asystem for reporting performance incidentsinvolving problematic LLW forms was alsoneeded and that it should be developed in atimely manner. The Committee was concernedthat the limitations in staff resources at the timebe promptly addressed to avoid a highlyundesirable delay in development of such areporting system.
Priority Issues in Radioactive WasteManagement (January 21, 1991). In response toa request from the Commission (dated December10, 1990), the ACNW identified several waste
Results of these studies were later published as91
Robertson et al. (1987, 1989), Link et al. (1999), and Robertson et al.(2000).
84
management technical issues as deserving priorityattention. In the area of LLW, the issuesincluded the following:
• Performance Assessments. TheCommittee noted that although someguidance and a regulatory base existedfor evaluating SLB facilities, few if anyof the new facilities being proposedwould be of this type. The Committeebelieved that the Agreement States, inparticular, needed assistance indeveloping capabilities for assessingbunkered types of disposal facilities, andthe deadlines mandated by the LLWPAAemphasized the urgency for suchassistance. Included in theseconsiderations, the Committee identifieda need for improved capabilities to assessthe magnitudes of the source terms forcertain long-lived radionuclides, such asiodine-129 and carbon-14. TheCommittee noted that data on thequantities of these radionuclides that hadbeen disposed in existing facilities wereinaccurate.
• Other Items. The Committee consideredother LLW-related issues, including theregulation of chemically mixed(radioactive) wastes, BRC policy, thedecommissioning of nuclear powerplants, and the evaluation of theperformance assessment capabilities fornewer types of LLW disposal facilities.
Private Ownership of Low-Level Waste Sites(February 6, 1995). In 1994, the Commissionissued an ANPR (59 FR 39485) which indicatedthat it was considering a change to allow forprivate ownership of LLW sites as an alternativeto the 10 CFR 61.59(a) requirement allowingonly Federal or state ownership. In its review ofthis topic, the ACNW found no fundamentalreasons why private ownership of LLW disposalsites should be prohibited but identified severalrelated issues that, in its view, required deliberateand cautious action.
The first major issue concerned the need toensure the protection of public health and safetyand the environment. Earlier Commission policydiscussions on adequacy and compatibility ofAgreement State regulations with NRC’ srequirements had not included provisions forprivate ownership of waste disposal sites. In itsFebruary 1995 letter, the Committee advised theNRC to include explicit statements for pertinentrequirements under the heading of adequacy andcompatibility before proceeding with genericapproval of private ownership. The Committeebelieved that the NRC should require effectiveand timely transfer of ownership to anotherresponsible and capable entity, such as the state,when any changes in the private ownershipprovision for waste sites, including dissolution ofthe corporate entity, occurred. The Committeestated that the measure of adequacy andcompatibility of Agreement State operationsshould include effective and frequent monitoringand evaluation of private entities responsible forwaste sites.
The Committee noted that 10 CFR 61.7(a)(“ Concepts”) presents 500 years as thetarget reference for siting and intruder barrierconsiderations. However, disposed LLW couldpose a significant hazard for periods that, undersome conditions, could well exceed 500 years.The Committee noted that the Commissionshould expand the criteria to ensure that the state(or some governmental entity) maintain an activeinterest in the protection function of the disposalsite for as along as the waste poses a hazard (asdefined in the regulations).
The second major issue concerned theadministrative procedures leading toprivatization. The NRC’ s openness proceduresfor regulatory affairs provide ample opportunityfor all interested parties to voice their views.The Committee observed that transferring LLWmanagement accountability to a private corporateentity, with a likely modest life expectancycompared with the period of time the waste posesa hazard, would require administrative (licensing)procedures comparable to those already used by
85
the Commission. The Committee noted that ithad not obtained information that this was thecase when the State of Utah first acted. 92
In summary, although the Committee believedthat private entities were potentially capable ofmeeting the long-term protection functionrequirements of LLW management, it thoughtthat some type of governmental-oversight entityshould ultimately be responsible for the long-termperformance of an LLW disposal facility.Furthermore, the Committee believed that anydecisionmaking by private operators of such sitesshould adhere to an open process not unlike theNRC’ s current administrative decisionmakingprocess.
Following review, the Commission decided notto amend 10 CFR 61.59(a).
Comments on SECY-95-201 and the NRCActivities Regarding Low-Level RadioactiveWaste (December 29, 1995). In a September 14,1995, SRM, the Commission requested theACNW to provide comments on SECY-95-201,“ Alternatives to Terminating the NuclearRegulatory Commission Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Program” (NRC, 1995c),including practicable alternatives to the proposedoptions and the Committee’ s views on thesignificant consequences of the availablealternatives.
SECY-95-201 identified three options for thefuture of the NRC LLW program. Briefly, theseoptions were as follows:
• Option 1: Continue the program ascurrently in place
• Option 2: Reduce the program byeliminating or reducing various parts
• Option 3: Terminate all parts of the LLWprogram
In SECY-95-201, the staff concluded that, basedon statutory requirements and budget restrictions,Option 2 was the only practicable alternative.The Committee was unable to evaluate in detailthe program as outlined in Option 2 because ofthe lack of specific resource allocations forvarious activities. The ACNW had a number ofconcerns with the conclusions of SECY-95-201.While recognizing the current budgetaryconstraints, the Committee concluded that it wasin the national interest to maintain a centralizedLLW program within the NRC, and it stronglyrecommended that the Commissioners prioritizethe LLW program in relation to all activitieswithin the agency. Further, the Committee notedthat the use of terms such as “ limited” and“ essential” to describe the resources andactivities under Option 2 was ambiguous. TheCommittee believed that the most importantshortcoming of the SECY paper was its failure toaddress the fundamental question of what type ofLLW program would be necessary and sufficientto satisfy the NRC’ s public health and safetymission.
Later in 1995, the Commission’ s StrategicAssessment and Rebaselining Initiativesuperseded further consideration of SECY-95-201.
Elements of an Adequate NRC Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Program (July 24, 1996).The Committee prepared this letter report inresponse to a request from then-ChairmanJackson, who asked the Committee to reviewwhat would constitute an adequate LLWprogram. The Committee’ s earlier review ofSECY-95-201 included a discussion of this topic.
Acting in its capacity as an NRC-approved92
Agreement State, the State of Utah had previously issuedan exemption to the governmental land ownershiprequirement in its LLW regulations to Envirocare of Utahin March 1991 when the state issued a license allowingthat private corporation to operate an LLW disposalfacility on privately-owned land.
86
In its July 1996 letter, the Committee stated thatan adequate NRC LLW program was one whichwould ensure that the processing, storage, anddisposal of LLW, as defined in 10 CFR Part 61,would be carried out in accord with other NRCregulations (e.g., 10 CFR Part 20) and that thecurrent and future impact of such activities wouldnot represent an excessive risk to the affectedpopulation or the environment. Further, theCommittee observed that including GTCC LLWas defined in 10 CFR Part 61 and mixed waste insuch a program would also be desirable. Undersuch an expanded scope, the program wouldinclude NARM and NORM, wastes fromuranium recovery and processing, wastes formedby the inadvertent concentration of contaminants(e.g., sewage, baghouse dust), and wastesder ived fr om decontamination anddecommissioning activities.
Comments on Selected Direction-Setting IssuesIdentified in NRC’ s Strategic Assessment ofRegulatory Activities (January 30, 1997). TheCommission undertook a four-phase strategicplanning exercise in 1995 known as the StrategicAssessment and Rebaselining Initiative (NRC,1996d). This planning exercise was describedearlier in Section 9.3 of this report. Theinitiative’ s principal focus was the identificationof key strategic issues associated with theNRC’ s primary responsibility to protect publichealth and safety and the environment. Thesekey issues were called DSIs, and DSI 5 appliedto the NRC’ s LLW program.
In its January 30, 1997, letter, the ACNWcommented on DSI 5 and other cross-cuttingwaste management issues outlined in the strategicplanning documents. The ACNW recommendedthat the Commission adopt Option 2 as set forthin SECY-95-201 and “ assume a strongregulatory role in [a] national LLW program....”The Committee’ s other recommendationsincluded the following:
• A number of waste types were missingfrom the discussion. In its general
introductory comments, the Committeenoted its concern about the omission ofDSI cross-cutting issues such as themanagement of chemically mixed wastesand GTCC LLW. The Committeebelieved that the agency’ s strategicplanning needed to address these issuesadequately.
• The NRC’ s acceptance of long-termstorage of LLW, although attractive as apractical solution to a (then) currentproblem, may not be acceptable to theNation. The Committee noted that thecurrent national policy is to providepermanent disposal by the presentgeneration in a manner that does notjeopardize current or future public healthand safety. The DSI paper did notadequately address the requirements forimplementing long-term storage ofcommercial LLW. The Committee wasalso concerned about the rather favorablelight placed on interim waste storage inthe DSI paper, which was presumablybecause, to date, no incident had beenreported as a result of storage at theoriginating (generating) site. However,the Committee also noted that noevidence exists that onsite storage can beeffective over the expected life of thewaste and that the proliferation ofstorage sites enhances the risk.
• The Committee suggested that caution beexercised in using “ rules of thumb” todefine waste types in terms of the lengthof time over which they may behazardous. In view of the absence of ade minimis position on radioactivity(Section 3.5 of this report) and the broadapplication of the linear no-thresholdview of the human health effects ofradiation, the Committee believed thatrules of thumb were a significantoversimplification.
87
• Finally, the Committee questioned theappropriateness of using DOE sites aspotential disposal sites for commercialLLW. The selection of existing DOEsites did not involve the application ofcriteria used in siting and licensingcommercial disposal facilities, andevidence was lacking that these sitescould meet the standards and regulationsin effect.
In conclusion, the Committee recommendedOption 2 but encouraged additions to develop amore comprehensive definition of LLW and toevaluate the potential implementation and impactof assured storage with adequate protection andtermination procedures.
10.2.2 The NRC’ s LLW RegulatoryFramework
Report on Proposed Rule on “ LicensingRequirements for Land Disposal of RadioactiveWaste” (September 16, 1981). In July 1981, theNRC staff proposed its LLW disposal regulationsat 10 CFR Part 61 (46 FR 38081). In itsSeptember 1981 letter to the Commission, theACRS provided both general and specificcomments on the proposed rule, as noted below:
General Comments
• Adequacy of Proposed Rule. The ACRSobserved that the proposed rulecontained criteria to ensure improvementin the siting, design, and operation ofnear-surface LLW disposal facilities.The Committee recommended that thestaff continue to seek better containment,stabilization, and immobilization of LLWas well as completion of the criteria fordeeper land burial and disposal in minedcavities. The Committee alsorecommended an evaluation of thepossible disposal of such wastes at sea.
In addition, the ACRS recommended thatthe Commission address the processesthat result in the production ofcommercial LLW. In this regard, theCommittee recommended that theCommission look at techniques both forreducing the volumes of wastesgenerated and for ensuring that thewastes produced are in, or can beconverted to, a form amenable to safedisposal.
• Applicability to Existing DisposalFacilities. The proposed rule stated thatmany of the proposed operationalrequirements were currently in effect atlicensed LLW disposal facilities and thatsuch facilities should have no difficultyin complying with the proposedrequirements. However, the ACRSobserved that there were no proposedrequirements for sites that had ceasedoperating because of earlier performanceproblems. The Committee noted in itsletter that the NRC staff had stated thatthe regulatory guides issued in support ofthe proposed rule would enumeratemethods for decommissioning thosefacilities. The Committee suggested thatdevelopment of satisfactory guidance forsuch actions could be difficult as manydecommissioning sites at the timecontained wastes that included plutoniumand other long-lived radionuclides thathad already been mobilized because theyhad come into contact with water.
• Types and Quantities of Wastes Subjectto Disposal. The ACRS observed thatdevelopment of the proposed rulerevealed certain deficiencies in availableLLW census data. It noted that this wasparticularly true with respect to thecompilation of detailed inventories on thequantities and specific radionuclideconcentrations in the LLW buried atexisting disposal sites. The Committee
88
noted that the NRC staff was, at thetime, attempting to compile the neededdata. With respect to this effort, theCommittee observed that thedevelopment of instrumentation toidentify and assess radionuclideconcentrations in waste packages wouldalso be necessary. The Committeesuggested that such data were essential toa clear understanding of current LLWdisposal practices and the impact ofvarious regulatory actions, particularlythe influence of the establishment of deminimis concentrations for selectedradionuclides in specified types ofwastes. The Committee also noted thatthe data were essential to assess theimpact of various restrictions on thetypes of wastes acceptable for disposal ata given site.
Specific Comments
• Timespans for Various Requirements.The ACRS reported that the proposedrule lacked specificity concerning thetimespan during which the various designrequirements would apply. Theyrecommended that the proposed ruleclearly state that restrictions – such asthose pertaining to floods, erosion, andwater drainage – would apply throughthe time of site closure as well as theperiod of institutional control. However,the Committee saw little need for aspecific instruction to observe long-termtectonic changes potentially affecting thesite.
• Avoidance of Soil Subsidence. Theproposed rule implied that the wasteform plays a major role in the soilsubsidence that frequently occurred atland disposal facilities in the past. Sincesubsidence results from a variety offactors, including primarily the mannerin which the waste packages are placed
in the disposal trenches, the Committeerecommended that the Commissionreevaluate and revise the proposed ruleon this issue.
• Restrictions on Types of Wastes. Theproposed rule contained a number oflimitations on the types of wastes thatcould be disposed of in a near-surfacedisposal facility. These includedrestrictions on pyrophorics, explosives,wastes that generate toxic gases, andother wastes. The proposed rule also setrequirements on the “ stability” of thewastes which, in the Committee’ sopinion, lacked clear definition as well asspecification of the minimumcompressive strength for the wastes,which could unduly increase the volumesto be buried. The Committeerecommended that the staff carefullyassess the proposed restrictions andrequirements for both their enforceabilityand their overall implications.
• Disposal of Chelating Agents. Theproposed rule did not allow the disposalof wastes containing greater than 0.1percent chelating agents in near-surfaceland facilities. Such agents were presentin a wide variety of radioactive wastes atthe t ime ( for example , indecontamination solutions), and theACRS remarked that the proposedrequirement could exclude many wastesfrom burial. Based on earlier discussionswith NRC staff, the Committee notedthat the staff’ s intent was not to excludesuch wastes from burial but to enabletheir disposal subject to NRC approval.The Committee, therefore, recommendedthat the proposed rule emphasize that thedisposal of chelating-agent-containingwastes could be considered on a case-by-case basis.
89
ACRS Comments on the Definition of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (May 13, 1986). OnJanuary 15, 1986, Congress passed amendmentsto the LLWPA. In those amendments, Congressauthorized the NRC to develop a regulatorydefinition of LLW. In its May 1986 letter, theACRS recommended that the Commissionexpand the definition of LLW to include NARMwastes. In making this recommendation, theCommittee stated that it was important to controlsuch wastes to protect public health and safety.
ACRS Waste Management SubcommitteeComments on NMSS Radioactive WasteManagement Program (Report No. 1 —August 13, 1986). Section 8 of the LLWPAAdirected the NRC to identify methods for thedisposal of LLW other than SLB and to publishtechnical guidance regarding licensing of thosefacilities. The staff initially complied with thisprovision by publishing several reports in theNUREG/CR-3774 series (Bennett et al., 1984;Bennett, 1985; Bennett and Warriner, 1985;Miller and Bennett, 1985; Warriner and Bennett,1985).
In March 1986, the staff made a draft BTPavailable for public comment that identified anddescribed alternatives to SLB. See NRC (1986a).At a July 1986 meeting of the WasteManagement Subcommittee, the staff briefed theACRS on its proposed final guidance. In itsAugust 1986 comments to the Commission, theACRS recommended that the staff poll theAgreement States to determine which SLBalternatives they would prefer. The Committeebelieved the responses could help reduce thenumber of approaches to be evaluated. They alsorecommended that the staff solicitrecommendations from EPA for selecting whichalternatives to consider.
The ACRS suggested that after compiling thisinformation, the staff should group thealternatives and develop applicable disposalcriteria on a generic basis.
De Minimis Position and the Below RegulatoryConcern Policy Statements. As noted earlier inthis report, the LLWPAA required the NRC toestablish standards for determining whenradionuclides in waste streams are in sufficientlylow concentrations or quantities as to be BRCand, therefore, not subject to NRC regulation. Inresponse to the statute, the staff developed a deminimis position in conjunction with the 10 CFRPart 61 rulemaking. Shortly thereafter, the staffissued two BRC Policy Statements. Section 3.5of this report discusses both of these activities.
The letter reports listed in Table 22 contain theACRS and the ACNW comments, in whole or inpart, on the staff’ s attempts to establishminimum exemption levels for the managementof materials containing low levels of radioactivematerials.
ACRS Comments on “ Standard Format andContent” (NUREG-1199) and “ StandardReview Plan” (NUREG-1200), GuidanceDocuments for the Preparation of a LicenseApplication for a Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facility (March 9, 1987). As notedearlier in this report, the NRC staff developedseveral documents to aid in the implementation of10 CFR Part 61. NUREG-1199 (NRC, 1991a)details the components and information needed ina 10 CFR Part 61 license application. NUREG-1200 (NRC, 1994a) provides guidance on theprocess the staff would use to review that licenseapplication.
After reviewing early versions of these twoguidance documents, the ACRS commented thatboth were overly detailed and stringent. TheCommittee noted that both required prospectiveapplicants to submit information and to developcapabilities that were not warranted by the publichealth risks associated with the operation of anLLW disposal facility. While considering theguidance documents too detailed in somerespects, the Committee also found that theywere not clear enough in other areas.
90
Table 22 Past ACRS and ACNW Letter Reports Concerning De Minimis Issues and Below Regulatory Concern
Policies
Letter Report Title Date
Establishment of De Minimis Values February 13, 1984
ACRS Comments on the NRC Safety and Research Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 1987 June 11, 1985
Additional Recommendations on the Development of De Minimis Levels July 16, 1986
ACRS Comments on Various NMSS and RES Waste Management Topics: August 13, 1986
Report No. 6—ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee Comments on NRC Staff Policy Statementand Implementation of NRC Policy on Radioactive Wastes Below Regulatory Concern
ACRS Comments on Radioactive Waste Management Research and Other Activities November 10, 1987
ACNW Comments on Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Regulatory Control Exemptions for PracticesWhose Public Health and Safety Impacts Are Below Regulatory Concern (BRC)
August 9, 1988
Proposed Policy Statement on Below Regulatory Concern September 15, 1988
Comments on Advance Notice of the Development of a Commission Policy on Exemptions from RegulatoryControl for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts Are Below Regulatory Concern
December 30, 1988
Commission Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control January 30, 1990
Priority Issues in Radioactive Waste Management January 21, 1991
Regulation of Mixed Wastes February 28, 1991
The Committee noted the definition of a“ buffer zone” as one example. The Committeealso noted that the guidance documents containedrequirements that could exceed current technicalcapabilities, such as the verification of the LLWclass of a given waste sample and a determinationof whether it contains chemically hazardousmaterials. Lastly, the ACRS noted thatdiscussions of certain topics (such asenvironmental monitoring) were so dispersedthroughout the texts of the documents that theywere too difficult to follow.
In closing its March 1987 letter, the ACRS notedthat both guidance documents cited the ICRPPublication 30 series as the basis for associatedradiation dose assessments although thereferenced 10 CFR Part 61 regulations werebased on ICRP Publication 2 (ICRP, 1959) andthe standards for radiation protection prescribed
in 10 CFR Part 20. The Committeerecommended that the staff simplify and clarifyNUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200. As part ofthat clarification effort, ACRS suggested that thestaff examine comparable EPA reports preparedfor the review of disposal facilities for chemicallytoxic (i.e., RCRA) wastes.
In the years since the Committee’ s 1987comments, the staff has twice revised bothNUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200.
Final Rulemaking on 10 CFR 61 Relative to theDisposal of Greater-than-Class C Low-LevelRadioactive Waste (February 24, 1989). In1988, the Commission proposed amendments to10 CFR Part 61 that would require the deepgeologic disposal of GTCC LLW unless theCommission approved an alternative means ofdisposal elsewhere. At its 17th meeting, held in
91
1989, the staff briefed the ACNW on the finalproposed rule (NRC, 1988b). Meetingdiscussions centered around the public commentsreceived, and the staff’ s review and dispositionof those comments. Following this review, theCommission approved amendments at 10 CFR61.55(b)(2)(iv) to permit the disposal of GTCCLLW in an HLW geologic repository licensedunder 10 CFR Part 60 or some other type ofapproved disposal facility design (NRC, 1989b).Subject to certain recommendations, theCommittee agreed with the proposed final rule.(Also see Section 8.1 of this report.)
NRC Program on Low-Level Waste (January 30,1990). By the early 1990s, the NRC’ s 10 CFRPart 61 regulatory framework was in place andsupported by a considerable amount ofimplementing guidance. Consistent withdirection from the LLWPAA, DOE and EPA hadalso undertaken the development of additionaltechnical information applicable to themanagement of commercial LLW.
At its 16 meeting, the ACNW learned the statusth
of current LLW activities. As a result of thatbriefing, the Committee produced a letter withseveral recommendations. It first recommendedthat the Commission give more attention to thegenerator side of the LLW program with a focuson processes affecting the types of LLW in thewaste stream. The Committee hoped to identifypotential efficiencies in reducing the quantities ofLLW being generated. The Committee believedthat a “ systems approach” to the managementand disposal of LLW was necessary and couldyield considerable dividends (i.e., lower disposalcosts). (For the NRC’ s part, it observed theneed for closer coordination between thecognizant program offices within the agency.)The Committee also noted the need for greaterintegration of all pertinent technical informationfrom all cognizant agencies in order to create a“ road map” providing comprehensive guidanceto licensees. Both referenced and annotated,such guidance would contain key regulatory
guides, technical positions, and NUREGs, aswell as other technical information developed byother agencies with a role in the management ofcommercial LLW. The Committee alsorecommended that the staff prepare a report oncurrent operating experiences at existing LLWfacilities and use the insights gained to improvethe NRC’ s regulatory responsibilities. Lastly,the Committee recommended that theCommission accelerate the process fordeveloping new commercial disposal facilities.
Proposed Expedited Rulemaking: Proceduresand Criteria for On-Site Storage of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste (April 30, 1992). At its42 meeting, the Committee learned of a plan fornd
developing a rule that would allow for the long-term storage of commercial LLW by existingNRC licensees. The Committee endorsed therulemaking plan and its objectives. However,although the rulemaking plan addressed thewastes to be generated after 1996, the ACNWwas concerned about wastes generated in themore immediate post-1992 timeframe, noting thatthere were indications that all existing LLWdisposal sites, except Hanford, could stopaccepting radioactive waste by the end of 1992.The Committee concluded that if this scenariocame true, interim storage of LLW wouldbecome necessary. The staff never implementedits rulemaking plan.
Regulatory Issues in Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Performance Assessment(June 28, 1995). This letter was a continuationof the Committee’ s earlier review of NRC’ sLLW performance assessment program. Indeveloping the performance assessmentmethodology outlined in draft NUREG-1573, thestaff identified areas in the 10 CFR Part 61regulation pertaining to LLW performanceassessment for which supplemental advice wasthought to be necessary. The staff sought theCommittee’ s advice on its proposed resolutionof stakeholder comments – received during a1994 public workshop on the draft NUREG – on
92
the following four regulatory issues:
(1) consideration of site conditions,processes, and events in an LLWperformance assessment
(2) performance of engineered barriers
(3) timeframe for conducting an LLWperformance assessment
(4) treatment of sensitivity and uncertainty inan LLW performance assessment
The staff later expressed its views on theseregulatory issues, which the ACNW highlighted,and sought direction from the Commission inSECY-96-103 (NRC, 1996c). Table D-2 (inAppendix D) to this report contains a moredetailed discussion of the recommendations andguidance provided in NUREG-1573.
10.2.3 Ground-Water MonitoringEnvironmental Monitoring for LLW DisposalFacilities. In a November 1987 Federal Registernotice (NRC, 1987b), the NRC staff madeavailable for public comment a draft BTP on thesubject of the 10 CFR 61.53(c) environmentalmonitoring requirements for LLW disposalfacilities. See 52 FR 42486. Following therequest for comments, the staff interrupted workon the BTP because of resource limitations. Inits comments to the Commission dated August 9,1988, the ACNW recommended that the staffcomplete its work on the BTP and issue the finalguidance. However, in making itsrecommendation, the Committee also advised thatthe overall purpose of the staff’ s technicalposition in this area needed to be clarified toindicate whether it was prepared to provideguidance on monitoring policy or to prescribedetailed monitoring requirements.
After a brief interruption, staff work on thedevelopment of the environmental monitoringBTP continued, but under the new title of a
“ technical position paper.” Following a secondreview, the ACNW noted in its September 19,1989, letter, that the renamed guidance wasacceptable for publication. However, the staffnever finalized the guidance document but lateridentified it as a candidate area for a potentialrulemaking in the future. See Table 20.
As noted in Section 9.2 of this report, in recentyears RES has sponsored many research projectsand public workshops on environmentalmonitoring and modeling. Many of theseproducts are listed in Appendix E to this report.
Comments Regarding 10 CFR Part 61 ProposedRevisions Related to Ground Water Protection(June 27, 1991). In a September 6, 1990, letter,the ACNW recommended that the staff publishthe revised NRC technical position on waste form(NRC, 1991b). Along with the recommendation,however, the Committee expressed severalconcerns, including the need to revise 10 CFRPart 61 regulation to show more direct emphasison the resistance of LLW forms to leaching bypercolating groundwater. The Commissionsubsequently requested that the Committee justifyits position by evaluating the efficacy of theexisting 10 CFR Part 61 in meeting its concerns.
In a subsequent meeting with staff, theCommittee reviewed the history and performanceexperiences of earlier LLW disposal facilities,particularly as they related to the migration ofradioactive materials. It noted that the staffconsidered this past experience in scoping the10 CFR Part 61 EIS and developing thesubsequent LLW regulation. The Committeealso learned of the staff efforts at the time toundertake detailed studies of contaminant flowand transport phenomena as part of a broaderLLW performance assessment effort, later to bedocumented in NUREG-1573. This emergingwork assured the Committee that the staff wouldprovide additional insights into ground-waterprotection issues. Lastly, the Committee held abrainstorming session with NRC staff members
93
and their technical assistance contractors at thetime to explore options that might improveradionuclide retention in, or retard radionuclidemigration from, LLW waste forms.
On the basis of these interactions, the Committeeset aside its suggestion that the staff revise10 CFR Part 61 to explicitly include arequirement for LLW waste form performance asa means of enhancing ground-water protection.
10.2.4 Chemically Mixed Radioactive WasteACRS Comments on Disposal of Mixed Waste(June 6, 1987). Although not addressed in detailin this report, chemically mixed LLW is subjectto dual regulation under EPA’ s RCRAregulations. During the 326 meeting of theth
ACRS in June 1987, the staff described its effortsto develop jointly with the EPA a definition of,and acceptable methods for regulating thedisposal of, chemically mixed radioactive waste.As a result of that briefing, the Committee hadsome concerns about the interpretation of thedefinition of “ mixed waste.” It noted that if astrict interpretation resulted in a large increase inthe wastes classified within this category, it couldhave a negative impact on the disposal of wastesfrom many facets of the nuclear industry. TheACRS recommended that the staff addressspecific questions to resolve this issue, includingthe procedures and schedule for licensingfacilities where such wastes could be disposed,the role of Agreement States in such activities,and how such wastes would be handled in theinterim.
Management of Mixed Hazardous and Low-Level Radioactive Wastes (Mixed Wastes)(May 3, 1989). Following meetings with NRCstaff and Nuclear Management and ResourcesCouncil (NUMARC ) representatives, the93
ACNW offered several recommendations to theCommission regarding the management ofchemically mixed LLW. The Committeebelieved that the Commission should assignadditional resources to study this issue, that itsresolution was primarily institutional, and that theproblems caused by dual jurisdiction weresolvable [although at the time mostknowledgeable institutions seemed to recognizethat any disposal facility meeting NRC regulatoryrequirements was also capable of meeting EPAcriteria for the disposal of hazardous(nonradioactive) wastes].
The Committee also observed that the staff hadoverlooked the management of chemicallyhazardous GTCC LLW, NARM, and NORM andneeded to give attention to these areas.
Regulation of Mixed Wastes (February 28,1991). Following the May 1989 letter fromACNW, OTA (1989) published a comprehensivereport on the status of the national LLWprogram. That report included an examination ofchemically mixed LLW issues, and it noted thelack of mixed waste treatment options, access tomixed waste disposal facilities, and conflicting(and inconsistent) EPA and NRC regulations. Atthe request of then-Commissioner Curtis, theACNW reviewed the comparability of protectionafforded by NRC and EPA regulations whenapplied to the disposal of chemically mixedLLW. The Committee responded to the requestby conducting a working group meeting on thesubject in December 1990 and dedicatingadditional time to the matter at subsequentACNW meetings.
Following up on its May 1989 letter onchemically mixed LLW, the Committee reportedthat an industry-sponsored study (NUMARC,1990) seemed to indicate that a facility built inconformance with 10 CFR Part 61 was slightlysuperior to a facility built in conformance withthe EPA RCRA regulations at 40 CFR Part 264,“ Standards for Owners and Operators of
In 1994, NUMARC merged with the U.S. Council93
for Energy Awareness, the American Nuclear EnergyCouncil, and the nuclear division of the Edison ElectricInstitute to form the Nuclear Energy Institute.
94
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, andDisposal Facilities.” However, the NRC staffstated that certain features of any disposal facilitydesigned to those regulations, such as therequirement for a double liner and the leachatecollection and retention provisions, “ appear tooffer enhanced protection of groundwater, atleast temporarily... .” The Committee also notedthat the then proposed EPA LLW standard– 40 CFR Part 193, “ Radiation ProtectionStandards for Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal” (Gruhlke and others, 1989), whichincluded a “ subsystem requirement that ground-water contamination be limited so that no offsiteperson will receive an effective dose rate greaterthan 4 mrem/yr, may be a potential importantattribute of the EPA regulations that isimportant... .” The ACNW February 1991 letterdiscussed several other considerations. TheCommittee noted that most of the chemicallymixed LLW generated in the United States wereat DOE facilities. The Committee suggested,therefore, that a reasonable solution might be tohave commercially generated mixed wastesassigned to DOE (similar to the responsibilityalready given to DOE for GTCC LLW).
The Committee’ s February 1991 letter alsocontained the following:
• The Committee recommended an actionto establish a category of mixed wastesthat was below BRC. Such wastes couldbe reclassified as hazardous wastes andregulated only by the EPA. TheCommittee understood at the time thatmore than 90 percent of biomedicalwastes would fall into this category.
• Concur rently, the Committeerecommended that the EPA beencouraged to modify its regulations todevelop and implement de minimiscriteria for hazardous and mixed wastes.The NRC should also encourage the EPAto modify its regulations to permitinterim storage of mixed wastes awaiting
disposal and to develop standards for thetreatment of such wastes.94
• The Committee also believed that acombination bunker (i.e., AGV) disposalfor Class B and C LLW, along with aleachate collection system in place for atleast as long as the EPA regulationswould require, could meet thecombination of disposal requirements formixed wastes specified by the NRC andEPA.
In conclusion, the Committee strongly believedthat adopting its proposal would significantlyreduce the volume of chemically mixed LLWproduced. By virtue of lower productionvolumes, the Committee believed that wastegenerators would realize a net financial savings.This cost reduction, combined with some level ofregulatory simplification, would reverse “ thedebilitating trends by scientists to avoid the use ofradioactive and hazardous materials in importantresearch....”
10.2.5 Performance AssessmentLow-Level Waste Performance AcceptanceMethodology (October 18, 1989). One of thestaff’ s first tasks after the establishment of theNRC LLW program was the development of anLLW performance assessment strategy. SeeStarmer et al. (1988). At its 14 meeting, held inth
October 1989, the staff briefed the ACNW onthat strategy. In its comments to the Commission,the Committee observed that the strategy paperwas well written and of value. The Committeerecommended that the strategy be issued as atechnical position or guidance paper or in anothersuitable form to ensure that it received theattention it deserved. The Committee alsorecommended that dose limits be expressed in
In 2003, the EPA published an ANPR discussing94
alternatives for the disposal of chemical wastes containinglow concentrations of radioactive material (68 FR 65119). One of the alternatives cited in the ANPR was the use ofRCRA Subtitle-C disposal technology for such wastes.
95
both metric and English units and that the paperinclude the concept of effective dose equivalent.However, the staff noted that resourceavailability was minimal at the time, and theCommittee urged the Commission to makeadditional resources available to support thisprogram.
NRC Capabilities in Computer Modeling andPerformance Assessment of Low-Level WasteDisposal Facilities (December 2, 1991). TheACNW prepared this letter report in response toseveral questions by then-Commissioner Rogers.The Committee discussed its response to thedifferences in capabilities in addressing themanagement and disposal of HLW and LLW.The letter addressed HLW disposal capabilitiesseparately. After several pages of discussionwhich provided specific comments and addressedcomputer modeling capabilities, the ACNWconcluded that the NRC staff was developingsound computer modeling and performanceassessment capabilities and was assembling acompetent group of analysts. The Committeealso thought that the staff should develop anoverall strategy document for the program,upgrade existing computer hardware andsoftware, and establish closer ties with othergroups involved in related activities (bothnationally and internationally). In addition, theCommission should provide adequate resourcesto achieve the Committee’ s recommendations.Lastly, the Committee believed there should betimely action on its recommendations in light ofimpending needs to license new LLW disposalfacilities.
Review of the Low-Level Radioactive WastePerformance Assessment Program (June 3,1994). This letter summarized the Committee’ sviews based on discussions and presentations bythe staff over a 3-month period. It commentedon the capability of the staff’ s LLWperformance assessment program applied to thereview of new disposal facilities as well as thedevelopment of the draft BTP – later documentedin NUREG-1573 — which was undergoing
development at the time.
Committee comments on the staff LLWperformance assessment capability included thefollowing:
• The staff had a sound and functionalunderstanding of the bases ofcomprehensive performance assessments.The staff was also knowledgeable andappeared to have the necessary resourcesfor developing its capability.
• The staff should seek ways todemonstrate that its performanceassessment results agreed with actualdata obtained from operating sites.Although such data could be difficult toobtain, the benefits from such ademonstration would be worth the effort.
• The staff should develop a rational basisfor the scope and depth of its requiredcapability in performance assessments,focusing on its ability to review an LLWperformance assessment for credibilityand completeness.
• The staff should make risk calculationsfrom an LLW performance assessmentusing, to the extent feasible, dose modelsthat the NRC applied elsewhere for suchpurposes. The staff’ s presentations atthe time indicated no such consistency.
• The Committee agreed with, andstrongly supported, the proposed use ofprobabilistic techniques in theperformance assessment process. Thesetechniques are essential to captureuncertainty, to clearly delineate thecurrent state of knowledge, and to serveas a guide to the acquisition of additionaldata.
In its June 1994 letter report, the Committee alsooffered detailed comments on the draft BTP for
96
the staff to consider.
Time of Compliance for Low-Level NuclearWaste Disposal Facilities (February 11, 1997).In this letter, the ACNW built on the principlesit had outlined in an earlier Committee letter onthe timespan of regulatory compliance for theproposed Yucca Mountain HLW repository(Pomeroy, 1996) and recommended a two-partapproach to establishing a timeframe over whichcompliance with the LLW disposal regulationwould be demonstrated. The first part utilized asite-specific timespan based on an analysis todetermine the time at which release and transportof the more mobile radionuclides produce a peakdose to the critical population group. The secondpart was a qualitative evaluation, not requiring aspecific measure of compliance, which identifiedany significant deficiencies in the performance ofthe disposal system.
The ACNW noted that the current NRC LLWregulation did not specify the length of time (thetime period of regulatory compliance) duringwhich the calculated dose should be comparedwith the specified radiation standard. TheCommittee observed that the rule was concernedwith the minimum times of analyses. Forexample, 10 CFR Part 61 at Section 61.7(“ Concepts”) states that “ in choosing a disposalsite, characteristics should be considered in termsof the indefinite future and evaluated for at leasta 500-year time frame....” The Committeesuggested that this statement was, in part, theorigin of the misconception that 10 CFR Part 61is a 500-year rule that only requires ademonstration of compliance for this time period.At the time, draft NUREG-1573 recommended atime specification of 10,000 years, which the 10CFR Part 61 DEIS scoping calculations(NUREG-0782) also included. However, theCommittee noted that the 10 CFR Part 61 FEIS(NUREG-0945) did not include (specify) acompliance or time period during which therequired analyses were to be performed.
The final published version of NUREG-1573(NRC, 2000) contains the staff’ s views andrecommendations on an appropriate timeframefor an LLW performance assessment. This issueis discussed in more detail in Appendix D to thisreport. (See Table D-1.)
The NRC Staff Research on GenericPostdisposal Criticality at Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Facilities (July 30, 1998). This letterreport, drafted in response to SECY-98-010,“ Petition for Envirocare of Utah to PossessSpecial Nuclear Material in Excess of CurrentRegulatory Limits” (NRC, 1998a), directed theNRC staff to consult with the ACNW on whetherto pursue a research project to evaluate thepotential for postclosure criticality as a result ofhydrogeochemical processes reconcentratinguranium at LLW disposal facility sites.
On the basis of the information provided by thestaff at the time, the ACNW agreed that thelikelihood of reconcentration in an LLW disposalfacility was remote and the consequences of anyresulting criticality appeared similarly minimal.The Committee could not conclude that anysignificant research on postclosure criticality waswarranted. However, it did believe that muchcould be learned from limited additionalresearch, namely a quantitative risk(performance) assessment of a specific site. Atthe time, the analyses performed to datecontained elements of risk assessment but lackedconsistency of application in the propagation ofrealistic uncertainties throughout the analyticalmodels.
Branch Technical Position on a PerformanceAssessment Methodology for Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Facilities (August 2,2000). Following publication of a draft forpublic comment and resolution of the commentsreceived (NRC, 1997a), the staff briefed theACNW on the final proposed NUREG-1573 atthe Committee’ s 119 meeting. It its subsequentth
August 2000 letter to the Commission, theACNW recommended issuance of the NUREG in
97
final form. The Committee also provided somecomments for the Commission to consider, whichthe staff responded to in Appendix E to the finalNUREG. Table D-3, in Appendix D to thisreport, summarizes the Committee’ s commentsand the staff’ s responses thereto.
Lessons Learned from the Ward Valley,California, Low-Level Waste Disposal FacilitySiting Process (August 10, 1995). In 1995, NASissued its report examining the validity of sevensite-suitability issues raised by staff geologists atthe USGS regarding the Ward Valley LLWdisposal site. The ACNW reviewed the report95
(National Research Council, 1995b) and amember of the NAS panel made a presentation tothe Committee on this topic at the 75 meeting ofth
the ACNW. That panel member identified keylessons learned from the Ward Valley peerreview, which the Committee also endorsed in itsletter. Foremost among these lessons learnedwas that future LLW siting activities shouldensure that information developed on the sitecharacteristics would be accompanied, preferablyfrom its initiation, by an independent, ongoingpeer review focused on the scientific andtechnical quality and completeness of the fieldinvestigations, analytical programs, and planningfor the work that accompanies them. Arecognized and demonstrably competent panel ofexperts should conduct such a review.
The Committee also recognized at the time thatany future LLW sites were likely to be developed
under the purview of the Agreement States.Nevertheless, for those states in which a disposalfacility is contemplated, the developer shouldprovide a plan that describes the process offorming such peer review panels and the way inwhich their output could best be used in futuredecisionmaking.
10.2.6 Waste Package and Waste FormSuitability of High-Density Polyethylene HighIntegrity Containers (September 16, 1988). TheNRC’ s LLW regulation at 10 CFR 61.56(b)(“ Waste Containment”) requires the use of awaste container of sufficient structural stabilityfor the disposal of Class B and C LLW.NUREG-1199 (NRC, 1991a) gives guidance ondemonstrating that the 10 CFR Part 61 structuralstability requirement has been met. The staff haspreviously investigated the suitability offabricating HICs from high-density polyethylene(HDPE) – a type of durable plastic. Based onpresentation material from its third and fourthmeetings, as well as a review of selectedtechnical documents, the Committee stated in itsletter that the HDPE HIC designs underconsideration at the time would have difficulty inmeeting the NRC’ s mechanical propertiescriteria for Class B and C waste containers. TheCommittee recommended coupling (integrating)HDPE with another suitable material to satisfythe pertinent NRC regulatory criteria. TheCommittee recommended that the staff bring toclosure the HDPE HIC studies for previouslysubmitted designs, thus allowing the industry tobetter plan its response and further action.
Revision 1 of Draft Technical Position on WasteForm (September 6, 1990). A key feature of theNRC’ s 10 CFR Part 61 regulation is the wasteform stability requirements set forth in 10 CFR61.56(a). As noted earlier in this report, theCommission established these requirements toaddress some past performance issues at earlyLLW disposal facilities. Following publicationof its final LLW rule, the staff publishedguidance, in the form of a technical position, onsuggested approaches (including testing
In 1993, the State of California approved a license95
to construct a new LLW disposal facility in Ward Valleyon lands held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The state later asked the U.S. Department of the Interior(DOI) to transfer those lands to state control to allow forthe construction of the disposal facility. While DOI wasconsidering the transfer, three USGS geologists (acting asindividuals rather than in an official Government capacity)expressed seven concerns about the suitability of the site. Before making a decision to transfer the BLM’ s land,DOI asked NAS to convene a committee to act as a peerreview of the validity of the disputed issues. See alsoGAO (1997) and Andersen (1998).
98
procedures) for demonstrating compliance withthe requirements. See NRC (1983b). Later, inparallel with the staff’ s efforts, NUMARC(1988) prepared a technical basis document thatpotential licensees could use to support theircompliance demonstrations.
In June 1990, the staff prepared a revised versionof the 1983 technical position. In its September1990 letter, the ACNW noted that the 1990revision represented a significant expansion ofthe previous version and reflected many of thepoints that the Committee called to the attentionof the NRC staff during previous ACNW andACRS subcommittee meetings. Taking intoaccount the significance that the quality (stability)of the LLW form has to public health and safety(i.e., performance of the LLW disposal facility),the Committee concluded that the revisedtechnical position (NRC, 1991b), when fullyimplemented, would serve as a useful guide inthe evaluation of waste forms used in LLWdisposal.
Nevertheless, the Committee did identify thefollowing areas in which the staff could stillimprove the revised technical position:
• 10 CFR Part 61 lacks a requirement fora specified resistance of the waste formto leaching of radionuclides bygroundwater. The NRC should revise itsLLW regulation to address this point.Until then, the staff should amend thetechnical position to reflect more directlythe attention that leaching resistancemerits.
• Testing requirements should berepresentative of conditions likely to beencountered in an SLB site.
• Testing requirements of waste formradiation resistance may not besufficiently conservative whenconsidering the potential for hydrogengeneration in closed spaces.
• Testing requirements of aged wasteforms is insufficient.
• Ongoing revisions to 10 CFR Part 20(10 CFR 20.311 at the time) needcomparison to the technical position toensure compatibility.
• Newly developed criteria forcompressive strength of acceptablecementitious waste forms [500 poundsper square inch (psi)] lack a strongtechnical justification but were selectedto preclude the use of unstable wasteforms. The staff should recognize thatthe waste form may not retain thecompressive strength that is initiallycalled for in the guidance for its requiredlife. Long-term degradation ofcompressive strength to lower levels, butnot less than the approximately 60 psirequired for other waste forms, may beacceptable.
Source Term and Other Low-Level WasteConsiderations (March 31, 1993). The ACNWconvened a working group to obtain betterinformation on the inventory of radionuclides incommercial LLW going into disposal facilities.At the time, the Commission was consideringamendments to its regulations to improve thequality and uniformity of information on LLWtransfers between generators and operators. TheCommittee noted that one of the guiding criterionin the ongoing development of the Uniform Low-Level Waste Manifest System was to provide96
data deemed essential to LLW disposal facilityperformance assessments. In its 1993 letter, theCommittee observed that the staff should confirmthat the manifest data collected could be usedthrough the full range of disposal environmentslikely to be found consistent with the site-specific
“ Appendix G to Part 20 – “ Requirements for96
Transfers of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Intended forDisposal at Licensed Land Disposal Facilities andManifests.”
99
data requirements imposed by the 10 CFRPart 61 regulation for estimating the release andtransport of radionuclides from disposal facilities.The letter highlighted many other source termobservations/considerations proposed ordiscussed by the working group participants. SeeNRC (1992c, 1995b) for more background onthis issue.
100
(Page intentionally left blank.)
101
11 REFERENCES
Adam, J.A., and V.L. Rogers, “ A ClassificationSystem for Radioactive Waste Disposal – WhatWaste Goes Where?,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG-0456, July 1978.
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, “ ACompilation of Reports of the AdvisoryCommittee on Nuclear Waste, July 1988–August2004,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG-1423, 15 vols., August 1990–October2006.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety, “ ACompilation of Reports of the AdvisoryCommittee on Reactor Safety, 1957–1988,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1125,Vols. 5–10, April 1985–April 1989.
American Chemical Society and the ConservationFoundation, Issues in Peer Review of theScientific Basis for Regulatory Decisions,Washington, DC, November 1985.
Andersen, G., Disposing of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste in California – A Guidebookfor Public Participation, Crestline, League ofWomen Voters Environmental ActionCommittee, September 1998.
Austin, J.H., “ Naturally Occurring andAccelerator-Produced Radioactive Material –1987 Review,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG-1310, March 1988.
Battelle Memorial Institute, “ Alternatives forManaging Wastes from Reactors and Post-FissionOperations in the LWR Fuel Cycle,” U.S.Ener gy Research and DevelopmentAdministration, ERDA 76-43, 5 vols., May1976.
Bedinger, M.S., “ Geohydrologic Aspects forSiting and Design of Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal,” U.S. Geological SurveyCircular 1034, 1989.
Bennett, R.D., W.O. Miller, J.B. Warriner, P.G.Malone, and C.C. McAneny, “ AlternativeMethods for Disposal of Low-Level RadioactiveWastes – Task 1: Description of Methods andAssessment of Criteria,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3774, Vol.1, April 1984. [Prepared by the U.S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station.]
Bennett, R.D., “ Alternative Methods forDisposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes –Task 2e: Technical Requirements for ShaftDisposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3774, Vol. 5, October 1985. [Prepared by theU.S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation Geotechnical Laboratory.]
Bennett, R.D., and J.B. Warriner, “ AlternativeMethods for Disposal of Low-Level RadioactiveWastes – Task 2b: Technical Requirements forAbove-Ground Vault Disposal of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-3774, Vol. 3, October1985. [Prepared by the U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station GeotechnicalLaboratory.]
Berglund, J.W., “ Mechanisms Governing theDirect Removal of Wastes from the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant Repository Caused byExploratory Drilling,” Albuquerque, SandiaNational Laboratories, SAND92-7295, December1992. [Prepared by the New MexicoEngineering Institute for DOE.]
Bishop, W.P., and F.J. Miraglia, Jr. , editors,“ Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing andWaste Management Portion of the LWR FuelCycle – A Task Force Report,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG-0116(Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), October 1976.
Bolling, L.A., J.O. Lubenau, and D.A.Nussbaumer, “ Regulation of Naturally
102
Occurring and Accelerator-Produced RadioactiveMaterials — An Update,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG-0976, October1984.
Bowerman, B.S., R.E. Davis, and B. Siskind,“ Document Review Regarding HazardousChemical Characteristics of Low-Level Waste,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-4433, March 1986. [Prepared bythe Brookhaven National Laboratory.]
Bowerman, B.S. , C.R. Kempf, D.R.MacKenzie, B. Siskind, and P.L. Piciulo, “ AnAnalysis of Low-Level Wastes: Review ofHazardous Waste Regulations and Identificationof Radioactive Mixed Wastes – Final Report,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-4406, December 1985. [Preparedby the Brookhaven National Laboratory.]
Buckley, J., “ Status of DecommissioningProgram – 2004 Annual Report; Final Report,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1814, January 2005.
Carter, M.W., A.A. Moghissi, and B. Kahn,editors, “ Land Burial Case Histories (ChapterVIII),” in Management of Low-Level RadioactiveWaste, New York, Pergamon Press, Vol. 2,1979.
Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive WasteCommission, “ Annual Report 2003–2004,”Lincoln, Nebraska, 2004.
Charles, D., and T.J. McEwen,“ Radiological Consequences of DrillingIntrusion into a Deep Repository for High LevelWaste,” United Kingdom, Intera Sciences,[Report] I244-1, January 1991. [Prepared for theSwedish National Institute of RadiationProtection.]
Clancy, J.J., D.F. Gray, and O.I. Oztunali,“ Data Base for Radioactive Waste Management– Review of Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal History,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-1759, Vol. 1,November 1981.
Codell, R.B., K.T. Key, and G. Whelan, “ ACollection of Mathematical Models forDispersion in Surface Water and Groundwater,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0868, June 1982.
Coley, R.F., “ Low-Level Radioactive WasteGeneration Rates at Domestic Nuclear PowerPlants — 1982 through 1985 Update,” inProceedings of the Symposium on WasteManagement, March 1–5, 1987, Tucson,Arizona, University of Arizona Press, Vol. 3,1987.
Combs, F.C., “ Status of States in ProvidingDisposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste –October 11, 1991,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Office of State Programs, January24, 1992. [Memorandum.]
Conference of Radiation Control ProgramDirectors, “ Suggested State Regulations forControl of Radiation. Volume 1 – IonizingRadiation, Part N: Regulation and Licensing ofTechnologically Enhanced Naturally OccurringRadioactive Material (TENORM),” Frankfort,Kentucky, CRCPD Task Force on TENORM(E-36), December 1999. [Revised April 2004.]
Conference of Radiation Control ProgramDirectors, “ Part N: Regulation and Licensing ofTechnologically Enhanced Naturally OccurringRadioactive Material (TENORM): 1999Rationale,” Frankfort, Kentucky, CRCPD TaskForce on TENORM (E-36), December 1999.[Revised April 2004.]
Conference of Radiation Control ProgramDirectors, “ Implementation Guidance forRegulation and Licensing of TechnologicallyEnhanced Naturally Occurring RadioactiveMaterial (TENORM) – Part N of the SuggestedState Regulations for Control of Radiation
103
(SSRCR),” Frankfort, Kentucky, CRCPD TaskForce on TENORM (E-36), April 2004.
Cunningham, R.E., U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Letter to All Holders of NRCMaterials Licenses, "Extended Interim Storage ofLow-Level Radioactive Waste by Fuel Cycle andMaterials Licensees," Washington, DC,Information Notice No. 90-09, February 5, 1990.
Denham, D.H., R.D. Stenner, P.A. Eddy, R.E.Jaquish, and J . V. Ramsdell , Jr . ,“ Recommendations to the NRC for ReviewCriteria for Alternative Methods of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal – EnvironmentalMonitoring and Surveillance Programs,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5054, July 1988.
Diaz, N.J., et al., Memorandum and Order, “ Inthe Matter of Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.(National Enrichment Facility),” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, CLI-05-20, October 19,2005.
Dinwiddie, G.A., and N.J. Trask, editors, “ U.S.Geological Survey Research in RadioactiveWaste Disposal – Fiscal Years 1983, 1984, and1985,” U.S. Geological Survey Water-ResourcesInvestigations Report 87-4009, 1987.
Dircks, W.J., U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Letter to All Holders of andApplicants for Operating Licenses andConstruction Permits, "Storage of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste at Power Reactor Sites,"Washington, DC, Generic Letter 81-38,November 10, 1981.
Dircks, W.J., U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Letter to All Licensees,"Commercial Storage at Power Reactor Sites ofLow-Level Radioactive Waste not Generated bythe Utility,” Washington, DC, Generic Letter 85-14, August 1, 1985.
EG&G Idaho, Inc., “ Corrective MeasuresTechnology for Shallow Land Burial,” IdahoFalls, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,Low-Level Waste Management Handbook Series,DOE/LLW-13Te, October 1984. [Prepared forDOE.]
EG&G Idaho, Inc., “ Radioactive WasteManagement: A Summary of State Laws andAdministration,” Idaho Falls, Idaho NationalEngineering Laboratory, DOE/LLW-18T,Revision 6, December 1985. [Prepared forDOE.]
EG&G Idaho, Inc., “ Environmental Monitoringfor Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites,” IdahoFalls, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,Low-Level Waste Management Handbook Series,DOE/LLW-13Tg, 2 vols., Revision 1, September1989. [Prepared for DOE.]
EG&G Idaho, Inc., “ Directions in Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Management: A BriefHistory of Commercial Low-Level RadioactiveWaste,” Idaho Falls, Idaho National EngineeringLaboratory, DOE/LLW-103, Revision 1, August1994. [Prepared for DOE.]
Eisenberg, N.A., M.P. Lee, T.J. McCartin, K.I.McConnell, M. Thaggard, and A.C. Campbell,“ Development of a Performance AssessmentCapability in the Waste Management Programsof the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,”Risk Analysis, 19(5):847–876, October 1999.
Electric Power Research Institute, “ RadwasteGeneration Survey Update, Volume 1: BoilingWater Reactors, Final Report,” Palo Alto,Project 1557-26, EPRI NP-5526, February1988a. [Prepared by Analytical Resources, Inc.]
Electric Power Research Institute, “ RadwasteGeneration Survey Update, Volume 2:Pressurized Water Reactors, Final Report,” PaloAlto, Project 1557-26, EPRI NP-5526, February1988b. [Prepared by Analytical Resources, Inc.]
104
Electric Power Research Institute, “ On-SiteStorage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste atPower Reactors: An International ScopingStudy, Final Report,” Palo Alto, Project 2724-3,EPRI NP-6163, December 1988c. [Prepared byScience Applications International Corporation,Inc.]
Electric Power Research Institute, “ InterimOn-Site Storage of Low Level Waste – Licensingand Regulatory Issues,” Palo Alto, EPRI TR-100298, Vol. 1, May 1992.
Electric Power Research Institute, “ SolidLow Level Waste Management Guidelines,” PaloAlto, EPRI TR-104583, November 1994.
Electric Power Research Institute, “ InterimStorage of Low and Intermediate Level Wastes:Guidelines for Extended Storage,” Palo Alto,EPRI 000000000001002763, October 2002.
Federal Radiation Council, “ BackgroundMaterial for the Development of RadiationStandards,” Washington, DC, Staff Report No. 5,July 1964.
Federal Radiation Council, “ BackgroundMaterial for the Development of RadiationStandards — Protective Action Guides forStrontium-89, Strontium-90, and Cesium-137,”Washington, DC, Staff Report No. 7, May 1965.
Federal Radiation Council, “ Guidance forthe Control of Radiation Hazards in UraniumMining,” Washington, DC, Staff Report No. 8(revised), September 1967
Fisher, J.N., “ Hydrologic Factors in theSelection of Shallow Land Burial Sites for theDisposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” U.S.Geological Survey Circular 973, 1986.
Forstom, J.M., and D.J. Goode, “ De MinimisWaste Impacts Analysis Methodology.IMPACTS — BRC User’ s Guide andMethodology for Radioactive Wastes Below
Regulatory Concern. Draft Report forComment, ” U. S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-3585, Vol. 2, July1986.
Fuchs, R.L., “ 1995 State-by-State Assessmentof Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Received atCommercial Disposal Sites,” Idaho Falls, EG&GIdaho, Inc., DOE/LLW-237, September 1996.[Prepared for DOE.]
Fuchs, R.L., “ 1996 State-by-State Assessment ofLow-Level Radioactive Wastes Received atCommercial Disposal Sites,” Idaho Falls, EG&GIdaho, Inc., DOE/LLW-243, September 1997.[Prepared for DOE.]
Fuchs, R.L., “ 1997 State-by-State Assessment ofLow-Level Radioactive Wastes Received atCommercial Disposal Sites,” Idaho Falls, EG&GIdaho, Inc., DOE/LLW-247, August 1998.[Prepared for DOE.]
Fuchs, R.L., “ 1998 State-by-State Assessment ofLow-Level Radioactive Wastes Received atCommercial Disposal Sites,” Idaho Falls, EG&GIdaho, Inc., DOE/LLW-252, May 1999.[Prepared for DOE.]
General Research Corporation, “ Study ofChemical Toxicity of Low-Level Wastes,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1793, 2 vols., November 1980.
Gesell, T.F., and H.M. Prichard, “ TheTechnologically-Enhanced Natural RadiationEnvironment,” Health Physics, 28:361–366,April 1975.
Goode, D.J., S.M. Neuder, R.A. Pennifill, andT. Ginn, “ Onsite Disposal of Radioactive Waste— Estimating Potential GroundwaterContamination,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG-1101, Vol. 3, November1986.
105
Goodell, P.C. and D. Caskey, editors, “ NuclearWaste Disposal Issues in the El Paso-JuarezRegion: Ft. Hancock, Texas,” The El PasoGeological Society, University of Texas at ElPaso, December 1991.
Gruhlke, J.M., F.L. Galpin, W.F. Holcomb, andM.S. Bandrowski, “ USEPA’ s ProposedEnvironmental Standards for the Managementand Land Disposal of LLW and Waste,” in R.G.Post, editor, WM ’ 89 – Proceedings of theSymposium on Waste Management, February26–March 2, 1989, Tucson, Arizona, [Universityof Arizona Press], 2:273–276, 1989.
Higginbotham, L.B., K.S. Dragonette, and C.L.Pittiglio, Jr., “ Licensing of Alternative Methodsof Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste –Branch Technical Position,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG-1241,December 1986.
Hileman, B., “ Nuclear Waste Disposal – A Caseof Benign Neglect?,” Environmental Science andTechnology, 16(5):271A–275A, 1982.
Howekamp, D.P.,U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Letter to J.E. Lemley, U.S. Ecology,“ Renewal of Approval to Operate a ChemicalWaste Landfill for PCB Disposal,” January 16,1996. [Available from the American EcologyWeb site at http://www.americanecology.com/usecology/pdf/beatty/tsca_permit.pdf.]
Hulse, R. A., “ Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste Characterization:Estimated Volumes, Radionuclide Activities, andOther Characteristics,” U.S. Department ofEnergy, DOE/LLW-114, August 1991.
Illinois Emergency Management Agency, “ AnEvaluation of the Potential Effects from theClosure of Available Disposal Capacity on theCentral Midwest Compact Region’ s Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Generators,” Springfield,Bureau of Environmental Safety, IEMA 341-400-2/06, September 2005. [Prepared for the Central
Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive WasteCommission.]
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Report of ICRP Committee II onPermissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959),with Bibliography for Biological, Mathematicaland Physical Data,” Health Physics, Vol. 3,[1959]. [Reprinted in 1975 as ICRP Publication2.]
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Recommendations of theInternational Commission on RadiologicalProtection,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1,No. 3, 1977. [ICRP Publication 26.]
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ The Principles and GeneralProcedures for Handling Emergency andAccidental Exposures of Workers – Statementfrom the 1978 Stockholm Meeting of the ICRP,”Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1978. [ICRPPublication 28.]
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclidesby Workers,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 2, Nos.3/4, 1979. [ICRP Publication 30, Part 1.]
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclidesby Workers,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 4, Nos.3/4, 1980. [ICRP Publication 30, Part 2.]
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclidesby Workers,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 6, Nos.2/3, 1981. [ICRP Publication 30, Part 3.Includes addendum to Parts 1 and 2.]
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclidesby Workers: An Addendum,” Annals of theICRP, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1988. [ICRP Publication30, Part 4.]
106
Johnson, T., “ Below Regulatory ConcernWastes – Identification and Implications forMixed Waste Management,” in U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Proceedingsof the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyMixed Waste Workshop, July 19–20, 1988,Denver, Colorado, 1988.
Kaplan, S., and B.J. Garrick, “ On theQuantitative Definition of Risk,” Risk Analysis,1(1):11–27, March 1981.
Kempf, C.R., D.R. MacKenzie, and B.S.Bowerman, “ Management of RadioactiveMixed Wastes in Commercial Low-LevelRadioactive Wastes — Draft Report forComment, ” U. S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-4450, January 1986.[Prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory.]
King, W.C., and J.J. Cohen, “ Interim Report tothe NRC on Radioactive Waste ClassificationSystem,” Livermore, California, LawrenceLivermore Laboratory, UCID-17497, April 18,1977. [Prepared for the NRC.]
Klein, J.A., J.E. Mrochek, R.L. Jolley, I.W.Osbrne-Lee, A.A. Francis, and T. Wright,“ National Profile on Commercially GeneratedLow-Level Radioactive Mixed Waste,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5938, December 1992. [Brookhaven NationalLaboratory prepared report jointly sponsored bythe NRC and EPA.]
Kocher, D.C., and A.G. Croff, “ A ProposedClassification System for High-Level and OtherRadioactive Wastes,” Oak Ridge, Tennessee,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-10289, 1987.
Lacker, D.K., Chairman/[NRC] AgreementStates, Letter to G.W. Kerr, Directorate ofLicensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,“ A g r e e me n t Sta te s Re q u e st s a n dRecommendations for the AEC,” Austin, Texas,October 16, 1974.
Landa, E., “ Isolation of Uranium Mill Tailingsand Their Component Radionuclides from theBiosphere – Some Earth Science Perspectives,”U.S. Geological Survey Circular 814, 1980.
Lauer, M.T., “ Is There Relief Ahead on theLow-Level Waste Front? — A Look at WasteControl Specialists in Texas,” RadwasteSolutions, 10(4):12–16, July/August 2003.
Lawroski, S. , and D. W. Moeller, “ AdvisoryCommittee on Reactor Safeguards: Its Role inNuclear Safety,” Nuclear Safety, 20(4): 387–400,July-August 1979.
LeMone, D.V ., R. Dodge, H. Xie, R.P.Langford, and G.R. Keller, “ Remote Sensing ofthe Sierra Blanca (Faskin Ranch) Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Site, HudspethCounty, Texas,” in WM’ 02 – Proceedings of theWaste Management 2002 Symposium, February24–28, 2002, Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia,Inc., 2002.
Lennemann, W.L., “ United States AtomicEnergy Commission Interim Radioactive WasteBurial Program,” in International Atomic EnergyAgency and European Nuclear Energy Agency ofthe OECD, Proceedings of a Symposium on theDisposal of Radioactive Wastes into the Ground,May 29–June 2, 1976, Vienna, Austria, Vienna,International Atomic Energy Agency, 1976.
Leopold, L.B., F.E. Clarke, B.B. Hanshaw, andJ.R. Balsley, “ A Procedure for EvaluatingEnvironmental Impact,” U.S. Geological SurveyCircular 645, 1971.
Link, S.O., K.J. King, M.Benz, W.G. Evenden,and D.E. Robertston, "Environmental Dynamicsof Carbon-14 Near a Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Burial Ground,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6587, May 1999.[Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory –PNL.]
107
Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company,“ Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Characterization: Estimated Volumes,Radionuclide Activities, and OtherCharacteristics,” Idaho Falls, Idaho EngineeringNational Laboratory, DOE/LLW-114, Revision1, September 1994. [Prepared for DOE.]
Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company,“ Greater-Than-Class-C Sealed Sources,” IdahoFalls, Idaho Engineering National Laboratory,DOE/LLW-163, 3 vols., September 1994.[Prepared for DOE.]
Long, S.W., “ The Incineration of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste,” Advisory Committee onNuclear Waste, NUREG-1393, June 1990.
Macbeth, P.J., D.E. Christensen, B.J. Thamer,and G. Wehmann, “ Screening of AlternativeMethods for the Disposal of Low-LevelRadioactive Wastes,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CP-0308, October 1978.[Prepared by Ford, Bacon, & Davis Utah, Inc.]
Mazuzan, G.T., and J.S. Walker, “ Controllingthe Atom — The Beginnings of NuclearRegulation 1946–1962,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG-1610, April1997.
Metlay, P., “ Radioactive Waste ManagementPolicy (Appendix A-1, dated June 1981),” inOffice of Technology Assessment, “ Managingthe Nation’ s Commercial High-LevelRadioactive Waste,” U.S. Congress, OTA-0-171,March 1985a.
Metlay, P., “ Major Events in Radioactive WasteManagement History, 1944–81 (Appendix A-2,dated June 1981),” in Office of TechnologyAssessment, “ Managing the Nation’ sCommercial High-Level Radioactive Waste,”U.S. Congress, OTA-0-171, March 1985b.
Meyer, G.L., “ Modeling and Analyses toSupport EPA’ s Low-Level Radioactive WasteStandards,” in C.A. Little and L.E. Stratton,compilers, Modeling and Low-Level WasteManagement, Proceedings of December 1–4,1980, Workshop, Denver, Colorado, Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, June 1981.
Meyer, P.D., M. Ye, S.P. Neuman, and K.J.Cantrell, “ Combined Estimation ofHydrogeologic Conceptual Model and ParameterUncertainty,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6843, March 2004.
Miller, W.O., and R.D. Bennett,“ Alternative Methods for Disposal of Low-LevelRadioactive Wastes – Task 2c: TechnicalRequirements for Earth-Mounded ConcreteBunker Disposal of Low-Level RadioactiveWaste,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-3774, Vol. 4, October 1985.[Prepared by the U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station GeotechnicalLaboratory.]
Moeller, D. W., Environmental Health,Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard UniversityPress, 1992.
Monitored Retrievable Storage ReviewCommission, “ Nuclear Waste: Is There a Needfor Federal Interim Storage?,” Washington, DC,November 1, 1989.
Morganwalp, D.W., and H.T. Buxton, editors,U.S. Geological Survey Toxic SubstancesHydrology Program – Proceedings of theTechnical Meeting, Charleston, South Carolina,March 8–12, 1999. Volume 3 – SubsurfaceContamination from Point Sources,” U.S.Geological Sur vey Water -Resour cesInvestigations Report 99-4018-C, 1999.
National Academy of Sciences, “ The Disposal ofRadioactive Waste on Land,” Washington, DC,Division of Earth Sciences, National Research
108
Council Publication 519, 1957.
National Academy of Sciences, “ Considerationsof Health Benefit-Cost Analysis for ActivitiesInvolving Ionizing Radiation Exposure andAlternatives — A Report of [the] AdvisoryCommittee on Biological Effects of IonizingRadiations [BEIR],” U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA 520/4-77-003, 1977.
National Advisory Committee on Oceans and theAtmosphere, “ Nuclear Waste Management andthe Use of the Sea – A Special Report to thePresident and the Congress,” Washington, DC,April 1984.
National Bureau of Standards, “ Radioactive-Waste Disposal in the Ocean – Recommendationsof the National Committee on RadiationProtection,” U.S. Department of Commerce,National Bureau of Standards Handbook 58,August 25, 1954.
National Council on Radiation Protection andMeasurements, “ Managing the Disposal of Low-Activity Radioactive Materials,” Bethesda,Maryland, 2005. [NCRP Scientific Committee87.1 on Waste and Volume Reduction.]
National Research Council, “ Radioactive WasteDisposal into Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Waters,”Washington, DC, Committee on Oceanography,NAS-NRC Publication 655, 1959.
National Research Council, “ Disposal ofLow-Level Radioactive Waste Pacific CoastalWaters,” Washington, DC, Committee onOceanography, NAS-NRC Publication 985,1962.
National Research Council, “ Radioactivity in theEnvironment,” Washington, DC, Committee onOceanography, 1971.
National Research Council, “ The Shallow LandBurial of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated
Solid Wastes,” Washington, DC, 1976.
National Research Council, “ Decision Making inthe Environmental Protection Agency,”Washington, DC, Vol. II, 1977.
National Research Council, “ Technical Bases forYucca Mountain Standards, Washington, DC,National Academy Press, July 1995.
National Research Council, Ward Valley: AnExamination of Seven Issues in Earth Science andEcology, Washington, DC, National AcademyPress, 1995.
National Research Council, “ The State ofDevelopment of Waste Forms for Mixed Wastes– U.S. Department of Energy’ s Office ofEnvironmental Management, Washington, DC,National Academy Press, 1999.
National Research Council, “ The DispositionDilemma – Controlling the Release of SolidMaterials from Nuclear Regulatory Commission-License Facilities,” Washington, DC, NationalAcademy Press, 2002.
National Research Council, “ Improving theManagement and Regulation of Low-ActivityRadioactive Wastes – Interim Report on Currentregulations, Inventories, and Practices,”Washington, DC, National Academy Press,2003.
National Research Council, “ Improving theManagement and Regulation of Low-ActivityRadioactive Wastes,” Washington, DC, NationalAcademy Press, 2006.
Neuder, S.M., “ Onsite Disposal of RadioactiveWaste – Guidance for Disposal by SubsurfaceBurial,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG-1101, Vol. 1, March 1986.
Neuder, S.M., and W.E. Kennedy, “ OnsiteDisposal of Radioactive Waste — Methodology
109
for the Radiological Assessment of Disposal bySubsurface Burial,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG-1101, Vol. 2, February1987.
Neuman, S.P., and P.J. Wierenga, “ AComprehensive Strategy of Hydrologic Modelingand Uncertainty Analysis for Nuclear Facilitiesand Sites,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6805, July 2003.
Newberry, W.F., T.A. Kerr, and D.H. Leroy,“ Assured Storage Facilities: A New Perspectiveon LLW Management,” Radwaste Magazine,2(5):13– 22, September 1995.
Newberry, W.F., T.A. Kerr, and D.H. Leroy,“ Assured Storage: The Most Frequently AskedQuestions,” Radwaste Magazine, 3(5):20–25,September 1996.
New Jersey Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facility Siting Board, “ DisposalOptions Report – Report to the Governor,”Trenton, June 1999.
Nicholson, T.J., and J.D. Parrott, [compilers],Proceedings of the Workshop on Review of DoseModeling Methods for Demonstration ofCompliance with the Radiological Criteria forLicense Termination, NRC Headquarters,November 13-14, 1997, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CP-0163, May 1998.
Nicholson, T.J., J.E. Babendreier, P.D. Meyer,S. Mohanty, B. Hicks, and G. Leavesley,editors, Proceedings of the InternationalWorkshop on Uncertainty, Sensitivity, andParameter Estimation for MultimediaEnvironmental Modeling, NRC Headquarters,August 19–21, 2003, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CP-0187, October 2004.
NRC Special Inquiry Group, Three Mile Island –A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 3 vols.,
January 1980.
Nuclear Energy Agency, “ Beneficial Usesand Production of Isotopes,” Paris, Organisationfor Economic Cooperation and Development,1998.
Nuclear Energy Agency, “ Future HumanActions at Disposal Sites,” Paris, France, NEAWorking Group on Assessment of Future HumanActions at Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites,Safety Assessment of Radioactive WasteRepositories Series, Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development, 1991.
Nuclear Management and Resources Council,“ A Technical Basis for Meeting the Waste FormStability Requirements of 10CFR61,”Washington, DC, NUMARC/NESP-002, April1988. [Prepared by the Envirosphere Companyand Nuclear Waste Management, Inc.]
Nuclear Management and Resources Council,“ The Management of Mixed Low-LevelRadioactive Waste in the Nuclear PowerIndustry,” Washington, DC, NUMARC/NESP-006, January 1990. [Prepared for the NationalEnvironmental Studies Project by Rogers andAssociates Engineering Corporation and NuclearWaste Management, Inc.]
Nussbaumer, D.A., J.O. Lubenau, W.S. Cool,L.J. Cunningham, J.R. Maples, S.A. Schwartz,and D.A. Smith, “ Regulation of NaturallyOccurring and Accelerator-Produced RadioactiveMaterial – A Task Force Review,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG-0301, July1977.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “ Chapter 5.Miscellaneous Wastes,” in Characteristics ofPotential Repository Wastes, Oak Ridge,DOE/RW-0184-R1, Vol. 2, July 1992.
O’ Donnell, E., and J. Lambert, “ Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Research Program Plan,”
110
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1380, November 1989. [Prepared by RES’Division of Engineering.]
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, “ RadioactiveWaste Management Programmes in OECD/NEAMember Countries,” Issy-les-Moulineaux, NEARadioactive Waste Management Committee,2005. [Compendium covering radioactive wastemanagement practices in 20 OECD/NEAmember countries.]
Office of Technology Assessment, “ AnEvaluation of Options for Managing Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste –Background Paper,” U.S. Congress, OTA-BP-0-50, October 1988.
Office of Technology Assessment, “ PartnershipsUnder Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” U.S. Congress, OTA-O-426, November 1989.
Ohio Department of Health, “ RadiationGenerator and Broker Reporting Requirements –Assured Isolation Facility,” Ohio AdministrativeCode – Rules of the Administrative Agencies,Chapter 3701:1–54, September 15, 2003.
Oztunali, O.I., G.C. Ré, P.M. Moskowitz, E.D.Picazo, and C.J. Pitt, “ Data Base forRadioactive Waste Management – ImpactsAnalysis Methodology Report,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1759, Vol.3, November 1981. [Prepared by Dames andMoore, Inc.]
Oztunali, O.I., and G.W. Roles, “ De MinimisWaste Impacts Analysis Methodology,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3585, Vol. 1, February 1984. [Prepared byDames and Moore, Inc.]
Oztunali, O.I., and G.W. Roles, “ Update of Part61 Impacts Analysis Methodology —Methodology Report,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, NUREG/CR-4370, Vol. 1, January1986. [Prepared by the Envirosphere Company.]
Oztunali, O.I., W.D. Pon, R. Eng, and G.W.Roles, “ Update of Part 61 Impacts AnalysisMethodology – Codes and Example Problems,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/ CR-4370, Vol. 2, Januar y1986.[Prepared by the Envirosphere Company.]
Papdopulos, S.S., and I.J. Winograd, “ Storageof Low-Level Radioactive Wastes in the Ground:Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Factors,”U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofRadiation Programs, EPA-520/3-74-009, 1974.[Prepared by the USGS.]
Pangburn, G.C., et al., "Environmental StandardReview Plan for the Review of a LicenseApplication for a Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facility – Environmental Report,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1300,April 1987.
Parler, W.C., U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Memorandum to Lando W. Zech,et al., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ RCRA and the Atomic Energy Act,” April11, 1989.
Pittiglio, C.L., Jr., “ Review Process for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal LicenseApplication Under Low-Level Radioactive WasteAmendments Act,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG-1274, August 1987.
Pittiglio, C.L., Jr., R.J. Starmer, and D.Hedges, “ Guidance on the Application ofQuality Assurance for Characterizing a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site: FinalReport,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG-1383, October 1990.
Pittiglio, C.L., Jr. , and D. Hedges, ”QualityAssurance Guidance for a Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Facility,” U.S. Nuclear
111
Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1293,Revision 1, April 1991.
Pittman, F.K. , U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, Letter to C. Klingsberg, NationalResearch Council, “ Request for a NationalResearch Council Committee Review of CurrentAEC Radioactive Waste Land DisposalPractices,” May 31, 1973.
Pomeroy, P.W., Advisory Committee on NuclearWaste, Letter to the Honorable Shirley AnnJackson, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, “ Time Span for Compliance ofProposed Yucca Mountain High-Level WasteRepository,” June 7, 1996.
Powers, D.A., Advisory Committee on ReactorSafety, Letter to the Honorable Shirley AnnJackson, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ The Role of Defense in Depth in a Risk-Informed Regulatory System,” May 19, 1999.
Ratliff, R.A., B. Dornsife, V. Autry, L.Gronemyer, J. Vaden, and T. Cashman,“ Suggested State Requirements and Criteria fora Low-Level Radioactive Waste-Disposal SiteRegulatory Program,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-4352, August 1985.[Prepared by the CRCPD]
Rau, J.G., and D.C. Wooten, editors,Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook, NewYork, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
Raubvogel, R.J., “ Nuclear Waste Disposal inthe Oceans: A Current Status Report and Issuesfor Congress,” Washington, DC, CongressionalResearch Service, Library of Congress, 1982.
Robertson, J.B., “ Geologic Problems at Low-Level Radioactive Waste-Disposal Sites,” inNational Research Council, “ GroundwaterContamination,” Washington, DC, NationalAcademy Press, Studies in Geophysics, 1984.
Robertson, D.E., M.P. Bergeron, D.A. Myers,K.H. Abel, C.W. Thomas, D.R. Champ,R.W.D. Killey, G. L. Moltyaner, and J.L.Young, "Demonstration of PerformanceModeling of a Low-Level Waste Shallow-LandBurial Site: A Comparison of PredictiveRadionuclide Transport Modeling versus FieldObservations at the Nitrate Disposal Pit Site,Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories," U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-4879, Vol. 1, November 1987. [Prepared byPNL.]
Robertson, D.E., M.P. Bergeron, D. Holford,K.H. Abel, C.W. Thomas, D.A. Myers, D.R.Champ, R.W.D. Killey, G. L. Moltyaner, J.L.Young, and T. Ohnuki, "Demonstration ofPerformance Modeling of a Low-Level WasteShallow-Land Burial Site: A Comparison ofPredictive Radionuclide Transport Modelingversus Field Observations at the ‘A’ DisposalArea, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories," U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-4879, Vol. 2, March 1989. [Prepared by PNL.]
Robertson, D.E., C.W. Thomas, S. L. Pratt,K.H. Abel, E.A. Lepel, A.J. Schilk, E.L.Cooper, F. Caron, K.J. King, R.W.D. Killey,P.G. Hartwig, J.F. Mattie, M.K. Haas, E.Romaniszyn, M. Benz, W.G. Evenden, S.O.Link, and P. Vilks, "The Role of OrganicComplexants and Colloids in the Transport ofRadionuclides in Groundwater,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6627,January 2000. [Prepared by PNL.]
Rogers, V.C., “ A Radioactive Waste DisposalClassification System,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-1005, Vol. 1,September 1979. [Prepared by Ford, Bacon, &Davis Utah, Inc.]
Rogers, V.C., R.D. Baird, B.C. Robertson, andP.J. Macbeth, “ A Radioactive Waste DisposalClassification System – The Computer Programand Groundwater Migration Models,” U.S.
112
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1005, Vol. 2, September 1979. [Prepared byFord, Bacon, & Davis Utah, Inc.]
Ryan, M.T., Advisory Committee on NuclearWaste, Letter to the Honorable Nils J. Diaz,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Opportunities in the Area of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Management,” December 27,2005.
Ryan, M.T. , Advisory Committee on NuclearWaste, Letter to the Honorable Dale E. Klein,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Observations from the ACNW Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Working Group Meeting ofMay 23-24, 2006,” August 16, 2006.
Schneider, R., E.H. Roseboom, Jr., J.B.Robertson, and P.R. Stevens, “ Low-LevelWaste,” in “ U.S. Geological Survey Research inRadioactive Waste Disposal – Fiscal Year 1979,”U.S. Geological Survey Circular 847, 1982.
Schweitzer, D.G., and C. Sastre, “ Level ofEvidence for Reasonable Assurance Guidelines toPrediction (Draft),” Upton, New York,Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL-52075,April 1987.
Shaw, R.A., “ Low-Level Radioactive Wastes inthe Nuclear Power Industry,” in Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Regulation: Science,Politics, and Fear, Chelsea, Lewis Publishers,1988.
Siefken, D., G. Pangburn, R. Pennifill, and R.J.Starmer, “ Site Suitability, Selection andCharacterization – Branch Technical Position,Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902,April 1982.
Siskind, B., D.R. Dougherty, and D.R.MacKenzie, “ Extended Storage of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste: Potential Problem Areas,”
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-4062, December 1985. [Preparedby the Brookhaven National Laboratory.]
Smith, G.M., “ Compilation and Analysis ofInformation on Critical Groups (Draft),”Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, Intera InformationTechnologies, August 1995. [Prepared for theElectric Power Research Institute.]
Sorensen, J.N., G.E. Apostolakis, T.S. Kress,and D.A. Powers, “ On the Role of Defense inDepth in Risk Informed Regulation,” inAmerican Nuclear Society, PSA ‘99 —Proceedings of the International Topical Meetingon Probabilistic Safety Assessment, August22–26, 1999, Washington, DC. [Preprint.]
Starmer, R.J., L.G. Deering, and M.F. Weber,“ Performance Assessment Strategy for Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites,” in 10th Annual U.S.Department of Energy Low-Level WasteManagement Conference: ConferenceProceedings (Session II: Site PerformanceAssessment), August 30 – September 1, 1988,Denver, Colorado, EG&G Idaho,CONF-880839-Ses. II, December 1988.[Preprint.]
State of Texas, “ SOAH Docket No. 582-96-1042 – Application of the Texas Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Authority forLicense No. RW-3100 (Hudspeth County),”Austin, State Office of Administrative Hearings,SOAH Docket No. 5382-8601042, July 7, 1998.[Record of decision.]
Stevens, P.R., and T.J. Nicholson, editors,“ Joint USGS-USNRC Workshop on ResearchRelated to Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal, May 4–6, 1993, National Center,Reston, Virginia,” U.S. Geological Survey,Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4015,1996.
113
Strauss, S.D., “ How Utilities Respond toRadwaste Needs,” Power, 131(8):13–16, August1987.
Tarlton, S., Hazardous Materials and WasteManagement Division, Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment, Letter to S.Zoller, Clean Harbors Deer Trail, “ LicenseAmendment – Colorado Radioactive MaterialsLicense Number Colo. 1102-01,” April 20,2006. [Available from the CDPHE Internet website at http://www.cdphe.state. co.us/hm/hwy36.htm.]
Taylor, G.M., “ Volume Reduction: UtilitiesCaught in the Squeeze,” Nuclear News, 30(3):66–70, March 1987.
Taylor, J.M., U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Memorandum to Ivan M. Selin, etal., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Strategies and Options for Encouraging theStates and Compacts to Develop New Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Facilities,” April 23,1993.
The White House [Richard M. Nixon, President],“ Presidential Documents, Title 3 — ThePresident, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of1970,” Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 194,pp. 15623–15626, October 6, 1970.
The White House [Ronald Reagan, President],“ Presidential Documents, Title 3 — RadiationProtection Guidance to Federal Agencies forOccupational Exposure; Approval ofE n v i r o n me n ta l P r o t e c t i o n Ag e n c yRecommendations,” Federal Register, Vol. 52,No. 17, pp. 2822–2834, January 27, 1987.
Trask, N.J., and P.R. Stevens, “ U.S. GeologicalSurvey Research in Radioactive Waste Disposal– Fiscal Years 1986–90,” U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Water Resources Investigations Report91-4084, 1991.
Trigilio, G., “ Volume Reduction Techniques inLow-Level Radioactive Waste Management,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-2006, September 1981. [Preparedby Teknekron, Inc.]
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ AECWithdraws its Land Burial Sites for Licensees(Press Release on Termination of Interim BurialProgram),” Washington, DC, Press Release F-105, May 28, 1963.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ Siting ofFuel Reprocessing Plants and Related WasteManagement Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol.35, No. 222, pp. 17530–17533, November 14,1970.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ Plan for theManagement of AEC-Generated RadioactiveWaste,” Division of Waste Management andTransportation, WASH-1202, January 1972.
U . S. Atomic Ener gy Commission,“ Environmental Effects of the Uranium FuelCycle,” Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 222, pp.14188–14191, April 22, 1974.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ TransuranicWaste Disposal; Proposed Standards forRadiation Protection,” Federal Register, Vol. 39,No. 175, pp. 32921–32922, September, 12,1974.
U . S. Atomic Ener gy Commission,“ Management of Commercial High Level andTransuranium-Contaminated Radioactive Waste— Draft Environmental Impact Statement,”Washington, DC, WASH-1539, September 1974.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste– Draft Environmental Impact Statement,”Washington, DC, DOE/EIS-0046-D, 2 vols.,April 1979.
114
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Managementof Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste –Final Environmental Impact Statement,” Officeof Nuclear Waste Management, DOE/EIS-0046F, 3 vols., October 1980.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Recommendationsfor Management of Greater-Than-Class-C Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Report to Congress inResponse to Public Law 99-240,” AssistantSecretary for Nuclear Energy, DOE/NE-0077,February 1987.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Strategy forManagement and Disposal of Greater-Than-ClassC Low-Level Radioactive Wastes: Notice ofInquiry,” Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 48,pp. 13424–13425, March 13, 1995.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Inventory andCharacteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials,”in “ Final Environmental Impact Statement for aGeologic Repository for the Disposal of SpentNuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Wasteat Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,”Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement, DOE/EIS-0250, Vol. II, AppendixA, February 2002.
U. S. Department of Energy, “ Advance Noticeof Intent to Prepare an Environmental ImpactStatement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-ClassC Low-Level Radioactive Wastes: AdvanceNotice of Intent,” Federal Register, Vol. 70, No.90, pp. 24775–24778, May 11, 2005.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ United States ofAmerica — Second National Report for the JointConvention on the Safety of Spent Nuclear FuelManagement and on the Safety of RadioactiveWaste Management,” Office of EnvironmentalManagement, DOE/EM-0654, Revision 1,October 2005. [Prepared in cooperation withNRC, EPA, and the Department of State.]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ Part141 — Interim Primary Drinking WaterRegulations: Promulgation of Regulations onRadionuclides,” Federal Register, Vol. 41,No. 133, pp. 28402– 28409, July 9, 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ OceanDumping, Final Revision of Regulations andCriteria," Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 7,pp. 2462–2490, January 11, 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ Part190 – Environmental Radiation ProtectionStandards for Nuclear Power Operations,Subchapter F – Radiation Protection Programs:Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 9,pp. 2858–2861, January 13, 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Proceedings of a Public Forum on EnvironmentalProtection Criteria for Radioactive Wastes,March 30–April 1, 1978, Denver, Colorado,Office of Radiation Programs, ORP/CSD-78-2,May 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Improving Government Regulations, ”Washington, DC, July 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Recommendations for Federal RadiationGuidance, Criteria for Radioactive Wastes,”Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 221, pp. 53262–53268, November 15, 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ National Emission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants; Addition of Radionuclides to List ofHazardous Pollutants: Addition to List ofHazardous Pollutants,” Federal Register, Vol.44, No. 249, pp. 76738– 76746, December 27,1979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Hazardous Waste Management System:Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
115
[Final Rule, Interim Final Rule, and Request forComments]," Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 98,pp. 33084–33133, May 19, 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Withdrawal of Proposed Regulations,” FederalRegister, Vol. 46, No. 53, pp. 17567–17568,March 19, 1981.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"Environmental Radiation Protection Standardsfor Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal:Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,"Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 170, p. 39563,August 31, 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Environmental Standards for Uranium andThorium Mill Tailings at Licensed CommercialProcessing Sites: Final Rule,” Federal Register,Vol. 48, No. 196, pp. 45926–45947, October 7,1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Environmental Standards for the Managementand Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Leveland Transuranic Radioactive Wastes: FinalRule,” Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 182, pp.38066– 38089, September 19, 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ Low-Level and NARM Radioactive Wastes — DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement for ProposedRules. Volume 1 — Background InformationDocument,” Office of Radiation Programs, EPA520/1-87-012-1, June 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ PRESTO-EPA: A Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Environmental Transport and RiskAssessment Code – Methodology and User’ sManual,” Washington, DC, EPA-D-89-F-000-60, April 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ AGuide for Determining Compliance with the
Clean Air Act Standards for RadionuclideEmissions from NRC-Licensed and Non-DOEFederal Facilities,” Office of Radiation andIndoor Air, EPA 520/1-89-002, Revision 2,October 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ National Emission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants; Radionuclides: Final Rule and Noticeof Reconsideration,” Federal Register, Vol.54, No. 240, pp. 51654–51715, December 15,1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Guidance on Implementing the RadionuclideNESHAPS,” Office of Radiation Programs, July1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ National Emission Standards for RadionuclideEmissions from Facilities Licensed by theNuclear Regulatory Commission and FederalFacilities Not Covered by Subpart H: FinalRule,” Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 251, pp.68972–68981, December 30, 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Evaluation of EPA’ s Guidelines forTechnologically Enhanced Naturally OccurringRadioactive Materials (TENORM) – Report toCongress,” EPA 402-R-00-01, June 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Radiation Protection at EPA — The First 30Years,” Office of Radiation Programs, EPA 402-B-00-001, August 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;Radionuclides: Final Rule,” Federal Register,Vol. 65, No. 236, pp. 76708–76753, December7, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Storage, Treatment, Transportation, andDisposal of Mixed Wastes: Final Rule,” Federal
116
Register, Vol. 66, No. 95, pp. 27218–27266,May 16, 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Approaches to an Integrated Framework forManagement and Disposal of Low-ActivityWaste: Advanced Notice of ProposedRulemaking,” Federal Register, Vol. 68, No.222, pp. 65119–65151, November 18, 2003.
EPA Science Advisory Board, “ Report on theMarch 1985 Draft Background InformationDocument for Proposed Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Standards,” Office of Radiation Programs,EPA Report SAB-RAC-85-002, November 1985.
U . S. G e n e r a l Account ing Off ic e ,“ Improvements Needed in the Land Disposal ofRadioactive Wastes – A Problem of Centuries,”Washington, DC, RCED-76-54, January 1976.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ NuclearEnergy’ s Dilemma: Disposing of HazardousRadioactive Waste Safely,” Washington, DC,EMD-77-41, September 9, 1977.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Hazards ofPast Low-Level Radioactive Waste OceanDumping Have Been Overemphasized,”Washington, DC, EMD-82-9, 1981.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ RegionalLow-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites –Progress Being Made But New Sites WillProbably Not Be Ready by 1986,” Washington,DC, GAO/RCED-83-48, April 1983.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ SlowProgress Developing Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Sites,” Washington, DC,GAO/RCED-92-61, January 1992.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ NewYork’ s Adherence to Site Selection ProceduresIs Unclear,” Washington, DC, GAO/RCED-92-172, August 1992.
U. S. General Accounting Office, “ Interior’ sReview of the Proposed Transfer of the WardValley Waste Site,” Washington, DC,GAO/RCED-97-184, July 1997.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Low-LevelRadioactive Waste – States Are Not DevelopingDisposal Facilities,” Washington, DC,GAO/RCED-99-238, September 1999.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Low-LevelRadioactive Waste — Disposal AvailabilityAdequate in the Short Term, But OversightNeeded to Identify Any Future Shortfalls,”Washington, DC, GAO/RCED-04-604, June2004.
U.S. General Accountability Office, “ ImprovedGuidance, Oversight, and Planning Are Neededto Better Identify Cost-Saving Alternatives forManaging Low-Level Radioactive Waste,”Washington, DC, GAO-06-94, October 2005.
U. S. General Accountability Office,“ Examination of Best Practices to Improve Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management in theUnited States: Announcement,” Washington,DC, November 8, 2005. [Press release.]
U.S. General Services Administration, “ FederalAdvisory Committee Management: Final Rule,”Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 139, pp. 37728–37750, July 19, 2001.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ FinalGeneric Environmental Statement on the Use ofRecycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in LightWater Cooled Reactors [GESMO] – Health,Safety, and the Environment,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0002,5 vols., August 1976.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Low-Level Waste Disposal – Task Force Report,”Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 47,pp. 13366–13370, March 10, 1977.
117
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ NRCTask Force Report on Review of theFederal/State Programs for Regulation ofCommercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste BurialGrounds,” Office of Nuclear Material Safety andSafeguards, Office of State Programs, NUREG-0217, March 1977. [NUREG-0217 also includesan analysis of public comments on the reportpublished as a supplement and dated October1977.]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Radioactive Materials Released from NuclearPower Plants (1975),” Office of ManagementInformation and Program Control, NUREG-0218, March 1977.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ TheNuclear Regulatory Commission Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Management Program,”Office of Nuclear Material Safety andSafeguards, NUREG-0240, September 1977.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ FinalRecommendations of the Task Force onRegulation of Naturally Occurring andAccelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials(NARM),” Commission Paper (CommissionerAction), SECY-78-211, April 14, 1978.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Management and Disposal of Low-LevelWastes by Shallow Land Burial and AlternativeDisposal Methods: Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking,” Federal Register, Vol.43, No. 207, pp. 49811–49812, October 25,1978.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ NRCA c t i o n o n N A R M T a s k F o r c eRecommendation,” Commission Paper (PolicySession Item), SECY-78-667, December 18,1978.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ BranchTechnical Position – Low-Level Waste Burial
Ground Site Closure and Stabilization,” Office ofNuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Low-Level Waste Branch, Revision 1, May 17, 1979.[Reproduced as Appendix I in Volume 4 ofNUREG-0782.]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Regulation of Federal Radioactive WasteActivities – Summary Report to Congress onExtending the Nuclear Regulator yCommission’ s Licensing or RegulatoryAuthority to Federal Radioactive Waste Storageand Disposal Activities,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0527,September 1979. [Includes separate summary.]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste;Availability of Preliminary Draft Regulation:Notice of Availability of Preliminary DraftRegulation 10 CFR Part 61 for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” Federal Register,Vol. 45, No. 41, pp. 13104–13106, February 28,1980.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Biomedical Waste Disposal: Final Rule,”Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 47,pp. 16230–16234, March 11, 1981.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Licensing Requirements for Land Burial ofRadioactive Waste: Proposed Rulemaking,”Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 142,pp. 38081–38105, July 24, 1981.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposalof Radioactive Wastes,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0782,4 vols., September 1981.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ PolicyStatement on Low-Level Waste VolumeReduction,” Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 200,
118
p. 51101, October 16, 1981.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Storageof Low-Level Radioactive Waste at PowerReactor Sites,” Executive Director forOperations, Generic Letter 81-38, November 10,1981. [Issued to all holders of and applicants foroperating licenses and construction permits.]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposalof Radioactive Wastes,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0945,November 1982.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposalof Radioactive Waste: Final Rule,” FederalRegister, Vol. 47, No. 248, pp. 57446–57248,December 27, 1982.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Technical Position on Radioactive WasteClassification,” Low-Level Waste LicensingBranch, Revision 0, May 11, 1983.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Technical Position on Waste Form,” Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, Revision 0,May 11, 1983.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes inGeologic Repositories: Final Rule,” FederalRegister, Vol. 48, No. 120, pp. 28194–28229,June 21, 1983.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Standard Format and Content of EnvironmentalReport for Near-Surface Disposal of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste,” Regulatory Guide 4.18,June 1983.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ BranchTechnical Position Statement on Licensing of
Alternative Methods of Disposal for Low-LevelRadioactive Waste: Draft Technical PositionStatement; Requests for Comments,” FederalRegister, Vol. 51, No. 44, pp. 7806–7811,March 6, 1986.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern:Policy Statement,” Federal Register, Vol. 51,No. 168, pp. 30839–30847, August 29, 1986.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Below Regulatory Concern — A Guide to theNuclear Regulatory Commission’ s Policy on theExemption of Very Low-Level RadioactiveMaterials, Wastes, and Practices,” NUREG/BR-0157, [1986].
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Definition of ‘High-Level Radioactive Waste’ :Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 39, pp. 5992–6001, February 27, 1987.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility;Availability and Request for Public Comments ona Branch Technical Position Paper ConcerningEnvironmental Monitoring: Request for PublicComments,” Federal Register, Vol. 52,No. 214, pp. 42486–42487, November 5, 1987.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,"Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-ProducedRadioactive Materials,” Commission Paper(Policy Issue/Notation Vote), SECY-88-64,March 2, 1988.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste;Establishment,” Federal Register, Vol. 53,No. 80, p. 14872, April 26, 1988.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: ProposedRule,” Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 96,
119
pp. 17709–17711, May 18, 1988.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Criteriaand Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste DisposalFacilities: Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol.54, No. 22, pp. 5409–5424, February 3, 1989.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: Final Rule,”Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 100, pp. 22578–22583, May 25, 1989.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Regulating the Disposal of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste — A Guide to the NuclearRegulatory Commission’ s 10 CFR Part 61,”Office of Nuclear Material Safety andSafeguards, NUREG/BR-0121, August 1989.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ BelowRegulatory Concern: Policy Statement,” FederalRegister, Vol. 55, No. 128, pp. 27522–27537,July 3, 1990.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Standard Format and Content of a LicenseApplication for a Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facility,” Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, Division of Low-LevelWaste Management and Decommissioning,NUREG-1199, Revision 2, January 1991.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Technical Position on Waste Form,”Division of Low-Level Waste Management andDecommissioning, Revision 1, January 1991.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Standards for Protection Against Radiation:Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 98,pp. 23360–23474, May 21, 1991.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Low-Level Radioactive Waste PerformanceAssessment Development Program Plan,”
Commission Paper, SECY-92-060, February 21,1992.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposalof Radioactive Wastes: Proposed Rule,” FederalRegister, Vol. 57, No. 45, pp. 8093–8096,March 6, 1992.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information andReporting: Proposed Rule,” Federal Register,Vol. 57, No. 77, pp. 14500–14514, April 21,1992.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Characterization of Discrete NARM andEvaluation of the Need to Seek LegislationExtending NRC Authority to Discrete NARM,”Commission Paper (Policy Issue/NegativeConsent), SECY-92-325, September 22, 1992.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposalof Radioactive Wastes: Final Rule,” FederalRegister, Vol. 58, No. 118, pp. 33886–33890,June 22, 1993.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Withdrawal of Below Regulatory ConcernPolicy Statement: Withdrawal of PolicyStatement,” Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 162,pp. 44610–44611, August 24, 1993.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,"Withdrawal of Proposed Rulemaking toEstablish Procedures and Criteria for On-SiteStorage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste AfterJanuary 1, 1996,” Commission Paper, SECY-93-323, November 29, 1993.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Standard Review Plan for the Review of aLicense Application for a Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Facility,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, Division of
120
Low-Level Waste Management andDecommissioning, NUREG-1200, Revision 2,January 1994.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Reviewof Existing Guidance Concerning the ExtendedStorage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,”Commission Paper (Policy Issue/Information),SECY-94-198, August 1, 1994.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ LandOwnership Requirements for Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Sites: Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking,” Federal Register, Vol.59, No. 148, pp. 39485–39486, August 3, 1994.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ BranchTechnical Position on Concentration Averagingand Encapsulation,” Division of WasteManagement, January 17, 1995.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information andReporting: Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol.60, No. 58, pp. 15649–15667, March 27, 1995.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Alternatives to Terminating the NuclearRegulatory Commission Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Program, Commission Paper,SECY-95-201, July 31, 1995.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ PortlandGeneral Electric Company; Receipt of Petitionfor Rulemaking: Petition for Rulemaking; Noticeof Receipt,” Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 22,pp. 3619–3621, February 1, 1996.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Generic Environmental Impact Statement forLicense Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” Office ofNuclear Regulatory Research, NUREG-1437,Vol. 1, May 1996.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Regulatory Issues in Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Performance Assessment,” CommissionPaper, SECY-96-103, May 17, 1996.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Strategic Planning Framework,” Washington,DC, September 16, 1996. [Release date.]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Availability of Draft Branch Technical Positionon a Performance Assessment Methodology forLow-Level Radioactive Waste DisposalFacilities: Availability of Draft Branch TechnicalPosition,” Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 103,pp. 29164–29165, May 29, 1997.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ InterimStorage for Greater-Than-Class C Waste,Changes to 10 CFR Part 72,” CommissionPaper, SECY-97-056, March 5, 1997.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Petitionfor Envirocare of Utah to Possess SpecialNuclear Material in Excess of CurrentRegulatory Limits,” Commission Paper, SECY-98-010, January 20, 1998.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ AnApproach for Using Probabilistic RiskAssessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Current LicensingBasis,” Regulatory Guide 1.74, June 1998.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Compatibility of Agreement State Programsthat Prohibit the Disposal of Mixed Waste,”Commission Paper, SECY-99-049, February 12,1999.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ APerformance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities —Recommendations of NRC’ s PerformanceAssessment Working Group,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, Office ofNuclear Regulatory Research, NUREG-1573,October 2000.
121
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Partial Response to SRM COMEXM-00-0002– Expansion of NRC Statutory Authority overMedical Use of Naturally Occurring andAccelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials(NARM),” Commission Paper (PolicyIssue/Information), SECY-01-0057, March 29,2001.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ InterimStorage for Greater-Than-Class C Waste: FinalRule,” Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 197,pp. 51823–51841, October 11, 2001.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ SECY-02-0127 – Proposed Response to State of Ohio onits Assured Isolation Storage Facility DraftRules,” Staff Requirements Memorandum,September 5, 2002.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Rulemaking Plan: Assured IsolationFacilities,” Commission Paper (PolicyIssue/Notation Vote), SECY-03-0223, December24, 2003.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ SECY-03-0223 — Rulemaking Plan: Assured IsolationFacilities,” Staff Requirements Memorandum,January 29, 2004.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Optionsand Recommendations for the Potential Role ofthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission During theDevelopment of the Department of EnergyEnvironmental Impact Statement on Disposal ofGreater-Than-Class-C Radioactive Waste,”Commission Paper (Policy Issue/Notation Vote),SECY-05-0104, June 13, 2005.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ SECY-05-0104 – Options and Recommendations for thePotential Role of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission During the Development of theDepartment of Energy Environmental ImpactStatement on Disposal of Greater-Than-Class-C
Radioactive Waste,” Staff RequirementsMemorandum, June 30, 2005.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Improving Transparency in the 10 CFR20.2002 Process,” Commission Paper (PolicyIssue/Notation Vote), SECY-06-0056, March 9,2006.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Proposed Rule: Requirements for ExpandedDefinition of Byproduct Material,” CommissionPaper (Rulemaking Issue/Notation Vote), SECY-06-0069, March 27, 2006.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Requestfor Comments on the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission’ s Low Level Radioactive WasteProgram," Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 130,pp. 38675–38676, July 7, 2006.
U.S. Radiation Policy Council, “ Report ofthe Task Force on Low-Level Radioactive Waste– Position Paper,” Washington, DC, RPC-80-004, August 15, 1980.
U.S. Radiation Policy Council, “ Progress Reportand Preliminary 1981-83 Agenda,” Washington,DC, RPC-80-001, September 30, 1980.
Voth, M.H., and W.F. Witzig, “ A Model ofEconomic Incentives for Volume Reduction ofLow-Level Radioactive Waste,” Nuclear andChemical Waste Management, 6:213–221, 1986.
Walker, J.S., Permissible Dose — A History ofRadiation Protection in the TwentiethCentury, Berkeley, University of CaliforniaPress, 2000.
Warriner, J.B., and R.D. Bennett, “ AlternativeMethods for Disposal of Low-Level RadioactiveWastes — Task 2a: Technical Requirements forBelow-Ground Vault Disposal of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-3774, Vol. 2, October
122
1985. [Prepared by the U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station GeotechnicalLaboratory.]
Washington State Department of Health,“ Final Environmental Impact Statement –Commercial Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Site, Richland, Washington,” Olympia,DOH Publication 320-031, Vol. 1, May 28,2004. [FEIS published in five volumes.]
Wescott, R. G., “ Consequences of HumanIntrusion,” in T.J. McCartin and M.P. Lee,editors, “ Preliminary Performance-BasedAnalyses Relevant to Dose-Based PerformanceMeasures for a Proposed Geologic Repository atYucca Mountain,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG-1538, December 2001.
Whelan, G., and T. Nicholson, editors,Proceedings of the Environmental SoftwareSystems Compatibility and Linkage Workshop,NRC Headquarters, March 7–9, 2000, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CP-0177, May 2002.
Yalcintas, M.G., and D.G. Jacobs, compilers,Proceedings of the Symposium of Low-LevelWaste Disposal – Site Suitability Requirements,Crystal City, Virginia, December 8–9, 1981,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CP-0028, Vol. 1, September 1982.[Proceedings prepared by ORNL.]
Yalcintas, M.G., compiler, Proceedings of theSymposium of Low-Level Waste Disposal – SiteCharacterization and Monitoring, Arlington,Virginia, June 16–17, 1982, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CP-0028, Vol.2, December 1982. [Proceedings prepared byORNL.]
Yalcintas, M.G., compiler, Proceedings of theSymposium of Low-Level Waste Disposal –Facility Design, Construction, and OperatingPractices, Washington, D.C., September 29–30,1982, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CP-0028, Vol. 3, March 1983.[Proceedings prepared by ORNL.]
A-1
APPENDIX AMANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT-GENERATED LOW-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
A-1 INTRODUCTION1
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, asamended (AEA), the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE or the Department) is responsible forresearch and development (R&D) and defenseproduction involving nuclear materials, as well asfor managing those materials in a manner thatprotects public health and safety. Before DOE,this responsibility fell first to the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers in the 1940s and then to theAtomic Energy Commission (AEC) during theCold War era. Nearly every step in the production of materialsand parts for nuclear weapons generatesradioactive waste and other radioactive byproductmaterials. Government-generated radioactivewastes have been produced at more than 50current and former DOE R&D and weaponsproduction facilities located around the UnitedStates. Some of these wastes include spentnuclear fuel (SNF), liquid high-level radioactivewaste (HLW), low-level radioactive waste(LLW), and transuranic (TRU) radioactivewaste. Cleanup activities associated with thedecommissioning of certain DOE facilities hasalso produced LLW in the form of contaminatedsoil, debris from dismantled facilities, and otherscrap materials. A significant proportion ofGovernment-generated LLW is contaminatedwith chemically-hazardous materials and areconsidered chemically mixed LLW (MLLW). A1999 National Research Council report (p. 25)estimated that between 50 and 80 percent of DOELLW is chemically mixed.
The AEA assigned the initial responsibility forthe management of Government-generatedradioactive wastes to the AEC. Successoragencies, including the Energy Research andDevelopment Administration and most recentlyDOE, have continued this stewardship.Consistent with the AEA, the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC) does not regulateGovernment-generated radioactive wastes; DOE(and its predecessor agencies) self-regulate thesewastes. However, the AEA does require thatDOE keep radionuclide emissions from itsfacilities as low as reasonably achievable(ALARA). The Department is also required tomeet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) radionuclide airborne emission standardscalled for in the Clean Air Act of 1977, asamended. Congressional passage of the FederalFacility Compliance Act of 1992 (FFCA)subjected DOE radioactive mixed wastemanagement activities to additional Federalregulation. See Table A-1.
A-2 LLW MANAGEMENT
Like the NRC, DOE (1999, p. IV-1) definesLLW by identifying what it is not. Specifically,DOE defines LLW in the following manner:
“ radioactive waste that is nothigh-level radioactive waste,spent nuclear fuel, transuranicwaste, byproduct material (asdefined in section 11e.(2) of theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, asamended), or naturally occurringradioactive material... .”
Initially, the AEC operated the only LLWdisposal facilities for both commercial andGovernment wastes. Government wastes weredisposed of on site, at the point of generation, or
As with commercial LLW, much has been written1
about the management of Government-owned LLW. Thisappendix briefly reviews how DOE manages those wastes. For additional information, see http://web.em.doe.gov/doclistb.html.
A-2
Table A-1 Legal Authorities for the Management and Disposal of DOE LLW
Statute Responsibility Guidance / Regulations
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended Authorizes DOE to self-regulate the management of itsradioactive wastes.
DOE Order 435.1 and Manual 435.1-1 (for LLW)
Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended(CAA)
EPA adds radionuclides to the list of hazardous airpollutants under the CAA.
40 CFR Part 61
Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992(FFCA)
Requires Federal agencies to comply with sameenvironmental regulations as non-Federal agencies.Authorizes EPA to enforce RCRA regulations at DOEfacilities for the chemically hazardous constituents of itsradioactive wastes.
Public Law 102–386
Resource Conservation Recovery Act of1976 (RCRA)
Authorizes EPA to control wastes that are dangerous orpotentially harmful to human health or the environment.Subtitle C of the RCRA regulations establishes a "cradle tograve" system for controlling hazardous waste from thetime it is generated to when it is ultimately disposed.States can be authorized to implement their own RCRAprograms in place of those of the EPA.
40 CFR Parts 260 through 279
The Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct of 1980 (CERCLA)
Authorizes Federal agencies to respond directly toreleases or threatened releases of hazardous substancesthat may endanger public health or the environment.Includes requirements for both short- and long-term actionsto permanently and significantly reduce the dangersassociated with releases or threats of releases ofhazardous substances. The act requires that cleanupremedies be permanent and, to the extent practicable, costeffective. EPA administers these requirements through itsSuperfund Program. *
Chapter 103 of U.S. Code Title 42
* CERCLA disposal facilities do not require RCRA permits.
off site, at other AEC locations. Whencommercial disposal facilities began to operate,the AEC shipped some of its wastes to thosefacilities in an attempt to encourage and sustaintheir development (DOE, 2000; p. 1-2).
Following shutdowns of and disposal restrictionsat commercial sites in 1979, the Departmentissued a policy statement directing all fieldoffices to cease using those facilities and to beginusing sites within the greater DOE complex.However, only 6 of the 20 major DOE wastegenerators had some type of waste disposalcapability (U.S. General Accounting Office –GAO, 2000, pp. 8–9). Any site within thegreater DOE complex unable to dispose of its
wastes was to negotiate with other field officesfor offsite disposal or was to request access to acommercial facility. 2
To provide a comprehensive decisionmakingframework for managing its wastes and meetingits regulatory responsibilities, DOE preparedprogrammatic, as well as site-specific,environmental impact statements as required bythe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA). As part of the NEPA process, DOEanalyzed four different waste types – HLW,LLW, TRU waste, and MLLW – and reviewed
GAO (2000) describes this process.2
A-3
alternatives disposal options for each waste type.This analysis also included preparing aninventory of Government-owned LLW (Goyette,1995). Two DOE reports (1997b and 1998b)discuss these NEPA decisions. The Departmentsubsequently designated Hanford, Washington,and the Nevada Test Site as regional disposalsites for both LLW and MLLW because thesesites had the greatest flexibility in terms of thetypes and amounts of wastes that they couldreceive. To the extent practicable, the IdahoNational Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory(New Mexico), the Oak Ridge Reservation(Tennessee), and the Savannah River Site (SouthCarolina) would continue to dispose of their ownLLW.
In 1993, DOE resumed the use of commercialfacilities for the disposal of some of its LLW andMLLW. The Department permits the use ofcommercial disposal facilities when the use ofexisting DOE facilities is not practical or when asituation-specific cost-benefit analysis favors non-DOE site disposal. See Guevara (2001). TheNRC, or comparable Agreement State programs,regulates DOE LLW disposed of at commercialLLW sites.
The National Safety Council (2002) describesDOE’ s current LLW management program.
A-2.1 DOE Waste Management Orders
The Department employs management andoperating contractors to run its facilities, andDOE field managers oversee daily operations.To ensure consistent management of its facilities,the Department has relied on “ orders” (i.e.,policies, guidelines, and minimum requirements)supplemented by implementing “ manuals,”which provide specific implementationinstructions The orders do not have the samelegal authority as Government regulationspublished in the Code of Federal Regulations;rather, the orders represent the key contractual
requirements each facility operator must meet forthe generation, treatment, storage, and disposalof wastes at a particular site (to the extent theservice contract specifies particular orders).DOE headquarters staff prepares the orders,which are then implemented by Department fieldmanagers who directly oversee the variouscontractors and subcontractors that manage thosesites. The first DOE radioactive wastemanagement order was issued in August 1982.See DOE (1982). Since then, the Departmenthas released several revisions, the most recent inJuly 1999. Order 435.1, “ Radioactive WasteManagement” (DOE, 1999a), covers allGovernment-owned HLW, LLW, TRU waste,and the radioactive components of MLLW.
The Department automatically reviews its ordersevery 2 years to determine whether they shouldbe continued, revised, or cancelled [DOE, 1998,[page 42013 of Volume 63 of the FederalRegister published August 6, 1998 (63 FR42013)]. Consistent with this policy, DOE hadbegun to review Order 5820.2A (DOE, 1988) inthe early 1990s. Order 5820.2A was not unlikeTitle 10, Part 61, “ Licensing Requirements forLand Disposal of Radioactive Waste” (10 CFRPart 61) in that it shared many of the sameperformance objectives and other prescriptiverequirements found in the NRC LLW regulation.See International Technology Corporation (1991)for a comparison of these two sets ofrequirements. Following an independent reviewof DOE’ s LLW management programs, theDefense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSBor the Board) issued Recommendation 94-2 (also3
known as DNFSB 94-2), “ Conformance withSafety Standards at DOE Low-Level NuclearWaste and Disposal Sites” to the Secretary ofEnergy (DNFSB, 1994). They recommendedthat the Department undertake a comprehensive,
Congress established the DNFSB as an independent3
Federal agency in 1988. Pursuant to the AEA, the Boardprovides safety oversight of the DOE nuclear weaponscomplex.
A-4
complex-wide review of its LLW managementprograms in response to questions concerning theperformance of various DOE field offices incomplying with the then applicable Order5820.2A. For example, the DNFSB noted thatnone of the site-specific performance assessmentsstipulated in that order had been completed andapproved. The Board observed that suchperformance assessments were necessary toevaluate compliance with standing DOE ordersand other applicable statutes.
As a first step in responding to DNFSB 94-2, theSecretary of Energy directed the Department toprepare a program management plan for its LLWand MLLW programs; DOE issued that plan inMarch 1997 (DOE, 1997a). The Departmentalso committed to continued reliance on anoversight and peer review panel. Following the4
DNFSB review, DOE also issued a proposedrevision to Order 5820.2A (Order 435.1) inAugust 1998 (DOE, 1998). In July 1999, after apublic comment period, DOE issued its revisedradioactive waste management order and theassociated implementing manual.5
A-2.2 DOE Order 435.1
When revising Order 5820.2A, DOE emphasizedperformance-based requirements. The currentOrder 435.1 contains three basic performanceobjectives (i.e., radiological dose criteria) thatare intended to protect the public, workers, andthe environment (DOE, 1999a, p. 3). Usingperformance assessment methods, this order callsfor compliance with those dose criteria for a time
period of 1000 years following disposal facilityclosure (DOE, 1999b, p. IV-11). In addition,implementing Manual 435.1-1 specifies aseparate human intruder scenario analysis (Opcit., p. IV-12. Also see Table A-2). By relying6
on a performance-based directive, DOE fieldmanagers have the flexibility to determine thequality and quantity of waste that can be disposedof at a particular site, design a particular disposalfacility given a particular site and wasteinventory, and in consideration of theaforementioned, to decide whether an extendedcaretaker period (with institutional controls) willbe necessary beyond 100 years. "7
As the NRC did when developing the 10 CFRPart 61 dose requirements (see Section 7.4 of thisreport), DOE also relied on the recommendationsof the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection (ICRP) in Publication 26 (1977) todevelop its radiological compliance(performance) criteria. DOE radiation protectionexposure standards for the public, Order 5400.5,“ Radiation Protection of the Public and theEnvironment” (DOE, 1990), incorporates thesecriteria. The DOE standards permit a totalexposure of 100 millirem per year (mrem/yr) inthe form of an effective dose equivalent to anindividual member of the public from all sources.
The order also included a provision for the use of an4
oversight and peer review panel to evaluate thoseperformance assessments to ensure consistency throughoutthe Department. An LLW Disposal Facility FederalReview Group (LFRG) superseded this panel and assumedexpanded responsibilities. See LFRG (2000).
The DOE Record of Decision for the public5
comments received on Order 435.1 can be found athttp://web.em.doe.gov/em30/pubsum16.html.
DOE (1996) provides guidance on the Department’ s6
expectations for the conduct of LLW performanceassessments. This guidance is also supported by a“ critical assumptions” document (Alm, 1997) thatdescribes the Department’ s views on key performanceassessment policy issues.
In addition, Appendix D to this report discusses the NRCstaff’ s views on the LLW performance assessmentprocess, as well as certain key performance assessmentpolicy issues.
DOE (1999b, p. IV-12) currently assumes a 100-year7
caretaker period for its LLW and MLLW sites. However,the radiological and chemical risks posed by some DOEdisposal sites may extend well beyond 100 years and thusmay entail longer-term stewardship by the Department. See National Research Council (2000).
A-5
Table A-2 Dose Guidelines for DOE LLW Disposal Facilities
Receptor(Point of Compliance)
Pathway Compliance Criterion Reference
Public All Pathways not to exceed 100 mrem/yr whole-body exposurefrom all sources a
DOE (1990, p. II-1)
not to exceed 25 mrem/yr whole-body exposurefrom disposal unit b
DOE (1999b, p. IV-10)
Air Pathway not to exceed 10 mrem/yr whole-body exposurefrom disposal unit b
DOE (1999b, p. IV-10 )c
Ingestion Pathway not to exceed 4 mrem/yr DOE (1990, p. II-5)d
HypotheticalInadvertent Intruder
All Pathways 100 mrem/yr from chronic exposure DOE (1999b, p. IV-12)b
500 mrem/yr from single acute exposure DOE (1999b, p. IV-12)b
Worker All Pathways 5 rem/yr whole-body exposure from all sources DOE (1993)e
Environment Air Pathway for radon gas (radon-220 and radon-222), averageflux at surface of disposal unit not to exceed anaverage of 20 pCi/m /s 2 b
DOE (1999b, pp. IV-10 – IV-1l)
a. Required for the composite analysis DOE (1999b, p. IV-12).b. Required for the performance assessment DOE (1999b, pp. IV-12 – IV-13).c. See also EPA (1979).d. Drinking water.e. Defined by DOE as a “general employee.”
Of this total, only 25 mrem/yr can result fromexposure from the operation of an LLW disposalfacility. Furthermore, only 10 mrem/yr canresult from inhalation exposures, and exposuresfrom drinking water provided by a public supplyat the site are limited to 4 mrem/yr. In addition,all radiological exposures must be consistent withthe NRC’ s ALARA principle. Permissiblelevels of radioactivity would, therefore, dependon the ability of the disposal system (i.e., the siteand design) to contain the radioactive material.
A-2.3 DOE Manual 435.1-1
DOE retained many of the more prescriptiverequirements previously found in Order5820.2A, but relocated them in the revision ofthe implementing manual for Order 435.1.Chapter IV of the updated manual (DOE M435.1-1) specifically addresses the management
of LLW (DOE, 1999b). Similar to the NRC10 CFR Part 61 regulation, DOE Manual 435.1-1 emphasizes an integrated-systems approach toLLW management and disposal, includingconsideration of site selection, facility design andoperation, waste acceptance and waste formrequirements, and disposal facility closure. Toensure effective management of DOE wastes, themanual focuses on the front end of the LLW lifecycle by including provisions for wastegeneration planning (i.e, waste minimization),waste character ization, transpor tationrequirements, and waste certification. Theserequirements ensure that the site, includingappropriate design and minimum wasteacceptance criteria, can operate safely andcomply with all applicable regulations, bothduring facility operation and after site closure.
A-6
In addition to a site-specific performanceassessment, DOE must conduct a site-specificcomposite radiological analysis that accounts forany sources of radioactive material not disposedof in the LLW disposal facility, particularly thosematerials that are left in situ and may contributeto a projected dose to hypothetical receptors.Similar to the performance assessment for theLLW disposal facility itself, the DOE dosestandards permit a total exposure of 100 mrem/yrin the form of an effective dose equivalent to anindividual member of the public from all sources.However, if the performance assessment resultsexceed 30 mrem/yr, DOE requires additionalanalysis or efforts to reduce and/or control thepotential for exposure.
A-2.4 Other DOE LLW ManagementRequirements
This appendix summarizes the DOE approach tomanaging LLW, which is complicated by theneed to comply with other Federal regulations(see Table A-1). For example, as previouslynoted, a significant proportion of LLW iscontaminated with materials that are alsochemically hazardous. Before 1987, theDepartment took the position that EPA’ s RCRAregulations did not apply to chemically mixedradioactive wastes (GAO, 1994, p. 18).However, since 1987, DOE has managed thehazardous components of MLLW in a mannerconsistent with those regulations. Depending onthe RCRA-listed substance, a National ResearchCouncil report (1999, p. 25) estimates that thiscould affect between 50 and 80 percent of DOEMLLW. Before disposal, these wastes willrequire some level of pretreatment (i.e.,stabilization) to meet the applicable disposalstandards. See National Research Council(1999). Challenging the Department’ s ability tomanage its LLW and MLLW inventory is theneed to decide on an optimal (pretreated) wasteform that satisfies both RCRA disposalrequirements and standing DOE wastemanagement orders. See GAO (2000a, 2000b,2001, 2005).
A-3 REFERENCES
Alm, A. L., Assistant Secretary forEnvironmental Management, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Letter to the Honorable J.T. Conway,Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities SafetyBoard, “ Critical Assumptions Used in DOELLW Disposal Facility PerformanceAssessments,” March 7, 1997.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,“ Recommendation 94-2 to the Secretary ofEnergy, ‘Conformance with Safety Standards atDOE Low-Level Nuclear Waste and DisposalSites,’ ” Washington, DC, September 8, 1994.
Goyette, M.L., “ Low-Level Waste Inventory,Characteristics, Generation, and FacilityAssessment for Treatment, Storage, and DisposalAlternatives Considered in the U.S. Departmentof Energy Waste Management ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement,” Chicago,Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EAD/TM-20 (DRAFT), April 1995. [Prepared for DOE.]
Guevara, K. “ What is the Cost for DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal,” in WM’ 01–Proceedingsof the Waste Management 2001 Symposium,February 25–March 1, 2001, Tucson, Arizona,WM Symposia, Inc., 2001.
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Recommendations of theInternational Commission on RadiologicalProtection,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1, No. 3,1977. [ICRP Publication 26.]
International Technology Corporation, “ DraftComparative Analysis of DOE Order 5820.2A,NRC, and EPA Radioactive and Mixed WasteManagement Requirements, ” Denver ,Radioactive Waste Technical Support Program,DOE/LLW-111, July 1991.
Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility FederalReview Group, “ Low-Level Waste DisposalFacility Federal Review Group Program
A-7
Management Plan,” U.S. Department of Energy,Office of Environmental Management,September 18, 2000.
National Research Council, “ The State ofDevelopment of Waste Forms for Mixed Wastes– U.S. Department of Energy, Office ofEnvironmental Management, Washington, DC,National Academy Press, 1999.
National Research Council, “ Long-TermInstitutional Management of U.S. Department ofEnergy Legacy Waste Sites,” Washington, DC,National Academy Press, 2000.
National Safety Council, “ A Guide to the U.S.Department of Energy’ s Low-Level RadioactiveWaste,” Washington, DC, Environmental HealthCenter, January 2002. [Prepared in cooperationwith DOE.]
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Order] 5820,“ Requirements for Low-Level WasteManagement,” Office of Defense Waste andTransportation Management, August 26, 1982.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Order]5820.2A, “ Radioactive Waste Management,”Office of Defense Waste and TransportationManagement, September 26, 1988.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Order]5400.5, “ Radiation Protection of the Public andthe Environment,” Office of EnvironmentalSafety and Health, February 8, 1990. [Change2 dated January 7, 1993.]
U.S. Department of Energy,“ OccupationalRadiation Protection: Final Rule,” FederalRegister, Vol. 58, No. 238, pp. 65485–65512,December 14, 1993.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Interim Formatand Content Guide and Standard Review Plan forU.S. Department of Energy Low-Level WasteDisposal Facility Performance Assessments,”
Office of Environmental Management, October31, 1996.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ DOE Low-LevelWaste Management Plan,” Office ofEnvironmental Management, DOE/LLW/PMP-001, Revision 0, March 1997.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Final WasteManagement Programmatic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Managing, Treatment,Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive andHazardous Waste,” Office of EnvironmentalManagement, DOE/EIS-0200-F, May 1997.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Notice ofAvailability; Draft DOE Order and Manual onRadioactive Waste Management,” FederalRegister, Vol. 63, No. 151, pp. 42012–42013,August 6, 1998.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ InformationPackage on Pending Low-Level Waste andMixed Low-Level Waste Disposal Decisions toBe Made Under the Final Waste ManagementProgrammatic Environmental Impact Statement,”Office of Environmental Management,September 1998.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Order] 435.1,“ Radioactive Waste Management,” Office ofEnvironmental Management, July 9, 1999.[Change 1 dated August 28, 2001.]
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Manual]435.1-1, “ Radioactive Waste ManagementManual,” Office of Environmental Management,July 9, 1999. [Revised June 19, 2001.]
U.S. Department of Energy, “ The Current andPlanned Low-Level Waste Disposal CapacityReport,” Office of Environmental Management,Revision 2, December 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
A-8
Pollutants; Addition of Radionuclides to List ofHazardous Pollutants," Federal Register, Vol.44, No. 249, pp. 76738–76746, December 27,1979.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Much EffortNeeded to Meet Federal Facility ComplianceAct’ s Requirements,” Washington, DC, GAO/RCED-94-170, May 1994.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Low-LevelRadioactive Wastes – Department of Energy hasOpportunity to Reduce Disposal Costs,”Washington, DC, GAO/RCED-00-64, April2000.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ DOE’ sAdvanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project –Uncertainties May Affect Performance,Schedule, and Price,” Washington, DC,GAO/RCED-00-106, April 2000.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ DOE ShouldReevaluate Waste Disposal Options BeforeBuilding New Facilities,” Washington, DC,GAO-01-441, May 2001.
U.S. Government Accountability Office,“ Improved Guidance, Oversight, and PlanningAre Needed To Better Identify Cost-SavingAlternatives for Managing Low-LevelRadioactive Waste,” Washington, DC, GAO-06-94, October 2005.
B-1
APPENDIX BREGULATORY EVOLUTION OF THE LOW-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DEFINITION
B-1 INTRODUCTION
Radioactive waste results initially from themining of naturally-occurring uraniferous mineralores (Finch et al., 1973) to recover uraniumoxides, which are then used to make nuclearmaterials. Each subsequent step in the nuclearfuel cycle produces other types and quantities1
of radioactive waste (e.g., Finch, 1997, p. 5).Neither the Atomic Energy Acts (AEA) of 1946or 1954, which authorized the production and useof radioactive materials for defense and civilianpurposes, made reference to radioactive waste orto radioactive waste disposal.
Kocher (1990) previously summarized thehistorical development of the regulatorydefinitions of low-level radioactive waste (LLW)and other classes of radioactive waste. Thatreview indicates that the definition of “ LLW”has varied over the years. The current definitionof LLW is exclusionary. That is to say it isdefined by what it is not. Before thepromulgation of the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC or the Commission) LLWdisposal regulations found at Title 10, Part 61,“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal ofRadioactive Waste,” of the Code of FederalRegulations (10 CFR Part 61), the term LLWwas had a precise definition. In general, LLWwas defined as that portion of the solidradioactive waste stream that did not fit theprevailing definition of high-level radioactivewaste (HLW) or intermediate-level radioactivewaste and had concentrations of transuranic(TRU) elements less than 100 nanocuries pergram (nCi/g). For its part, the U.S. Department
of Energy – DOE (1995, p. 48) has previouslycharacterized the current definition as a“ catchall” term for everything that is not HLW,TRU waste, spent nuclear fuel (SNF), oruranium mill tailings.
The NRC considers LLW with activitycomparable to that of SNF to be greater-than-Class C (GTCC) radioactive waste. As noted inAppendix A to this report, DOE is responsiblefor managing such wastes.
B-2 DISCUSSION
The use of nuclear power reactors to producefissionable materials for defense purposesbeginning in the 1940s and to generate electricityfor the civilian sector beginning in the 1950s hasbeen the primary source of radioactive wastes.The regulatory systems that define these materialswere developed initially to ensure worker safetyduring the handling and storage of the wastes(National Council on Radiation Protection –NCRP, 2002; p. 175). Two waste forms were ofconcern. Liquid (aqueous) radioactive wastesand solid radioactive wastes.
B-2.1 Initial Radioactive Waste Definitions 2
The earliest administrative description (definition)of radioactive waste was based on the operational
Generally defined to include uranium mining and1
6milling, uranium hexafluoride (UF ) conversion,enrichment, uranium fuel fabrication, spent fuelreprocessing and recycling, and waste storage/disposal.See DOE (1979, p. 2-1).
Researchers have proposed alternative radioactive2
waste classification systems for the United States. SeeKocher and Croff (1987, 1988), Smith and Cohen (1989), and LeMone and Jacobi (1993). The NCRP (2002)summarized these proposals, along with the details of itsrecommended waste classification system. Theseresearchers’ proposals are similar to the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency’ s (1994) recommendations in thatthey all recognized the association of waste classes withavailable disposal systems, most included a class ofexempt waste or equivalent, and all suggested quantitativeboundaries between the various waste classes.
B-2
aspects of handling and storing the liquid wastesgenerated in reprocessing SNF for defensepurposes and the subsequent reprocessing of suchwastes. The definitions were introduced by theAtomic Energy Commission (AEC), in the1950s, prior to the current legislative andregulatory framework of definitions that is nowin place. Liquid radioactive wastes containedvarying concentrations of radionuclides,primarily short-lived fission products, and long-lived alpha-emitting transuranium radionuclides.At the time, Kocher (1990, p. 59) noted theAEC’ s primary concern was worker protectionfrom radiation exposures during waste-handlingoperations rather than protection of the public.
To permit their safe handling and storage, theAEC introduced a three-tier classification systemessentially based on the concentration of fissionproducts. In decreasing order of hazard, thissystem classified wastes as HLW, medium orintermediate-level wastes, and LLW(Lennemann, 1973, p. 361). Liquid HLWgenerated during reprocessing contained thehighest concentrations of radionuclides (i.e. ,strontium-90 and cesium-137), and other long-lived radionuclides (i.e., plutonium-139 andamericium-241). These government-generatedwastes were managed by confinement inunderground tanks. Medium or intermediate-level liquid wastes contained lowerconcentrations of radionuclides than HLW andcould be discharged into seepage basins thatpermitted delayed release of the radionuclidesinto the environment. LLW contained the lowestconcentrations of radionuclides from reprocessingand could be released to holding ponds andlagoons or discharged directly to surface waters.There were no uniform concentration limits foreach AEC liquid radioactive waste class.Instead, each AEC site developed its ownconcentration limits based on the prevailing site-specific management practices. At the Hanfordnuclear reservation, for example, the followinglimits were used to classify liquid wastes fromSNF reprocessing 100 to 200 days after removalfrom the reactor (Beard and Godfrey, 1976;
p. 124):
• HLW – total activity concentrationsgreater than 100 Ci/m3
• Intermediate-level – total activityconcentrations ranging from 5×10 to-5
100 Ci/m3
• LLW – total activity concentrations lessthan 5×10 Ci/m-5 3
As noted previously in this report, the AECassumed responsibility for the disposal ofcivilian-produced solid radioactive waste in theearly 1960s until commercial disposal facilitiesfor those wastes could be developed. Forstatistical purposes, the AEC defined threedifferent categories of solid radioactive waste thatwould be acceptable for shallow-land disposalbased on the following arbitrary concentrationlimits (Lennemann, 1967, p. 264):
• High – total activity concentrationsgreater than 35,300 Ci/m3
• Intermediate – total activityconcentrations ranging from 353 to35,300 Ci/m 3
• Low – total activity concentrations lessthan 353 Ci/m3
It is important to note that the differing AECdescriptions of liquid and solid radioactive wastesresulted primarily from differences inradionuclide compositions (i.e., the source of thewaste – government versus private sector) andthe operational requirements for safe handling atwaste generating sites rather than with thepotential long-term impacts of disposal on publichealth and the environment (NCRP, 2002,pp. 173–174).
In the late 1960s, a fourth solid waste category,TRU, came into existence. Soon after, the AECestablished a policy (Hollingsworth, 1970) that
B-3
solid radioactive waste with concentrations ofalpha-emitting radionuclides greater than10 nCi/g was not acceptable for shallow landburial (SLB), but required storage and/or burialin a retrievable manner.3
B-2.2 Definition of HLW
HLW was the first constituent of commercialradioactive waste streams to receive a regulatorydefinition. In the early days of the commercialnuclear power program, it was assumed that SNFwould be reprocessed and the residual uraniumand plutonium would be recycled as fuel (Metlay,1981, p. 204). In 1970, the AEC published the“ Policy Relating to the Siting of FuelReprocessing Plants and Related WasteManagement Facilities,” as Appendix F to10 CFR Part 50, “ Domestic Licensing ofProduction and Utilization Facilities,” thatdefined HLW in the following manner:
“ those aqueous wastes resultingfrom the operation of a first-cycle solvent extraction system,or equivalent, and theconcentrated wastes fromsubsequent extraction cycles, orequivalent, in a facility forreprocessing irradiated reactorfuels... .” [published in theFederal Register on November14, 1970, Volume 35, page17533 (35 FR 17533)]
Given this policy, HLW became whatevermaterial was left after fuel reprocessing andrecycling. Consequently, HLW was defined asthe liquid wastes resulting from a particularsource (i.e., reprocessing) rather than thewaste’ s constituents or radiological properties.
For both economic and political reasons,commercial reprocessing was never undertakenextensively in the United States. At the time theAEC published Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50,very little domestic commercial reprocessing orrecycling capacity existed. In addition, the4
evolving regulatory climate raised questionsabout the economic competitiveness of theprocess compared with the cost of using freshnuclear fuel. See Metlay (1981, p. 205) andOTA (1985, pp. 67–68). Concerns about the5
potential proliferation of weapons-grade nuclearmaterial produced during reprocessing led theFord Administration to impose a moratorium in1976 (Op cit., p. 87). To ease the burden of6
The AEC selected a threshold of 10 nCi/g because,3
at the time, it represented the highest concentration ofradium in the Earth’ s crust (AEC, 1974).
ERDA operated two large-scale plants in Savannah4
River, Georgia, and Hanford, Washington, forreprocessing Government-owned nuclear fuel. NuclearFuel Services, Inc. (NFS) operated the only commercialnuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the United States. Located in West Valley, New York, the facility operatedunder an AEC license. Allied General Nuclear Servicesand General Electric Corporation built two additionalcommercial reprocessing facilities in Barnwell, SouthCarolina, and Morris, Illinois, respectively (Zebroski andLevenson, 1976, pp. 119–120).
During its 6 years of operation (1966–72), the West5
Valley facility reprocessed 160 metric tons of commercialSNF and 480 metric tons of fuel from defense productionreactors at Hanford. The facility closed-down in 1972 formodifications to increase its processing capacity, reduceoccupational exposures, and reduce radioactive effluents. However, between 1972 and 1976, major changesoccurred in the AEC regulatory requirements related tothe operation of nuclear facilities. After reviewing thenew regulatory requirements, NFS determined that futurereprocessing activities would not be profitable andwithdrew from the business without removing any of thein-process liquid radioactive wastes. In 1980, Congresspassed the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP)Act (Public Law 96-368) directing DOE to solidify theonsite liquid radioactive wastes for ultimate disposal in ageologic repository. See DOE (2003).
In March 2006, DOE announced its intent to prepare6
an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to theNational Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and theGlobal Nuclear Energy Partnership to evaluate thepotential environmental impacts of new managementtechnologies, including proliferation-resistant technologies
B-4
utilities that, because of the moratorium, hadalready been storing increasing quantities of SNFon site, the Carter Administration established apolicy whereby the Federal Government wouldtake title to, and possession of, commercial SNFfor ultimate disposal in a geologic repository.Shortly before this policy was established, theEner gy Research and DevelopmentAdministration (ERDA) initiated the NationalWaste Terminal Storage Program to surveylocations as candidate sites for the disposal ofcommercial SNF and other HLW (InteragencyReview Group on Nuclear Waste Management,1979).
In 1974, Congress established the first legislativedefinition of HLW when it passed the MarineProtection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (PublicLaw 95-532). In Section 3(j) of that act(“ Definitions”), Congress adopted the earlier1970 AEC definition of HLW. See 35 FR17533.
Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974transferred to the NRC the regulatory authorityinitially assigned to the AEC. Section 202 of theact gave the NRC specific authority to regulatecertain ERDA waste management facilities,including those used primarily for the receipt orstorage of HLW from commercially licensedactivities (e.g., reactors, reprocessing plants).Although not defined in the act, the prevailingAEC Appendix F definition was understood(U.S. General Accounting Office, 1977, p. 23).
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear WastePolicy Act (NWPA) (Public Law 97-425), whichprovided further clarification regarding thedefinition of HLW. This clarification includedspecific legislative reference for the first time toSNF. Section 2.(12) of the act defines the term“ HLW” in the following manner:
“ (A) the highly radioactivematerial resulting from thereprocessing of spent nuclearfuel, including liquid wastep r o d u c e d d i r e c t l y i nreprocessing and any solidmaterial derived from suchliquid waste that contains fissionp r o d u c t s i n s u f f i c i e n tconcentrations; and
(B) other highly radioactivematerial that the [NuclearRegulatory] Commission,consistent with existing law,determines by rule requirespermanent isolation...”
The law also established the current DOE wastemanagement program directing the Departmentto site, design, build, and operate a Federalrepository for the geologic disposal of SNF andother HLW (DOE, 1985a, 1985b). The act alsospecified that any commercial liquid HLW to bedisposed of in a geologic repository must besolidified for permanent disposal. 7
Shortly before the passage of the NWPA, theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)proposed generally applicable radiation standardsfor the management and disposal of SNF, HLW,and TRU wastes at 40 CFR Part 191,“ Environmental Radiation Protection Standardsfor Management and Disposal of Spent NuclearFuel, High-Level and Transuranic RadioactiveWastes” (EPA, 1982). In its proposedenvironmental radiation standards, EPA definedHLW at 40 CFR 191.02(b) in the followingmanner:
for the reprocessing and recycling of SNF. See DOE(2006a, 2006b).
In May 1981, DOE prepared a programmatic EIS on7
the selection of a preferred strategy for the disposal ofcommercially generated radioactive wastes. Withoutdefining them, DOE indicated its intent to dispose ofcommercially generated HLW and TRU waste in a minedgeologic repository (DOE, 1981).
B-5
“ any of the following thatcontain radionuclides inconcentrations greater than thosein Table 1 [Appendix ]: (1)8
liquid wastes resulting from theoperations of the first-cyclesolvent extraction system, orequivalent, in a facility forreprocessing spent nuclear fuels;(2) the concentrated wastes fromsubsequent extraction cycles, orequivalent; (3) solids into whichsuch liquid wastes have beenconverted; or (4) spent nuclearfuel if disposed of withoutreprocessing....” (47 FR 58204)
However, in its final standards EPA (1985)decided to adopt the NWPA legislative definitionof HLW (50 FR 38075).
The NWPA also directed the NRC to promulgategeneric geologic disposal regulations for HLW.In 10 CFR 60.2, “ Definitions,” of thoseregulations – 10 CFR Part 60, “ Disposal ofHigh-Level Radioactive Wastes in GeologicRepositories” – the Commission expanded thedefinition of HLW in 1983 to include irradiatedfuel assemblies from commercial nuclear powerplants and dry solid materials in the following9
manner:
“ (1) irradiated reactor fuel, (2)liquid wastes resulting fromoperations of a first-cyclesolvent extraction system, orequivalent, and concentratedwastes from subsequentextraction cycles, or equivalent,in a facility for fuelreprocessing, and (3) solids intowhich such liquid wastes havebeen converted...” (48 FR28218)
In a 1987 advance notice of proposed rulemaking(ANPR), the NRC proposed to modify theexisting regulatory definition of HLW to applythe term “ high-level radioactive waste” tomaterials in quantities and concentrationsexceeding numerical values that would be statedexplicitly in a table (52 FR 5992). TheCommission proposed to classify radioactivewastes as either high level or non-high level.The NRC would classify those wastes that couldnot be disposed of safely in a hypothetical“ intermediate” disposal facility as HLW.Following a review of public comments on theANPR, the Commission adopted an alternativestrategy. In 1988, the NRC published itsproposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 61recommending that GTCC LLW be disposed ofin a separate facility licensed under 10 CFR Part60 (NRC, 1988).
B-2.3 Definition of TRU Waste
TRU wastes are the byproducts of fuel assemblyand weapons fabrication and reprocessingoperations. These wastes contain isotopes higherthan uranium, which is number 92 on thePeriodic Table of Elements and characteristicallyhave long half-lives and high radiotoxcicity. TheAEC (Hollingsworth, 1970, p. 2) originally
EPA proposed a concentration table (Table 1) of8
certain long-lived radionuclides to be used to identifyHLW (47 FR 58206). In adopting the NWPA definitionof HLW, EPA set aside its earlier Table 1recommendation.
This later addition to the definition reflected the9
production of dry solid materials during the limited SNFreprocessing demonstration at the WVDP facility. SeeDOE (2003). The legislation governing the WVDPdefined HLW to include the following:
“ liquid wastes produced directly inreprocessing, dry solid materialderived from such liquid waste, andsuch other material as the NRCdesignates as high-level waste for thepurposes of protecting public health and safety.. . .”
B-6
defined this waste stream as solid waste with:
“ known or detectablecontamination of transuraniumradionuclides...”10
Congress gave TRU waste its first legislativedefinition in the Low-Level Waste Policy Act of1980 (LLWPA) (Public Law 96-425), but thedefinition was later rescinded in 1985 when theact was amended. Before 1982, AEC ManualChapter 0511 defined TRU waste as havinggreater than 10 nCi/g of the long-lived alpha-emitt ing tr ansur anium r adionuclides(Hollingsworth, 1970). This manual chapter alsostated that solid wastes contaminated with certainalpha-emitting radionuclides to greater than10 nCi/g should be stored in such a way as toallow the packages to be readily retrieved (Opcit., p. 2). As this directive was implemented,the 10 nCi/g limit gradually was construed as aconcentration limit that defined the distinctionbetween LLW (material appropriate for SLB) andother radioactive material destined for disposal ina more secure mode (e.g., deep geologicdisposal). See Steindler et al. (1982, p. 590). In1982, Federal agencies concurred with arecommendation to increase the existingtransuranium radionuclide concentration limitfrom 10 to 100 nCi/g (Op cit.) for this class ofwastes.
In its 1982 draft environmental radiationstandards, EPA proposed a new definition forTRU waste (47 FR 58204). In 1985, EPAfinalized its standards and defined TRU waste at40 CFR 191.02, “ Definitions,” in the followingmanner:
“ wastes containing more than
100 nanocuries of alpha-emittingtransuranium isotopes, with half-lives greater than twenty years,per gram of waste, except for (1)high-level radioactive wastes; (2)waste that the Department hasd e t e r m i n e d , w i t h t h ec o n c u r r e n c e o f t h eAdministrator, do not need thedegree of isolation required bythis Part; or (3) waste that theCommission has approved fordisposal on a case-by-case basisin accordance with 10 CFR Part61....” (50 FR 38084)
In 1980, Congress authorized DOE to build afull-scale research and development (R&D)facility to test the safe management and disposalof defense-generated TRU wastes at Los Medañosnear Carlsbad, New Mexico (DOE, 1990b).11
At the time, the AEC noted that the detection 10
limit of equipment used for the routine checking ofplutonium-containing waste packages was approximately500 milligrams per cubic foot for a 5-cubic-foot package(DOE, 2003).
Investigation of the Los Medaños site initially took11
place as part of the National Waste Terminal StorageProgram ( National Research Council, 1970). Geologically, the Los Medaños site is a bedded, Permian-age evaporite (salt) deposit of the Salado Formation withinthe Delaware Basin. The goal of this program was tolocate a suitable geologic setting for the disposal ofradioactive waste (Bredehoeft et al. , 1978; NationalResearch Council, 1978).
With the passage of the Department of Energy NationalSecurity and Military Applications of Nuclear EnergyAuthorization Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-164), Congressauthorized DOE to build the WIPP R&D facility. Thislaw also exempted WIPP from independent NRC oversightand regulation. Following several years of scientificevaluation and testing, Congress directed DOE, in theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (PublicLaw 102-579), to seek an EPA “ certification” to allowwaste emplacement operations to commence. The EPAcertification criteria (1996, 61 FR 5224) required that theWIPP site and design meet the Subpart B and Cperformance objectives of the EPA radiation standards at10 CFR Part 191. In May 1998, EPA reviewed theDepartment’ s compliance certification application (DOE,1996) and found that the WIPP could comply with thepertinent radiation standards (EPA, 1998). For the mostpart, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) conducted theseperformance assessments. Rechard (1995) describes the
B-7
This R&D facility was later renamed the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). In association withthe WIPP development program, DOE prepareda number of NEPA-related documents. All ofthese documents (DOE, 1980, 1989b, 1990a)used the prevailing definition of TRU waste atthe time of their respective publication (Steindleret al., 1982). 12
NRC considers TRU waste as a higher activityform of LLW (i.e., GTCC waste) subject todisposal in an HLW repository or some otherdisposal facility approved and licensed by theNRC. See Section 7.5.1 of this report. Kocher(1990, p. 67) notes that the NRC has notdeveloped a regulatory definition of TRU wastebecause only small quantities are produced in thecivilian sector and EPA currently regulates itsdisposal.
B-2.4 Definition of LLW
As discussed earlier in Section B-2.1, LLW wasoriginally defined by the AEC to include anyradioactive waste with concentrations ofradionuclides less than those in HLW orintermediate-level radioactive waste, taking intoaccount worker protection needs at the wastegenerating sites. Subsequent regulatory andlegislative actions related to the (re)definition ofHLW and TRU waste changed the currentregulatory definition of LLW to one of exclusion(National Research Council, 2006, p. 120).Although the NRC has the statutory authority todefine LLW, it has not done so. Rather, thecategory of “ LLW” had been defined by default– in other words, it was defined by what it wasnot – and it includes the definition of wastes nototherwise classified (52 FR 5994). In theNWPA, as amended, LLW is defined asradioactive waste that is not “ high-levelradioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent fuel,or uranium or thorium mill tailings....”
Furthermore, the Low-Level Waste PolicyAmendments Act of 1985 (LLWPAA) (PublicLaw 99-240), does not define LLW. Paragraph(2)(A) of the “ Definitions” section of theLLWPAA notes that LLW is not HLW, SNF, orbyproduct material; Paragraph (2)(B) of this samesection simply says that “ the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, consistent with existing law,classifies...low-level waste... .”
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (The WhiteHouse, 1970) granted EPA its standard-settingauthority at Section 2(a)(6) to establish“ generally applicable environmental standardsfor the protection of the general environmentfrom radioactive material” (35 FR 15624). EPAwas to develop environmental standards for allcommercial radioactive waste streams. Asdiscussed in the previous section, EPApromulgated radiation standards for SNF, HLW,and TRU wastes at 40 CFR Part 191. In August1983, EPA published an ANPR (48 FR 39563)
general approach used by the SNL for conducting thoseassessments, and Helton et al. (1999) provides a summaryof the results.
Public Law 96-164 also required that DOE comply withany other applicable environmental standards in operatingWIPP. The majority of the TRU wastes are chemicallymixed wastes subject to EPA regulation under theauthority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) as well as other EPA land disposal prohibitions. To dispose of these wastes, DOE submitted a RCRA nomigration variance petition to EPA (DOE, 1989a). However, Congress amended Public Law 102–579 in 1995to exempt the WIPP site from RCRA requirements. Seealso National Research Council (1996) and DOE (2000).
TRU waste can be further classified according to the12
radiation dose rate at the package surface. Contact-handled TRU waste emits primarily alpha radiation. It hasradiation dose rates at the package surface dose rate below200 millirem per hour (mrem/hr) and therefore generallycan be handled without extensive shielding. Remotelyhandled TRU waste contains isotopes that emit alpha,beta, and gamma radiation. Remotely handled TRUTRU waste has a package surface dose rate exceeding 200 mrem/hr and therefore requires heavy shielding forsafe handling and storage. See DOE (1990a, Vol. 1, pp. 2-8 – 2-9).
B-8
announcing its plans to establish generalenvironmental radiation protection standards forLLW. In 1987, the Agency forwarded thoseproposed standards to the U.S. Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for approval.The Agency also published a draft EIS (EPA,1988) in connection with the development ofthose standards.
In describing the proposed LLW standards,Gruhlke et al. (1989, p. 273) noted that EPAproposed to define LLW in the followingmanner:
“ radioactive waste that was not(1) spent fuel, high-levelradioactive waste, or transuranicwaste, as previously defined in40 CFR Part 191, (2) oruranium or thorium mill tailingssubject to 40 CFR Part 192 , or13
(3) or NARM as defined in 4014
CFR [Part] 764....”
However, the proposed EPA LLW standards didnot clear the OMB review process and werenever published in the Federal Register for publiccomment. The proposed rule encounteredsignificant interagency opposition stemming fromconcerns about the ground-water provisions ofthe proposed standard. See Pelletier (1991). In1994, EPA circulated a second “ pre-proposal”LLW standard for interagency review andcomment. One (new) major concern identifiedwas that the proposed EPA LLW standard woulddelay the development of new disposal sitestaking place at the time (EPA, 2000b, p. 21). Asa compromise, in 1995, EPA drafted a proposal
to limit the applicability of its new standard toFederally-operated (DOE) LLW disposal sites,but this proposal was never issued.
As noted in Section 7.4.2 of this report, the EPALLW standards and criteria were not available atthe time the NRC was developing its LLWregulatory framework. Rather than delay thedevelopment of its disposal regulations, the NRCstaff decided to postulate a reasonable set of“ study guidelines” that could be used assurrogates for the EPA standard. At the time, nonationally accepted set of guidelines defined thelevel of safety (protection) that disposal facilitiesshould provide to safeguard the public from theeffects of ionizing radiation. Consequently, thestaff decided to review the literature andconsider the recommendations of national andinternational standard-setting organizations toidentify surrogate dose guidelines for the scopinganalyses and the subsequent proposed and finalrules. 15
As a result of the EIS scoping and rulemakingprocesses, the staff developed a three-tier LLWclassification system in which wastes withincreasing concentrations of radionuclides aresubject to increasingly more stringent disposalrequirements (NRC, 1982). As defined in10 CFR 61.55 (“ Waste Classification”), thethree classes of LLW acceptable for SLB areClass A, B, and C, with Class C waste havingthe highest concentration of radionuclides. Classdesignations are tied to certain minimumrequirements and stability requirements and to16
The EPA health and environmental protection13
standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings (EPA,1983b). Consistent with the NWPA and LLWPAA, milltailings are not considered a form of LLW.
Naturally occurring or accelerator-produced14
radioactive materials.
See Appendix N, “ Analysis of Existing15
Recommendations, Regulations, and Guides,” to Volume4 of NUREG-0782, “ Draft Environmental ImpactStatement on 10 CFR Part 61: Licensing Requirementsfor Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes” (NRC, 1981b).
Title 10, Section 61.56(a), of the Code of Federal16
Regulations provides the minimum requirements that allwaste forms must meet to be acceptable for near-surfacedisposal. In addition to these minimum requirements,certain wastes (i.e., Class B and C wastes and Class A
B-9
specifications for maximum allowableconcentrations of certain radionuclides in eachclass.
Class A LLW primarily includes lightlycontaminated paper, cloth, and plastics. Thesewastes must be segregated from other LLWduring disposal because of their potential forphysical degradation over time, leading to groundsubsidence in disposal cells. The isotopeconcentrations in this class of wastes are not toexceed the values listed in the regulation. ClassB LLW by definition must meet more rigorousphysical stability requirements than Class Awastes. This waste class is also permitted higherisotope concentrations. The physical form andcharacteristics of Class B LLW must also themeet minimum and stability requirements of theregulation at 10 CFR 61.51(a) and 10 CFR61.51(b), respectively. Class C LLW is generallyconsidered intruder waste. This higher-17
activity, longer-lived LLW is generally suitablefor SLB, but requires special design measures toprotect against human intrusion after institutionalcontrols have lapsed. The regulation requires
that any Class C waste with concentrations ofradionuclides that could cause exposures greaterthan 500 millirem (mrem) needs to be protectedfrom intrusion by deeper burial and/or throughthe use of some type of engineered barrier.Wastes exceeding the Class C concentrationlimits are, by regulation at 10 CFR 61.55(a),generally not suitable for SLB.
10 CFR Part 61 thus does not define LLW.Rather, it represents a subclassification of aparticular waste class developed primarily for thepurposes of managing commercial LLW disposalin SLB facilities (NCRP, 2002, p. 190).Although it did issue an ANPR, EPA was neversuccessful in promulgating LLW radiationprotection standards (GAO, 1993) and, as aconsequence, 10 CFR Part 61 has become theprevailing regulation defining commercial LLW.
In a 1987 ANPR, the NRC proposed to modifythe existing definition of HLW to apply the term“ high-level radioactive waste” to radioactivematerials in quantities and concentrationsexceeding numerical values that would be statedexplicitly in a table (52 FR 5995). The NRCintended this rulemaking to address LLW withradionuclide concentrations above the existingClass C limits of 10 CFR Part 61 because wastesclassified as “ LLW” were not subject to anyupper regulatory limit and some LLW may haveconcentrations approaching those of HLW(52 FR 5994). Following a review of publiccomments on the ANPR, the Commissionadopted an alternative strategy. In 1988, theNRC published its proposed amendments to10 CFR Part 61 recommending that GTCC wastebe disposed of in a separate facility licensedunder 10 CFR Part 60, the NRC’ s genericregulations for the disposal of HLW (53 FR17709). In 1989, the Commission finalized theso-called GTCC disposal amendments (54 FR
waste that is to be co-disposed with Class B and C waste)must be structurally stabilized and meet the requirementsof 10 CFR 61.56(b). Stability is defined in terms of theability to keep dimensions and form under disposalconditions. Stability can be provided by the waste form(e.g., activated metals), by processing the waste to anacceptable form (e.g., cement solidification), by placingthe waste in a high-integrity container, or by the disposalunit itself (e.g., vault disposal).
In the draft proposed regulation (NRC, 1981a), only17
Class C LLW was identified as “ intruder waste” (46 FR38084). Although this designation was not repeated in thefinal regulation, some practitioners continue to use thisterminology. As noted earlier in Section 7.3 of thisreport, the reader is reminded that the Commission’ sregulations at Part 61 are mainly intended to provideprotection to inadvertent human intruders to SLBs to allthree classes of LLW. To protect the public, the 10 CFR61.55 waste classification system was developed to specifythe limits of concentrations of radionuclides acceptable forSLB, under assumed human intrusion scenarios, in eachLLW waste class. Therefore, Class A and B LLWshould also be recognized as “ intruder waste.”
B-10
22578).18
In summary, the LLW definition is no longerrelated to requirements for safe waste handlingand storage or permanent disposal because itsmanagement was no longer restricted tocontaining wastes with low concentrations ofradionuclides. LLW now includes wastes withhigh concentrations of relatively short-livedbeta/gamma-emitting radionuclides (i.e., cobalt-60) as well as high-concentrations of long-livedfission or activation products (i.e., technetium-99, thorium-232). As a consequence, LLW cannow include wastes destined for different types ofdisposal facilities. See NCRP (2002, p. 175).
The net effect of the legislative and regulatoryactions described above is that no statutorylower limit (either upper or lower) exists for thelevel of radioactivity required to declare materialas “ LLW” (National Research Council, 2006,p. 120). This is an important point because asuite of “ lower” activity radioactive wastes thatoccur in concentrations greater than backgroundbut less than Class A materials is not subject tocomprehensive regulation. These low-activityradioactive wastes (LAW) include technologicallyconcentrated radioactive substances derived fromnatural materials containing radioactive elements,slightly contaminated materials fromdecontaminated nuclear facilities, and short-lived,manmade radioactive materials produced byatomic particle accelerators.
B-2.5 Low-Activity Radioactive Wastes
Naturally occurring radioactive materials(NORM) can be found in rocks, soils, water, andair. Although these materials occur widely in
nature, their radiation levels are barelydetectable, with concentrations on the order ofonly a few tens per parts per million (Clark etal., 1965). See Table B-1. Primordialradioactivity, that is, radioactivity associated withthe geologic formation of the earth, consistsprimarily of the natural elements uranium-238,thorium-232, and potassium-40 and their decayproducts. Together with cosmic radiation(Kohman and Saito, 1954; Suess, 1958), thesetwo radiation sources contribute about 82 percentof all ionizing radiation an average individualreceives annually in the United States, which isestimated to be about 360 millirem per year(mrem/yr) from both natural and manmadesources (NCRP, 1987, p. 55). Unless materials19
containing these elements are extracted from theearth, segregated, and processed intoconcentrated forms, they are not generallyconsidered a threat to public health and safety.
In 1975, researchers recognized that certainhuman activities can result in the unintentionalyet anomalous concentration of naturalradioactivity to levels greater than those found inthe environment. Gesell and Prichard (1975)cited examples of these anomalousconcentrations, including radiation emissionsfrom coal-fired power plants, radon in harvestednatural gas, radium in manufactured fertilizer andprocessed drinking water, and enhanced cosmicray exposure in high-altitude aircraft. Because ofthe potential for significant occupational orpopulation exposures above natural backgroundlevels, Gesell and Prichard recommended that anew category of radiation exposure be recognized— technologically enhanced natural radiation(TENR) – to permit evaluation of the potentialhealth risk to LAW (although not defined as suchat the time). Since then, this category hasreceived other designations in the literature(NORM, NARM, and technologically-enhancednaturally occurring radioactive materials or
In 2001, NRC issued new site-specific disposal18
regulations for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository at10 CFR Part 63, as required by the Energy Policy Act of1992 (Public Law 102-486). These regulations would alsorequire GTCC waste be disposed of in a separate facilitylicensed under 10 CFR Part 63. See 66 FR 55791–55792. The actual dose for any individual may vary widely.
19
B-11
Table B-1 Primordial (Terrestrial) and Cosmic Radiation Sources
Source Activity / Concentration / Exposure Reference(s)
Primordial—U-238 series, Th-232 series, and K-40
igneous (rock type) U-238 Th-232
K-40
1.33 pCi/g1.31 pCi/g21.6 pCi/g
Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*
limestone (rock type) U-238 Th-232
K-40
0.43 pCi/g0.14 pCi/g2.25 pCi/g
Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*
granite (rock type) U-238 Th-232
K-40
>3.0 pCi/g>3.9 pCi/g >29 pCi/g
Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*
sandstone (rock type) U-238 Th-232
K-40
0.40 pCi/g0.65 pCi/g 9.1 pCi/g
Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*
shale (rock type) U-238 Th-232
K-40
0.40 pCi/g1.09 pCi/g22.5 pCi/g
Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*
ultramafic rocks and eclogites U-238 Th-232
K-40
0.0004–0.21 ppm0.001–0.43 ppm12–527 ppm
Clark et al. (1965, p. 528)*
soil Ra-222Ra-226
0.2–4.2 pCi/g Gundersen and Wanty (1991);Nazaroff (1992)
water U-238Ra-226Th-232
0.01–10 µg/L <1pCi/L0.01–1 µg/L
Hem (1985, pp. 148–149)*
Cosmic—C-14, H-3, Be-7, Na-22
ground level 10 µrem/hr Gesell and Prichard (1975, p. 365)*
subsonic air travel 1000 µrem/hr Gesell and Prichard (1975, p. 365)*
* Citing others.
TENORM) as well as the addition of othermaterial streams. See Table B-2.
In general, most of the material streams listed inTable B-2 do not represent a significant hazard tothe public and the environment. However, someof the low-activity materials (and wastes) cancontain long-lived radionuclides at levels wellabove background and thus may represent a
chronic and even an acute hazard to the publicand the environment. See National ResearchCouncil, 1990). For this reason, and given thepotential volume of waste material of concern –estimated to be on the order of 10 cubic feet9
(10 cubic meters) annually (EPA, 2000a, p. 2) –4
there is a question as to whether the FederalGovernment should take greater responsibilityfor the management of LAW.
B-12
Table B-2 Potential Sources of LAW
Source/Mode Radionuclides Concentration/Exposure
Reference(s)
TENR / NORM
Building Materials:
red-mud brick Ra-226 7.6 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
fly-ash brick Ra-226 5.7 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
tuffaceous brick Ra-226 6.5 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
concrete Ra-226 35 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
phosphogypsum Ra-226 17 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
Coal
lignite coal Ra-226 1 pCi/g Gesell and Prichard (1975, p. 362) a
fly ash Ra-226 3.9 pCi/g Egidi and Hull (1999, p. 26) a
coal ash several 0.1–7.0 pCi/g Egidi and Hull (1999, p. 40) a
Geothermal Energy Production Ra-226 132 pCi/g Egidi and Hull (1999, p. 53) a
Mine Tailings:
alumina ores Ra-226 7.4 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
phosphate ores Ra-226 3–50 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
titanium ores Ra-226 12–15 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
zirconium ores Ra-226 13 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
Municipal Waste Water Treatment
dry sludge several 0–44 pCi/g Interagency Steering Committee onRadiation Standards (2003, p. 17)
incinerated ash several 0–91 pCi/g Interagency Steering Committee onRadiation Standards (2003, p. 17)
Oil and Natural Gas Production several 120–360 pCi/g Egidi and Hull (1999, p. 43) a
Phosphate Fertilizer U-238, Ra-226 400 ppm Gesell and Prichard (1975, p. 364)
NARM / TENORM
Accelerator-Produced Radioisotopes several variable Baum et al. (2002); Nuclear EnergyAgency (1998)
URANIUM AND THORIUM MILL TAILINGS
Mineral Ore wastes Th-232, U-238, U-235, Ra-226 +20 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
Source/Mode Radionuclides Concentration/Exposure
Reference(s)
B-13
DECOMMISSIONING OF NRC-LICENSED FACILITIES
Slightly Contaminated or ClearanceRadioactive Materials b
mostly short-lived fission andactivation products
½(t = 10 yrs)1
variable National Research Council (2002 ,a
2003 )
a. Citing others.b. Surface contamination, activated metals of high activity, and penetrating radiation.
As noted earlier in this paper, NRC AgreementStates had initially recommended that the AEC(or its successor) undertake the overallresponsibility for regulating LAW (Lacker,1974). The NRC’ s earlier de minimis positionand the Below Regulatory Concern PolicyStatements described in Section 3.5 of this reportaddressed the question of an appropriatewaste/nonwaste threshold. The agencyrecognized that, at some minimum level ofexposure, certain radioactive materials no longerpose a risk to public health and safety andtherefore could be unregulated. EPA attemptedto develop radiation standards for themanagement of LAW in the 1980s in parallelwith the development of its LLW radiationstandards (EPA, 1983a). Focusing on NARM,EPA proposed a new regulation at 40 CFR Part764, “ Environmental Standards forManagement, Storage, and Land Disposal ofNaturally Occurring and Accelerator-ProducedRadioactive Waste: Draft Proposed Rule,” torequire the disposal of NARM in concentrationsexceeding 2 nCi/g in a 10 CFR Part 61 LLWdisposal facility. Wastes with concentrationsbelow 2 nCi/g would not be considered LLW.See Gruhlke et al. (1989, p. 275). EPA (1988,p. 1-2) cited the Toxic Substances Control Act of1976 (Public Law 94-469) as the proper legalauthority for the proposed NARM regulationsand noted that the AEA excludes the regulationof NARM radionuclides. Neither the proposedLLW nor the proposed NARM regulationscleared the Federal interagency review process.
In 2003, EPA published an ANPR that discussedalternatives for the disposal of chemical wastescontaining low concentrations of radioactivematerial (68 FR 65119). One alternative cited inthe ANPR is the use of RCRA Subtitle-C disposaltechnology for such wastes.
B-3 REFERENCES
Baum, E.M., H.D. Knox, and T.R., Miller,Nuclides and Isotopes(16 Edition),Schenectady,th
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Inc., 2002. Beard, S.J., and W.L. Godfrey, “ Waste Disposalinto the Ground at Hanford,” in InternationalAtomic Energy Agency and European NuclearEnergy Agency of the OECD, Proceedings of aSymposium on the Disposal of Radioactive Wastesinto the Ground, May 29 – June 2, 1976, Vienna,Austria, Vienna, International Atomic EnergyAgency, STI/PUB-156, 1967.
Bredehoeft, J.D., A.W. England, D.B. Stewart,N.J. Trask, and I.J. Winograd, “ GeologicDisposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes –Earth Science Perspectives,” U.S. GeologicalSurvey Circular 779, 1978.
Clark, S.P., Jr., Z.E. Peterman, and K.S. Heier,“ Abundances of Uranium, Thorium, andPotassium (Section 24),” in S.P. Clark, Jr.,compiler, Handbook of Physical Constants –Revised Edition, Boulder, Geological Society ofAmerica Memoir 97, 1965.
B-14
Egidi, P., and C. Hull, “ NORM and TENORM(Naturally Occurring and Technologically-Enhanced Radioactive Materials) — Producers,Users, and Proposed Regulations,” PEP Course1.A Notes, Health Physics Society 1999 (32 )nd
Midyear Meeting, January 24, 1999,Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1999. [Course notessponsored by DOE, the Fulbright Commission,and Oxford Nuclear Measurements Group.]
Finch, W.I., A.P. Butler, Jr., F.C. Armstrong,and A.E. Weissenborn, “ Nuclear Fuels –Uranium,” in D.A. Brobst and W.P. Bratt ,editors, “ United States Mineral Resources,”U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820,1973.
Finch, W.I., “ Uranium, Its Impact on theNational and Global Energy Mix — And ItsHistory, Distribution, Production, Nuclear Fuel-Cycle, Future, and Relation to theEnvironment,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular1141, 1997.
Gesell, T.F., and H.M. Prichard, “ TheTechnologically-Enhanced Natural RadiationEnvironment,” Health Physics, 28:361–366,April 1975.
Gruhlke, J.M., F.L. Galpin, W.F. Holcomb,and M.S. Bandrowski, “ USEPA’ s ProposedEnvironmental Standards for the Managementand Land Disposal of LLW and NARM Waste,”in R.G. Post, editor, WM ’ 89 – Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Waste Management, February26 — March 2, 1989, Tucson, Arizona,[University of Arizona], 2:273–276, 1989.
Gundersen, L.C.S., and R.B. Wanty, editors,“ Field Studies of Radon in Rocks, Soil, andWater,” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1971,1991.
Helton, J.C., D.R. Anderson, H.N. Jow, M.G.Marietta, and G. Basabilvazo, “ PerformanceAssessment in Support of the 1996 ComplianceCertification Application for the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant,” Risk Analysis, 19(5):959–986,October 1999.
Hem, J.D., “ Study and Interpretation of theChemical Characteristics of Natural Water (3rd
Edition),” U.S. Geological Survey Water SupplyPaper 2254, 1985.
Hollingsworth, K. S., “ Policy StatementRegarding Solid Waste Burial,” U.S. AtomicEnergy Commission, AEC Manual Chapter 0511,Immediate Action Directive, IAD No. 0511-21,March 20, 1970.
Interagency Review Group on Nuclear WasteManagement, “ Report to the President by theInteragency Review Group on Nuclear WasteManagement,” U.S. Department of Energy, TID-29442, March 1979.
Interagency Steering Committee on RadiationStandards, “ ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivityin Sewage Sludge: Radiological Survey Resultsand Analysis (Final Report),” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG-1775, ISCORSTechnical Report 2004-02, November 2003.[Prepared by ISCORS Sewage SludgeSubcommittee on Radiation Standards. ] 20
International Atomic Energy Agency,“ Classification of Radioactive Wastes – A SafetyGuide,” Vienna, Safety Series No. 111-G-1.1,June 1994. [English edition.]
Kocher, D.C., “ Classification and Disposalof Radioactive Wastes — History and Legal andRegulatory Requirements,” Radiation ProtectionManagement, 7(4):58–78, July/August 1990.
Kocher, D.C., and A.G. Croff, “ A ProposedClassification System for High-Level and Other
Including the NRC, DOE, EPA, the New Jersey20
Department of Environmental Protection, the MiddlesexCounty Utilities Authority, and the Northeast OhioRegional Sewer District.
B-15
Radioactive Wastes,” Oak Ridge, Tennessee,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-10289, 1987.
Kocher, D.C., and A.G. Croff, “ A ProposedClassification System for High-Level and OtherRadioactive Wastes,” Radioactive WasteManagement and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,11(3):227–268, 1988.
Kohman, T.P., and N. Saito, “ Radioactivity inthe Geology and Cosmology,” Annual Review ofNuclear Science, 4:401–446, 1954.
Lacker, D.K., Chairman/[NRC] AgreementStates, Letter to G. W. Kerr, U.S. AtomicEnergy Commission, “ Agreement StatesRequests and Recommendations for the AEC,”Austin, October 16, 1974.
Lennemann, W. L., “ United States AtomicEnergy Commission Interim Radioactive WasteBurial Program,” in International Atomic EnergyAgency and European Nuclear Energy Agencyof the OECD, Proceedings of a Symposium onthe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes into theGround, May 29–June 2, 1976, Vienna, Austria,Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency,1967.
Lennemann, W. L., “ Management ofRadioactive Aqueous Wastes from U.S. AtomicEnergy Commission’ s Fuel ReprocessingOperations, Experience and Planning,” inNuclear Energy Agency and InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, Proceedings ofSymposium on the Management of RadioactiveWastes from Fuel Reprocessing, November 27 –December 1, 1972, Paris, Paris, Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development,Conference–721107, March 1973.
LeMone, D. V., and L. R. Jacobi, Jr. ,“ Radioactive Waste Reclassification,” in R.G.Post, editor, WM ’ 93 — Proceedings of theSymposium on Waste Management, February28–March 4, 1993,Tucson, Arizona, [University
of Arizona], 1:61–66, 1993.
Metlay, P., “ Radioactive Waste ManagementPolicy (Appendix A-1, dated June 1981),” inOffice of Technology Assessment, “ Managingthe Nation’ s Commercial High-LevelRadioactive Waste,” U.S. Congress, OTA-0-171, March 1985.
National Council on Radiation Protection andMeasurements, “ Exposure of the Population inthe United States and Canada from NaturalBackground Radiation,” Bethesda, NCRP Report94, December 30, 1987. [Recommendationsprepared by NCRP Scientific Committee 43comprised of J.H. Harley, R.B. Holtzman, A.B.Tanner, D.P. Meyerhof, W.M. Lowder, B.S.Pasternack, J.A. Young, and J.K. Wogman.]
National Council on Radiation Protection andMeasurements, “ Risk-Based Classification ofRadioactive and Hazardous Chemical Wastes,”Bethesda, NCRP Report No. 139, December 31,2002. [Recommendations prepared by NCRPScientific Committee 87-2 comprised of A.G.Croff, M.J. Bell, Y. Cohen, L.C. Keifer, D.C.Kocher, D.J. Paustenbach, V.C. Rogers, and A.Wallo, III.]
National Research Council, “ Disposal of SolidRadioactive Wastes in Bedded Salt Deposits,”National Academy of Sciences, Committee onRadioactive Waste Management, 1970.
National Research Council, “ Geologic Criteriafor Repositories for High-Level RadioactiveWastes,” National Academy of Sciences,Committee on Radioactive Waste Management,August 1978.
National Research Council, “ Health Effects ofExposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation:BEIR V,” Washington, DC, National AcademyPress, 1990.
National Research Council, “ The Waste IsolationPilot Plant – A Potential Solution for the Disposal
B-16
of Transuranic Waste,” Washington, DC,National Academy Press, 1996.
National Research Council, “ The DispositionDilemma — Controlling the Release of SolidMaterials from Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Facilities,” Washington, DC, NationalAcademy Press, 2002.
National Research Council, “ Improving theRegulation and Management of Low-ActivityWastes,” Washington, DC, National AcademyPress, 2006.
Office of Technology Assessment, “ Managingthe Nation’ s Commercial High-LevelRadioactive Waste,” U.S. Congress, OTA-0-171, March 1985.
Pelletier, R., U.S. Department of Energy, Letterto the J.W. Gunter, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, “ DOE Office ofEnvironmental Guidance Comments on April1989 Version of EPA Federal Register NoticeDescribing Draft 40 CFR Part 193 and 40 CFRPart 764 [General Subject],” Washington, DC,September 9, 1991.
Rechard, R.P., “ An Introduction to theMechanics of Performance Assessment UsingExamples of Calculations Done for the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant Between 1990 and 1992,”Albuquerque, Sandia National Laboratories,SAND93-1378, October 1995.
Shapiro, J., Radiation Protection – A Guidefor Scientists and Physicians (3 Edition),rd
Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1990.
Smith, C.F., and J.J. Cohen, “ Development ofa Comprehensive Waste Classification System,”in R.G. Post, editor, WM ’ 89 – Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Waste Management, February26 — March 2, 1989, Tucson, Arizona,[University of Arizona], 2:311–312, 1989.
Steindler, M., E.L. Albenesius, J.J. Cohen, A.G.Croff, J.W. Healy, J.A. Lieberman, R.S. Lowrie,A.A. Moghissi, M.W. Shupe, and A.L. Taboas,“ Summary Statement from the Workshop on theManagement of Alpha-Contaminated Waste,” inScience Applications, Inc., Proceedings of Alpha-Contaminated Waste Management Workshop,August 10 – 13, 1982, Gaithersburg, Maryland,Oak Ridge, CONF-820845, December 1982.[Prepared for Oak Ridge National Laboratory.]21
Sues, H.E., “ The Radioactivity of theAtmosphere and Hydrosphere,” Annual Review ofNuclear Science, 8:243-256, 1958.
The White House [Richard M. Nixon, President],“ Presidential Documents, Title 3 — ThePresident, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of1970,” Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 194,pp. 15623–15626, October 6, 1970.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ Siting ofFuel Reprocessing Plants and Related WasteManagement Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol.35, No. 222, pp. 17530–17533, November 14,1970.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ TransuranicWaste Disposal; Proposed Standards for RadiationProtection,” Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 175,pp. 32921–32922, September, 12, 1974.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Management ofCommercially-Generated Radioactive Waste –Draft Environmental Impact Statement,”Washington, DC, DOE/IS-0046-D, 2 vols., April1979.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste IsolationPilot Plant — Final Environmental ImpactStatement,” Assistant Secretary for Defense
Also reprinted as Seidler et al. , “ Limits for the21
Disposal of Waste Containing Alpha-ContaminatedRadionuclides,” Nuclear and Chemical WasteManagement, 4:9–10, 1983.
B-17
Programs,” DOE/IS-0026, 2 vols., October1980.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Program ofResearch and Development for Management andDisposal of Commercially GeneratedRadioactive Wastes; Record of Decision,”Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 93, pp. 26677–26679, May, 14, 1981.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Mission Plan forthe Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementProgram,” Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement, DOE/RW-0005, 3 vols., June1985.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Draft ProjectDecision Schedule — Radioactive WasteManagement System,” Office of CivilianRadioactive Waste Management, DOE/RW-0018, July 1985. [Revised reprint.]
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste IsolationPilot Plant No Migration Variance Petition,”Carlsbad Area Office, DOE/WIMP-89-003, 5vols., February 1989. [Prepared by the ITCorporation.]
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste IsolationPilot Plant – Draft Supplement EnvironmentalImpact Statement,” Assistant Secretary forDefense Programs, DOE/IS-0026-DS, 2 vols.,April 1989.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste IsolationPilot Plant – WIPP,” Carlsbad, WestinghouseElectric Corporation, 1990. [Prepared by theWaste Isolation Division.]
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste IsolationPilot Plant – Final Supplement EnvironmentalImpact Statement,” Office of EnvironmentalRestoration and Waste Management, DOE/IS-0026-FS, 13 vols., January 1990.
U.S. Department of Energy,“ Closing theCircle on the Atom – The Environmental Legacy
of Nuclear Weapons Production in the UnitedStates and What the Department of Energy IsDoing About It,” Office of EnvironmentalManagement, DOE/EM-0266, 1995.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Title 40 CFR Part191 Compliance Certification Application for theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant – Final,” CarlsbadArea Office, DOE/CAO-1996-2184, 28 vols.,October 1996.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ The WasteIsolation Pilot Plant – Pioneering Nuclear WasteDisposal,” Carlsbad Area Office, DOE/CAN-00-3214, February 2000.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ West ValleyDemonstration Project Waste ManagementEnvironmental Impact Statement – Final,” WestValley Area Office, DOE/IS-0337F, December2003.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Advance Notice ofIntent to Prepare an Environmental ImpactStatement for the Global Nuclear EnergyPar tnership Technology DemonstrationProgram,” Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 55,pp. 14505–14507, March 22, 2006.
U.S. Department of Energy, “ Spent NuclearFuel Recycling Program Plan — Report toCongress,” Washington, DC, May 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Environmental Standards for the Managementand Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Leveland Transuranic Radioactive Wastes: ProposedRule,” Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 250,pp. 51896–58206, December 29, 1982.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Environmental Radiation Protection Standardsfor Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal:Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 170, p. 39563,August 31, 1983.
B-18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Environmental Standards for Uranium andThorium Mill Tailings at Licensed CommercialProcessing Sites: Final Rule,” Federal Register,Vol. 48, No. 196, pp. 45926–45947, October 7,1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Environmental Standards for the Managementand Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Leveland Transuranic Radioactive Wastes: FinalRule," Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 182,pp. 38066–38089, September 19, 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ Low-Level and NARM Radioactive Wastes — DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement for ProposedRules, Volume 1 — Background InformationDocument,” Office of Radiation Programs, EPA520/1-87-012-1, June 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ 40CFR Part 191: Criteria for the Certification andRe-Certification of the Waste Isolation PilotPlant’ s Compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191Disposal Regulations: Final Rule,” FederalRegister, Vol. 61, No. 28, pp. 5224–5245,February 9, 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Criteria for the Certification and Re-Certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’ sCompliance with the Disposal Regulations:Certification Decision. Final Rule,” FederalRegister, Vol. 63, No. 95, pp. 27354–27406,May 18, 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Evaluation of EPA’ s Guidelines forTechnologically Enhanced Naturally OccurringRadioactive Materials (TENORM) – Report toCongress,” EPA 402-R-00-01, June 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Radiation Protection at EPA — The First 30Years,” Washington, DC, Office of RadiationPrograms, EPA 402-B-00-001, August 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“ Approaches to an Integrated Framework forManagement and Disposal of Low-ActivityWaste: Advance Notice of ProposedRulemaking,” Federal Register, Vol. 68,No. 222, pp. 65119–65151, November 18, 2003.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ NuclearEnergy’ s Dilemma: Disposing of HazardousRadioactive Waste Safely,” Washington, DC,END-77-41, September 9, 1977.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Chronology ofLow-Level Waste Standards (Appendix II),” in“ EPA Standards Delayed by Low Priority andCoordination Problems,” Washington, DC,GAO/RCED-93-126, June 1993.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Licensing Requirements for Land Burial ofRadioactive Waste: Proposed Rulemaking,”Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 142,pp. 38081–38105, July 24, 1981.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal ofRadioactive Wastes,” Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, NUREG-0782, 4 vols.,September 1981.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal ofRadioactive Waste: Final Rule,” FederalRegister, Vol. 47, No. 248, pp. 57446–57248,December 27, 1982.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Disposalof High-Level Radioactive Wastes in GeologicRepositories: Final Rule,” Federal Register,Vol. 48, No. 120, pp. 28194–28229, June 21,1983.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Definition of ‘High-Level Radioactive Waste’ :Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 39, pp. 5992–
B-19
6001, February 27, 1987.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: ProposedRule,” Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 96, pp.17709– 17711, May 18, 1988.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: FinalRule,” Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 100, pp.22578–22583, May 25, 1989.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes ina Proposed Geologic Repository at YuccaMountain, NV: Final Rule,” Federal Register,Vol. 66, No. 213, pp. 55732–55816, November2, 2001.
Zebroski, E., and M. Levenson, “ The NuclearFuel Cycle,” in J.M. Hollander and M.K.Simmons, editors, Annual Review of Energy,1:101–132, 1976.
B-20
(Page intentionally left blank.)
C-1
APPENDIX CSTRUCTURE OF 10 CFR PART 61
Title 10, “ Energy,” Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations documents the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) regulations. Chapter I is divided into Parts 1 through 199. Title 10, Part 61,“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” of the Code of Federal Regulations(10 CFR Part 61) describes how the NRC will license construction authorization, operation, and permanentclosure of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. The table below lists the key regulatory featuresof 10 CFR Part 61. A full-text version of the 10 CFR Part 61 regulation is available on the NRC Web siteat http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/ part061/.
Subpart Subpart Title Section Section Title
A General Provisions 61.1 Purpose and scope
61.2 Definitions
61.3 License required
61.4 Communications
61.5 Interpretations
61.6 Exemptions
61.7 Concepts
61.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval
61.9 Employee protection
61.9a Completeness and accuracy of information
61.9b Deliberate misconduct
B Licenses 61.10 Content of application
61.11 General information
61.12 Specific technical information
61.13 Technical analyses
61.14 Institutional information
61.15 Financial information
61.16 Other information
61.20 Filing and distribution of application
61.21 Elimination of repetition
61.22 Updating of application
61.23 Standards for issuance of a license
61.24 Conditions of licenses
Subpart Subpart Title Section Section Title
C-2
B Licenses (continued) 61.25 Changes
61.26 Amendment of license
61.27 Application for renewal or closure
61.28 Contents of application for closure
61.29 Post-closure observation and maintenance
61.30 Transfer of license
61.31 Termination of license
C Performance Objectives 61.40 General requirement
61.41 Protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity
61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion
61.43 Protection of individuals during operations
61.44 Stability of the disposal site after closure
D Technical Requirements for LandDisposal Facilities
61.50 Disposal site suitability requirements for land disposal
61.51 Disposal site design for land disposal
61.52 Land disposal facility operation and disposal site closure
61.53 Environmental monitoring
61.54 Alternative requirements for design and operations
61.55 Waste classification
61.56 Waste characteristics
61.57 Labeling
61.58 Alternative requirements for waste classification and characteristics
61.59 Institutional requirements
E Financial Assurances 61.61 Applicant qualifications and assurances
61.62 Funding for disposal site closure and stabilization
61.63 Financial assurances for institutional controls
F Participation by State Governmentsand Indian Tribes
61.70 Scope
61.71 State and Tribal government consultation
61.72 Filing of proposals for State and Tribal participation
61.73 Commission approval of proposals
Subpart Subpart Title Section Section Title
C-3
G Records, Reports, Tests, andInspections
61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and transfers
61.81 Tests at land disposal facilities
61.82 Commission inspections of land disposal facilities
61.83 Violations
61.84 Criminal penalties
C-4
(Page intentionally left blank.)
D-1
APPENDIX DA SUMMARY OF NUREG-1573: A PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY FOR LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVEWASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Before the October 2000 publication of NUREG-1573, “ A Performance Assessment Methodologyfor Low-Level Radioactive Waste DisposalFacilities — Recommendations of NRC’ sPerformance Assessment Working Group,”existing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC or the staff) guidance documents did notspecifically deal with the evaluation of low-levelradioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility designsand performance against the performanceobjectives detailed in Title 10, Part 61,“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal ofRadioactive Waste,” of the Code of FederalRegulations (10 CFR Part 61). These guidancedocuments contained general information and didnot address many specific implementation issuesand acceptable approaches for resolving them.Moreover, existing guidance did not explicitlyaddress the relationship between the overall 10CFR Part 61 data and design requirements andspecific LLW performance assessment needs.Previously, NRC guidance considered sitecharacterization, facility design, and performancemodeling as separate activities.
To clarify these and other 10 CFR Part 61implementation issues, the staff developeddetailed information and recommendations forpotential applicants, specifically related to theperformance objective at 10 CFR 61.41concerned with the radiological protection of thegeneral public. The NRC published detailedinformation and recommendations in NUREG-1573 (NRC, 2000).
The following section summarizes theinformation and recommendations found inNUREG-1573.
D-1 INTRODUCTION
A disposal facility for the containment andisolation of radioactive wastes is a complexsystem. It is generally expected to consist ofmultiple barriers, with each barrier contributing1
to the overall performance of the system byproviding some degree of redundancy to ensurethe containment and isolation of wastes. Becausethe future performance of a disposal facility mustbe estimated for many hundreds or thousands ofyears into the future, analysts use predictivemathematical models to evaluate the long-termperformance of each barrier class, as well as theoverall system. These models are usuallyimplemented through computer codes that rely onnumerical methods.
Consensus exists within the internationalcommunity that disposal facility developers andregulators will rely on state-of-the-artperformance assessment analyses to evaluate thesafety of these facilities before they are licensedand operational. Because of the inherent2
Depending on the hazard posed by the waste, two1
barrier classes, engineered and natural, may be used, andseveral individual barriers may exist within each barrierclass.
Risk assessment, safety assessment, performance2
assessment, probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), andsimilar concepts are terms of art among practitioners;thus, no widely agreed-to set of definitions exists. ANuclear Energy Agency (1999) report reviews themeaning and intent of some of the more widely used termsin the performance assessment lexicon. Moreover, theconcept of risk assessment itself may be subject to somevariability in interpretation. See Fjeld and Compton (1998, p. 4166).
Nevertheless, the NRC has been very active in developingPRA technology and applying it to nuclear facility safety.
D-2
uncertainties in the models and data used toevaluate the performance of disposal systemcomponents, performance assessments often areconducted probabilistically, in an iterativefashion. This approach allows the analyst toquantitatively evaluate the impacts of parameterand model uncertainty on the results, which areused to determine compliance with theperformance objectives. Performance assessmentmay thus be defined as the process ofquantitatively evaluating the capability of adisposal facility to contain and isolate radioactivewastes. See Campbell and Cranwell (1988).Deterministic approaches to performanceassessment, when single parameter values andmodels are analyzed, do not explicitly evaluateuncertainties but assume the use of“ conservative” parameters and models to boundthe results. NRC staff evaluations ofperformance assessments, whether deterministicor probabilistic, take into account uncertainty andvariability.
D-2 BACKGROUND
In conjunction with the development of 10 CFRPart 61 and after its promulgation in 1982, theNRC staff began to undertake a variety ofperformance-assessment-related projects thataddressed LLW disposal, primarily in shallowland burial (SLB) facilities. The staff initiatedprojects in areas such as waste packageperformance and leaching, hydrogeological andhydrogeochemical characterization and modeling,and cover performance. The staff also began toinvestigate alternatives to SLB disposal and
developed guidance for the licensing of othertypes of LLW disposal facilities (e.g., above-ground vaults, below-ground vaults, earth-mounded concrete bunkers, mined cavities, andaugured holes). See NRC (1991, 1994a).
As early as 1987, the staff recognized that sometype of assessment methodology would need tobe “ acquired or developed” for estimating theperformance of 10 CFR Part 61 LLW disposalfacilities [page 5996 of Volume 52 of theFederal Register, published February 27, 1987(NRC, 1987, 52 FR 5996)]. To provide focusand integration of the overall LLW program andto address the need for a more integratedapproach to evaluating the performance of anyLLW disposal facility design, the NRC staffformulated an overall LLW performanceassessment strategy in 1987. This strategy(Starmer et al. , 1988) recommended an overallsystems approach for assessing the performanceof LLW disposal facilities. The strategy alsorecommended a modular approach forquantifying the potential release and transport ofradionuclides through significant environmentalpathways. The NRC later contracted with SandiaNational Laboratories (SNL) to develop an LLWperformance assessment methodology (PAM)based on this strategy with additional approachesfor quantitatively evaluating uncertainties in theoverall system model. The NRC published the3
PAM in a five-volume series as NUREG/CR-5453, “ Background Information for theDevelopment of a Low-Level Waste PerformanceAssessment Methodology — Assessment ofRelative Significance of Migration and ExposurePathways,” issued in December 1989.Concurrently, the staff published an LLWResearch Program Plan (O' Donnell and Lambert,1989), which presented its strategy for
For example, see PRA Working Group (1994). In 1995,the Commission issued a policy statement that encouragedthe use of PRA methods as a complement to thedeterministic approach in its nuclear regulatory activities(NRC, 1994b). See Appendix F to this report. Over thelast few decades, the NRC staff has expanded its use ofPRAs in the area of waste management. Because wastemanagement systems are passive, the NRC had to adaptPRA methods and analyses, which are now renamedperformance assessments. See Eisenberg et al. (1999).
The PAM, as later adopted by the staff, also3
provides specific recommendations on approaches for thefollowing key performance assessment modules: sourceterm, engineered barriers, ground-water flow andtransport, and dose.
D-3
conducting research in the LLW area.
Shortly thereafter, the staff began developing anLLW performance assessment program plan(NRC, 1992), which had two primary goals. Thefirst was to enhance the staff' s capability toreview and evaluate license applications withinthe 15 months specified by the Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended. Thesecond goal was to develop the in-housecapability to prepare performance assessmentguidance, should such guidance be necessary.4
This plan responded to needs identified by boththe Agreement States and the staff throughinteractions with prospective commercial disposalfacility developers (i.e., applicants), review ofU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prototypelicense applications, and specific performanceassessment issues raised by the States.
Consistent with its 1992 program plan, the staffand its technical assistance contractors enhancedthe NRC’ s performance assessment expertise byconducting a variety of LLW modeling exercisesand analyses. The staff also initiated computer5
simulations of a “ test case problem” for ahypothetical LLW disposal system. Alliedperformance assessment work conducted in otherNRC waste management areas, such as high-levelradioactive waste and decommissioning, alsobenefitted the staff' s efforts to enhance itsperformance assessment expertise.
D-3 NUREG-1573
The efforts described above identified severalareas in which additional LLW performanceassessment guidance might be needed, as appliedto the NRC LLW regulatory framework. Forexample, the staff found that existing NRCguidance documents – NUREG-1199, NUREG-1200, and NUREG-1300 – did not clearlydelineate the relationship between the10 CFR Part 61 data and design requirementsand a detailed LLW performance assessment.The scopes of the three NUREGs were intendedto provide guidance on demonstrating compliancewith all Subpart C performance objectives,including the performance objective at 10 CFR61.41, “ Protection of the General Populationfrom Releases of Radioactivity.” Moreover,many of the performance assessment issues ofconcern came to light after the time the staff wasconducting the 10 CFR Part 61 environmentalimpact statement (EIS) scoping process or, evenlater, during the LLW rulemaking effort. Theareas of staff concern (NRC, 1990, p. 1-13)included the following:
• achieving a common understanding ofthe minimum elements of an LLWperformance assessment process
• defining the relationship between sitecharacterization and performanceassessment data collection
• modeling infiltration rate estimation,source-term release behavior, andconcrete and engineered barrierdegradation
• modeling radionuclide transport in theenvironment
• making decisions related to performanceassessment models and the validation andverification of computer models
The Commission’ s 1995 PRA Policy Statement4
served as another “ driver” behind the development of thestaff’ s LLW performance assessment program.
An early LLW performance assessment analysis5
performed by the NRC staff was published in 1992 as partof a survey of Federal risk assessment efforts. See DOEet al. (1992, Appendix G). Dunkelman (1987) provides anextensive bibliography of NRC-sponsored technicalassistance (including performance assessment-relatedactivities) performed before work on NUREG-1573commenced. The references cited in NUREG-1573provide an update to the Dunkelman compilation, and thisreport (at Appendix E) updates that bibliography.
D-4
• making decisions related to the use ofgeneric versus site-specific data inperformance assessment models
• developing approaches to uncertainty andsensitivity analyses
To address these concerns and to developconsensus approaches, the staff created an LLWperformance assessment methodology guidancedocument, NUREG-1573. This and earlierNUREG guidance documents focused ondeveloping recommendations for acceptableapproaches and methods that could be used todemonstrate compliance with the 10 CFR Part 61performance objectives.
In January 1994, the staff prepared a preliminarydraft of the NUREG and distributed it forcomment to all LLW-sited and host AgreementStates, the Advisory Committee on NuclearWaste (ACNW), DOE, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), and the U.S.Geological Survey. After that initial reviewprocess, the NRC staff sponsored a 2-dayworkshop, held at the NRC headquarters onNovember 16 and 17, 1994, to discuss thepreliminary draft NUREG and an attendant LLWtest case. The staff also sponsored a half-day6
LLW performance assessment workshop inconjunction with the 16th Annual DOE/LLWM a n a g e m e n t C o n f e r e n c e o nDecember 13–15, 1994. The NRC subsequentlymodified NUREG-1573 to reflect informationreceived during these interactions as well asspecific direction from the Commission (NRC,1996). The agency issued a revised draft forformal public comment on May 29, 1997 (62 FR29164), as a branch technical position (BTP).Following a review of public comments, the staffclarified certain issues and issued the finalNUREG in October 2000, but not as a BTP.7
D-3.1 Recommended Approaches, Attributesof Acceptable Approaches, and StaffAdvice
In NUREG-1573, the staff proposed thatapplicants should develop and use a defensiblemethodology to demonstrate compliance of anLLW disposal facility design with the postclosureperformance objective at 10 CFR 61.41. To helpprospective applicants achieve this goal, the staffprovided its views on three key performance
The so-called “ test case” analyzed the performance6
of a hypothetical LLW site and design as a means ofevaluating whether the approaches recommended inNUREG-1573 were implementable. Using actual site dataintended to be representative of a humid geographicenvironment and a hypothetical facility design andradionuclide inventory, the NRC staff tested a number ofmodels that could be used in conducting an LLWperformance assessment and gained experience with theuse and limitations of LLW performance assessmentmodeling. Following its completion, the staff concludedthat the test case demonstrated that the approachesrecommended in NUREG-1573 could be implemented. However, the staff was unable to formally document thetest case results because of resource constraints. The staffdid present the results from the test case at a November1994 2-day public workshop and there are transcripts ofthat meeting. Those transcripts are available forinspection and copying in NRC’ s Public Document
Room. In addition to the meeting transcripts, preliminaryresults from the LLW test case have been described byCady and Thaggard (1994), Campbell (1994), Campbell
and McCartin (1994), and Krupka and Serne (1998).
As a result of the public comment process, several7
commenters expressed concern that once the proposedguidance, particularly in the area of recommended policyapproaches, was finalized, LLW disposal facilitydevelopers and other regulatory entities would view it asde facto NRC standards by virtue of its codification as aBTP. The staff noted (NRC, 2000, p. B-1) that therecommended technical and policy approaches in NUREG-1573 were not a substitute for NRC regulations and thatcompliance with those recommendations was neverintended to be obligatory. However, to avoid the potentialfor future confusion in this area, the NRC published thefinal version of NUREG-1573 as a “ technical report.”Moreover, what were formerly staff positions or technicalpositions in the draft BTP were referred to asrecommended approaches, attributes of an acceptableapproach, staff advice, or words to that effect in the finalNUREG.
D-5
assessment issues – (a) an acceptable LLWperformance assessment approach (process),(b) the interpretation and implementation of five10 CFR Part 61 regulatory requirements relatedto LLW performance assessment, and (c) ways todemonstrate implementation of the NRC PAM.See Table D-1.
D-3.1.1 Example of an Acceptable Approachfor Demonstrating Compliance with10 CFR 61.41
In NUREG-1573, the staff recommended thatprospective 10 CFR Part 61 license applicantsdevelop a performance assessment process thatsystematically integrates site characterizationdata, facility design information, and predictivemodeling results. The process is intended tobuild confidence in model estimates of LLWdisposal site performance by providing a usefuldecisionmaking framework for evaluating anddefending the appropriateness of data,assumptions, models, and codes used todemonstrate compliance with the postclosureperformance objective at 10 CFR 61.41.
To achieve the degree of desired integration,NUREG-1573 recommended a nine-stepperformance assessment process, depicted inFigure D-1. The staff noted that the centralattribute of the proposed process was that it beconducted iteratively, starting with a combinationof generic and limited site-specific information insupport of relatively simple conservative modelsand analyses and progressing as necessary tomore realistic, site-specific, and detailed analysesto reduce uncertainty in assessing performance of(i.e, reaching decisions about) an LLW disposalfacility (NRC, 2000a, pp. xi–x). Initial screeninganalyses identify the most important issues anddata needs; as more site and design informationis collected, modeling assumptions, conceptualmodels, and data needs are reevaluated. Sitecharacterization and design bases are then revisedto obtain data or modify the design as needed toreduce uncertainty and defend assessment results
with respect to the postclosure performanceobjective at 10 CFR 61.41.
The performance assessment process outlined inNUREG-1573 was designed to be open andtransparent so that all data, assumptions, andmodels would be well documented andunderstood. Moreover, this process intended thatthe rationale for any subsequent modification ofthose assumptions and models would also bedocumented and supported by an appropriatecombination of site investigation and assessmentdata, valid technical reasoning, and soundprofessional judgment. In addition, the NUREG-1573 process incorporates a formal,probabilistically-based treatment of uncertainty asa basis for performance assessmentdecisionmaking, offers a technical basis foridentifying the completion of sitecharacterization, and enhances confidence thatthe disposal site complies with the postclosureperformance objectives at 10 CFR 61.41.
Consistent with the Commission’ s viewsregarding the use of PRA, the staff also notedthat the application of the performanceassessment techniques to LLW disposal facilitydesigns should be tempered according to thecomplexity of the disposal system, uncertaintiessurrounding system performance, and theestimated risks resulting from the types and kindsof wastes being disposed (NRC, 2000a, p. x).
D-3.1.2 Recommended Approaches toTechnical Policy Issues
Technical policy issues represent fundamentalquestions pertaining to the interpretation andimplementation of specific 10 CFR Part 61performance objectives. In developing theperformance assessment methodology outlined inNUREG-1573, the staff identified five areas inthe regulation related to LLW performanceassessment for which supplemental advice shouldbe provided (NRC, 1996):
D-6
Table D-1 Performance Assessment Technical Areas Covered by PAWG in NUREG-1573.
Example of an Acceptable Approach for Demonstrating Compliance with 10 CFR 61.41 (See Figure D-1 for details of this approach.)
PAWG Views on Policy Issues Regarding 10 CFR Part 61 Performance Objectives and Technical Requirements (Also see Table D-1.)
Role of the Site and Consideration of Site Conditions, Processes, and Events Site Selection
Site Conditions in Performance Assessment Models
Role of Engineered Barriers
Timeframe for LLW Performance Assessment Analyses
Treatment of Sensitivity and Uncertainty in LLW Performance Assessment
Role of Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses
Recommended Approaches for Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses
Compliance Determination
Role of LLW Performance Assessment during Operational and Closure Periods
Recommended Approaches to LLW Performance Assessment Modeling Issues
Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Sources of Uncertainty: Model Uncertainty and Parameter Uncertainty
Issues
Recommended Approaches to Treatment in Deterministic Analysis and Probabilistic AnalysisParametric Sensitivity Analysis
Infiltration Key Considerations in the Analysis: Temporal Variation in Processes and Parameters and SpatialVariation in Parameters
Recommended Approach: General Strategy and Approach
Engineered Barriers Features and Dimensions of Engineered Barrier Systems
Integration and Interaction of Materials
Construction Quality and Testing
Model Input
D-7
Recommended Approaches to LLW Performance Assessment Modeling Issues (continued)
Engineered Barriers (continued) Post-Construction Monitoring and Evaluation
Use of Engineering Judgment
Source Term and Waste Type Inventory of Radionuclides in LLW
Screening Methods to Identify Significant Radionuclides
Waste Form and Waste Type
Waste Container
Source Term Models
Chemical Environment: Development of Site-Specific Parameters and Models (Radionuclide DistributionCoefficients and Geochemical Modeling of an LLW Disposal Facility)
Gaseous Releases
Transport Media Groundwater
Surface Water (Below-Ground Disposal Facilities and Above-Ground Disposal Facilities)
Air Transport (Screening Approach and Detailed Approaches)
Dose Considerations: Pathway Identification and Modeling, Internal Dosimetry, and External Dosimetry
Recommended Approaches: Pathway Identification, and Model Identification and Identification of Parameter Values
Internal Dosimetry and External Dosimetry
D-8
Figure D-1 Details of an “Example of an Acceptable Approach for Demonstrating Compliance with 10CFR 61.41.” Taken from NRC (2000, p. 3-2).
D-9
(1) consideration of future site conditions,processes, and events
(2) performance of engineered barriers (3) timeframe for an LLW performance
assessment (4) treatment of sensitivity and uncertainty in
LLW performance assessments (5) role of performance assessment during
operational and closure periods
The earlier EIS scoping process and 10 CFR Part61 rulemaking had not identified these areas(issues) because the generic LLW doseassessment methodology that had been developedin conjunction with those earlier activities (Adamand Rogers, 1978; Rogers, 1979; Rogers et al.,1979) was much simpler in many respects thanthe performance assessment process the staff nowenvisioned. The issues in question concern howLLW performance assessments are conductedand evaluated. Table D-2 presents the staff’ sviews on these principal regulatory issues.
D-3.1.3 R e c o m m e n d e d A n a l y t i c a lApproaches to Modeling Issues
The 1987 performance assessment strategyproposed by Starmer et al. advocated a modularapproach to modeling LLW disposal systems,including dividing the disposal “ system” into thefollowing separate modeling areas:
• infiltration and unsaturated (vadose) zoneflow
• engineered barrier performance (coupledwith infiltration analysis to calculate thewater flux into disposal units)
• radionuclide releases from waste formsand the bottoms of disposal units(container failure, leaching, and near-field transport)
• transport media such as groundwater,surface water, and air
• plant and animal uptake (food chain)
• dose to humans
The staff subsequently developed the PAMaround this strategy. SNL developed thenecessary methodology to undertake performanceassessment analyses. This methodology assumesa generalized conceptual model of an LLWdisposal site. Consistent with the 1987performance assessment strategy, the NRCpublished the PAM in a five-volume series asNUREG/CR-5453, which provided a basic set of8
models and computer codes for evaluating thefollowing:
• infiltration behavior • source term• engineered barrier performance• contaminant transport via groundwater,9
surface water, and air • dose to receptors
The modular PAM structure allows an LLWperformance assessment to use a mix of bothcomplex and simple models. Given the technicaluncertainty of modeling LLW site performanceand the diversity of sites and facility designs thatvarious States and compacts may consider,flexibility to select appropriate subsystem modelsand codes is an important PAM attribute.Although the PAM can be implemented byseparately analyzing each module, creating inputto one subsystem model based on the results ofanother, NUREG-1573 outlines the potentialbenefits of automating subsystem model or codeinputs and outputs with an overall system code,within the context of a broader performanceassessment model. The staff noted that thebenefits of an automated system code compared
See Shipers (1989); Shipers and Harlan (1989); and 8
Kozak et al. (1989a, 1989b, 1990). Also see Chu et al.(1991).
Including both the unsaturated and saturated zones.9
D-10
Table D-2 NUREG-1573 Recommendations on Part 61 Regulatory Issues. Taken from NRC (2000,
pp. xii–xv).
Regulatory Issue (NRC, 1996) Staff NUREG-1573 Recommendation
Consideration of Future SiteConditions, Processes, andEvents
Use realistic assumptions and ranges of parameters to effectively reflect the reference geologic settingfor the site. To capture the variability in natural processes and events and dynamic site behavior, therange of siting assumptions and data should be sufficient to understand the long-term trends in naturalphenomena acting on the site. NUREG-1573 emphasizes the need for a limit on the range of possiblesite conditions, processes, and events to be considered in an LLW performance assessment and for theelimination of unnecessary speculation in the assessment. In addition, consideration of societal changeswould result in unnecessary speculation and therefore should not be included in an LLW performanceassessment.
Performance of EngineeredBarriers
An applicant should assign and justify the credit given to engineered barrier performance. Any period oftime claimed for performance of an engineered barrier should be supported by suitable information andtechnical justification evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, to limit unnecessary speculation asto their performance, the staff believes that materials typically used in engineered barriers canalternatively be assumed to have physically degraded 500 years after site closure. Thus, at 500 yearsand beyond, the engineered barriers can be assumed to function at performance levels considerablylower than their optimum level, but credit for structural stability and chemical buffering effects may betaken for longer periods of time. For timeframes longer than 500 years, it is unreasonable to assume thatany physical engineered barrier, such as a cover or a reinforced concrete vault, can be designed to
½function long enough to influence the eventual release of long-lived radionuclides such as carbon-14 (t :
½ ½5300 years), technetium-99 (t : 213,000 years), and iodine-129(t : 15,700,000 years), if they are present.
However, credit for structural stability and chemical buffering effects may be taken for the long termprovided that the applicant supplies suitable information and justification. But again, this would requirecase-by-case evaluations.
Timeframe for an LLWPerformance Assessment
A timeframe for complying with the 10 CFR 61.41 postclosure performance objective is not specified inthe regulation. To reduce unnecessary speculation regarding the performance assessment, a period of10,000 years (i.e., the period of regulatory interest or concern) is sufficiently long to capture the peak dosefrom the more mobile long-lived radionuclides and to demonstrate the relationship of site suitability to theperformance objective. The staff considered shorter periods, such as the 1000 years used in doseassessments for site decommissioning, to be generally inappropriate for assessments of LLW disposalfacilities. Assessments beyond 10,000 years can be carried out to ensure that the disposal of certaintypes of waste does not result in markedly high doses to future generations or to evaluate waste disposalat arid sites with extremely long ground-water travel times. However, assessments of doses occurringafter 10,000 years are not recommended for use as a basis for compliance with the performanceobjective.
Treatment of Sensitivity andUncertainty in an LLWPerformance Assessment
Formal sensitivity and uncertainty analyses should be conducted in support of performance assessmentcalculations. The staff considered two different approaches for representing system performance in thecontext of the postclosure performance objective. One approach provides a single bounding estimate ofsystem performance supported by data and assumptions that clearly demonstrate the realistic nature ofthe analysis. The other approach provides a quantitative evaluation of uncertainty with regard to systemperformance represented by a distribution of potential outcomes. When compliance, as measured against10 CFR 61.41, is based on a single (deterministic) estimate of performance, the applicant is relying onthe demonstration of the conservative nature of the analysis, rather than a quantitative analysis ofuncertainty. Therefore, if it is to be used as a performance measure, a single estimate of performanceshould be at or below the 10 CFR 61.41 performance objective. When a formal uncertainty analysis isperformed and a distribution of potential outcomes for system performance is provided, to consider afacility in compliance, NUREG-1573 recommends that the peak of the mean dose as a function of timebe less than the performance objective and a plot of the upper 95th percentile of doses at each discretetime be less than 100 mrem.
Regulatory Issue (NRC, 1996) Staff NUREG-1573 Recommendation
D-11
Role of Performance Assessmentduring the Operational andClosure Periods
As required by 10 CFR Part 61, final LLW site closure plans must demonstrate the long-term safety of thefacility and must include not only any additional geologic, hydrologic, or other disposal site data obtainedduring the operational period pertinent to the long-term containment of waste, but also the results of tests,experiments, or analyses pertaining to long-term containment of waste. This demonstration could includetesting of assumptions about the performance of engineered aspects of the facility that are amenable toconfirmation during operations. The site closure requirements suggest a need to keep performanceassessments up to date as new information brings into question the bases of earlier assessments of LLWsite safety.
to manually linked subsystem models mayinclude (a) increased ability to proceed throughsuccessive iterations of the performanceassessment process and perform uncertainty andsensitivity analyses, (b) a higher degree of qualityassurance, (c) explicit recognition of assumptionsthat might be vague or inconsistently addressed,and (d) use of consistent parameters and valuesamong subsystem models. The PAM furnishes ageneral methodology for conducting LLWperformance assessments, whereas NUREG-1573provides recommendations and advice (guidance)to address specific performance assessmentissues, assuming the use of an analyticalapproach similar to the PAM.
After applying the PAM to the hypothetical LLWtest case problem, the staff also recognized thatthe technical issues associated with the PAM hadevolved and needed updating. NUREG-1573provided the necessary updates. In the course ofdeveloping the PAM, the staff also identified anddescribed, but did not address, a number ofsignificant policy and technical issues. SeeKozak et al. (1993, 1995). These issues werelater referred to the Commission forconsideration and reviewed within the context ofthe staff’ s NUREG-1573 recommendations. SeeNRC (1996).
D-3.2 Internal Dosimetry
NUREG-1573 noted that the 10 CFR Part 61performance objective at 10 CFR 61.41 wasbased on the International Commission onRadiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 2 dose
methodology (ICRP, 1959), but current healthphysics practices follow the dose methodologyused in 10 CFR Part 20, “ Standards forProtection Against Radiation,” which is currentlybased on the ICRP Publication 30 methodology(ICRP, 1979). The staff noted that any 10 CFRPart 61 LLW license application would containmany other assessments of potential exposures(e.g., worker exposure, accident exposures, andoperational releases) that would rely on the ICRPPublication 30 dose methodology. To ensureinternal consistency of information in any licenseapplication, the staff recommended that the LLWperformance assessment be consistent with themethodology approved by the NRC in 10 CFRPart 20, enabling comparison with the 10 CFRPart 61 performance objective. In this regard,the staff noted that the calculation of the totaleffective dose equivalent (TEDE), which sumsthe annual external dose and the committedeffective dose equivalent, is acceptable forcomparison with the performance objective. TheNRC and other agencies have subsequentlyadopted updated dose methodologies. SeeEckerman and Ryman (1993) and Eckerman etal. (1999).
As a matter of policy, NUREG-1573 also notesthat the Commission considered 25 mrem/yrTEDE as the appropriate dose criterion tocompare with the range of potential dosesrepresented by the older criterion that included awhole body dose of 25 mrem/yr. See Footnote
1 in NRC (1999), at 64 FR 8644. The staffobserved that potential applicants did not need toconsider organ doses individually because the
D-12
low value of the TEDE should ensure that noorgan dose would exceed 50 mrem/yr.
D-3.3 Treatment of the Intruder Scenario
The performance goal at 10 CFR 61.42 isanother Subpart C performance objective thatcould potentially bear on the overall performanceobjective at 10 CFR 61.41. This requirementestablishes the need to “ protect inadvertenthuman intruders to the facility once disposaloperations ceased and the facil itydecommissioned....”
In NUREG-1573, the staff noted that an LLWperformance assessment was not expected toinclude separate dose analyses for humanintruder scenarios (NRC, 2000b, p. 1-13). Inmaking this determination, the staff noted that 10CFR 61.13(b) already required that “ analyses ofthe protection of individuals from inadvertentintrusion must include demonstration that there isreasonable assurance the waste classification andsegregation requirements will be met and thatadequate barriers to inadvertent intrusion will beprovided....”10
D-3.4 Public Comments on NUREG-1573
The NRC published the draft NUREG-1573 for(formal) public comment on May 29, 1997
(62 FR 29164). The staff received 175 commentsfrom 17 organizations and entities. The staff11
reviewed the comments and concluded onbalance, that the overall public reaction to thedraft NUREG was favorable, with commentersstating general agreement with the proposed staffpositions; that the document fulfills a need; thatthe document is well written; and that thedocument should be finalized. After reviewingthe public comments, the staff determined that itsoriginal advice and recommendations werefundamentally sound and generally acceptable tostakeholders. Hence, no significant changeswere necessary to address the commentsreceived. The staff made only two majorchanges to the final version of NUREG-1573.First, the NUREG was no longer referred to as aBTP. Second, the staff modified its views on thetreatment of uncertainties in an LLWperformance assessment to better reflect theapproach used in other NRC waste managementprograms. Appendix B to the final NUREG(“ Disposition of Public Comments on May 29,1997, Draft NUREG-1573, Including Updates toTechnical References”) includes the staff’ sresponse to each of the 175 public commentsreceived and describes specific changes made bythe staff to address each of the comments. TableD-3 summarizes these comments and the staff’ sgeneral disposition of them.
In addition to the modifications described inTable D-3, other additions to the final NUREG inresponse to public comments included thefollowing:
• an expanded glossary of technical termsused in the NUREG (as a new appendix)
• an expanded bibliography on engineeredand natural barrier performance (as an
The staff did acknowledge that separate intruder10
scenario analyses may be necessary when the projectedwaste spectra fundamentally differ from those consideredin the technical analyses supporting any 10 CFR Part 61draft EIS (DEIS). See NRC (1981). For example, anintruder analysis might be necessary if the waste formsproposed for disposal contain anomalous quantities andconcentrations of certain long-lived radionuclides (e.g.,uranium or thorium) so that the intruder cannot reasonablybe protected by the waste classification and intruderbarrier requirements of 10 CFR Part 61. To the extentthat there may be a need for guidance on how to performan intruder consequence analysis at an LLW disposalfacility, NUREG-1573 referred disposal facilitydevelopers and other regulatory entities to the DEIS as thefinal EIS (NRC, 1982) did not include all of theinformation and references found in the earlier draft.
Including NRC Agreement States (Illinois,11
Massachusetts, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas),non-Agreement States (New Jersey and Pennsylvania),DOE, EPA, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and otherinterested stakeholders.
D-13
Table D-3 Summary of Staff Responses to Public Comments on NUREG-1573. Taken from transcript of the 119 th
ACNW meeting, dated June 13, 2000.
Issue Public Comment Staff Response / NUREG-1573 Disposition a
10 CFR Part 61 Regulatory Issues b
Timeframe for an LLWPerformance Assessment
Varied opinions. Shorter, 500-year time-of-compliance more appropriate than staffrecommendation. Alternatively, LLW performanceassessment calculations should be to peak dose.
Original staff recommendation will generally includethe period of time when LLW is the most hazardous.10,000 years is consistent with other wastemanagement regulations and supporting analyses.
No change made to final NUREG.
Performance of EngineeredBarriers
Assumed 500-year duration is arbitrary and withouttechnical justification.
A 500-year timeframe is generally sufficient.Performance periods greater than 500 years arepermitted, subject to justification by licensees.
No change made to final NUREG.
Consideration of Future SiteConditions, Processes, andEvents
Uncertainties in future human activities should beconsidered.
Consideration of future human activities is highlyspeculative. Use of a “reference biosphere” or“critical group concept” is consistent with otherradioactive waste management applications.
No change made to final NUREG.
Treatment of Sensitivity andUncertainty in an LLWPerformance Assessment
Varied opinions. Use of mean to provide bestestimate of system performance not justified.Probabilistic analyses not politically supportable.
Proposed approach in NUREG is consistent withother NRC regulatory activities.
No change made to final NUREG.
Other Comments
Dose Methodology NUREG inconsistent in recommending TEDEcalculation while the regulation calls for the use ofthe older ICRP 2 methodology.
Final version of NUREG modified to clarifyinconsistency. In response, the staff noted that, as amatter of policy, the Commission considers 25mrem/yr TEDE to be an appropriate dose limit tocompare with the range of potential dosesrepresented by the older whole body dose limits,consistent with Federal Guidance 11 (Eckerman etal., 1988).
ALARA (as low asreasonably achievable)Considerations
NUREG should provide guidance on how to complywith ALARA requirements of 10 CFR 61.41.
Final version of NUREG modified to includediscussion on how to address ALARA requirementsby looking at costs and benefits of various disposalfacility designs.
Institutional Controls Institutional controls should be maintained at siteas long as wastes remain hazardous.
100 years of caretaker oversight is generallyconsidered conservative; institutional controls arelikely, in practice, to remain in effect indefinitely.
No change made to final NUREG.
Ground-Water Protection Compliance with10 CFR 61.41 will not ensure thatthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’smaximum concentration limits will be met.
Meeting MCLs is beyond the scope of the NUREG.Current regulations provide adequate protection.
No change made to final NUREG.
Issue Public Comment Staff Response / NUREG-1573 Disposition a
D-14
Miscellaneous Documentation of NRC LLW test case should becompleted and published.
Test case results were already released, and noresources are available to complete requesteddocumentation.
No change made to final NUREG.
NUREG should encourage use of peer reviews toincrease confidence in performance assessmentprocess.
Final version of NUREG modified to recommend peerreviews and formal and informal use of expertjudgment.
Potential for nuclear material criticality should beaddressed
Staff considers potential for criticality to be remoteand believes that appropriate measures will be takenduring disposal facility operations.
No change made to final NUREG.
a. Refer to Appendix B to the final NUREG-1573 for a full discussion of the public comments received and their disposition.
b. See Table D-1.
appendix) the Commission’ s 1995 PRAPolicy Statement (as a new appendix)
Following a review and modification of NUREG-1573, the NRC briefed the ACNW on theproposed final document at its 119 meeting inth
June 2000. In its review, the ACNW receivedthe document favorably, but did make certainrecommendations for the Commission’ sconsideration, as summarized in Table D-4(Garrick, 2000).
D-4 REFERENCES
Adam, J.A., and V.L. Rogers, “ A ClassificationSystem for Radioactive Waste Disposal – WhatWaste Goes Where?,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG-0456, July 1978.
Cady, R., and M. Thaggard, “ Summary andInsights from the NRC Branch Technical PositionTest Case,” in 16 Annual U.S. Department ofth
Energy Low-Level Radioactive WasteManagement Conference (Abstracts), Phoenix,Arizona, December 13–15, 1994, Idaho Falls,U.S. Department of Energy Idaho OperationsOffice, 1994.
Campbell, A.C., “ Approaches for Uncertaintyand Sensitivity Analysis in PerformanceAssessment,” in 16 Annual U.S. Department ofth
Energy Low-Level Radioactive WasteManagement Conference (Abstracts), December13–15, 1994, Phoenix, Arizona, Idaho Falls,U.S. Department of Energy Idaho OperationsOffice, 1994.
Campbell, A.C. , and T.J. McCartin,“ Application of Geochemical Data and Modelingin Performance Assessment of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Facilities,” EOS[Transactions of the American GeophysicalUnion], 75 (Supplement 16):171, 1994. [Springmeeting abstracts.]
Campbell, J.E. , and R.M. Cranwell,“ Performance Assessment of Radioactive WasteRepositories,” Science, 239(4846):1389–1394,1988.
Chu, M.S.Y, M.W. Kozak, J.E. Campbell, andB.H. Thompson, “ A Self-Teaching Curriculumfor the NRC/SNL Low-Level Waste PerformanceAssessment Methodology,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5539,January 1991. [Prepared by the SNL.]
D-15
Table D-4 Summary of Staff Responses to ACNW Comments on NUREG-1573. Taken from Appendix E to final
NUREG. Refer to that appendix for a complete discussion of ACNW comments (Garrick, 2000) and their
disposition.
ACNW Recommendation (Garrick, 2000) Staff Response / NUREG-1573 Disposition
The document should be issued as a BTP. The staff decision to issue the BTP as a NUREG reflects the need tomake it clear that organizations (i.e., Agreement States, licensees)may take other approaches when implementing their respectiveprograms. In addition, the staff believes that, given the agency’scurrently reduced role in licensing activities for LLW disposal, lessneed exists to provide specific guidance to licensees, which is theprimary purpose of staff technical positions.
No change made to final NUREG.
The staff should indicate in the technical report that a riskassessment is the acceptable method of safety analysis, the scopeof which should be commensurate with the complexity of the facility.
Final version of NUREG modified to address ACNW recommendation,including the Commission’s 1995 PRA Policy Statement.
The staff should provide guidance to the applicant to use realisticranges and distributions of parameter values and conceptualmodels when conducting [probabilistic] risk analyses.
Final version of NUREG modified to address ACNW recommendation.
The staff should consider recommending a complementarycumulative distribution function type of an approach to treatinguncertainty in a probabilistic interpretation of the dose standard.
The staff disagreed with the ACNW that the proposed approach foraddressing uncertainty disregards all information about the distribution,except the mean and the 95 percentile. In the NUREG, the staffth
noted that it was envisioned that the whole distribution would beconsidered, so the recommended approach calls for looking at boththe spread of doses at the time of the peak of the mean dose and thespread in peak doses. Although the staff agrees that it may be usefulfor the regulatory agency to see the whole distribution of results beforemaking a finding on the compliance demonstration, ultimately, onlypart of the distribution will be used in determining compliance with thedose criteria, and guidance must be provided on what specific parts ofthe distribution should be used for this purpose.
No change made to final NUREG.
The staff should consider eliminating the suggestion of a 500-yearengineered barrier lifetime.
The staff agreed with the basic thrust of the ACNW recommendation,but declined to modify the NUREG. The staff considers the 500-yearperformance period to be useful guidance. In general, 500 years willbe sufficient for the short-lived radionuclides in LLW to decay toinsignificant levels. Because of the diminished radiological hazard atabout 500 years and the limitations in data and experience in theperformance of engineered barrier materials beyond 10 years, the2
staff believes that it is not necessary for LLW disposal facilitydevelopers to spend large amounts of resources trying to justifyengineered barrier performance for periods beyond 500 years. Also,any decision regarding engineered barrier performance will need toultimately rest with the LLW disposal facility developer, subject to anadequate technical basis.
No change made to final NUREG.
ACNW Recommendation (Garrick, 2000) Staff Response / NUREG-1573 Disposition
D-16
The decision on a timeframe for an LLW performance assessmentshould be made on a case-by-case basis.
The staff considered the earlier advice of the ACNW in its February 11,1997, memorandum. In that advice (Pomeroy, 1997), the Committeerecommended the use of a two-part approach to addressing the time-of-compliance issue. The staff believes that the use of such a two-partapproach, as advocated by the Committee, is consistent with theapproach recommended in the NUREG.
No change made to final NUREG.
Dunkelman, M.M., “ Plans and Schedules forImplementation of U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Responsibilities under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Amendments Act of1985 (P.L. 99-240),” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG-1213, Revision 1, August1987.
Eckerman, K.F., A.B. Wolbarst, and A.C.B.Richardson, “ Limiting Values of RadiationIntake and Air Concentration and DoseConversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion,and Ingestion,” U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA-5201/1-88-020, September 1988. [Prepared bythe Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) forEPA’ s Office of Radiation Programs.]
Eckerman, K.F., and J.C. Ryman, “ Exposure-to-Dose Coefficients for General Application,Based on the 1987 Federal Radiation ProtectionGuidance,” U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA-402-R-93-001, September 1993. [Prepared by theORNL for EPA’ s Office of Radiation andIndoor Air.]
Eckerman, K.F., R.W. Leggett, C.B. Nelson,J.S. Puskin, and A.C.B. Richardson, “ HealthRisks from Low-Level Environmental Exposureto Radionuclides — Radionuclide-SpecificLifetime Radiogenic Cancer Risk Coefficients forthe U.S. Population, Based on Age-DependentIntake, Dosimetry, and Risk Models,” U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, FederalGuidance Report No. 13, EPA 402-R-99-001,
September 1999. [Prepared by the ORNL forEPA’ s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.]
Eisenberg, N.A., M.P. Lee, T.J. McCartin, K.I.McConnell, M. Thaggard, and A.C. Campbell,“ Development of a Performance AssessmentCapability in the Waste Management Programsof the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,”Risk Analysis, 19(5):847–876, 1999.
Fjeld, R.A., and K.L. Compton, “ RiskAssessment,” in R.A. Meyers, editor,Encyclopedia of Environmental Analysis andRemediation, New York, John Wiley and Sons,1998.
Garrick, B.J., Chairman, Advisory Committeeon Nuclear Waste, Letter to the HonorableRichard A. Meserve, Chairman, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, “ Branch TechnicalPosition on a Performance AssessmentMethodology for Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facilities,” Washington, DC, August 2,2000.
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Report of ICRP Committee II onPermissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959),with Bibliography for Biological, Mathematicaland Physical Data,” Health Physics, Vol. 3,1959. [Reprinted in 1975 as ICRP Publication2.]
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Recommendations of theInternational Commission on Radiological
D-17
Protection,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1, No. 3,1977. [ICRP Publication 26.]
International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclidesby Workers,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 2, Nos.3/4, 1979. [ICRP Publication 30, Part 1.]
Kozak, M.W., C.P. Harlan, M.S.Y. Chu, B.L.O’ Neal, C.D. Updegraff, and P.A. Mattingly,“ Background Information for the Developmentof a Low-Level Waste Performance AssessmentMethodology – Selection and Integration ofModels,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-5453, Vol. 3, December 1989a.[Prepared by the SNL, GRAM, Inc., and ScienceApplications International Corporation.]
Kozak, M.W., M.S.Y. Chu, C.P. Harlan, and P. A. Mattingly, “ Background Informationfor the Development of a Low-Level WastePerformance Assessment Methodology —Identification and Recommendation of ComputerCodes,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-5453, Vol. 4, December 1989b.[Prepared by the SNL and Science ApplicationsInternational Corporation.]
Kozak, M.W., M.S.Y. Chu, P.A. Mattingly,J.D. Johnson, and J.T. McCord, “ BackgroundInformation for the Development of a Low-LevelWaste Performance Assessment Methodology –Computer Code Implementation andAssessment,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-5453, Vol. 5, August1990. [Prepared by the SNL.]
Kozak, M.W., N.E. Olague, R.R. Rao, andJ.T. McCord, “ Evaluation of a PerformanceAssessment Methodology for Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Facilities –Evaluation of Modeling Approaches,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5927, Vol. 1, August 1993. [Prepared by theSNL.]
Kozak, M.W., and N.E. Olague, “ Evaluation ofa Performance Assessment Methodology forLow-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities– Validation Needs,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-5927, Vol. 2,February 1995. [Prepared by the SNL.]
Krupka, K.M., and R.J. Serne, “ Effects ofRadionuclide Concentrations by Cement/Ground-Water Interactions in Support of PerformanceAssessment of Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facilities,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6377, May 1998.[Prepared by the Pacific Northwest NationalLaboratory.]
Nazaroff, W.W., “ Radon Transport from Soil toAir,” Reviews of Geophysics, 30(2):137–160,May 1992.
Nuclear Energy Agency, “ Confidence in theLong-Term Safety of Deep Geologic Repositories– Its Development and Communication,” Vienna,Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, 1999.
O' Donnell, E., and J. Lambert, “ Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Research Program Plan,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1380, November 1989. [Prepared by the Officeof Nuclear Regulatory Research, Division ofEngineering.]
Pomeroy, P.W., Chairman, Advisory Committeeon Nuclear Waste, Letter to the HonorableShirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, “ Time of Compliancefor Low-Level Nuclear Waste DisposalFacilities,” Washington, DC, February 11, 1997.PRA Working Group, “ Review of NRC StaffUses of Probabilistic Risk Assessment,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1489,March 1994.
Rogers, V.C., “ A Radioactive Waste DisposalClassification System,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-1005, Vol. 1,
D-18
September 1979. [Prepared by Ford, Bacon, &Davis Utah, Inc.]
Rogers, V.C., R.D. Baird, B.C. Robertson, andP.J. Macbeth, “ A Radioactive Waste DisposalClassification System – The Computer Programand Groundwater Migration Models,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1005, Vol. 2, September 1979. [Prepared byFord, Bacon, & Davis Utah, Inc.]
Shipers, L.R., “ Background Information for theDevelopment of a Low-Level Waste PerformanceAssessment Methodology – Identification ofPotential Exposure Pathways,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5453,Vol. 1, December 1989. [Prepared by the SNL.]
Shipers, L.R., and C.P. Harlan, “ BackgroundInformation for the Development of a Low-LevelWaste Performance Assessment MethodologyAssessment of Relative Significance of Migrationand Exposure Pathways,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5453, Vol.2, December 1989. [Prepared by the SNL.]
Starmer, R.J., L.G. Deering, and M.F. Weber,“ Performance Assessment Strategy for Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites,” in 10th Annual U.S.Department of Energy Low-Level WasteManagement Conference: ConferenceProceedings (Session II: Site PerformanceAssessment), August 30 – September 1, 1988,Denver, Colorado, EG&G Idaho, CONF-880839-Ses.II, December 1988. [Preprint.]
U.S. Department of Energy, Department of theInterior, Federal Aviation Administration, Foodand Drug Administration, National Aeronauticsand Space Administration, National ScienceFoundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,and Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, “ Risk Assessment – A Survey ofCharacteristics, Applications, and Methods Usedby Federal Agencies for Engineered Systems,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
November 1992.12
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposalof Radioactive Wastes,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0782,September 1981.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposalof Radioactive Wastes,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0945,November 1982.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste:Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 39, pp. 5992–6001, February 27, 1987.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Standard Format and Content of a LicenseApplication for a Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facility,” Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, Division of Low-LevelWaste Management and Decommissioning,Revision 2, NUREG-1199, January 1991.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Low-Level Radioactive Waste PerformanceAssessment Development Program Plan,”Commission Paper, SECY-92-060, February 21,1992.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Standard Review Plan for the Review of aLicense Application for a Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Facility,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, Division ofLow-Level Waste Management and
PRA survey submitted to the Federal Coordinating12
Council for Science, Engineering and Technology, AdHoc Working Group on Risk Assessment.
D-19
Decommissioning, NUREG-1200, Revision 2,January 1994.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Use ofProbabilistic Risk Assessment Methods inNuclear Regulatory Activities: Proposed PolicyStatement,” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 235,pp. 63389–63391, December 8, 1994.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Regulatory Issues in Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Performance Assessment,” CommissionPaper, SECY-96-103, May 17, 1996.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Disposalof High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a ProposedGeologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada[Proposed Rule], Federal Register, Vol. 64, No.34, pp. 8640–8679, February 22, 1999.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,“ Technical Report on a Performance AssessmentMethodology for Low-Level Radioactive WasteDisposal Facilities,” Commission Paper (PolicyIssue/Information), SECY-00-0182, August 24,2000.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ APerformance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities –Recommendations of NRC’ s PerformanceAssessment Working Group,” Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, Office ofNuclear Regulatory Research, NUREG-1573,October 2000.
E-1
APPENDIX ESELECTED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTE TECHNICAL REPORTS SPONSORED BY NRC’ S OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH
This appendix features a selected bibliography of low-level radioactive waste technical reports and paperssponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researchsince the publication of NUREG-1573, “ A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Disposal Facilities – Recommendations of NRC’ s Performance Assessment WorkingGroup” in October 2000. The bibliography is annotated with the following codes to help identify therelevance of the particular citation, BF – barrier performance, STC – source term characterization, DA– dose assessment, FM – flow models, RTM – reactive transport models, and TC – transport calculations.
Akers, D.W., “ Release of Radionuclides andChelating Agents from Full-SystemDecontamination Ion-Exchange Resins,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6766, March 2002. [Prepared by the IdahoEngineering National Laboratory.] [STC]
Altman, S.J., M.L. Rivers, M. Reno, R.T.Cygan, and A.A. McLain, “ Characterization ofSorption Sites on Aggregate Soil Samples UsingSy n c h r o t r o n X - r a y C o m p u t e r i z e dMicrotomography,” Environmental Science andTechnology, 39(8): 2679–2685, March 15, 2005.[RTM]
Anigstein, R., H.J. Chmelynski, D.A. Loomis,S.F. Marschke, J.J. Mauro, R.H. Olsher, W.C.Thurber, and R. A. Meck, “ RadiologicalAssessments for Clearance of Materials fromNuclear Facilities,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission NUREG-1640, 4 vols., June 2003 –October 2004. [Prepared by SC&A, Inc., andGemini Consulting Company.] [STC]
Arnish, J.J, B.M. Biwer, J-J. Cheng, S. Kamboj,D.L. LePoire, C. Yu, and S.Y. Chen,“ Derivation of Parameter Distributions for theRESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD ComputerCodes Using Bayesian Techniques (Abstract),”Health Physics, 78(6):S106, June 2000. [DA]
Barbarulo, R., J. Marchand, K.A. Snyder, andS. Prene, “ Dimensional Analysis of Ionic
Transport Problems in Hydrated Cement Systems– Part 1, Theoretical Considerations,” Cementand Concrete Research, 30(12):1955–1960,December 2000. [BP]
Bargar, J.R., J.D. Kubicki, R. Reitmeyer, andJ.A. Davis, “ ATR-FTIR Characterization ofInner-Sphere and Outer-Sphere CarbonateSurface Complexes on Hematite,” Geochimicaet Cosmochimica Acta, 69(6):1527–1542, March15, 2005. [RTM]
Bethke, C. M., and P. V. Brady, “ How
dthe K Approach Undermines Ground WaterCleanup,” Ground Water, 38(3):435–443, May–June 2000. [RTM]
Beyeler, W.E., Jr., W.A. Hareland, F.A.Durá n, T.J. Brown, E. Kalinina, D.P. Gallegos,and P. A. Davis, “ Residual RadioactiveContamination from Decommissioning —Parameter Analysis, Draft Report for Comment,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3, October 1999.[Prepared by the Sandia National Laboratories(SNL).] [TC]
Biwer, B.M., S. Kamboj, J. Arnish, C. Yu, andS.Y. Chen, “ Technical Basis for CalculatingRadiation Doses for the Building OccupancyScenario Using the Probabilistic RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Code,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6755, February 2002.
E-2
[Prepared by the Argonne National Laboratory.][TC]
Biwer, B.M., S. Kamboj, J-J. Cheng,E. Gnanapragasam, J. Arnish, D.J. LePoire, C.Yu, S.Y. Chen, T. Mo, T.J. Nicholson, P.R.Reed, R. Abu-Eid, M. Thaggard, T.E. Harris,R.B. Codell, D.W. Schmidt, and J. Danna,“ Input Parameter Probability DistributionAssignments for the Uncertainty Analysis Usingthe RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD RadiologicalDose Assessment Software Packages (Abstract),”Health Physics, 78(6):S148, June 2000. [DA]
Brady, P.V., and C.M. Bethke, “ Beyond the
dK Approach (Editorial),” Ground Water, 38(3):321–322, May–June 2000. [RTM]
Brady, P.V., C.F. Jové-Colón, G. Carr, andF. Huang, “ Soil Radionuclide Plumes,” in P.C.Zhang, and P.V. Brady, editors, Geochemistry ofSoil Radionuclides, Madison, Soil ScienceSociety of America Special Publication Number59, 2002. [RTM]
Cheng, J-J., S. Kamboj, C. Yu, B.M. Biwer,J. Arnish, D. LePoire, E. Gnanapragasam, S.Y.Chen, T. Mo, T.J. Nicholson, P.R. Reed, R.Abu-Eid, M. Thaggard, T.E. Harris, and D.W.Schmidt, “ Selection of RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD Input Parameters for DetailedProbabilistic Distribution Analysis (Abstract),”Health Physics, 78(6):S106, June 2000. [TC]
Criscenti, L.J., “ Adsorption Processes: AtWhat Spatial Scale Do We Need to UnderstandThem?,” in S.L. Brantley, editor, WRI-11 –Proceedings of the 11th International Symposiumon Water-Rock Interactions, June 27–July 2,2004, Saratoga Springs, International Associationof Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry, 2004.[RTM] Criscenti, L.J., M. Eliassi, R.T. Cygan, andC.F. Jové-Colón, “ Effects of AdsorptionConstant Uncertainty on Contaminant PlumeMigration: One- and Two-Dimensional
Numerical Studies,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6780, June 2002.[Prepared by the SNL.] [RTM]
Criscenti, L.J., M. Eliassi, R.T. Cygan, and C.F. Jové-Colón, “ Modeling Adsorption Processes:Issues in Uncertainty, Scaling, and Prediction,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-6893, March 2006. [RTM]
Curtis, G.P., “ Documentation and Applicationsof the Reactive Geochemical Transport ModelRATEQ, Draft Report for Comment,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6871, July 2005. [Prepared by the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS).] [RTM]
Curtis, G.P., P. Fox, M. Kohler, and J.A.
dDavis, “ Comparison of In Situ Uranium KValues with a Laboratory Determined SurfaceComplexation Model,” Applied Geochemistry,19(10):1643– 1653, October 2004. [RTM]
Cygan, R. T., “ Molecular Modeling inMineralogy and Geochemistry,” in R.T. Cyganand J.D. Kubicki, editors, Molecular ModelingTheory: Applications in the Geosciences,Washington, DC, Geochemical Society, 2001.[RTM]
Cygan, R.T., “ Molecular Models of MetalSorption on Clay Minerals,” in J.D. Kubicki andW.F. Bleam, editors, Molecular Modeling ofClays, Boulder, The Clay Minerals Society,2002. [RTM]
Cygan, R. T., “ Molecular Models ofRadionuclide Interaction with Soil Minerals,” inP-C. Zhang and P. V. Brady, editors, Geochemistry of Soil Radionuclides, Madison,Soil Science Society of America SpecialPublication Number 59, 2002. [RTM]
Cygan, R.T., H.L. Anderson, S.E. Arthur, P.V.Brady, C.F. Jové-Colón, J-J. Liang, E.R.Lindgren, M.D. Siegel, D.M. Teter, H.R.Westrich, and P. Zhang, “ Toward an Accurate
E-3
Model of Metal Sorption in Soils,” inProceedings of the 2001 Waste ManagementSymposium, February 25 – March 1, 2001,Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia, Inc., 2001.1
[RTM]
Cygan, R.T., and J.D. Kubicki, editors,Molecular Modeling Theory: Applications in theGeosciences, Washington, DC, GeochemicalSociety, 2001. [RTM]
Cygan, R.T., J-J. Liang, and A.G. Kalinichev,“ Molecular Models of Hydr oxide,Oxyhydroxide, and Clay Phases and theDevelopment of a General Force Field,”Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 108(4):1255–1266, 2004. [RTM]
Cygan, R. T., M. D. Siegel, and L. J. Criscenti,editors, “ Proceedings of the InteragencyWorkshop on Conceptual Model Developmentfor Subsurface Reactive Transport Modeling ofInorganic Contaminants, Radionuclides, andNutrients,” U. S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CP-0193, March 2006.[Abstracts and presentations from the interagencyworkshop are available from http://iscmem.org/Proceedings_03.htm.] [RTM]
Davis, J.A., “ Surface Complexation Modelingof Uranium(VI) Adsorption on Natural MineralAssemblages,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6708, March 2001.[Prepared by the USGS.] [RTM]
Davis, J.A., and G.P. Curtis, “ Application ofSurface Complexation Modeling to DescribeUranium(VI) Adsorption and Retardation at theUranium Mill Tailings Site at Naturita,Colorado, ” U. S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6820, December2003. [Prepared by the USGS.] [RTM]
Davis, J.A., and G.P. Curtis, “ Consideration ofGeochemical Issues in Groundwater Restorationat Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining Facilities –Draft Report for Comment,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6870,June 2005. [Prepared by the USGS.] [RTM]
Davis, J.A., D.M. Meece, M. Kohler, and G.P.Curtis, “ Approaches to Surface ComplexationModeling of Uranium(VI) Adsorption on AquiferSediments,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,68:(18)3621–3641, September 2004. [RTM]
Davis, J.A., T.E. Payne, and T.D. Waite,
2 “ Simulating the pH and pCO Dependence ofUranium(VI) Adsorption by a Weathered Schistwith Surface Complexation Models,” in P-C.Zhang and P.V. Brady, editors, Geochemistry ofSoil Radionuclides, Madison, Soil ScienceSociety America Special Publication Number 59,2002. [RTM]
Davis, J.A., S.B. Yabusaki, C.I. Steefel, J.M.Zachara, G.P. Curtis, G.D. Redden, L.J.Criscenti, and B. D. Honeyman, “ AssessingConceptual Models for Subsurface ReactiveTransport of Inorganic Contaminants,” EOS[Transactions of the American GeophysicalUnion], 85:449–455, 2004. [RTM]
Evans, D. D., T. C. Rasmussen, and T. J.Nicholson, “ Flow and Transport ThroughUnsaturated Fractured Rock: An Overview,”in D.D. Evans, T.J. Nicholson, and T.C.Rasmussen, editors, Flow and Transport ThroughUnsaturated Fractured Rock, Washington, DC,American Geophysical Union Monograph 42,2001. [FM]
Felmy, A.R., V.L. LeGore, and S.A. Hartley,“ Solubility and Leaching of Radionuclides inSite Decommissioning Management Plan(SDMP) Soil and Ponded Wastes,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6821,June 2003. [Prepared by the Pacific NorthwestLaboratory (PNL).] [STC]
Abstracts and papers from the WM Symposia1
proceedings are available electronically from http://www.wmsym.org/.
E-4
Felmy, A.R., D. Rai, S.A. Hartley, and V.L.LeGore, “ Solubility and Leaching ofRadionuclides in Site DecommissioningManagement Plan (SDMP) Slags,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6632,February 2002. [Prepared by the PNL] [STC]
Gnanapragasam, E.K., and C. Yu, “ Applicationof RESRAD-OFFSITE to Two Probabilistic TestScenarios,” Practice Periodical of Hazardous,Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management,6(2):112–119, April 2002. [TC]
Haaker, R., T. Brown, and D. Updegraff,“ Comparison of the Models and AssumptionsUsed in the DandD 1.0, RESRAD 5.61, andRESRAD-BUILD 1.50 Computer Codes withRespect to the Residential Farmer and IndustrialOccupant Scenarios Provided in NUREG/CR-5512 — Draft Report for Comment,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 4, October 1999. [Prepared by AQSafety, Inc., SNL, and GRAM, Inc.] [TC]
Interagency Steering Committee on RadiationStandards (ISCORS), “ A Method for EstimatingRadiation Risk from Total Effective DoseEquivalent (TEDE) – Final Report,” Washington,DC, ISCORS Technical Report 2002-02, 2002.3
[DA]
Interagency Steering Committee on RadiationStandards, “ ISCORS Assessment ofRadioactivity in Sewage Sludge: RadiologicalSurvey Results and Analysis – Final Report,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1775, ISCORS Technical Report 2004-02,
November 2003. [Prepared by the ISCORSSewage Sludge Subcommittee on RadiationStandards. ] [STC] 4
Interagency Steering Committee on RadiationStandards, “ RESRAD-BIOTA: A Tool forImplementing a Graded Approach to Biota DoseEvaluation – User’ s Guide, Version 1,” U.S.Department of Energy, DOE/EH-0676,Technical Report 2004-02, January 2004.[Prepared by the ISCORS EcologicalRadiological Working Group.] [TC]
Interagency Steering Committee on RadiationStandards, “ ISCORS Assessment ofR a d i o a c t i v i t y i n Se w a ge Slu d g e :Recommendations on Management ofRadioactive Materials in Sewage Sludge and Ashat Publicly Owned Treatment Works – FinalReport,” U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EH-0668, ISCORS Technical Report 2004-04,February 2005. [Prepared by ISCORS SewageSludge Subcommittee on Radiation Standards.][STC]
Interagency Steering Committee on RadiationStandards, “ ISCORS Assessment ofRadioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Modeling toAssess Radiation Doses,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG-1783, ISCORSTechnical Report 2004-03, February 2005. [TC]
Jové-Colón, C.F., P.V. Brady, M.D. Siegel, andE.R. Lindgren, “ Historical Case Analysis ofUranium Plume Attenuation,” Soil and SedimentContamination, 10(1):71–115, January 2001.[Formerly the Journal of Soil Contamination.][RTM]
Jové-Colón, C.F., C. Sanpawanitchakit, H. Xu,R.T. Cygan, J.A. Davis, D.M. Meece, and R.L.
ISCORS membership includes representatives of the3
NRC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Labor’ sOccupational Safety and Health Administration, the U.S.Department of Transportation, and the Department ofHealth and Human Services. Representatives of theOffice of Management and Budget, the Office of Scienceand Technology Policy, and the States are observers atmeetings.
Including the NRC, DOE, EPA, the New Jersey4
Department of Environmental Protection, the MiddlesexCounty Utilities Authority, and the Northeast OhioRegional Sewer District.
E-5
Hervig, “ A Combined Analytical Study toCharacterize Uranium Soil Contamination: TheCase of the Naturita UMTRA Site and the Roleof Grain Coatings,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6898, February 2006.[RTM]
Kamboj, S., E. Gnanapragasam, D. LePoire,B.M. Biwer, J. Cheng, J. Arnish, C. Yu, S.Y.Chen, T. Mo, R. Abu-Eid, and M. Thaggard,“ Probabilistic Approach to Identify SensitiveParameter Distributions in Multimedia PathwayAnalysis,” Practice Periodical of Hazardous,Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management,6(1):23–30, January 2002. [TC]
Kamboj, S., D.J. LePoire, E. Gnanapragasam,B.M. Biwer, J-J. Cheng, J. Arnish, C. Yu, S.Y.Chen, T. Mo, T.J. Nicholson, R. Abu-Eid, M.Thaggard, R.B. Codell, T.E. Harris, D.W.Schmidt, and J. Danna, “ Effects of ParameterDistributions on the Estimated Doses for theResidential Scenario in RESRAD and BuildingOccupancy Scenario in RESRAD-BUILD(Abstract),” Health Physics, 78(6):S148, June2000. [DA]
Kamboj, S., D. LePoire, and C. Yu, “ ExternalExposure Model in the RESRAD ComputerCode,” Health Physics, 82(6):831–839, June2002. [TC]
Kamboj, S., D. LePoire, C. Yu, S.L. Domotor,and K. Higley, “ Derivation of Dose ConversionFactors for Specific Organism Geometries in theRESRAD-BIOTA Code (Abstract),” HealthPhysics, 86(6): S139, June 2004. [TC]
Kamboj, S., C. Yu, B.M. Biwer, and T. Klett,“ RESRAD-BUILD Verification,” Argonne,Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EAD/TM-115, October 2001. [Prepared for the U.S.Department of Energy.] [TC]
Kennedy, W.E., Jr., D.L. Strenge, R.A. Meek,and C. Daily, “ Residual RadioactiveContamination from Decommissioning —
Technical Basis for Translating ContaminationLevels to Annual Total Effective DoseEquivalent, Final Report,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5512, Vol.1, October 1992. [Prepared by the PNL.] [TC]
Kohler, M., D.M. Meece, G.P. Curtis, and J.A.Davis, “ Methods for Estimating AdsorbedUranium(VI) and Distribution Coefficients inContaminated Sediments,” EnvironmentalScience and Technology, 38(1):240–247, January1, 2004. [RTM]
LePoire, D.J., B.M. Biwer, J.J. Arnish, S.Kamboj, S.Y. Chen, A. Wolbarst, S. Domotor,and R. Cady, “ A Collaborative Web Site forFacilitating Environmental ParameterCommunications,” in Proceedings of the 2005Waste Management Symposium, February 27 –March 3, 2005, Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia,Inc., 2005. [TC]
LePoire, D.J., E. Gnanapragasam, J. Arnish,B.M. Biwer, J-J. Cheng, S. Kamboj, C. Yu,S.Y. Chen, T. Mo, T.J. Nicholson, P.R. Reed,R. Abu-Eid, M. Thaggard, T.E. Harris, R.B.Codell, D.W. Schmidt, and J. Danna,“ Uncertainty Analysis Module for RESRAD andRESRAD-BUILD Radiological Dose AssessmentSoftware Packages (Abstract),” Health Physics,78(6):S147, June 2000. [DA]
McFadden, K., D.A. Brosseau, W.E. Beyeler,and C.D. Updegraff, “ Residual RadioactiveContamination from Decommissioning – User’ sManual, DandD Version 2.1,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5512,Vol. 2, April 2001. [Prepared by SigmaSoftware and GRAM, Inc.] [TC]
McFadden, K., D.A. Brosseau, W.E. Beyeler,and C.D. Updegraff, “ Residual RadioactiveContamination from Decommissioning – User' sManual, DandD Version 2.1,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5512, Vol.2, April 2001. [Prepared by the SNL.] [TC]
E-6
McLain, A.A., S.J. Altman, M.L. Rivers, andR.T. Cygan, “ Use of ComputerizedMicrotomography to Examine the Relationship ofSorption Sites in Alluvial Soils to Iron and PoreSpace Distributions,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6784, July 2002.[Prepared by the SNL and the University ofChicago.] [RTM]
Meyer, P.D., and T.J. Nicholson, “ Analysis ofHydrogeologic Conceptual Model and ParameterUncertainty,” in S. Mishra, editor, GroundwaterQuality Modeling and Management UnderUncertainty: Proceedings of the ProbabilisticApproaches & Groundwater ModelingSymposium held during the World Water andEnvironmental Resources Congress, June 24–26,2003, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Reston,American Society of Civil Engineers, 2004.[FM]
Meyer, P.D., and S. Orr, “ Evaluation ofHydrologic Uncertainty Assessments forDecommissioning Sites Using Complex andSimplified Models,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6767, April 2002.[Prepared by the PNL.] [FM]
Meyer, P.D., and R.Y. Taira, “ HydrologicUncertainty Assessment for DecommissioningSites: Hypothetical Test Case Applications,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-6695, February 2001. [Prepared bythe PNL.] [FM]
Meyer, P.D., M. Ye, S.P. Neuman, and K.J.Cantrell, “ Combined Estimation ofHydrogeologic Conceptual Model and ParameterUncertainty,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6843, March 2004.[Prepared by the PNL and the University ofArizona.] [FM]
Neuman, S.P., and P.J. Wierenga, “ AComprehensive Strategy of HydrogeologicModeling and Uncertainty Analysis for NuclearFacilities and Sites,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, NUREG/CR-6805, July 2003.[Prepared by the University of Arizona.] [FM]
Nicholson, T.J., J.E. Babendreier, P.D. Meyer,S. Mohanty, B.B. Hicks, and G.H. Leavesley,editors, Proceedings of the InternationalWorkshop on Uncertainty, Sensitivity, andParameter Estimation for MultimediaEnvironmental Modeling, August 19–21, 2003,Rockville, Maryland, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CP-0187, October 2004.[Sponsored by the Federal Working Group onUncertainty (Working Group 2) of the FederalInteragency Steering Committee on MultimediaEnvironmental Modeling.] [FM]
O' Donnell, E., and P. Godwin, “ Control ofWater Infiltration Through Covers at RadioactiveWaste Disposal Facilities, Uranium Mill TailingsSites, and Decommissioning Sites – Results of 13Years of Cover Performance in Lysimeters at aHumid Region Site, Beltsville, Maryland,” in WM’ 2000 — Proceedings of the WasteManagement 2000 Symposium, February 27–March 2, 2000, Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia,Inc., 2000. [BP]
Payne, T.E., J.A. Davis, G.R. Lumpkin, R.Chisari, and T. D. Waite, “ SurfaceComplexation Model of Uranyl Sorption onGeorgia Kaolinite,” Applied Clay Science,26(1–4):151–162, August 2004. [RTM]
Payne, T.E., J.A. Davis, M. Ochs, M. Olin, andC.J. Tweed, “ Uranium Adsorption onWeathered Schist – Intercomparison of ModelingApproaches,” Radiochimica Acta, 92(9–11):651–661, November 2004. [MigrationConference 2003 special edition.] [RTM]
Rai, D., A.R. Felmy, N.J. Hess, V.L LeGore,and D.E. McCready, “ Thermodynamics of the
2U(VI)-Ca -Cl -OH -H O System: Solubility+ 2 – –
Product of Becquerelite,” Radiochimica Acta,90(9–11):495–503, September 2002. [MigrationConference 2001 special edition.] [STC]
E-7
Randall, J.D., E. O’ Donnell, L.A. Veblen, J.A.Davis, and R.T. Cygan, “ The NuclearRegulatory Commission’ s Sorption-ModelingResearch Program,” in WM’ 04 – Proceedings ofthe Waste Management 2004 Symposium,February 29–March 4, 2004, Tucson, Arizona,WM Symposia, Inc., 2004. [RTM]
Ridge, A.C., R.E. Cady, E. O’ Donnell, J.D.Randall, P.R. Reed, and L.A. Veblen, “ Use ofThermodynamic Sorption Models in ReactiveTransport Modeling: Advantages for U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensees andStaff and Areas of Research,” in Proceedings ofthe 2005 Waste Management Symposium,February 27–March 3, 2005, Tucson, Arizona,WM Symposia, Inc., 2005. [RTM]
Robertson, D.E., S.L. Pratt, and C.W. Thomas,“ Adsorption and Desorption Behavior ofSelected 10 CFR Part 61 Radionuclides from IonExchange Resins by Waters of DifferentChemical Compositions,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6647, July2000. [STC]
Robertson, D.E., C.W. Thomas, S.L. Pratt,E.A. Lepel, and V.W. Thomas, “ Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Classification and Assessment:Waste Streams and Neutron-Activated Metals,”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG/CR-6567, August 2000. [STC]
Robinson, D.E., D.A. Cataldo, B.A. Napier,K.M. Krupka, and L.B. Sasser, “ LiteratureReview and Assessment of Plant and AnimalTransfer Factors Used in PerformanceAssessment Modeling,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6825, August 2003.[DA]
Samson, E., J. Marchand, and K.A. Snyder,“ Calculation of Ionic Diffusion Coefficients onthe Basis of Migration Test Results,” Materialsand Structures, 36(257):156–165, April 2003.[BP]
Samson, E., J. Marchand, K.A. Snyder, and J.J.Beaudoin, “ Modeling Ion and Fluid Transport inUnsaturated Cement Systems in IsothermalConditions, Cement and Concrete Research,35(1): 141–153, January 2005. [BP]
Serne, R.J., K.J. Cantrell, C.W. Lindenmeier,A.T. Owen, I.V., Kutnyakov, R.D. Orr, andA.R. Felmy, “ Radionuclide-Chelating AgentComplexes in Low-Level RadioactiveDecontamination Waste; Stability, Adsorptionand Transport Potential,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6758,February 2002. [STC]
Snyder, K.A., “ Validation and Modification ofthe 4SIGHT Computer Program,” U.S.Department of Commerce, National Institute ofStandards and Technology, NIST 6747, May2001. [Prepared for the NRC.] [BP]
Snyder, K.A., “ Relationship Between theFormation Factor and the Diffusion Coefficientof Porous Materials Saturated with ConcentratedElectrolytes: Theoretical and ExperimentalConsiderations,” Concrete Science and Engineering, 3(12):216–224, December 2001.[BP]
Snyder, K. A.,“ Estimating the 95th Percentile ofthe Paste-Void Spacing Distribution in HardenedCement Paste Containing Air Entrainment,” inD.J. Janssen, M.J. Setzer, and M.B. Snyder, editors, PRO 25: Proceedings of theInternational RILEM Workshop on Frost Damagein Concrete, June 28–30, 1999, Minneapolis,Minnesota, Bagneux, France, RéunionInternationale des Laboratoires et Experts desMatériaux, Systèmes de Constructions etOuvrages – RILEM (International Union ofLaboratories and Experts in ConstructionMaterials, Systems and Structures), 2002. [BP]
Snyder, K.A., “ Condition Assessment ofConcrete Nuclear Structures Considered forEntombment,” U.S. Department of Commerce,
E-8
National Institute of Standards and Technology,NISTIR 7026, July 2003. [BP]
Snyder, K.A., and D.P. Bentz, “ SuspendedHydration and Loss of Freezable Water inCement Pastes Exposed to 90% RelativeHumidity,”Cement and Concrete Research,34(11):2045–2056, November 2004. [BP]
Snyder, K.A., C. Ferraris, N.S. Martys, andE.J. Garboczi, "Using Impedance Spectroscopyto Assess the Viability of the Rapid Chloride Testfor Determining Concrete Conductivity,"Research of the National Institute of Standardsand Technology, 105(4):497–509, July–August2000. [BP]
Snyder, K.A., and J. Marchand, “ Effect ofSpeciation on the Apparent Diffusion Coefficientin Nonreactive Porous Systems,” Cement andConcrete Research,31(12):1837–1845,December2001. [BP]
Snyder, K.A., and J. Philip, “ ConcreteDegradation Modeling in the Evaluation ofEntombment as a Decommissioning Option,” inAmerican Nuclear Society, SPECTRUM 2002:Proceedings of the International Conference onNuclear and Hazardous Waste Management,August 4–8, 2002, Reno, Nevada, 2002. [CD-ROM edition of proceedings.] [BP]
Teter, D.M., and R.T. Cygan, “ Large-ScaleMolecular Dynamics Simulations of MetalSorption onto the Basal Surfaces of ClayMinerals, ” U. S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-6757, February 2002.[Prepared by the SNL.] [RTM]
Timlin, D., J. Starr, R. Cady, and T.J.Nicholson, “ Field Studies for EstimatingUncertainties in Ground-Water Recharge UsingNear-Continuous Piezometer Data,” U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6729, July 2001. [Prepared by the AgriculturalResearch Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (ARS/USDA).] [FM]
Timlin, D., J. Starr, R.E. Cady, and T.J.Nicholson, “ Comparing Ground-Water RechargeEstimates Using Advanced MonitoringTechniques and Models,” U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6836,September 2003. [Prepared by ARS/USDA.][FM]
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Departmentof Energy, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, and the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, “ Multi-Agency Radiation Surveyand Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM),”U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1575, Revision 1, August 2000. [STC]
Veblen, L.A., D. Farthing, E. O' Donnell, andJ.D. Randall, “ Characterization of RadioactiveSlags,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,NUREG-1703, October 2004. [STC]
Veblen, L.A., E. O' Donnell, and J.D. Randall,“ What' s in Radioactive Slag? PhaseIdentification Prediction of Uranium andThorium Fate for Use in Site Decommissioningand Environmental Restoration,” in WM’ 04 –Proceedings of the Waste Management 2004Symposium, February 29–March 4, 2004, Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia, Inc., 2004.[STC]
Westrich, H.R., H.L. Anderson, S.E. Arthur,P.V. Brady, R.T. Cygan, J-J. Liang, P-C.Zhang, and N. Yee, “ Prediction of MetalSorption in Soils,” in Proceedings of the 2000Waste Management Symposium, February28–March 3, 2000, Tucson, Arizona, WMSymposia, Inc., 2000. [RTM]
Whelan, G., and K.J. Castleton, “ GroundwaterModeling System Linkage with the Frameworkfor Risk Analysis in Multimedia EnvironmentalSystems [FRAMES],” Richland, PacificNorthwest National Laboratory, PNNL-15654,
E-9
February 2006. [Prepared for the NRC’ s Officeof Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES).] [FM]
Whelan, G., and T.J. Nicholson, editors,Proceedings of the Environmental SoftwareSystems Compatibility and Linkage Workshop,March 7–9, 2000, Rockville, Maryland, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CP-0177, May 2002. [Sponsored by the NRC’ sRES.] [FM]
Yu, C. , D. J. LePoire, J-J. Cheng,E. Gnanapragasam, S. Kamboj, J. Arnish, B.M.Biwer, A.J. Zielen, W.A. Williams, A. Wallo,and H.T. Peterson, Jr, “ User’ s Manual forRESRAD-BUILD Version 3,” Argonne,Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EAD/03-1,June 2003. [Prepared for DOE.] [TC]
Yu, C., D. LePoire, E. Gnanapragasam, J.Arnish, S. Kamboj, B.M. Biwer, J-J. Cheng,A.J. Zielen, S.Y. Chen, T. Mo, R. Abu-Eid, M.Thaggard, A. Wallo III, H. Peterson, Jr. andW.A. Williams, “ Development of ProbabilisticMultimedia Multipathway Computer Codes,”Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, andRadioactive Waste Management, 6(1):31–40,January 2002. [TC]
Yu, C., A.J. Zielen, J-J. Cheng, D.J. LePoire,E. Gnanapragasam, S. Kamboj, J. Arnish, A.Wallo III, W.A. Williams, and H.T. PetersonJr., “ User’ s Manual for RESRAD Version 6,”Argonne, Argonne National Laboratory,ANL/EAD-4, July 2001. [Prepared for DOE.][TC]
Zhang, P-C., and P. V. Brady, editors,Geochemistry of Soil Radionuclides, Madison,Soil Science Society of America SpecialPublication Number 59, 2002. [RTM]
Zhang, P-C., P.V. Brady, S.E. Arthur, W-Q.Zhou, D. Sawyer, and D.A. Hesterberg,“ Adsorption of Barium(II) on Montmorillonite:An EXAFS Study,” Colloids and Surfaces A:Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects,190(3):239–249, October 15, 2001. [RTM]
Zhang, P-C., J.L. Krumhansl, and P.V. Brady,“ Introduction to Properties, Sources, andCharacteristics of Soil Radionuclides,” in P-C.Zhang and P.V. Brady, editors, Geochemistryof Soil Radionuclides, Madison, Soil ScienceSociety of America Special Publication Number59, 2002. [RTM]
E-10
(Page intentionally left blank.)
F-1
APPENDIX FFINAL COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT
ON THE USE OF PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS IN NUCLEAR REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
F-1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) staff has been very active in thedevelopment of probabilistic risk assessment(PRA) technology and its application to nuclearfacility safety. Landmarks of this activity includepublication of the Reactor Safety Study – WASH-1400 (NRC, 1975), the transportation risk study(Fisher et al., 1977), nuclear power plant seismichazard analyses (Bernreuter et al., 1989), and thenuclear power plants severe accident risk study,NUREG-1150 (NRC, 1990). In 1995, theCommission issued a policy statement thatencouraged the [expanded] use of PRA methodsas a complement to the deterministic approachtaken in its nuclear regulatory activities.
The statement in Section F-2 presents the NRCpolicy for the use of PRA methods in nuclearregulatory matters. This agency developed thispolicy because it believed that the potentialapplications of PRA methodology could improvepublic health and safety decisionmaking whilepromoting stability and efficiency in theregulatory process and reducing unnecessaryburdens on licensees. After a public workshop,the NRC published a draft Policy Statement datedDecember 8, 1994, at page 63389 of Volume 59of the Federal Register (FR) (59 FR 63389). Onreceipt and consideration of public comments, theNRC published the final Policy Statement in 1995(60 FR 42622).
F-2 THE COMMISSION POLICYSTATEMENT (AT 60 FR 42628)
1. The use of PRA technology should beincreased in all regulatory matters to theextent supported by the state of the art inPRA methods and data and in a mannerthat complements NRC’ s deterministic
approach and supports NRC’ s traditionaldefense-in-depth philosophy.
2. PRA and associated analyses (e.g.,sensitivity studies, uncertainty analyses,and importance measures) should be usedin regulatory matters, where practicalwithin the bounds of the state of the art, toreduce the unnecessary conservatismassociated with current regulatoryrequirements, regulatory guides, licensecommitments, and staff practices. Whereappropriate, PRA should be used tosupport the proposal for additionalregulatory requirements in accordancewith Title 10, Part 50.109, “ BackfitRule,” of the Code of Federal Regulations(10 CFR 50.109). Appropriateprocedures for including PRA in theprocess for changing regulatoryrequirements should be developed andfollowed. It is, of course, understood thatthis policy intends that existing rules andregulations will be complied with untilthese rules and regulations are revised.
3. PRA evaluations in support of regulatorydecisions should be as realistic aspracticable, and appropriate supportingdata should be publicly available forreview.
4. The Commission’ s safety goals fornuclear power plants and subsidiarynumerical objectives are to be used withappropriate consideration of uncertaintiesin making regulatory judgments on theneed for proposing and backfitting newgeneric requirements on nuclear powerplant licensees.
F-2
F-3 REFERENCES
Bernreuter, D.L., J.B. Savy, R.W. Mensing, andJ.C. Chen, “ Seismic Hazard Characterization of69 Nuclear Power Plant Sites East of the RockyMountains, ” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-5250, 8 vols., January1989. [Prepared by the Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory.]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ ReactorSafety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risksin U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants,”WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014, October 1975.
Fischer, L.E., C.K. Chou, M.A. Gerhard, C.Y.Kimura, R.W. Martin, R.W. Mensing, M.E.Mount, and M.C. Witte, “ Shipping ContainerResponse to Severe Highway and RailwayAccident Conditions,” U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, NUREG/CR-4829, 2 vols.,
February 1988. [Prepared by the LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory.]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ SevereAccident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S.Nuclear Power Plants – Final Report,” Office ofNuclear Regulatory Research, NUREG-1150,3 vols., December 1990.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Use ofProbabilistic Risk Assessment Methods inNuclear Regulatory Activities: Proposed PolicyStatement,” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 235,pp. 63389–63391, December 8, 1994.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Use ofProbabilistic Risk Assessment Methods inNuclear Regulatory Activities: Final PolicyStatement,” Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 158,pp. 42622– 42630, August 16, 1995.