10974 Fa:'

Attachment 10

57446 Federal Rexister / Vol. 47. No. 248 / Monday. December 27. 1982 / Rules and Regulations

NUCLEAR REGULATCAYCOMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2, 19. 20,21.30.40, 51.51. 70. 73 and 170

Licensing Requirements for LandDisposal of Radioactve Waste

xvncr:.SNuclear RegulatoryCnomission.ACTIOW. Final rule.

sJmmAR7 The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (.NRC] is issuing regutationstha~t szt out licensing procedures.pe rformance objectives *rnt technicaltrequirements for the lIfcensing oftf.ai:liities for the land disposal of low.1 -vrl raldioactive waste. The regulationI, necessary to provide comprehensivenatinnail criteria applicable to the landdi; posal or radioactive waste. This;r.tinn is taken In response to the needsand requests of the public. Congress.industry. the states. the Commission.and other Federal agencies fnr codifirdregulations to govern the disposal of

e low-level radioactive waste.CATIEV 10 CFR 20.311 of Part 2Ueffective date is December 7. 198J: tOCFR Part 61 and all other cha'gwsseffective January 2&. 1983.A0"tSSs: Documents referred to inthis regC ation may be examined at theCommission's Public Document Room.1717 H Street NW.. Washington. DC.Copies of NUREC's may be obtained bywriting the Superintendent ofDocuments. U.S. Government Printir.gOffice. CIB. SSOS. UCP. Washington.DC Z)401 or the %RC/CPO SalesProgram. U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. Washington. DC ;oSS5.Copies of Branch Technical Positionsmay be obtained from the Low LevelWaste licensing Branch. US. NuclearRegulatory CommissIon. Washington.DC 20553.FOR FWRTHR INFORMATIMt cONrY '.Paul Ii. Lohaus. Low-Level WasteLicensing Branch. Division of WasteManagement. Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards. U.S. NuclearRegulato.y Commission. Washington.DC 21555 telephone 1301)427-4500.StPPLEESrTARY OnNoAtX)0C

IntroductionThe NRC Is amending Its regulations

to provide specific requirements forlicensing the land disposal of low level

. nradioactive wastes containing source.special nuclear, or byproduct material.The anendments provide licensingprocedures. performance objectives, andtechnical criteria for licensing facilitiesfor the land disposal of radioactivewaste. Specifically. the regulations

establish performance objectives forland disposal of waste: technicalrequirements for the siting. design.operations. and closure activities for anear.surface disposal facility: technicalrequirements concerning the waste formthat waste generators mzut meet for theland disposal of waste: classification orwaste; institutional requirements: andadministrative and proceduralrequirements for licensing a disposalfacility. Amendments to other parts areestablished to govern the certificationand use of shipping manifests to trackwaste shipments and clarify. but notsubstantially modify. the requirementsof existing regulations. Provisions forconsultation and participation in licensereviews by State governments andIndian tribes are also included. Specificrequirements for licensing facilities forthe disposal of radioactive wastes otherthan high level waste by alternativeland disposal methods wilU be proposedin subsequent rulemalings. Disposal ofradioactive wastes by an individuallicensee will continue to be governed by10 CFR Part 20.Background

On October 25. 1978 the Commissionpublished an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (43 FR 498111regarding the development of specificreIgulations for the disposal of low-levelradioactive wastes (ULW). Thedevelopment of these regulations was inresponse to needs and requestsexpressed by the public. the Congress.industry. the States. the Communission.and other Federal agencies forcodificatlon of regulations for thedisposal of LLW. The respondents to theadvance notice strongly supported theCommission's development of specificcrite:ii and standards for the disposal oflow-!:-.:l waste. The comments receivedby th.- Cvmmission on the advancenotice were used by the Commission inscoping the form and content of the draftEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS(NURE-0782) and the regulation.

On February 28. 980. the Commissionalso Published a Notice of Availabilityof a preliminary draft regulation. datedNovember S. 1979. announcingavailability of the draft for public reviewand comment (45 FR 13104). This wasdone to help ensure wide distributionand early public review and commenton the development of the rule. Copiesof this draft regulation were distributedto all of the States.

During the summer and fall of 1980.the Commission also sponsored fourregional workshops to provide anopportuntity for open dialogue amongrepresentatives of the States, publicinterest groups. industry, and others on

the issues to be addressed in the Part s1rulemtnking. These workshops wereparticularly useful in formulating ourpositions on the more judgmentalaspects or the rule and underlyingassumptions (such as the length of timewe should assume that activegovernmental controls could reasonablybe relied on).

Proposed 10 CFR Part 01 andconforming amcndments were publishedon 1Uy 24.1981 (46 FR 36081). Theoriginal comment perind was due toexpire October 2' 1981. but wasextended to Januap 44. 1982 to coincidewith the 90-day coicnt period for thesupporting draft EIS (NUREC -0782). Thevarilability of the draft EIS was

announced on October 22. 1981 (48 FR51776). The proposed rule was sent to nllCommission licensees and copies wereprovided to Agreement State officials todistribute to their licensees.

Public comments were received onboth the rule and draft EIS and may beexamined at the Commission's PublicDocument Room (PDR) located at 1717It Street NW.. Washington. D.C.Commenla on the rule are available atthe PDR Docket No. PR-2 el ca. (48 FR38081). Comments on the draft EIS areavailable at the PDR referencing DocketNo. PR-el (40 FR 51770).

A total of 42 persons commented anthe draft EIS. tghe.c commentersrepresented a variety of Interests.Comments were received from 21 States.8 industrylutilities. 8 Federal agencies/laboratories. 3 individuals and 2 broker/disposal firms. The comments generallyraised or echoed the'sanme Issues raisedconcerning the rule except that somequestions on the methodologies andpresentation of results were raisetl. Adetailed analysis of the comments onthe drdrt EIS will be included as anappendix to the final EIS (NUREC-00)45Jwhich is being prepared 'Overview of Comments on 10 CFR Part61

A total of 107 different personssubmitted comments on the proposed 10CFR Part 61. The commentersrepresented a variety in interests.Comments were received from: 19industrial groups. 17 state groups. 15Individuals. 13 utilities. 9 federalagencies or laboratories. 6 universities. 4medical groups. 4 engineering firms. 4public Interest groups. 4 professionalcrganizations. 3 broker/disposal firms. 2

Copirr of 'his ,pon may be obtuined by wrtU".nrequest to the Divitson or Technkat Informitutn andDocument Control. Washington. Uc. mcss. Copris.itt also Ito made avaitable ror inspection or

copyon tuor afe t tIhe NRC Publikc DncumeniRoom. 1?7 If Setr N'.W.. Washinietnn. D.C.

.

-Felv1P lqt =-sec' Y-OQ P

I f

A

CV)

o L t. ,

A.S. Nu(JLEAI KEGILATORY COCMISSIOt

theMatterof - e " evVslc Jo

ccket No. fo-3o1O- Lofcia Ed1fbU iO1wi.

-FfERED by: AppficanW~ee4 en AZA

NRIC staff Ottff

DN11FIED on__________

,'nnTnken: WSfl-DRAII

Attachment 10

57,44 Federal Rejiter / VoL 47. No. 248 / Mohday. December 27. 1982 / Rlues and RegulatIons

NUCLEAR REGULATCOYCOMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2.19. 20.21.30.40. S.61.70. 73 and 170

I Ucensing Requirements for L-ndDisposal of Radio4cti Waste

aot:.cr. uclear RegulatoryCtirmission.aco.n: Final rule.

susrttAav: The Nuclear RegulatoryComznassion l.NRC) is Issuing regu"atdotuth.t szt out licensing procedures.performance objectives and technicalren.uirements for the licensing ofr...:ilities for the land disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The regulationi. necessary to provide comprehensivenatinnal criteria applicable to the landdi.:posal of radioactive waste. Thisartinn is taken in response to the needsand requests of the public. Cngsress.industry. the states. the Conmnision.and other Federal agencies fnr codifiedregulations to govern the disposal of'uw-level radioactive waste.DVAEX tO CFR 20.311 or Part W1effective date is December 2'. 1963: toCFR Part 61 and all other chdngrseffective January 26. 1983.ADoIes:W Documents referred to inthis regu:ation may be examined a. theCommission s Public Document Room.1717, 1 Street NW.. Washington. DCCopies or NUREC's may be obtained bywriting the superintendent ofDocuments. US. Government PrintingOffice. CIB. SSOS. UCP. Washington.DC 2401 or the NRC/lPO SalesProgram. US. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. Washington. DC 5.Copies of Branch Technical Positionsmay be obtained from the Low LevelWaste i'censing Branch. U5. NVuclearRrgula tory Commision. Washington.DC 20553.FOR FURT14?M INFORMATIOfl CoCrrI.t

Paul Ff. Lohaus. Low.Level 'W;asteLicensing Branch. Division of WasteMfanagement. Office of .uclear !fatertaSafety and Safeguards. US. NuclearRegulato.y Commission. Washington.DC 2055. telephone (301)4Z7-40.S1XPPLEIZXTAtY 0fORMAI)nW

Introduction

The NRC is amending its regulationsto provide specific requirements forlicensing the-land disposal of low levelradioactive wastes containing source.special nuclear. or byproduct material.The anendments provide licensingprocedures. performance objectives. an,technical criteria for licensing facilitiesfor the land disposal of radioactivewaste. Specifically. the regulations

establish performance objectives forlsnd disposal of waste technicalrequirements for the -siting. design.operations. and closure activities for anear surrace dfspasal facility: technicalrequirements concerning the waste formthat waste generators must meet tor theland disposal of waste: classification ofwnste; institutional requirements: andadministrative'and proceduralrequirements for licensing a disposalfacility. Amendments to other parts areestablished to govern the certificationand use of shipping manifests to trackwaste shipments and clarify. but notsubstantially modify, the requirementsof existing regulations. Provisions forconsultation and participation in licensereviews by.State governments andIndian tribes are also inciuded. Specificrequirements for licensing facilities forthe disposal of radioactive wastes otherthan high level waste by alternativeland disposal methods wi:l be proposedin subsequent rulemakings. Disposal ofradioactive wastes by an individuallicensee will continue to be governed byJO CFR Part 20.

BackgroundOn October 23. 1978. the Commiissiun

published an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (43 FR 498111regarding the development of specificregulations for the disposal of low-levelradioactive wastes (LL.VV. Thedevelopment of these regulations was inresponse to needs and request.expressed by the public. the Congress.Industry. the States. the Commission.and other Fcderal agencies forcodification of regulations for thedispusal of LLW. The respondents to theadvance notice strongly supported theComrission's development of specificcrite:ii and standards for the disposal oflow-:- .:I waste. The comments receivtdby ts.e 0.,mmission on the advancenotice were used by the Commission inscoping the form and content of the draftEnvironmental Impact Statemer.t (EIS)(NLREC-07821] and the regulation.

On February 28. 1980. the Commissionalso rublished a Notice of Availabilityof a preliminary draft regulatfon. datedNovember 5. 1979. announcingavailability of the draft for public reviewand comment (45 FR 13104). This wasdone to help ensure wide distributionand early public review and commenton the development of the rule. Copiesof this draft regulation were distributedto all of the States.

During the summer and fall of 1980.the Commission also sponsored fourregional workshops to provide anopportunity for open dialogue amongrepresentatives of the States. publicinterest groups. Industry. and others on

the Issues to be addressed in the Part 01rulemaking. These workshops werepirticularly useful in formulating ourpositions on the more judgmentalaspects of the rule and underlyingassumptions (such as the length-of timewe should assume that activegovernmental controls could reasonablybe relied on).

Proposed 10 CFR Part 01 tandconformiogt amendments were publishedon July 24.1901 (48 FR 3t81). Theoriginal comment period was due toexpire October = 1981. but wasextended to January 14. 1982 to coincidewith the 90-day comment period for thesupporting draft EIS (NUREC;-07821. Theavailability of the draft EIS wasannounced on October 22.1981 (48 FR51776). The proposed rule was sent to jalCommission licensees and copies wereprovided to Agreement State officials todistribute to their licensees.

Public comments were received onboth the rule and draft EIS and may beexamined at the Commission's PublicDocument Room (PDR) located at 1717;1 Street ..V_ Washington. D.C.Comments on the rule are available atthe PDR Docket No. PR-Z el cl. (45 FR35081). Comments on the draft EIS areavailable at the PDR referencing Docketro. PR-C1 (40 FR 51770).

A total of 4t persons commented onthe draft EIS. These commentersrepresented a variety of Interests.Comments were received from 21 States.8 industry/utilitics. B Federal agencies/laboratories. 3 Individuals and 2 brokic:|disposal firms. The comments generally.raised or echoed the'samc Issues ranisedconcerning the rule except that somequestions on the methodologies andpresentation of results were raised. Adetailed analysis of the comments onthe draft EIS will be included as anappendix to the final EIS (NUREC-M451which is being prepared'

Overview of Comments on 10 CFR Part61

A total of 107 different personssubmitted comments on the proposed 10CFR Part al. The commentersrepresented a variety in interests.Commetits were received from: 19 .industrial groups. 17 state groups. 15Individuals. 13 utilities. 9 federalagencies or laboratories. 0 universities. 4mnedic al groups. 4 engineering firms. 4public interest groups. 4 professionalciganizitio'ns9.3 broker/disposal firms. 2

Copi.. of this report may be obtained by wrina"requwdito the Diviason of Technical Infomiatuon a-dDocument Control. Washington. DJC .t SS. Cop-sellgalao t4 made aveilabre rer inspeciron orcopytin for a fe at the ?IRC Public DocumentRoom. 317 1t SaIf S.V Waiihi.nv nn. D.C

V

i I

_Federl Register l VoL 47. No. 248 / Monday. December 27. 1982 | Rules and Regulations 574,7

legal groups. 2 surety groups. and Sothers. Cammnenters offered from one toover 20 comments each. The topicsaddressed a wide range of issues and allparts of the rule.

The general response was quitefavorable. Alm'.ost half (47) expressedexplicit support of the rule or overallapproach. Many of these cormentersexpressed some concern about one or afew specific provisions and most offeredsuggestions for Improvements. Manyexpressed the view that the ruleprovides a needed and adequateframework for establishing a4ditlonallow-level waste disposal capacity. TheImportance. reasonableness, and clarityof the nile were noted. Support wasexpressed by a!most every sector.

Only 15 commenters expressed anyoutrght opposition to the rule or somesignificant po-tion of the nile. Most wereindividuals. :;o s:ate group or cur entdsspos4l site opera-or expressedopposition. The opposition expressedappeared to stem from objections tonuclear power and use of radioactivematerials, apposition to shallow landburial as a disposal method in generaland for ThU wastes in particular.opposition to perceived increase In coststo waste generators. the regulatoryburden of the licensing process. and thetechnical requirements in Subpart D ofthe proposed rule. Several of thecornmenters that expressed oppositionoffered suesrtions for improving therule. however.

Mtost of the remaining commeners(45) offered constructive commentswithout taking a grneral position on therule. or offered support withrescrvations about or.e or more aspectstf the rule.

All concerns expressed by al!cor- menters are discussrd in detail in astair arn-!ysis of comments which isavadlable in the 2R. Because the -voume of comments and analysis indetail occupy several hundred pages. tIhefollowin3 discussion summanizes andresponds to all comments of major andgeneric significance. For example.comrnen!s cn Par. 61 standardprovisions that are common to a'.lCommission regulations are notdiscussed in this s.ummary. but arecovered in the document: available in thePlR.

Summary of Comments fot ProposedPart 61

Subocrt A: Gc.crel Provisions. Avariety of comments were received thatrelated to the scope of the rule. Twoclarifying changes were made to make itclearer that urani-im and thoriumtailings as defined in Section Ite(Z) ofthe Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as

amended, are not subject to therequirements of Part 61. but aredisposed of according to requirements in10 CFR Part 40. In addition. clarifyingchanges were made to state that the.requirements of Part el do not apply topersons who are licensed by an.Agreement State pursuant to authorityrelinquished to that Stite by theCommission in accordance with SectionZ74 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. asamended.

Snme commenters fell that provisionsshould be made Foran individual todispose of his or her own waste. Privatewaste disposal may be licensed undercurrent provisions of 10 CFIR Part 0.The Commission feels that theseprovisions are adequate and that nochange to Part 6: to accommr.mdateprivate dis,"sal is warranted.

At least two State comm-nters askedabout Agreemeat Stame requiremen:,being compatible with Part 6t. TheCommission is preparing guidance forStates that will consider Section 01.2.Definitions: Subpart C. PerformainceObjectives: Subpart D. TechnicalRequirements lro Land DisposalFacilities; those portions of Subpart Bthat are necessary to Imp!ement thepr)vision.s of Subparts C and D. Section20311. Transfer for disposal andln.nifests: and that pretion of Subpart Erequiring clcsure fur.d:'i4 arrangementsAs a matter of compa;:bility for theAgreement Stdtes. Gudance willidentify those aspects where uniformityin desirable and those aspects whereStates would have flexibility Inestabl:shin; IItir own requirements.

It was su=-es:ed Lhat construction of adi.4pusal facility should be permitted tobegin befa-e a hcens- is issu e. TheCommi3sson blieves that to do sowould have a de-nrie'.ntil effect on :hedecisioamakirng process and thereforeno change is be-.M mrade to thisprosion.

ln the proposed r.'c. near surfacedisposal was defined in | 61.2 anddiscussed in I 61.7 is disposal in theup.er 1i5-20 meters o' the ear:h's3urface. Based on co e....nts received.the wording could be mf sinterpreted tonean that disposal was3 allowed only

between 15 3nd 20 meters or that deeperdisposad was prohibi:ed. The wordingwas clarified to rnake it consistent withthe was:e c!assfi1cation requirrentrns.(Class A and B wastes h3ve nominimum depth requirement and ClassC wastes have a 5 me:er depthrequirement when re!ying on depthalone.) Disposal at a depth greatcr than5 meters would also be acceptable.

Subpart B: Licenses. Comrnentsr-ceived on Subpart B covered a widerange of issues. Many .vere cor.cerr.ed

with clarification and intent. Th.erewere, however. several issues th.at vtwrlmore substantive and addr-ss d by .large group of comment ers.

Several commenters *vere cor*crna'that the language in several pl.IcIsrequired the applicant to demnrostra.e rnthe applicaltion thdt certmin olbaeksivr!'were mnet. Their conccrns were ontrwhat %would constitute e dm'n.a:sirati.

and! the imposjibility of m:ing .inobjnctive with complete ier..;ntv Js

implied by the langunge in the rule. TheCommission agrees with thcrtecommenters and changes h.rve beenr ade in appropriate praces ti in-l.,te.that what the Commissirn *.mas isinfarma!aon or analvses that vwillprovide reasonable r s3uran.e tI.ht theobjective or requirement *will te' meO.0O'ecr rr..nor changes wer- .:a.. t..rpurposes of clqrnfs..tiion.

An advisory statemen- in , "R 1.1 th.at .e tround water p %%hws .I,g'nerrAly the most siit:i an:l.:r;n-.arsurf.ace dispos.sl. in tenrs rf-. r : .slse' CTradieactivatv. wass dleleted UhI. s6',:tieurequires an ana'y!.vs of ail pu. .- nt:..lpathways and two con:m..ntitarnoblected to sini!:.a. tout rwocaund *at.er.

Sec'eral comrwp:::r, rs vxp:rc-*~cs;nr.rrn over the ength of tnie: ih..t th.hcensing proc-s :n.ght tal'.. ndmsusmested limits bi- establv'.e*,i ti IthreX lations. The Cnmrr.s,,r. thglti notbeieve that this is practic~a!h.

considering the unrcrt.ainhns :11

predic:ing the qu'lity of tuaurrapplications. the 4vadial!ilav of *%.f

resources ot critical time.. .and thrpoten:ial fur bearie.2s. The licensingprocess must be in accord.. a.e with IF-

Commission's mi;sion, to prot- nm:lilmhealth and safety but the Comrn.,.stin

does agree that the licensinz pricessmnit be carried out in the -mr.imprmamount of time consistent witih t; -l

mi3sion. Some changes in. *he proe:ed-thtraspects of the nule are being m.tdue wt:'this in mind (see comments. Subp-sr- F.The Commission staff is i.e,!opingtechnical positions to assist .-fp picirn!in preparing their applic;ainn. and isdeveloping perfor.narce a,;s-Psmen:capabilities that will ena!I,! !hr? s:aff t.perform timely reviews.

.;ine commenters% lrih.." ii,.:language in I 61.25 iha: pre%.-ni 0theliehnsee from makrng an; ch-ngrS enfacility or procedures descri-dl. in Ih,application except as provided Fi,r inspecific license conditions. Thecommenters felt that thi-t wesunnecessarily restrictive. in :'k;: the':.may be aspects of the facislaty orprocedures hdt were described in th.-application. buzt which are r~ot impr..-

to paublic health and safe:y and :he

C-

Ct

CW)S7448 Federal Register / Vol. 4?. No. 248 / Mor.daiy. December 57. 1942I1 Rules and Regulations

_ __

lo'.rnsee shcu'd be r'ee to ch.amgn them.The Coummssiorn arees'. since it ws n ot

ir.tended : hat dll ctiunges be subject toConmmissirn. re-view or-appr-saL onlythI%$e c:npornerIt to public health antd

'---sSeo!w.n 61 3'- ra charwg..d.tcr.snrl:ing!v.

v. is dntoen Crrns eri rc-es^l- *,t.t.-s!:e toe s iN- t.1 i ri e'1aror t to .,: tt-.thI..n*- lu- -. ren.erd in the v.etsos! fi e*sa.*; ir.: s-ml %,th s ceironc-mut.ant puh!ie,r1 0- * n he! Oppurtn'tv ht :rqurs' .at.oblet: hr.arinz. The dnmirn..t reasn fur

tits % ebiecrions Is the hurden thtt is-pc-:rired if public hetnnnst were held* . rI fite r.trs at the time uo licenser. :c. w.u The Cnmm;ssion hrieves that.. .-r:t'ir. redsqessment by the lictrrste

..mel !he Crmmission staff-is no-cess.ry.It- F e'j'4rnsmcnt should f.Ltevr in thep..-t '.p;r.1trng erxprriencts of :hre!e-;''ssit tfacility. the rsid's ofr:.-.-vtrin; dati. changine eciontimicI *.tlttions thit might aufre-t finrnci.l.,N-mrences. adviances in technylr'uy. ertc.Wh.le there are altern.,tiuc: too lic-nse-rrne-wal in order to enlute n h-#r-.n-tlic. reappraisals. the, C.nomaqe4mon

1JeMVt4ni ld-through sts expe.rence thnil. rnihtc license rerews! s the mnst

effec!.tsve smethod&.A fai r the publicr-if:e or the renewal and the notijre of.'purtrunity to request a pti!ic heainn.the? Cnmmir son .grses tF.,t :his is notnflicrsur% dald it h es been delted.l)'eting thzs mquirmer-t %-;I not haivean Adv.!rse effect on the puhlic's interestiond righ:s. Accordint to roei:%ed 3 61.ZS.any e:hang-s to the license cenoditionsfrmm a licenme renewal prIt:s wouldIb, 'ulJject to notice and oppsorounfty tori-sl.*st hearin" if !he conditions werr:? *hc hsthest cate-tory %po_:iAed irt th.t-set:ion tparagraph 611.Z3Ial Ill.

Two ermmerters sujzgested notsubiecting the licensee to -in opportunityfeir !tearinis at the time of site closure.The Ccrmission believes thst this is anirnportant and wennhwhile hne topr :: idr for public partir:petinn. N.orh.cngrs were made.

While ncne of the conmen.ters teack- xCeption with the need for a perintl ofpost-closure obsenation arotmaint-nance by the licensee. a numberdial object to the cpen-en drdwss of therortuirements that this ppriod be for "aminimum of rWe yeers. This prnvisionbets been changed to state that theperiod will normally be five yeirs. butthat shorter or longer pc-iods may be

4ju ;pproved by the Comrmissiun inWconnection with the approval of the site

clotsure plan for a specific site.Several cornmenters. including Cherr.-

N~uclear Sys:ems. Inc.. and US. Ecoloat;.the operators of the existing disposalfacilities. were concemrcd aboutpwssible delays in transfer of the license

to thc site owner at the end of thu post'cl..sUre observation period. They foreseethe possibility of more stringentrer;urements being imposed at thts time.therrby delaying the transf.er with anad% ersc effect on the abilitv of thelicinsee to eftect proper closure doe.i toch.rgrs be'o nd the financialreruu:nr.-:ners inmtially established. 11eGC.mrn.ssion wecognizts this possibilty.hI. ,: Is beyond thecConmmission'sauithoirstv to control or rri~ul.te the site-owvnrr and force the transfer to taltep;crr. Arny requirements for transferthAt are outside the public health ands.a.e-y cor.sidermions prescribed by Part61t b-r.earr a InAtter cf contract or;nrner.t between the site owner dudtthe stic npercaor. With the Iow LevelRP.ie'i.sct:ve Waste Policy Act laying ther.sp.nscibihtv for disposal of low le% lv.este on the States. it is obvious thitthe States will play an increasinglyimportant rok. State authorities. who ina:1 lik'lchood will be the si:e owners.shesl:!d become active p.rticip.nts in the'dO5'3t l activities from the eatrlieststages of development thruough sileclosuire and stabilization so that at th

::me of site transfer to them forinst:tutional control. there are nounforeseen obstacles to the rordetrl .snsl

timrIs transfer. Part 61 provides fur thisparticipation in the licensing pruo-ss.and as landlord. there arc other av enues

of pa!'ticipatiton. -Su;'Pcrt C Prrfeirano-ace Objerlites. A

doszen cornmenter addressed the.pproauh taken in Part 61 to estahlishperforrr..er.ce objecflves supplementedby smer minimum technicalrvoqiarements. All cummcnters exLeptthr-r supported the approach of.141dressing disposal from an overrolsystrims standpoint. i e.. establishingoverall performance objectives andminimnum technical requirements andlea% ing considerable flexibility on howan applicant or licensee would design;nd operate a site. Of the tnree whodiagrced. one felt that the concern forpublic health and safety is so great thatthe rule should be based on prescriptiver quirements: one felt that there shouldbe. no technical requiremcnts in the rule.onyv perfor.-unce objectives: and thethird felt that the rule is restrictive byest.blishiror I'oth performanceobjectives and technical requirements.On balance. the commenis were juddedto be supportive of the mix of objectivesand requirements and no charges havebeen made in this regard.

One comnienter challenged theperformna-ce objectives in Part 61 asbeing pre-nature in advance of relevantEP, standards and beyond the agency'sauthority to the extent that they are notalready embodied in 10 CFR Part Zo and

that they are unduly stringen' antiunsupported. With respect to thiscomment. IEPA. undrr its urmbientenvironmental standartds settingauthority assigned by ReorganizationlaItnl Xo. 3 of 1970 hns the authority toprep.tre a standard that tvill si-i limitsfr.. rieleitses of rudioaw-tivitv to thr*g-rntral environment fronni disptS.Lt.iilitirs. Prresentlv thcre is no such P1l'Astandard; In th-:? absenre of such as:mnil.hir. the Commission examinmied ar.unst- .,f hn:ls vhich bound thatrxpn.tetl for the FPA staindrd.rl anitselected a proposed perfornianiuoloqectiv e that establishes a. rele.se linit.fre thc site boundary. a regulastesryat-tirm within the hrnits of NRCaitithonty. It a nrlemaiiing at.tisn. the

unimmossion is not solely linited tis.rxistiig standards in Part :1 andl thoeCiemmission does not intend t)vvithdlr.ow any portion of the rult thatmiy be reac'te to the perforn,.rncetsoljrteove's.

uith r-gard to the sloecificperfulr annce oljective for reIr.naes testhr envirtinmtm:ng. the EnvirunmeniatolP'riee-eion Agency commented that ther' t.hllishme:t of an individual expouturtlimit at the site boundary for releases aHprtepsmed in I 61.41 is appropriaite,. Thest.Id that the range of 1 to ZS mrenhsu-hna!yzrd by the Cnommission was a

rn*aon..lle range that should encenmipaws

.ny standard which EPA might *lerive!.r low level waste disposal facilities.

1eJ.srnv on the Commission s analysis.NkC ditews not anticipate any noeel toe.har.,r the technical requirements oft..rt tl to meel a future EPA stanthorgL

In thrir conmments.,EPA slated theiropinion that it was inapproprinte toa;pply the EPA drinking waster stamndlardas proposed in § 61.41. AccordIingly. this

part of the performance objective hasbern deleted. However. this does notdiminish the Cnmmission's concern ov.-pristecting sources of drinking wiater.The Commission will asqses the-potential impact on drinking wntersupplies as part of its licensing review-

Reaction to the proposed perfarrh;anceoljective to protect potentialinadvertent intruders was mixed. Th-rewere some who felt the proposel 5'0mrem whole body dose to the intruderwis too high. some felt that it wits theright valize for a standard ;mnd othersfelt that higher values were in order.Those that felt that the stimndard shou'dbe higher suggested values of 5 rem orz; rem (the Department or Energy) tocorrespond to limits for nrccup:ationalexposure or one-ime exposures toworkers from potential accidents. Anumber of commenters. in theircomments ab-ut considering the

.6

Fedenl Rgster | VoL 47. No. 248 / Monday. December 27. 1982 I Rules and Regulations K7."a, vx v

probability that Intrusion will occur.expmssed concern about weighting tooheavily the protection againstinadvertent intision In deteriiningdisposal requIrements far waste. Baedon these com=ent, the Commissionbelieves that the primary concern ofthese who feel that the Intbuderprotection objective Is too restrictive isthe effect that this has on theconcentrations of certain nuclides thatar acceptable for disposal in a neararfce facility and the need to meet

additional requirements inch as stabilityfor some waste With this In mind. andIn response to other commients. theCommission has reevaluated thecalculations that establish the wasteclassification concentration limits toeliminate tumecessrily conservativeassumptions with the result that theanalysis Is more realistic and the limitsfor several important Isotopes have beenraised. With this action. the Commissionbelieves that most of the concerns ofthose who encouraged higher exposuelimnts or less emphasis on protection ofIntruders will have been met.

With respect to those who suggestedthat lower limits would be appropriate.there were no compelling arguments ortechnical demonstrations presented thatpersuaded the Commission to lower thedose limit for intruders.

The EPA recommended that the 500cercn dose limit be deleted fo theperformance objective, since thelIcensec would not be able to monitor ordemostrate compliance with a specificdose limit that applies to an event thatmight occur hundreds of years fromnow. They did recommend ue of the SO0mem whole body dose limit coupledwith ALAPA as the basis fordetermining the concentration limits inTable ' of Part 81. The 500 tnrcm doselinit hasbeen deleted from theperformance objective but retained asthe basis of the Waste classificationlimits.

Comments were offered that moreemphasis should oe placed onrequirements. such as the use of durablemonuments to warn poter tial intrders.This concept is incorporated in theregulation.

Acts of terrorism and sabotage wereIdentified as possible Intrusion problemsand suggestions were made forprotecting against such acts. TbeCommission does not feel that thelikelihood of such events or themagnitude of the effects of such acts aresufficient to warrant requirements Inthis regard.

EPA asked for a clarification of theintent-of the performance objective ini 61.43 as it pertains to effluents fromthe site. This performance objective

states that operations at the landdisposal facility must be conducted Incompliance with the standards forradiation protection set out In Part 20.Part 20 contains standards for -

concentrations of radioisotopes In airand water released from a licensedfacility. Section 51.41 rets forth limits onconcentrations of radioisotopes releasedfrom a land disposal facility which arelower than those in Part 20. It Is theCommision's intent that the provisionsof Part 2S will apply to all aspects ofradiation protection during operationexcept for releases of radioactivity fromthe site which will be governed by themore stringent requirements of S 61.4The rule has been modified to clarifythis point.

Cornmenlers pointed out a need to bedearer in the rule on bow the principleof maintaining radiation exposures to alevel that is as low as reasonablyachievable (ALARA) will be handled.The ComMIssion intends that theALARA principle apply to theperformance objectives for long-termenvironmcental release and protection ofIndividuals during site operations. Itcannot apply to the intrudeperformance objective, since Part 61 setsou: the requirements for protection andintrusion which Is beyond the disposalfacility licensee's control. Appropriatechanges have been made In If 61.41 and61.43 to reflect the ALARA principle.

Subpartt:f D 561-. Disposal SiteSuifobilftyforNear-Surface DisposalAoproximate;y two dozen commentersoffered comments on various aspects ofI GI5A addressing disposal sitesuitability requirements. Thesecomments address eight subject areaswhich are discussed below.

Eight comnments were received on therequirement that the disposal site shallbe capable of being characterized.modeled, analyzed. and monitored. Thecomments were directed to theperceived vagueness of the reouirement.i e_ what does it mean to be capable ofbeing characterized. modeled, analyzed.and monitor'd? Some commentersoffered suggested rewording orexamples. The Commission has issued astaff technical position (NiUREG-9o2)that provides Interpretation andexplanation of the meaning and intent ofthis requiremrent. In the technicalposition. it is explained that the sitecharacteristics must be such that limitedsite characterization can adequatelyderne the site characteristics spatiallyacross the disposal site and that sitecharacteristics should vary with asufficiently narrow range so that theinput to modeling is representative ofthe hydrogeologic units and theassumptions underlying the modeling

are valid. Further, natural processesaffecting the disposal site should beoccurring at a consistent and definablerate such that the modeling of the sstewill represent both present andanticipatable site conditions afterclosure. Finally, site characteristics mtuwbe such that a reasonable number cfmonitoring points can adequatelydescribe the extent to whichradionuclides have migrated from thewaste disposal units. In addition, theCommissiotiis staff is developing an in-house modeling capability and willshare that capability through pre-qualification of prospective computercodes. The Commission believes that aconcise statement in the rule along withguidance on these subjects provided bytechnical position papers andRegulatory Guides is appropriate.

Several aspects related to groundwaterwere addressed in the comments.Three commenters (Ontario lydra. theDepartment of Interior, and theDepartment of Fnergy) endorsed theprovision in I 61.50(aM(7) that periUtsdisposal below the water table wherediffusion dominated the ground wa?(r "flow system.

The Department of Interiorrecommended using the term.'molecular diffTusion' and both they an:Ontario Hydra suggested sperifying alimit for soil hydraulic conductivity ofless than 10ocmS;ec. as appropriate.There were several commenters whodisagreed with this provision andrecommended total containment orsome minimum depth.to the water table.

The Commission envisions a site thatwould satisfy the exception In sect-on6150(a)(7) as one with an Inactive Slowsystem so that the water which wouldcontact the wastes would move on theorder of less than one foot per yea-.Given the low hydraulic conductivityand effecti'e porosity of the soils. ve,-little water would actually contact thewaste or flow from the disposal u~itsThe travel time will result in ,uffic cntreduction of concentration of the sm aliamounts released and fine-grained soilswill typically provide significantattenuation for most radionuclides- Nochange has been made to this provisionof the rule.

Several commenten suggestedrequirements on retardation propc:;iesfor soils, both impervious and porce-s. (One suggested a leachate collecticr anrtL_treatment system for the impervioussoils The Commission does not consideit appropriate to set forth specific v-alucfor characteristics which promoteattenustion of radionuclides. Whecassattenuation is advartageous for sc=eradionuclides. others such as H-3. C-4i.

.1.1111 IN

57450 Federal Reister t Vol. 47. No. 248 / Mondazy. December 27. 1982 I Rules and Regulations

and l-1t2 may not be signtficantlyattenuated. The Commission believesthat reliance should be placed on siting

requirements which vll ?keep wateraway from wastm. result in lowvolume of contaminatett water beirgrrlevots#L and provide a long tr.vel timerfor decay. The Commivsicon, tjkesesr.-pt;ien tfu'av dr.igs whicht reihe tin.e 1. ch.ltr r.fllection and ro-satent:,vste.r to reduce mgaration. Suc.hI.-:lsn especr-d to r"s'at :n areeluirrment for contlinued ctive sitenm.gintenince. therefore viola:'rg th.perftrmance cbjective in { f1.44..

Several camments recommended thatthr narural resourcrs conrsidered uinde'rA 61.5')141 specfically include groundW;i'rr iend aqufenrs underlying !he site..*$el thMt the rrsoorces of 4ixnilcarnc-

%%ert not limlted to -e.onrnnce*.gtif;arnce. Anuither suggestetd th.mt the

o-er-sjrces be 'known- resoumrcs pop flit

tht- 9pplicanc would not have to eniggr

in ion extensive exploration proiram tn,

-.,ssre that there were no significant':tural restourcs. The Commi4s on

L nsidters eround watcr and aquifers to

VW n.atur;l resour-es in the contexl of

this rvquirement. The Comrrision also)

agrees that it should not be necesstry Ity

contuct catensive exploration sudies to

probr that no r'towrces exist. Severjl

chanures hbve Ieen made in the sections

n-lating to pruund water to rprlvct these

Comments.Commenters raised four question.s o.

the siting requirements related to! ertace water droinave. These can be

summtrized as ji) definition of certainterms s..ch as upfdreiam eraintge areaS.

ctno':al hinh-bazard atreae and weitand.

121 the adequarc oa the enclusion of

waSmte disposal. based on the tO-yeart

fletrlpl;in; 13) whether engineering

lrainagtr modification, can be made in

oerdler to meet the requirrments: and 14)

the %airerness of some terrn,.

With respect to the ietins -coast.l

high-hazard area" and nre:btnL. these-

are defined in Executive- Order M19M 142

FK =5951. Nlvy -2. It-, 1. F!&aplu.i

.' inn -rene Guidelines which is noted

in the ni. The term 'upstrram drainwge

nrera can-be defired in conventinnal

hs!rrniogic terms as all th. iend surface

which drains, either by ch.innel flow or

shAo-twash. atnross the disposal foectity.

The 100-year floodplain is that land

which wouold be inundated by a flood

k j~having a I in 100 chance of occuning in

any particular year. The Commrrission

feels the majorhazard due to flooding is

*s uociated with the period of site -

operations when disposal umits are

upen. Because of other prnvisions or the

rule. the disposal urits will be open a

comparatively short tnme. Once closed.

?her covers and site drainage system will

providte protection against the effects of

fllooding. The Commission considers 300

or 500-year floodplains to beunnecessarily rorstrictive and questions

whether an adequate data base or

standard methods of deternining surh

flnuwdplains exist.

The question on engineering

mfodifications will be addressed moir-

fully in staff technical positions rei.letet

t. site suit.tailty. selection antI

o.haracterization anti to site design anm

opt':ahotr.. Fjtginecring tcatumes muy hl'

used to improve site drainage and

pnetect against flooding dinng

#3911rations.With nrstpcct ro the vaguE ncss. or non-

p .re-cr ptive. nature or the requirements.

ther Cornmirsion consider, the siting

riquiiriments as site screening touls

mhnor will be met In mugt Cites and

Whic h. if not met fully. would require a

%ite-specifi: -valuatinn to .letterminewhe:her an ereniption is v'err;antetl. The

(:.rmmissteon finds this preferable to

trriting more prescriptive siting

retquirements as etclusionarv.M:nnr changes of n clerifying naiurr

h.ve been m.ede to the requirem:.tn t

rel.^erd to fGooding.

-Secral cornrmnters 3su!e3sted th.it

raedioactive %aste dispqjstl tatilitie s

culid be colocatrd with hazardous

%;astv disposal facilities. The

Commnission does not object to this as

Iting as the facilities art separated from

Pne another and the wastes are nut

commingled. The provisions of I 61.50

pertaining to nearby etviisties nut

adversely impacting the ;aility or the

%ite to meet the performance objectives

or significantly maskir.g the

environmental monitoring pot'gr.m.

would hiave to be met.

Several commnenters raisll the

question of relevance Of seismic or

volcanic hazards to low level waster

disposal. given the orders of magnitude'

difference between the time irarnes, for

thnse geologic phenomena and the

h.szard or the low-level wastes. Concern

was a!So expressed that certain areas.

such as California. would have all

potential sites eliminatted by the

requirement to avoid seismic areas.

The requiremtcent. as written. provide s

the Commissitn a mechanism for site

specific evaluation of such factors as

recurrence intervals. probabilities.

liquefaction potential. and ground

accelerations to compare against a long-

term (500--yearl radiological hazard and

the disposal requirements of Part el1.

This minimum technical requirement

would not arbitrarily eliminate potential

site's so much as it would'provide a site

screcning lest which will be met in most

cases and will mandate a thorough

evalulition of site perform.ance in areasor known tectonic hazards.

Scvtral persons commentrted on the,

reliability of long term pruieections of

populie:ton'grow&th The Cnmmissiunr-cognizes such projections have a

degree of uncertainty. Part of the staff

review of any projection focuses on this

uncertainty and howv it hbss beenh.andled by the pplicatnt. freviotisexperience with commercial low.-level

tlspotald sites illustrate that 3iitilstle

sites cin reasonably be round in ares.

of lov. opiilaltion density atnd minimal

population growth potentisil.Two commenters siuze'Stlrd it siting

re'luivement based on acramssilbility to

maeeor transportation rutes. This issuet

le,'cmes i. considerraetitn in silt?

se'le'hciin and the, evailetiin nf

Alternaeivr-% required under aEl', nnd 2F

tint ne'cessera in the rmle'.Indvittual c;nmine'nts %ert! reelive'l

suggtlsting siting reciuirenients rel.ate'd tee

nie'eh.inical ient physic;al prnpirrtie:s tersteels to maulee'therm semitaleb: forceemnpioction and suppurting ciinsirtu:ti nn

eqiiipment. ind riquirementis to vei'iol

aera'ds or high natural rieiouemtivity.C.hangers to the rule wcre not dteh nwd

rio-fvc.r . The mechanic;al natil physieml

c:hanrcteristics of soils are !aeteari tO be

addeln.ssed in the, 5iet! dlt-s'ce untd

p-raftin)ns a.' order !te mel't stalailiz.ation

reuluirrmt'nts and *li;ep:tives. With

respect to *ire:as of high natur.l

raedioaefivity. these nereas would loee

excr:leided if they could lie showyn thi

vijelnle the alility to carry oit a

noenituring program. Otherwime,. .he!

0rnomisxisnn sees nto vwlid rezesaen r

re'deeding the.te areas.

Sev:ralm commenters raiseol the-

-n 'r.rl ;niestion or the: !ength of tiine tho-

;ru uos sitinr.g or design requlirrnt:renl s

have' to In, [fetiflL'ed. Others rtnqistted

:ha.t the design basis natural eveuits *or

phen-mena be identified iondl that the

length of time ftir cronsiderietion.'isucriated with these be stated.

The, %iting. d- sign. and wasle foirin

requireenents reiate t; both st taility of

thr' disposal di.:e and conrtol of releasr%

%with;n ntccep:able limits. Reliance musst

bl: plhoered lor a lknger time nn the site

since the wwate form and deosign

festure.s welt deocrerase in effer:tivenems

ov.r time. Therefore. each of the siting

reoequiremetnts should lIe considcred

applicable over the indefinite future and

should be evaluated for at least a SMItX

yerir time frame. A 500-year time frame

f.r design basis natural events or

phen-omrena should also be applied.

Subparf 0: 'j 6T.sr. Oiaspa-Vl Site

ve.- gn for Load OiepoxsoL Fivecommenters objected to *heabsoluteness of ;he requirements inio.

Federal Reguter-/ VoL 47. No. 248 / Monday. December 27. 1982 / Rules and Regulations . 57431

I 61.51 relative to preventing infiltrationand eliminating the contact of waterwith waste. Comments were alsoexpressed requesting prefereati4consideration be given to progressiveslope design for burial and concern wasexpressed that the rule dues not prmvidespecific guidance for engineeredfeaturesm Commentes also expressedconcern that site areas used for disposalof Class A waste will require moremaintenance

The requirements referred !a areexpressed as design rbjectives. Giventhat these are design objectives, theactual achievement will be to minimize.rather than absolutely prevent oreliminate. The achievement level shouldbe as near the design objectives as ispracticable. The wording of theseparagraphs has been changed to fnlctthis. With respect to progressive slopedesign for burial. the regulation does notspecify the type of disposal unit. Thes--e designer should give particularattiention to the desisn ofthat portion ofthe facility used for the disposal of ClassA w~tstes so that the inherently unstableCLass A wastes will not interfere withthe long-term stability of the siCe.

Four commenters recommended thatwarning signs or perm.anentidentification monuments be em -. yuiedas a deterrent to inadvertent intrusionSeveral suggested a design lifetime of5sno years for such markers.

Although there are few -signs- in thetraditional sense that have design livesapproaching 500 years. the CommGssionwould consider such things as granitemonuments near the survey markercontrol pnints as an appropriate adjunctto the physical Intruder barriersemployed in the disposal of the waste. Achange to the rule has been maide torequire such monuments at the fime thelicense is terminated.

Subpart D: ff 5.5Z Land Dispotsal.Facility C7e.retion CGd Disposal SiteClusure. There were several issuesrelated to f.acility operation and *;teclosure identified by about thirtycommenters. A half dozen commentersraised questions with respect to therequirement that Class A waste besegregated from other classes of waste.Questions also addressed the need fcrsegregation during transportation. themeaning and Intent of the term

interactlon.- and the need forsegregation in arid sites.

The intent of the rule is not to prohibitwaste from more than one class frombeing shipped on the same transportvehicle. Consistent with appropriatetransportation regulations. theCommission has no objection tocommingling different classes of wastein transport

In identifying the need to clarify theterm -interaction. the commentersnoted that it was vague andunenforceable. could include migration.and could be physical or chemicalinteraction.

The intent of the rule is to protectClass B and C wastes. Class A wastescould interact with other wastes directlythrough the release of absorbed liquids.solvents. or other mobile componentsthat might be present in Class A waste.Inmtirect Interaction could resuht fromdegradation of Class A waste and itslack, of stability. Consolidation of ClassA wastes would provide * less stablesupport which could contribute to failure-of the disposal unit cover leading toincreased precipitation Infiltration andsurface water intrusion. The degree towhich these interactions could occurdepends to a large extent an site specificcharacteristics and the Commissiondoes not believe that it is appropriate toset a prescriptive requirement in this.area in the rule. The wording of thisrequirrenent has been charged to definethe purpose for the segregation andminimization of interaction between thesegregated wastes. The rule also permitsClass A waste that meets the stabilityrequirements to be placed with Class Band C wastes.

The State of Washington regulates the.disposal site located in an arid regionnear Richland. Washington. The Statenoted that without the likelihood ofground water or surface water beingfactors at arid sites. segregation of ClassA wastes seems to be unnecessary.They also noted that camming!ing ClassA and B wastes woula dilute the Class Bwastes and have potential benefit.

The States observations may havemerit for arid sites but are difficult toadopt in a rule that must address siteslocated in all parts of the country. TheCommission anticipated the need toconsider alternatdve disposalrequirements and included 5 81.54.-Alternative requirements for designand operations- to provide forconsideration of such alternatives.. A number of comrnentes noted thatfactors other than waste form play arole in assuring the stability of the site.In the area of site operations. thesefactors are identified as the wnv inwhich weate is emplaced and the fillingof voids in between v 'ste packagesafter ermplacement. Several pointed outthe stabili;y pr-blems nsslaurping. etc.)that could still be associated withd;aposal units containing the segregatedand unstable Class A waste. A numberof commenters objected to therequirement that wastes must beemplaced in an orderly manner becauseof perceived increased exposures. The

requirement that was proposed inparagraph (4) of § 61.52ta) was iecndd'to assure that the placement of pxackasinto a disposal unit did not dest.-oy theintegrity of the package in order *ominimize the possibilty ofreleases o!cur.-amination. and also to minimize th-void spaces between Dackages so thatthis would not be a contributor to sitrinstability. It hds been a commonpractice at waste disporsal facilities todump some wastes over the edge of adisposal trench with the packo.s"falling and tumblirg to the trenchbottom where they ended up a randomarrangement. This practice jenpadrizmpackage integrity and does not permitaccess to voids between packates sothat they could be backfilled. Theassumption by the commenters thatorderly emplacement necessitatesincreased handling by ste e peratorswith resultattut higher raliatienexposures is not necessarily the =nemLifting and stacking devicrs arecurrently in use for low level wastedisposal that permit remote lifirti anremplacement in the disposal trenchwithout increased occupationnasexposure. The retliting emplacerentmeets the intent of prntectinn csoanckaging integrity antl arcess to v-nsspaces. Since the term urdnerly- wasssalf;mct tn misinterpretalion. thereqairement has been rewritten t*remove the term and to sperify thc

,)rjectives nf emplacement.Six comrrtenters addressed the

requirement for mnintaining a bufferzone of at least 100 feet. Thesecomm ments.genera lly supported th*econcept vndt purposes of s Imnffer.zon.but questioned whether the specifiedtfeet was sufficient. The Departoernt athe Interior suggested that the bcfferzone should be three dimhensional toinclude some distance helow thedisposal site.

In response to these comment: threCommission has restated therequirement in terms of the objec:ive ccarry out monitoring activities and tazemitigative measures if neede.L a d hzsmade the buffer zone three dimcnsions1

Several persons commented oa theneed to conduct ancillary activites a-the! disposal facility surh as stor;vgewaste trcatmer:! truck terminsls.. etc.Concern was expressed over thelanguage in I 61.51(a)(7) th.dt wc0ldseem to preclude such activities- 0:`~.felt that provisions should be mrae i:: L I

Part 61 for the description and lirens~:of such activities.

The provision of I s1.5i that cause:the concern was that the disposa;: siteshall be used exclusively for thedisposal of radioactive wastes- T .

57452 Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 24U I Monday. December 27. 1982 / Rules and Regulations

intent of this provision was to preventthe disposal of wastes such as londc orhazardous chemicals which do notcontain rad;oactive material at thefacility. it w as not intended. as couldeasily be inferred from the way therequiremen? was worded. that disposalis the only activity that could take place.Cnrrr-ctve word changes have beenmad.' to cl.rify this. The purpose of Part6t 1:i tal %pecif the regulatoryrequirements for the disposal ofreru*ctive waste. Fi*istingrriltairrments in Parts 30. 40.770. ct aL;wnuld iwiverr. the licensing of otheraoCivimi r involving licensed radioactivemnater: als. sur.1 as waste treatment or

S. :-r.d. com..ments questioned the-r.w mtn2 of the term "a few percent

:.t'h1-- !,ack'nid is applied to ther.e.;;-:nernt that limits radiation levelsa- thr t*urf.ce of the disposal unit cover.rSrn.- sUOLeslted Values from as low as Ip-r,:.nt of background to as nigh as Imre.-nhour (about 5.000 percent ofb.ackgrruusil. One commenter suggested

it th radiation limit should rot befin--d to gamma. radiation. but should

Qexpressed as a dose rate to include.,:F.thr types ofraJiation.

Tke rules in Part 20 contain provisionsfar premiseible levels of radiation insmn.t stricted areas in I X.15. TheCnmmistion considers these to be*ipproprvite fur application at the timethat the disposal facility licens2 istransferred to the site oWner for thep.rioil of inst-tution.il control. Although0uccM94 to the sitc wilt be cor.trolled topreoen: inadvertent intrusion and thesite could be viewed as a restrictedorra. the Commiision believes it is notproper to consider those who do haveaccess. such as caretakers and sitemaintenince personnel. as radiationworkers who could receive much higheroccup.itional exposures. Therefore.I 61.321al(61 has been changed to reflectthe Part 0 unrestricted limits.

A number of other individualcomments and suggestions wereconsidered and were addressed in thedetdiled adialvsis of comments. Soineclarifying chdnges were made to the ruleas a result.

Su.hpar. D0: 6Z.53. Environmenttl.fonjtori.kq. Only nine commenteraddressed the provisicns forenvironmental monitoring. One-ommenter observed that analyses of

jease pathways should be conducted`15 that they may be validated by data

acquired from subsequent monitoring. apoint with which the Commissionagrees. Two comments addressed the12-month preoperational monitoringrequirement: one thought it too long. the_other too short. While a one-year period

of site specific data may not provide therange of fluctuations In data expectedover a longer period. the site specificdata can be augmented byrecornaissance level data or regionaldata that can be correlated with the site-specific data. These activities should bestirted early enough in the sitedevelopment process that they do notinterfere with a timely submittal of anapplication. Additional data may beobtained as the licensing processcontinues which can be used to updatethe application.

It was noted that the environmentalmonitoring requirements are notdetailtd or specific and at least onecommentner saugestd thathighlydetailed prescriptive requirements beset forth. Because of the wide variety ofsite-specific conditions. and a desire toavoid overly prescriptive requirements.in Pairt 61. the Commission does not feelthat this suggestion is practicable. ABranch Technical Position onMonitoring Is being prepared and willprovide additional guidance.

It was pointed out that one importantpurpose of a monitoring system is topro-ide early warning of migration ofradionuclides from the disposal sitebefore thev leave the site boundary. TheCommission agrees. and has made aclarifying change to that effect.

The Department of Interiorrecommended that geochemistry beadded to the site characteristics to bestudied. This has been done.

Subpcrt D: § 6S.35. Was:.:Cla.;sificafhon. C-er half of thecomMenters on Part 61 offeredcnmments on one aspect or another .,fthe waste classificaition provisions.Xcarly 20 different issues wereidentified and addressed in the stafrsdetailed analvsis of comments. Ingeneral. thare was support for theconcept of identifying wastes that weregenerally acceptable for near-surfacedisposal and further dividing thisgeneral category into more specificclasses. Most of the camrments wererelated to understa:ndir.g how thesecategories were estab ished and thebasis for them: support for furtheridentifying a class of waste that wouldnot be of any regulatory concernbecause of its low radioactivity. i.e.. a"de niinimis- level: what should theupper limits be particularly for certainradioisotopes such as the transuranicelements: what provisions will be madefor disposal of waste that exceed thelimits for near-surface disposal: andhow does a waste generator showcompliance with the waste classificationrequirements. There were a largenumber of comments requestingclarifica-:on and restructuring of the

requirements to make them moreunderstandable. as well *s a numnber ofmiscellaneous comments.

With respect lo those comments thatthe numbers used to define wasteclassification were not adequatelyexplained or supported iq Part 61. itshould be noted that most suchcomments were submitted before thesupporting Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) for P3rt 61 becamegenerally available. Since aconsiderable part of the DEIS is devoletlto the derivation of the wasteCclassification numbers. the Commissiondoes not feel that the basis needs to berepealed in detail in the rule. TheCommission is preparing an anulvsis ofthe comments received on the DF.IS andthese comments will be factured into thefinal EiS to make the basis for wasteclassification values moreunderstandable. Other comnmenters onthe numerical values suggested the useof values reported in an earlier NRCcontractor document. NUREGC/CK-llS.The present waste classification schemrnproposed in Part Yll drew on this andother ea.:ier work: however. the earlierapproache< to was'e classification didnot consider the effects of stability orwaste forn.

Table 1 Proposed values fur sieveral-radionuclides that were the same valueregardless of the class of waste. Thishas lead to some confusion andmisunderstanding. In the disposal ofwastes. precautions are taken to provideprotection againct intrusion for the firstseveral hundred years. Theseprccautions include institutionilcontrols. waste form requirements. antiintruder barriers. There are cerliainradionuclides common to waste that areof such a long half-life that they will bepresent several hundred years from nowin essentially the some concentration aswhen they were originally disposed.Therefore. the rule limits the initialconcentrations of these radionuclides tovalues that will be acceptable afterseveral hundred years when theintrusion protection measures are notconsidered to be effective.

Over one fourth of all commentersendorsed the concept of setting levelsfor wastes below which there is noregulatory concern. the so-called "tIcminimis' level. Some of the commcnnterssupporting the de minimis concept madedirect reference to the Commission'sposition that exempting particular wastestreams from compliance with the Part61 regulations was preferable to settinggeneric levels for all isotopes. Severaldisagreed with this position, although a'least one of these commenters remarkedthat as there is not yet a consensus on a

AL

a

Federal Rezister I VoL 47. No. 248 / Monday. December Z. t982± i Rules and Regulations .574M3

generic de minumim level any lvelchosew would be premature. A numberof other commenters suggested that a deminimis clussificatlou be added to thePart 61 regulations. perhaps as anadditional column in Table 1.

Several commenterx suggested thatNRC permit case-by-case review ofrequests for specific application of thede minimis concept during the periodcnrteria are bring developec. Otherssuggested specific values far specificwaste streams or radioisotopes.

The fundamental concerm ofpractidally all commenters was not asmuch whether a generic or a case-by-case approach be taken, but rather thataction to develop de minmmis standardshnuld be taken as soon as possible.

The Commission agrees with theimportance of setting timely standardsfor disposal of certain wastes by lessrestrictive means. The CQtrurissicnagrees with the commenters thatestablishment of such de minimis ievelswould reduce costs of disposal for manylicensees and would also conservespace in disposal facilit.es which areotherwise designed for wastes havingmuch higher activitics. The Commissionalso believes that establishment oa deminimis leve!s is important in enhancingoverall stabtlity of a disposal faciti:y.and therefore in'reducing potential long-term site maintenance andcorresponding costs. since de minirnislevels would reduce the volume of ClassA waste. This would also tend to reduL"ground water migration IL pacts. sincesubsidence and water infiltration wouldhe reduced.

Regarding the issue of setting deminimnis levels on a generic or on a case-by-caus basis. the Commission stillbelieves that the current policy ofexamining waste streams on a case-by-case basis will result in the quickest andbest results. It is recognized that settinggeneric limits may be a desirable goaLand the Commission Plans to work thisgoal over the next few years.Meanwhile, the Commission believesthat the process of examining a t fewspecific waste streams wiLt facilitate thedevelopment of generic requirementsand is accelerating its efforts on settingstandards for disposal of wastes by lessrestrictive means. In this regard. theCommission staff is willing to acceptpetitions for rulemaking from licensees.licensee organizations. or others fordeclaring certain waste streams to be ofno regulatory concern. Such petitionsshould provide at least the followinginformation:

A description of the pross bywhich the waste is generated:

* A description of the wastegenerated. including chemicalchancteristics

* The rudionuclide content of thewaste. including principal as wel astrace contasniinat

* A description of the potentialch-ange ;n the radionuclide content as afunction of process _iariations:

* A description of the prOcess controland quality control programs by whiciithe lice.see would ensure compliance.

Waste streams common to a numberof licenses ard in which theradionuclide content is wedl known andrelatively nonvarient are generallypreferred. Individual licensecs may alsocontinue to request amendments foralternative disposal methods for thelicensee's own waste pursuant to

2).302.Of all the values proposed ia Table 1.

the limits for contamination by alphaemitting transuranic elements recc;vedtrie most attention and comments. Therewere a number of Issues raised relatedto the Alowable concentratbon. rangingfrom its validity to the impacts ofmeeting the limiL By far the mostcomments were related to the magnitudeof the limit Of th;e ZI commenters on the:.mnsuramic Issue, tour thought the 10nCI/gm limit should be retained orlowered. while the remaining 1Psuwested that the ':mit be raised. Thosewho sugcested that the limit be raisedpresented a number of supportingarguments. Many. if not most. of thecommenters suggested that the limitcould be safely raised to lOO nCligm.One argument given Cs the advanzge ofenforceabtlity of the higher limit. Withcurrent measurement techniques. It isargued that it is very difficult it notimpossible to certify that was:e containsless than 10 nCilgrn. but much lessdifficult to certifr that it is less than lOOnCi/gm. Others pointed out that a 100nCi/gm limit would encourage volumereduction through incineration and ot1.ermeans while conversely. the 10 nClsgmlimit would discourage volumereduction. contrary to the Commission'spolicy on volume reduction- Thecommenters cited a number of reports.documents and ongoing activities asproviding justification for theircontentions. including a proposedrevision to the Department of EnergyManual Chapter 0511. Some commenterifelt that the Commission's calculationswere excessively conservative. Themost common comment in this regardwas that the analysis did not considerdilution by other wastes, and if thatdilution were considered. the allowableconcentration could be increased by anorder of magnitude or more.

The commenters that supported the ionCi/gm limit or did not want it raisedgenerally mrade statements ofendorsement for the value because u'prior use or because of the view t!i.atwasles exceeding this lin.it hotiultl n -be buried at commercial low-level wastedisposal sites. Concern in this reganrwas also expressei over tht* provisik inI 0 .58Lthat th-? Coimmission courtl. L'. .1

case-by-case basts. grant ext-rnptiors t:ithe waste classification requirernt-r.t.thereby permitting disposal of higherconcentrations of transur-inicradiumtclides.

In response to these coinments. thrcCommission has reevaluated theanalyses for disposal of wastecontaining transuranic nuel.d,,,. in anattemp: to temper unnecpssarilyconse3.tive assumptions. such isa notconsidering the dilution by other waslesthat decay to essentially mirr ls'v,-'iwith time. so that more rndlisiicestimates of ennseqlii-ners will resdt.As a result. disposal limits for Clars C.wc.-e have been raise-i tu tIm nfiETmfor tong lived alpha emitting t:ansr-anizn-sclides. For Class A wastes. the L-nilremains at 10 nCi/gm. The tIctails and (results of these anildses ire prre-tedin the Finn! Environrment;al Stlitr-enl%upporiing Pan 6t.

Several comm',nrers wanted to knoi%what to do with waste containinzRadiarn-Z25. 8 radioisotope whir is ntecurrently listed. It appears thnt t--rn ;r-twr. types of radium wastes to lheconsidered: (11 small concentrnt:.'Jsources of radium such as radielr; rsourCes or luminescent dials.;nd Ill2wastes whico contain sm;ll mme-;ns niradium incidental to otherradioisotopes. such as radhim r:.tainfiir, wastes from uranium separationprocesses. The former is not suln-c: trrejulation by the Commission. s-.ceradium is a naturally-ocrurring s2-ntop±and is not included ir the pronisrons ifthe Atomic Energy Act of lor-4. asamended. The Fnvironmental Pntai tn.Agercy has a program for colletion ifradium sources. This program . ay b-phased out in the next few years- Suasources are expected to be transfer.-r:to the Department of Energy tor storiw:and disposal. As for radium incidenuito other types of waste. the Ccn.is-crhas made provisions for disps-al ofsmall quantities of uranium ta:>::ngs zClass A waste. For purposes c. 2hisproio3n. a small quantity is d--finer:-IO.XIOW kitograms containing n_:-. Ithan S z-illicuries of radium-=-.. Th!-iw'concentration is typical of ur.:-=um .::tailings 10.5 nanocuries per gra:-J Tinquantity of radium-Z22 is that rkta::rin 1aO pounds of natural '.ir;n--n a

III

9Y 34 Federal Reypster I Vol. 4,. No. z48 1 Monday. December 27,. 1982 / Rules and Regulations O

eqsntlbrium with itv daughter products.to CFR Part so1 permnas any Person topossess and uie undter general lientse150 pounds of source M~aterial prcr year.Permi~tting the di-postal of such aqa.inrriv ins is re~.,r-f'utur dispos.al

tz~iy is ifidgied to h-e acceptable. Fork-g r arrn=N". sp.rifai: approv~al wopuld

lIe oquiared.

r'inr.rni w: ae fuotrmue irt Tablue I .and

tit 1%:&d wh:.h mudteat that grorate'r~n,'r:r.i~l'.Whben Class4 C limits mayr

bi d.:~ izelti ,.- ar,:rptA1be for ne ar-m.r!aCsr ds..pn..ml Un~fr containl

c&';Q-Cor-=.vcrs, w ere ether

.~.*nr ,,-:ri. ,.,.rd for clarsficalion-.t wn: :.- ru~rt:'rf-ns would be! for

*.. via4 CrIterto ?.' e Sutre f'...l of wis-te c.,niJtdrr.?t the tt-sree

r~..urura~.drapos-i' T; en!...:e 'tiat the

.'i r.u higther cnr.C:,nUo:i(man' it(

;'L'4 th.111 thI.S.' 1%*,'d ii' Tiih' e I- w~ii have !n be bv moti

V..:iol1a-Ve3 lha~in, ir-eitc- rcn~lem.nt-.. pap.,i or i:rent in

oc hep~;~a'.:t~ .- *tOe; trnp¶~ed

letrii-poa .: t .v 41. .'r in p..diagne.ora

bari??p-, .,C..atl't itr'i4.ofn (e b-urial atd.~ls ~r..r'r ?tn rnj-?rrt;. The

vto v.'rf:,r- n' c- uk.1 i* -. e.and

1it1!rr dr- wi'll ..vai~l.,.' a~.p n. Of .C~i.'.¶~r.I*ha't. f. F! hu -noantime. th'e

Cot.' is 1.1-C!:=ng studie.%_tosrsiblia- -mrin,'te f.)r the elaspo04a! Cfwjges thj n.u' i! no: norr.,lHY suited for

o.rsa feg iaspo-Lal The" wv'1u!J betme subjec: of fi.: ze ruie-aking.

O'.er inze:~tn coimmentr t. nledrav

a nh.-trzy e,,;rrs.ed cuncern with

how nn~ 'main*'! compliag-t nre! ni

Ntot' wIr*c,*- hI, the

ro'sn.-ly milare for eVr:y iswrope inT4!)lc I 1%%,'hn rich par.age of waste.Ne gny r.11jphlt' were given of -he

d~fcul.i t this would present. citing-:Wrroje-o;1s wast;e mixtures. difficuts

(1measure: rathoisotopes. inrreosed'Qs:%. radiation exposures to personnel.

etr. A~ numtbe, of sugg.--stion-t wereoffered .re'o'd to means or classifyingthe waste by its snurce. measuring keyisotopes to inter quantities of moredtirrcult-to-rit-aure isotopes. and

equbLihing different limits for everydisp al sI itc.

The Com-m:ss..on expects licensees tocarry out individual progr.nas to assureproper classification of waste. llowmei r.'he Commnissin does not feet thatde.ji'ed measur.emcnts routinely nuiiLe'cn al! wvste pack~aes are necessary orde'irb!l. The Co.nmissien staff isdrvelopi:%4 guidance to licensees on inumber o' alte atise methods by whichcompliance can be shown. At present.the Comnmission staff has iolncified fourb.j4ic procrars which mai be usede;:her irdividusilv or in combination bylzic.nsees. ihe. !C-e ma:terialsa.countabi!lty: classification by source:gross rad oac:iiaty mea.surenent?: .anddirect escarem.;nt of individu.l.radimzor:h'!es includinz scaling sonmer.i;.1.cn::cli:!es ba."d ujcn mnelC'zrti':eto; otenrs. Thi-e methads are dihiuset-din thc Sr.an.7h Technir.a! Position on

r WVa.t CLVfis.:Ation bj5rncprepar'd.Scver.z! crr cnciers .ulso raked th-

* i',uC of ave-rrw:ng cocentrations torcn.mply wsmth the concenaltior limits.Or.e expresseJ concerr atiout thepoe:.!'n-: for curzentiated or "hot 3-ots

o. .r;,n zran.C nuctlde' pC.rnittedl un.'erth. -. o; provisoon. to Itlotr.(nce-tr.,.'V-tJ be .a-wrazed oiv.r :hk

* '- r! :^ kai S ~ i~nce tlhe tracr.r..;:.m?.? r a!d:'s in !-.out shtpmenes

* : s. .tdi~ribut d andirciJenta. to he toita JitiVIty. averC.iL g

o%,r :'c iie .. ,es IS physic.lIlyr *p es~-:-dtie 'of the malurity of wa4es.e

pR'.rre'si¶2 or o:he. fiture ch.tnces in

%a4ae str-eaJms wrh;ch m:;tit crn;;nt theItrisurdnic rhurart.r of the was:e *.onnL;e addL-r'se!d in -.us.e-q:laet rulechanees. Otn.-r tomrmen-ers were

ccr.cr-tned ,abou- po:. n:.al xroiad w-:.trrrestricted inver.:ury lim;s on:ndton':c;jes whztbS are prscsn: inwas'es im. *e-. low concen~rations.A.ssnv of ind..idut ;a.kazl.:es for !-resenurcl.ces ie d:.Ecult is discussed In theP-reccdir para~ap'h. Avera-ing thecsr.:tnta!:icn o' radicnu'.iides such asTc99 or 1-29 c'.er th2e 'aste ship-nentor cor.trol on a tota! site inventory basiswva3 su 2CstcJ to mm:imize conservativewver-repor..ing Such over-reportingc.i;;d e.hatoust site invenrtonr limits andl-!ad to :neffici- t use of the site. TheConmmirssion .rees. This issue will also

be addressed in the Branch Technical -

Position on Wa*ste Classification whichwvill be ava.Iable in ecrly 1983. 1Teccr.cer.tration averaging language in thefinrul rule -was changed to provideadditional flexibility for the specificguidar.ce being develcped :n the BranchTechnica! Posi.'on.

In a relat.eJ issue. a few commentersrernarsed on the difficulty of inspection

and cnforcemcnt to ensure compliancewith the Part 6t requirements. citingpast history of waste shippers notcomplying with the, present DOT andNRC shipping requirements.

The Commission has recognized theimportance of increasing inspection antienforcement activities in th.! proecseing.packnaqing. ind transportation of waste.A number of prograrms have bheeniniti.sted to improve compli.tnce. At tIepresent tlime enforcement r.omems lUrgelyon the hasir of provisions in the exislingregulations le g.. it CFR Parts 30t411. andl

.0; that no licensee mray transferlicensed material to another personunless that person is prop.-r!y licens. dlo receive it. RequiremenIs on was!sforn. concentrdtions. etc. .ar.. r;rt ,rt'a. dispesal si:e licens-c-s :'n -nse. TheComnission l:elehvis that assuiag

reculations too which .a!1 W.Ite.C.rneraturn and di-posal ait-- riraltst.Wvmultd be sulajert w:11 give !heC(nmimision so ,tronger h.is fearirspection and enfoarcemenil \dophetnnor uniform requirsnrents boy AgrownserntStates will greatly l'ol.ter th..eff'rtiverne-rssf a n.itaraal %.vst-. tfinspection antd enforrentent.

Them ierc wa ier'il cnmmentrrs whipis-ittet Ihnt thr Wa.ste classert:..|ion-

st.l -!Crids tnsVu.J;|¢sllonlesretietion. tonce th..cnr ;,.eyliiro-ncent.atiorns of md:ui..es ;.ntl mity

rsu;: t:. Ia cirange in cla-ssifi-;ainn. or atthe extremae. miale the wasteunacceptable fnr neir-su:rfr-ire dispos:l.As long as the resultint concentratiasnstF r.1dinoissntrpes ire within t!a iinlits s tI y lPart lil. th' Cnnm l;is.irn i'.ses no fr.-.lt!I. ! waNe cla.ssil5c.,oion ne.:.s.sirilvdt-cauraizes volumne rL'duclion. Whiale ;rh.gPher cdaspifit.Jitiona of waiste migltre-sult in more s:ringent req;uirer.1lnits sin

wastC formaind dispoSal rIm'hiaa!s. 1herea-e econom;c consid-r;t.iuns that nece41to he consstdersd by tk-o.i.!a' 5 rator.The cost of process.n.- shippiv- ai.ddisposal of a smll vo!urr.e of hig-o.rclassification waste needs to hecompared with *he tr, r.s;aor!airna anlddispos;d of a larger valunte r-f a lowu:rctoesifica:ion wtste. There is no rea:sonie uelieve tl:it the balance w il islwavybe against vlhimc reduction. For waste'swith concentrations tha: s'.wt:d pl.scethem no. generally acceptable for near-surface disposal if thFey were vulunml-reduced. the provisions for specificCommIssion approval of the disposal ofsuch wastes providt! a potentiatlalternative for licensees consideringvolume reduction.

Several commenters were concernedwith materials which may be present inlow-level radioactive waste which maybe chcmically toxic or hazardrus. Same,

57455Federal Register I VoL 47. No. 248 1 Monday, December 27. 1982 1 Rules and Regulations_ _ _ _

suggested that the Coatmrmslos wasteclassification system Incorporate a-iota] hazard spproc that wouldconcider both the radiological andchemical hazard of waste At least onecomment did not favor the total hazardapproach because of the very complexclassification system that thecommenter perceived would MUlL

The Commission has stated publiclyon several occasions that if it weretechnically feasible to classify waste bytotal hazard. then It would makeeminently good sense to do o. We donot now know of any scheme for suchclassification: however. the Departmentof Fnrgy intends to support research-into the development of a classificationsystem for hazardous wasle that mightbe compatible with Part a1. In themeantime, the Commission will study -the chemical toxicity of low-level waste.with special emphasis an Identifyingany licensees who generate hazardouswastes subject to requiremenis of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. Wewill look then at what could be dcne.perhaps through processing. to minimizethe hazard.

Furthermore, the Commission believesthat the tecdnical provisions of Part algenerally meet or exceed those expectedin the Environmental ProtectionAgency's rules for the disposal ofhazardous was'ss. Although it Is not theCommission's intent to allow disposal ofhazardous wastes In a radicactive wastedisposal facility. as is noted in theregulation, the Commission recognizesthat such wastes may be prent in low-level radioactive wastes it is theCommission's view that disposal ofthese combined wastes in accordancewith -the requirements of Part 81 willadequately protect the public health andsafety. Such hazardous wastes areexpected to le such a small percentageof the total volume that dilution by otherwastes would greatly minimize anyrisks- The Commission intends to workclosely with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to assure contiruedcompatibility. Further. EPA in itsresponse to a resolution of theConference of Radiation Cr.nrolProgan' Directers Indicated &heirwillingness to work with other Federalagencies to address this problem

Several commenters raised questionson the basis or criteria for setting siteinventory limits for certainradionuclides. as was indicated in Table1 of the proposed rule. Som_ correctlynoted that such inventory limits wouldbe site specfic. The Co: nissionestablished corcentration limits rrradionudides based on a number ofconsiderations. including protection of a

potential intruder. operational safety.and long-term site stability. In additionto concentration limits, the Commissiondesires the ability to limit maximum siteinventories for some isotopes that are orconcern from a gr=od water point ofview. Isotopes which are both mobileand long-lived are iodine-129.kechnetium-99. and carbon-14. Tritium isof concern due to Its extreme mobilityand its presence in waste in largequantithes. Establishment of inventorylimits throgh site-specific licerseconditions for such radionuclides willhelp ensure that the performanceobjectives for pound water migrationare not exceeded. The Commission doesnot plan. as was suggested by a fewcommenters. to establish site Inventorylimits for every isotope to protectagainst potential Intrupion. Inadvertentintruder exposures are mainly controlledby the concentration of a particularIsotope. and to a lesser degree by thesite inventory.

Several commenters raised specificpoints about the cost and regulatoryburden of the waste classificationrequirements. Much of the concern wasrelated to the issue of costs fordetermining compliance with theconcentration limits, as discussedearlier. The basis of the concentrations.In particular l'ze 10 nanocurie per gramlimit for transuranic nuclides was ofconcern and is discussed elsewhere.One corrumnener expressed the view thatthe classification requirements wouldraise the cost of disposal because ofperceived increased cost for disposal ofClass A waste and the cost of qualitycontrol activities.

While some costs will be associatedwith these concerns, when they areweighed against the longer term costsa -id institutional burdens that mayresult it the requirements are notadopted. the Commission judges theshort-term costs to be warranted.

The State of Nevada. who regulatesthe Beatty sit'. expressed the view thattle rule wil! increase the burden andexpenses of the regulatory agencies.Two reasons cited related to monitoringthe adequacy of site maintenance fundsand inspection of waste generatorpackaging and classification activities.

Monitoring the adequacy of funding Isalready a part of the program forregulating disposal sites and is onlyperipherally related to wasteclassification in that stability is notassumed for Class A wastes. This is notdifferent from the existing situation atdisposal facilities where a largepercentage of waste is not in a stableform. Thus, this does not appear to be asiguificant increase in regulatory

burden. Inspection of waste generatorsfor compliance with waste classificationis more the responsibility of theCommission or the Agreement Stateregulating the generator. Existingregulatory responsibilities includeinspection of the pacriging andshipment of radioactive waste. Theincrenental burden of reviewing alicensee's program for classifying th-esewastes should be small.

In addition to the above Issues. a largenumber of commenters offeredindividual comments on a variety c-Zpoints of ldarification. formaL defintion.and completeness of the provisions forwaste classification 'While not.summarized here they are addressed inthe detailed analysis rof comments bythe Commission staff, and to the extentpracticable, these comments werereflected in the revision of f 61.55.

As a result of these comments. I 51.55has been revised to present theclassification values in two tables ratherthan one. Those radio-nuclides wit' longhalf-lives, along with some shorter-nvedprecursors of long-lived nuclides. aenow listed separately in a new Tabne 1.The presence of these long-livedradionuclides will dorninate theclassification of the waste. If wnstecontains less than one tenth theconcentration of such a nuclide lisztd InTable 1. it Is Class A waste; greatse thanthat. it is judged to be Class C wasteprovided the concentration does nceexceed the value shown in Table 1.Shorner-lived radionuclides are listedwith a range of concentrations in Table2 Depending ort the concentration.wastes containing only these shorter-lived nuclides will be judged to be S~assA. B. or C. If waste contains nuclideslisted in both tables. the mixture nr-stbe considered in determining the w-asteclass. If Table I nuclides are prenez, inconcentrations less than one tenth ti.eTable I limits, the class is determinedby the Table 2 nuclide concentratic- IfTable I nuclides exceed one tenth c theTable I limits the waste is Class Cregardless of the Table 2 conczntra ons-

The phrase "theoretical maximuspecific activity has been elimina tedand replaced with a notation of "nolimit:. A footnote to Table 2 explain-sthat while there is no theoretical lir:tfor concentrations of certain nuclides inClass B and C wastes. practicalconsiderations such as radiation an-' (heat generation will determine thelimits.

Several radionuclides have beenremoved from the originally proposedtable. Cesium-135 was removed becaUseit is present in wastes is. very smallconcentrations tnd classification w-. be

574S6 Federal Regster f Vol. 47, No. 248 / Monday. December 27.1982 / Rules and Regulations

determined by the presence of Cs-137and because Cs435 Is a pure betaemitter which is very difficult tomeasure. Similarly. the radionuclid etNi-ss and Nb-94 have been removed exceptus they may be contained in activatedmetals. As examined in the draftenvironmental impact statement of PartAl. these nuclides are present in rractorwNastes (other than actsiate I metals) insuch small concentrations as tt. b'insignificant. Ureonvusa ts beenrommoved s a n:dionuclda that must becwnsidered for waste cLasstfication. TheCommission s analys-s slows that thetypes of uraniu.n.beanng wastes beingd!4pnoetd of do not present a sufficienth.az.rd to warrant limitation on theces:vrttration of this n.turally occurringmnteri-il. Both depleted and enrichedur t.nu ndo not contain daughter-pr..I.trrs in any quantity becoause of therTi.stive!y short tirme since the uraniumt%.r4 refinet from ote. compared to theh.at! :Ives of the urcniesm isotopes. Thed. ihter products are disposed oforiimnrly is uranium mnill tailings.

.ir,!v for these rraeAns. thr uranium14Jtis xwere dropped.

Fur a number of radionrclides. thermaltimI:m allowable concentrations inClwts C waste have been incr'asetd by afcrinr of ten. This came in respon.se to anu-mber nf comments received an theproposed rule and the draftrn ivonmental impact itaternent thatpointed out where unnecessarilycrnn'rvative assumptions had beenincorporated into the calculatinns ferintruder protection. Thes- commentspointed out that wast: dispo^Pd beneathrive meters of cover would be difficult tocontact even at SM veeirs and hat itichwaste would be dilited by the otherwastes whnse radioactivity :naddecayed to ex-rermreIy low lei-'lsAdditionally. the averatecorncentratierts tend ra be only a frar-ti:nof the maximu-I per. isuible. At thepresent tim.. these aie recognized bythe Cornmission as conservativeisnumptnres and trfe Commission hasfour.d! that an order of magnitudeinLreaie in Class C limits is warranted.This order ef magnitude increase hasnot changed the established frameworkof factors such as relying an up to 100years of institutionail control and a 500mrem whole body limit for intruders.

The radionuclide. curium-Z. w3skidded to the nuclides in Table 1. While

Gn-24Z is a relatively short-livednuclide (163 days) it decays toplutonium-238. a transuranic nuci.dewith a half life of nearly 9u years. Theconcentration of 20.000 nanocunes pergram for Cm-Z4Z will result in a

concentration of 100 nanocurics pergram of Pu-Z18

To the extent practicable. thenumerous footnotes originally found inthe proposed Table I were eliminated.and have been incorpcct:.d. whereapprupriate. Into the textual part of theseetmn on waste classification.

tr response to a number of comments.a statement is made that permits theroncentrations of nudides in waste tobe determined by means other thandirect aneasurement. These methodsay inhclude such things as material

accountability. where records ofreceipts. shipments. and Inventories canconfirm. that waste concentrations couldnot exceed permissible concentrations.Other indirect methods might Includelinfervntial- measurements where aratio is established between nuclides ina mixture and the concentrations of thedifficult-to-measure nuclide is inferredbased on mcasurement of some easier-tn-mcasure nuclide. Whatever theindirect method used. there should bereasoneble assurance that the valuesdetornained could be correlated withaztu.al measurements. For example. inthe care of inferential measuremenis.the ralto on which the value isdete..ir.ed should be bused on previousactual measurements. In the otherrexap:e above. the receipts. shipments.and inventories should be based onme.a%:red value.

S&hpur: D: § 61.55K .Was -0t:.-r r.-rqs tics. A large number ofcomments were received addressingL..nh thr minimum and the stabilityretiuirpmenis for waste formrhar.,cteristics in I 61.56. The followingsummarizes the comments on theminirum requirements.

One commencer objected to the use of;W)sfnrhent material to im.obilize liquidseeintn.;nrd in Class A waste. stating thatuss.c absorbent materials was ancbsole'te technique- The State of SoathCarohna reconmnrended that thisrequirement apply only to ;nstilutionallyg-nerated aqueous or biological wasteforms. Since vanotis abscrbents havebeen shown to be effective with liquids.such us organic solvents. oiis. etc.. theCommission sees no reason to restrictthe use of absorbent material to aqueousor biological waste. The Commissiondoes not see any reason to restrict theuse of abscrbents to institutionalgenerators.

Eighteen commenters stated that the.cquirement (proposed in Table 1.5 61.531 ta obtain specific approval todispose of wastes containing greaterthan 0.1 percent chelating agents wastoo restrictive. and sta4ted thet utilitiesmight decide against performing

decontamination operations whichcould reduce occupational exposures.Several commenters requested the basisfor the 0.1 percent limit. One commenterrecommended that no chelating agentsbe permitted.

Since chelating agents have beenshown to increase the migration ofcertain radionuclides st certain sites. thaCommission desired to evaluate thedisposal of large quantities or wastescontaining high concentrations ofchelating agents on a case-by-case.basis. This approach was used when theCommission stall reviewed the disposalof wastes that would be generated in thedecontamination operations at theDresden Unit 1 Station. Bccause thedisposal of wastes containing chelatingagents is dependent on thecharacteristics of the disposal facilityand on the properties of the waste form..the Commission has modified thechelating agent disposal requirements tareflect this. The Commission has placedon th, disposal site license applichnt ttreresponsibility for describing thecmind:tions for disposal of wastecontaining chrlating asrnts. if appnmvreby the Commission. site specificrequirements will le placed on Ihedispos.al facility licenae'e. Al this timethe waste generatuor will be requiredonly to idrrftifv su..h %asles in bhernformation crnt;aine d on the shippingmanifest.

At the request of comments.definitions have bes-n added ftir theterms. "hazaardous.- -pyrnphoric.- andTh~plosive.

Of rive comments received on thepraihihition a119inst packaging waste incardboard or fiberbourd boxes. four fel:the prohibition is unnecessary. Onecommenter supported the provision.After reviewing thc commenis. includirgthe reasons presented. the Commission^still beieves that such a prohibition .sne'eded. The experience cited by theDJepartment of Energy. of successfullyusing cardboard containers for wastepackages at their sites. does not inrtide,extensive handling and transportalionthat co mmercially generated wastesnr;:ht encounter. The existingprnhibition against cardboard andfibc rbn;grd containers at ex;ihtindlisposal facilities came about us a risutof unfavorabile experience in receiving.handling. and disposing of wastes insuich c'rntainers. rNo change has beenmade in this requirement.

Ten commenters addressed therequirements relating to waste in agast:ous form. Several noted aninconsistency between the provisions in41 61-.1(a)(51 that prohibits wastescapable of generating toxic gases. and

Federal Re~ster I Vol. 47. No. 248 1 Monday. Decerber 27. 1982 I Rules and Regulations IC 1A__ * Xsr

61S8(e(7) that permits up to 100 curiesof activity in waste is i gaseous form.Several requested the basis for the 1tocurie lilmiL A reommendaticn wasmade that gases should be processedinto liquid or solid forms. and anotherfelt that gases should be limited toseveral microcuries. The Department ofEnergy recommended that krypton t5immobilized by zeolite encapsulation orion implantation into metal be permittedwith concentrations up to five millioncuries per cubic meter.

aThe intent of I 61Wiflt S) is toprohibi: the disposal of wastes that arechemically reactive tnder ambientconditions and produce toxic gpscousreaction products. This section is notintended to probibit the disposal ofproperly packaged gases such as 11-3 orKr-eS which occasionally requiredisposal. This section has beenreworded to clarify the intent The IM,curie limit derives from the existinglimits at commercial disposal facilities..The Commission has studies underwayto determine whether higher limitswnuld be appropriate. Such limits, ifJustified, would be proposed in a Futurerulemaking. in lteu or a requirement thatga-es be converted to a liquid or a solid.the Commission is evaluating thesignificant generators of tritium waosteand investigating improved packagedesigns for tritium wastes which wouldbe capable of retaining the contentsuntil they had decayed to innocuouslevels. The requirements of Part 61 donol contemplate the disposal oF minlionsof curies of Kr-85 as suggested by theIth psrment of Fnergy. The Conmmissionis not prepared to set disposalrequirements for this waste at this time..mnd since this waste is not tiable to begRnerarted by Commission licenseec inthe ncar future. the Commission belic.vesthere is ample time to assess the still.emerging technology for krypton fixatormantd establish suitable disposalrequirements through future technicalguidance or rulemaking action.

Somnr commentern felt that therequirement in I 61 '3al(lj that wastepackages presented for dispostal mustcomply with .NRC and DOTtransportation regulations implied thatnuter packaging such as shipping casksmust also be disposdr. This was not theCommission s Intent. Since properp;eckaging for transportation purposes isspecified in regulations elsewhere. theCommission feels that it is notnecessary to restate them in Part 6I.particularly in view of the confusioncretted. This requirement has beendeleted.

As discussed earlier. the Commissionis concerned with the po-sible hazards

presented by non-radiologicalcomponents of the radioactive waste.This was recognized in the requirementproposed that wastes containingbiologicaL pathogenic. or Infectiousmaterial mus:t be treated to reduce thepotential hazard to the maximum extentpracticable. 'rhe Commission believes itis prudent to add hazardous properticsto this requirement and has done so.

A variety of comments were receivedon the proposed requirements inI 65t.S(bl that pertain to the stability ofClass B and C wastes. Thesc aredi.scused below for the various aspectsof the requirement.

Nine commenters commented on thestatement that the requirements wereintended to provide stability for at least150 years. Three thought that the 150years was overly restrictive and tworecommnended 100 years to correspondto the institutional control period.Others observed that some nuclideswould not decay to low levels during the150 years. that Class A waste shouldalso be stable because of the presenceof Cs-137 and Sr-90. that steel drumsr.ould not be expected to last this long.and that high integrity containers havenot been tested for 150 years.

The Commission has retviewed the 150year stability requirement with respectto the scenarios used to calculate thewaste cIassification values. Theproperty of stability contributes tomeeting success3ullV sevCraTl of theperformance objectives set forth in PartMl. A waste that is stable fur a longperiod helps assure the long termstability of the site, eliminating the needfor active mninten nce aft cr the Site isdosed. This stability helps to assureagainst water infiltration due to failureof the disposal unit covers and. with theimproved leaching properties implicii ina stable waste form. minimn:es. :hepotential for radionuclide migration ingroundwater. Stability also plays animportant role in protecting aninadvcrtent intruder. since the stalblewaste form is recognizable for a longperiod of time and minimizes any effectsfrom dispersion of the waste upon.intrusion.

The 150 year period was initiallychosen to approximate the active life ofia near-surface disposal facility. alongwith the periods of post-closureobservation and institutional controls.At the end of this period. the intrusianscenario is based on the intruder readilyrecognizing any uncovered waste assomething out of the ordinary with theresult that no further attempts atconstruction or agriculture would bea:tempted- When other aspects of theperformoance objectives are considered.

however. a longer design lire is calledfor. The waste should continue tomaintain its gross physical propertiesand maintain a measure of its identitf-for several hundred years more toprovide site stability and to keep theCfuss B and C waste recognizable andunsuited to the construction andagriculture scenarios postulated.Consistent with its desire to avoidprescriptive requirements wherepossible, the 150 year specifiration Besbeen removed. It is the Cnmmissint:sbelief. however. that to the "xlent that itis practicable, waste forms or containersshould be designed to maintain grossphysical properties and identity over 3tEyears. approximately the time nlqu:erdfor Class B wastc to dtec.y to innocmouslevels. This is reflec:red in Commiss~innstaff technicul positions.

Fourteen commenters intlisrate.l tbattthe pxo1pejs.-d Trtuirument th;nt n s-.asl4waste feirmn mauintain its physicaldimensions within five percer.nt wasoverly restrictive ond impussible tcarhieve dne to the imprar.ticaliiy offilling containers to 9a perrcent a:;ipa.ity.Commenters also noted th..t asphal and (polymeric solidificutinn agents wmild lhr /incapable of mceeting this r-cluiremet-ntbecause of their viscoelastic crreq:properties. C.immentrrs also nhsro redthat the limit could entntil addedexpenses.

tpun review or tle proposedrequirernent. the Commission hasconcluded that there is not suflicier.tbasis at this tinc to support to numericallimit for deformation of stsille wa,:,.The five percent value hbas beenremoved from :uis requirement. R:e5nraewill be pl-iced on the requirements thatvoid spaces within packages must I emsinimized. that wastes must beemplaced in a manner that permits voidspHCUes between containers to he r; Ed.and that these spaces must bc filleU.

With respect to void sp:aces in isASte

containers being reduced to the ex--n!practicable. six comments werereceived. Several requested specificcriteria on how this would be me! arid iffiller materials were needed. Two !etlthat economics would drive wastegeneratos to package the maximu.-valume of waste into a container a-Jth&t this requirement in the rule aunnei:essuiry.

IDue to the highly vamriele nature *fwastes, the Commission believes th:t itis not possiblc or desirable to includespecific criteria tor minimizing voids- To Ithe extent that void spaces cancontribute to eventual instability of hiewaste. they should be eliminated orreduced as much as possible-This =ia-Fbe done in some cascs by filling voi'

ksl45W Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 248 1 Monday. December 27. 1982 / Rules and Regulations

spaces with other wastes or inertmaterials.

Eleven commenters objected to thespecific requirement that the stability ofwaste be maintained under acompressive load of So pounds persquare inch (psi). Most felt that thespecific requirement should be deletedand replaced by a more generalrequiremernt to reflect actual disposalsite conditions and operations.

In response to these comments. the 50psa epecrficatior. has been removed fromete rule. The specification was based onconservatively assuming maximumburial depths up to 45 feet and waate oraerburden densitity of 150 Iblft'.Tosting performed on acce;ptableq.4.'l: vid waste spec:mens indicate thatii. 1 i romp-essive strength should be*t-:. 1o otained. The Commission1-la.su., that while this is achievable.*.x.* l.atitite should be allowed for the1- An of *,Waste forms and containers tor.uts.?t site conditions where burialer pN may be less.

S.nce:r 1 41.56!b! permits the stabilitye.t w.sst- ?o be .ch'r;ed by placing the%.e-se- in a suitable r..et.,incr for

. s..sel. A number of romments%j-rr-4eed the propernws such a

* . f.ainer should exhibit .and the uses tow% h n b It tould be put. It wal huggestedth e: thr Commission reexarnine designcr~t~;difor a high w-fgrity container forh ihlv dispersible form s. and onesnomIited tha! such container shnuld beuwwd for both high and lowc.mcentration wastes. A major supplierof waste snlidification technologyq-!estioned whether the use of acontainer reflected the best availablet.echrology and the concepts of ALARA.

Three commenter,. two of whom aresuppliers of waste solidificationtechnoloigy and services. 'feIt that 'onexchar.ng resins should alt be solidifiedand tha! ii:sposal of ion exchange mediaby dewitering is not within the conceptsof ALARA and use of the best availabletechnology.

'The Commission staff is preparing atechnical position on waste formcriteria. including design criteria for ahigh integrity container. Draft copieshave been made available to interestedparties for their review and comment. Inshort. the technical position states that

-the container must provide as muchassurance of stability fur as long asrequired for a stable waste form orproduct. It should be designed. to the

'ent that it is practicable, to containL<Jwaste and maintain gross physical'Toperties and identity over 300 years.

tinder the conditions of disposal. TheCommission believes that the .se ofcontainers to achieve stability isconsistent with the concept of AUARA

and the use of the best availabletechnology. Occupational exposures inusing high integrity containers areexpected to be similar to or less thanI waste solidification. either with mobileor instijlled systems.

Several commenters addressed theproposed limitation of free standingiquid which would require that such

liquids be reduced to as low a level as Isreasonably achievable. but in no case toexceed I percent. Further. the proposedrule stated that the liquid should benonccrrosive. There were no requests toincrease the value. However. one wastesolidification service supplierrecommended a limit of zero. while theState of South Carolina recommendedimplementing the limits in the license forthe Barnwell disposal facility. i.e. 0.5percent for solidified wastes. I percentfor waste in high integrity containers.Several commentes asked for adefinition of the term '"noncorrosive.-

The Commission has reexamined theproposed limit on free standing liquidand judged that solidified wastes andw aster in high integrity containersshould be addressed separately. TbeComm tsion has concluded that existingw;s'e solidifica!;on technology canProduce a wasge form that is essentiallyfree of .ree standing liquid. In order toco.-penmate for potential cendensationof water vapor sealed in containers. theCommission believes that a limit of 0.5percent by volu-ne is appropriate forsolidified wastes. For dewateredproducts. such as ion exchange resins.that are in a container designed toensure stability. it is very difficult toensure that such products would meet a0.5 percent requirement following'transport to a burial sire. Therefore. fordewatered products. I percent should beallowed to account for settling duringthe trarsport period. The rnon-corrosiveproperties of the IPquids will be defineda:id discussed in a staff technicalposition. rather than in the regulation.To provide a degree of consistencybetween class A wastes and the Class Band C wastes. the limitations on liquidsin Class A wastes have been modified.Liquid waste must be packaged withsufficient absorbent material to absorbtwice the volk:ne of the liquid. Solidwastes with incidental liquids mustmeet ,he 1 percent free standing liquidrequirement.

Two commenters pointed out whatthey perceived as inconsistenciesbetween Part 61 and other Commissionrules or guides. One of the guidesreferenced is the Effluent TreatmentSystems Branch Technical Position 11-3.This document was revised in July 1981and is consistent with Part 61requirements. The Commission fails to

see inconsistency between Part Il1 andits supporting EIS. with Appendix I ofPart 50. or guidelines for storage ofwaste, as claimed by the commenters.

Subpart D:.§61.57. L.abeling. Severalcomimenters offered suggestions orraised questions on the requirement thatw aste packages be labriede to show the!classification of the contents. Thecommenters stiggeste d color coding.different wording. cuni.%stency withDOT labeling. minimum standards. andasked for clarifica:ion ofresponsibilities.

The requirement fer labeling is toprovide the disposal facility operatorwith information as to swhether thecontents are Class A. B. .,r C wastes sothat he will be able to dispose ofthem inthe proper manner. The Commissiondoes not feel that a Fedleral standard forsuch l'beling is watrrnte'. only that itbe clear and legible. Individual facilityoperators may have Speratingprocedures that could be enhanced bylhbel location. size. color. etc. Since thelabel is to benefit the ope rator. It is moreappropriate for him to s et specificritionsthrough contractual arrangement. Asuggestion to simplify the nomenclaitureon the labels was adopted and a minorchaenge was made in j 61.57.

Waste classification labeling is inaddition to labels required by DOT fortranspnrtation purposes. There is alsimilarity in nomencdture between theClass A and B wastes and the Type Aand B p.er.kages flsed by DOT. DOTrequires that packages be labeled its towhether they are Type A or B. *herefore.there could be some confusion if the-pieclietes are labeled to Indicate thewitste classification. 1 lowever. DOT hasis variety of numerical and olphabelicdldesignations and it is difficult tin avoidsome similarity in designation.* Subpart D:.f 61.59. In.stiutionalRequirr.ments. There were fewcomments on the requirement for Stateor Federal ownership of the dis0osalsite. Thoseen. Tse commenting expressedgeneral support. One commentersuggested that the Slate should ha-. aroption to turn ownership andresponsibility for long-term custody overto the Federal government. Such anoption is not available under currentlaw. In related comments. twocomrimenters expressed concern over theState's responsibility and liability afteraccepting the disposal site for custodialcare. Since the State does becomeresponsible for the site. the State musthe involved and aware or the operationsand conditions at the site during itsoperation. This could be done throughsome independent oversight as landlord.or through participation with NRC in the

Feder2l Registeir I Vol. 47. No. :48 / Monday. December 27. U9XZ / Rules and Resulations Sa459

review of the initial applicatior asprovided in Subpart F of Part Ct

About twenty cornmenters addrssedthe appropiternesa of the 1o0 year liniton Irtshtiltonal controls and its effect onwastes acceptable for diqposal underthe corntons prescnbed by Part 6e. Allcnmrmanters eaprMe-dsupport in oneway or another ror dcfining a tune framefor institutional -nntrot reraled either tothe haza-d duratio the, waste oriasrIuance of continued "*ernmentslability or nuern..lt was Mer.erallyitgreed that waste that was otrentiallyhazardois after the end of the assuredinstitutional comnrols qhauld he dispocedof by methods prnviding greater contrnlsend wssurances aga.nst potential

exposure. Thrse commrnF!s are judged tnsupport she. p-rvisinns of Part St thatcombine inst:tulinnael controts withwaste form. site charactertstics. and sitedenign and apeations to prnvideassurances that pntential exposters willbe with acceptable limits. Class A watrethat is potentasly, aciessible andunrecognizable is no longer hazardousafter 10 yearn. Special provisions forwaste being in a stable formr and insnrme cases buried deep a.ssurr againstpotentially unaccv'ptable exposures orreleases for up to SOO years.

There were a number of suggestionsthat the per;od of institutional controlshould be raised from 10W to 3:00 yea.sThere appear to be two basic reasonsfor these suggestions. One resson Is thatinstitutions such as a state or theFederal goverrnment can reasonably beexpected to survive ror much longerthan 1W years. A second reason is 'hatthe IOr year restriction on institutionalcare affects the waste concentrren nsacceptable for dilsposal as Class Awaste with resultant higher costs to thewaste generator. With respect to thefirst reason, the Commission feels-th-t itis not a question of how klng thegovernment can survive, but how logshould they be expected to providecustodial care. Based on work done byEPA. public comments on a prelin inarydraft of Part 61 and an advanced noticeof proposed rulemaking. and fourregional workshops. a clear consesuswas developed which supported the lXiyear limit The Commission has not seerany compelling reasons to change itsview on the 100 year limiL

Some couinenters ecpressed the vie%t&at the government landowner shouldhave flexibility in controlling site acces,durie~ the Ihstitutkonal control periodan1 that productive uses of the landwhich woald not affect site integrity,hould be permitted. The Commissionagrees and words to that effect have

been added to the Concepts section.61.7.

Subpart E1 F.nc.-wIAlA-n:onrcsApproximately two dozvn commentersresponded to the prnposed financialassurane retquireinents for closure andpost.c.oszue care. In general, thecommenters c;Prwtssd support for therule's est hh shrent of financia!a-surrncen fair dcnsr's And for long termcdre of a llW chppal site.Cianmenters merntinned that the existinghisIory of LLW desposal sites revealed astrong ne-d to require lu ensees tode'monos:rae evidence nf financialnsponsibelty so that ihe- public hearthand safety were proneced dnd also sothat polential hlabsitutrs do not rest withstate taxpayera.

Scveral commv'er:ers flt that therir.ancial retuiremcnts shiuld providemorr detail. The Commissinn awees andhams prepftred a draft Branch TcchnicalPosriion on Funding Amengenments forClowre and lor LongTerm Care of a11W Disposal Site that providesdetiriive guidanre for. evaluating allfmancial a-seiraners. including suretybonds.

One of the major points raised by a..eanety of commenters was that theproposed regulation failed to addresfinancial respo,.sihility forunanticipated contingencies a: a LLWdisposal site. One group etpressedconcern that the regulations set thestage for a -tax-payer funded bail-out"of poorly-run disposal sites. They feltthe indnstry should bear these costs.and that the regulations should bewritten lo make this esplicit. Anothercornmenter noted that the experience ofthe State of Kentucky with Mtaxey Flatsemphasized the importance of makingcontingency funds available in the eventthat serious problems occur. They feltthis issue should be addressed in thetniemaking. One State further noyted thatthe rule failed to mcntion who would befinanciaLly responsible if problems occurat the site that cost more than werebudgeted on an assumption of normaloperation. These questicns cover such avaretyr of different scenarios lie Actsof God, licensee negligence. ctc.l that itis not possible to specifically respond toall of th.v potential contingencies.I lowever. a general responsc to theoversell issue of responsibility forcontingencies at a low-level wastedisposal site is possible. Thesecomments cover two different time

a periods--the post-closure period, whenthe original licensee is still resporsibleat the site, and the institutional controlperiod, when the license has becntransferred to the Landowner of the sitefor a period of up to one hundred years.

In the case of the post eClosure care-perid. the licensee would beresptnsible for all activities ate the snefound necessairy by the ComMission soprutect the public health and safety.Finrna eitl resposinbility for ictivitiesduring the institutional control periowdarr ;t matter to Ie worlied out betwernthe site owert (i.r.. the Simse or Fede-.lC(nveurnmentl asnd the lit ensrem in the-:lease or uther legally binding*rraengement. It is po-sible that if thesite awner were a Stlt. they wouldwok out an arranx.ment whereb thesite operator wFould collect a surcha:rfrom t tste generators fre theinstittional control periecl. The rights.mind responsibilhties of rhe: State and thelicenser would be dre'rminet! at su_ a

'Vith regard to ntei rco.-ineg-n s. .zec mbmebnter tlsoase srd who wuld

.es~ume sportnsle I 'r as !,.r sait .es!.*1ICCftpaflnyinig waste %%hen it Wvas Ct se-dprematurely by the NRC. de toto nil-vinl.etion. Riespensibility rorea Site ctoseedprematurely by the NRC wovll dlependon the situmtion..Adds1ifn.el v. constcvma'lel e bea Last resort of the

Grmmission. srce the. agencv has -:b.!rauthorities, such as c1it 1 pettillties. !nrmr(luire licensere couiphl.nce. In thi'evcni it iviutd lm.'L e-ne nee-samry t$-

rHose dle site ftr heaith and ;eaf ytvrmeimns. the rule pruvides that thelic ensee continues to be responsibleuntil the license is terminated. In tbeervent that the licensee's financi;elcondition deteriorated so thact he wasu nlle to maintmiic the silt! to. prulte-: thepululic lu ralth ard salety. then theCommisnsion wbulcI probably requirn thrsite owna r (either the Stite (Pr Fe-tit.,egovernment) to assume respensibir!-y as!th site-

Regardless of who assumedriesprnsilitity for a prematurely clerecsile. :he rmles require :het a lirenseeFve.e available at all :imes during :Sesite IWe,. sufficient financial guarua'eeshe ensure that sufficient funds ertemvailbltie for site closure anddeeeornmiiSsioning. Tese funds wold 1l.1vailable for properly maintaining 2hesite if the original licensee were rc u let1a Cle, so.

Scmeral commentern cnmniderecl n"ulthe rule should resolIve the issur offinancial resnrwsibility for contis.sc.:P'by requiring liability insurance orSpl.cific language that licensees wc-aldbe required tv indemnify prnperty iowners in rasp or off-site migratint..Although not proposed in thi: origznulrule, the staff evaluation of these! psbliccomments indicatcs there is a n rc orlicensees to premide financialresponsibility for linbility covcra;v- :r0

Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 248 / Monday. December 27. 1982 / Rules and Regulations

off-site bodily injury and propertydamage. The Commission thinks thepublic health and sa ety and theenvironment would be protected fromunanticipated contingencies by suchcoverage. *s well as assisting the Statesin establishing disposal sites. Fouretisting LLW disposal facilities-currently carry this type of liabilitycove-age. and several other State and*eteral agencies. including EPA haveImposed similar rcquirements forhazardous and radio-active wastefach!fties in order to protect the public.health and safety and the environmentIHowever. at the present time. theCommission's only statutory frameworkfor establishing such a requirement isSection 170 of the Atomic Energy Act.also krown as the -Price-Anderson-Act. This type of coverage is designed tccover -catastrophic events primarilyfur nuclear reactor licensees. and theCommission feels t is coverage wouldbe in excess of the risk at a low-levelwaste facility.Therefore. theCommission has not established a thirdparty liability requirement in this

-,'tlion. The Coommrission willeL X ncourage licensees to continue

a rry third party liability insurancecoverage through the conventionalinsurance market.

A variety of comments were receivedconirerning the short term financialassurances required for closure anddecomissioning. Several commenterssupported the rule's use of a variety ofdifferent options for closure. noting thatflexibility was crucial if the proposedrule was to [unction on a redsoiaa!e -manner.

Other comrmenters expressed supportfor the rule's. provision requiring that.theamount of surety liability change withchanges In cost estimates. Onezommenoer also was concerned that thefinancial surety arrangements increasei-t value over time to compensate for theetfects or inflation. The rule allows theCommission to periodically assess theamount of funds collected for bothclosure and post-closure care oF the siteand if necessary. the Commission couldrequire the financial assurances to beincreased to account for inflaticn.unforeseen problems. and unanticipatedcosts.

Commenters expressed support forthe variety of alternatives allowed todemonstrate short term financiat

o nsibility. However. several~Jnmcnters mentioned that no

commercial market exists to providesurety bonds of the type mentioned inthe rule. In developing the rule. theCommission is aware that surety bondsof the type proposed in the rule may be

unavailable at this time. However. theCommission included this alternative inthe rule in the event that this type ofcoverage becomes available In theinsurance market at a later time.

Commenters were also divided aboutwhether the Commission should allowwIf-Insurance as a financial assurancefor closure. Several commenters felt thalself-insurance would not s.-aisfy thesurety requirements. and theyrecommended that licensees should berequired to place specific funds inescrow to cover costs ofdecontamination. closure andstabilization. Another commentersuggested that self-insurance be basedon an annual submittal of financialreports. i.e. a financial test.

The Commission rejected the use ofstand al'mne -selr-insurince based onthe Commissions lack ct confidence inthis method to provide adequateassurances. Further. state officials haveinformally expressed the need to havetangible funds available from thelicensee for sitc closure. so the State aslandowner would not be left financiallyresponsible. While not specificallyallowing its use on a generic basis In thorule. the Commission will evaluate theuse of fin;,ncial tests proposed bylicensees on a case-bv-case basis.

Cornmenters also expressed supportfor the need to have a long-term carefund established at the time a license isissued. Some commenters wanted therule to explicitly require the licensee toset aside funds for long-term care.However. the Commission currentlylacks the authonrty to requirc a licenseeto establish a fund to provide for long.term care of the site after the license isterminated. Instead. the Commissioncan only require a licensee to provideevidence of entering into a lease orother binding arrangement with the siteowner indicating that the two partieshave established financial responsibilit,for long-tcrm care between themselves.With regard to the lack of authority. oneperson suggested that the Commissionaik Congress for authority to requirefinancial assurances for licensees for thactive Institutional control period. TheNRC has raised this issue with Congres!both in testimony and in a lettercommen:ing on waste legislation.

SubpFrt f: Pcticipdtion by StatcCoverrments andindian Tribes. Ntanyof the comments on Subpart F wereconcerned with interpretations andclarifications. These have been-answered in the detailed analvis ofcomments. Two notewort'-y changscwere made. In £ 61.71. a change wasmade to ensure that the Director shallmake Commission staff available for

discussion with the State or tribalgoverning body. At the request of theDepartment of the Interior. a statementwas added to I 2.101 to Indicate that theCommission will inform the U.S. Bureauof Indian Affairs when tribes have beennotified of the filing of an application.

The Commission has been examiningways by which the licensing process canbe shortened in time. One way is toconduct activities in parallel wherepossible. rather than sequentially. Onesuch arex is in the submittal andevaluation of proposals by States andIndian tribes for piarticipation in the,NRC license review, as provided bySubpart F. As proposed. £ 6I.7: would.provide up to 120 days after anapplication was docketed for a State ortribe to submit a proposal forparticipation. The time from initialsubmittal of the application until it h isbeen docketed Is estimated to be ti0days or more. Thus. there is a potentialdelay of ISO days between the time NRCwould receive a proposal and couldbegin the serious consideration of theproposal. Until resolution were reaschedon the role a State or tribes would playin the review. the NRC s review of theapplication could be significantlyhampered.

The Low Level Radioactive WastePolicy Act of 1980 clearly states that it isa Statc-s responsibility to provide for thedisposal of low level wast'e. The Actalso provides for the formation orinterstate compacts for this purpose-.subject to Congressional approval. Thus.any application for a disposal facilitylicense will have had State ou cornp:ntparticipdtinn and backing for asignificant period of time beforesubmittal. During this lime. theCommission believes ihat; theStale willhave had ample opportunIty todetermrine what role it walnts to play inthe re*v'icof whe .pplication. This also

y holds Fiii for other Stntei that arepartieso tQn Interstate cotipait.e Therefore. 1 61-.t is buing changed tJrcquirh tht a proposal frrn the State inwhich the. facility is proposed. or from

e any Slate involved in a compact withthe State. musltbe submptted within 45

s days after the ipplication'has beentendered. tlowever. the Commissionnotes that a more promptlsubnlittiol bythe State would help rcdu-ce delays.

Although it is to be hoped that theStates will inform Indian tribes of plansfor disposal facilities and providc themwith sufficient information to permitthem to make a proposal at an earlytime. there is no way of er.suring this.Therefore. Indian tribes und States notcovered above will be given 2zo daysfrom the tendering of an application to

Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 248 1 Monday. December 27. 1982 I Rules and Regulations Ia,461.vvvs

submit their propoal k i antcipatedtLat the p utwipatim of [odiac tribesand nWn-coa4apt States will not ibpactthe schedule of the licesing pace"s asmuch end this additional time can beacconaotb ted.

The C =mmisaior believes that thereshould be sufficient Informtiino ;n theitndered applicatlin on which ti base aproposal and that it as not necessary towait until the acceptance review iscompleted and the dockewing procedurecarried out.

By caking these changes review or* propoals can be carried out earlier and

in parallel with the other reviews. It iscipected that this coui reduce theticesing time by up to six months.

It shoud be noted that participation byStates and Indian tribes purssant toSubpart F of Part 61 is not through an.nljudicatory he.aring. If an adjudicatoryhearing is requesteEL then t0 CFR Pat Zapplies.

A provision was added to 1 81.25 toensure that Stacr, local. and Indian

toficials were notified of the opportunityfor a hearing for certain types ofamendments to the dispoavl faeclitylicense.

Subport C: Record-s. Repor4T. ,Ta'rs.onl Irnspections. Several commentirsmade suggestions on records andreports and the need For residentinspectors. Comments were slso off-redencouraging state involvement inremrds review and Inspections. Twosuaestions. relative to reporting anyrelease of radioactivity and arequirement for maintaining duplicatesets of records were rejected as beingimpracticable. The Commission.;;owever. would encourage protection oirecords so that they would not bevulnerable to loss becanse of fire flood.or other occurrence. The othersuggestions did not require modificationof the regulations in order to accomplishwhat was suggested.

tO C'R Plrrr Rules of Prc. L,_, __No

malor iisues were raised by tbe'scveralcomments on the proposed amendmentsto Part Z.

10 CFR Purt 204§ 2013I I T'rc-,s`er!o-I)!. spmal and .Anifesfs. Because anylicensee might make a waste shipmentand 'bus be subject to the proposedmanifest system requirements. theCommission mailed coptes of theproposed rules to each of theCommission's approximately 9.0RE)licrnsees. In addition. some l.000copies were furnished to the AgreementStates for distribution to their licensees.Out of this large group came a total of 29letters commenting on the manifestsystem. These comments were wideranging. with the majority of question sor suggestions being raised by only one

commenter. Only a handful of issuesdrew more than one comment. with fourbeing the argest number of commentsor any issue. As a result of thesecomments, several changes were madeto the proposed requiem cnas to clarifysome aspects.

To dlI With the situation where ewaste collector picks up waste directlyfrem the gene!:ator. provisions are a;.defor de'ivering the manifest to thecollector at that time. The wastecollector will not be requird 1t anrtchcopies of all waste generator manifeststo his. as long as the collector's manifesthas ihe information for each !ackagetlt is required by I Z.311(bl Theperson transerring wastes wir# berequired to maintim a signed copy ofthe manifest Or equivalentdocumentation such as a computergernerated printout from the transfereecontaining the same information andbinding acknowledgement as the recordrequired by Parts 30 40 and 70gWverning transfer of licensed materia!.This was done to provide inspectablerecords at the waste generator's f.scilivwhich demonstrale compliance with themanifest requirements.

Changrs were made in ther-quirements dealing with qualityassurance. The term qurlity -assurnnre*has been changed to quality 'contror'and managtnent's rnle has beenmodlfied to require cialuation of auditsrather than the conduct of such audits.

Of note is that only cne commenter. amidwest utility. addressed the questionof the burden that the manifest wouldrepresent to smal entities. When themanifest requirements were proposed.thC Commission judged that they wouldiot have significant economic impescl an

smill entities. Purnuant to theRegulatory Flex:hglity Act. theCommission solicited comments on thismatter.

General CommentsSeventeen comrn:ers exp tld

o tncern with the wse of absolute tersnin the rule such as -eliminate'' and"prevenLt One was concerned about thelack of absoluteness of -reasonabieassurance.-

As discussed elsewhere. most of theplhces where such terms were usedwere in the context of design objectives.Since lotal achievement of suchabsolute objectives is unlikely.modifications have been made to therequirements to require minimization orprevention to the extent practicable.

Twelve commenters made suggestionson the kinds of additional regulatoryguiduace they relt was needed. TheCommission agrees with the need forregulatory guidance and has a program

underway to provide such guid.iniaL fur'tin the furm of staff technical pomiiticu.then as Regulatory Guides. Ntnbi of :3u-toprcs addressed by the commrn:ns.i.tsa!recidv under deIelopment.Ceorsideration is bving given to t!nd.-vlopment of guidance sin other r*. puCSstivcitIed hv the cemnmenlirs

On. cornmrnter suvr'%t1td t' Xenti:.egi.astes in stor.age prior to thi effe'. !-i

da~l of the regL Idtiln frorn thep.i:lagirtg and ltbeling raqiirs masr. .This comment touchher tin a ,siji.st -attibnarder implications. the phasing in. ofthe Part 61 reiluir-cThs.; consistrn- withthe abil-ty of license's. Agrerm.'ntStates nand applicants to maklt* netievary changes to asurerilwr phiancr.

T'hi- follow ingg tond sul.;.sswill fie c,.nsidr-red a m.tter ofcrompatibility for the Are'mcint Stnritswh-'n the rule is adopne'd: S,'visn f:.2Deffinitions; Sulbparl C. P''rformian.Oi.a' tuvrse. Soibp;art D. To'chnir.alRequire'ments for land DisposalFae.iliirs: thnsc portsonrs of Suilrp.irt Inthat are necessarv to impleniment thcpffseismons of Subpart% C and U' !ha"pourtinn of Subpart E rr.uqrinu rkles.s. rfunding arrnansienents: and Srntiort:0.311. Transfer for ulisposal andmnanifecs's. Meetirgs were hred wilt;Awreement Slate rppreFentat.s01es iL7agreement bias re'c..shed on a metherd fituniform implmnentation of the mu-i 'tre'fluirements. waste classificattionwastc form, and the effective dafte! aSection Zrj.31; which was set at 365 dasssofter publication in the Federal Relvter.

Since all other provisions of theprolps.'d rules Would pertalin onhia usmpplicants for new Commission-licmrn%,'duisposal facilities. there are no resor'ito delay the effective date of the#S~rnqlui.rniments. be Commission isworking with the Agreement Statv2 !odleive'lop model regulations to fit: siztL-pten!b~v the Attreement States in acctsrcL.-ne.-%ilh their agreements to maintainc:rimpastille state regulations.

App!irahility of the requiremenrs inl'art fl to Commission disposal ft=c:itylicenses in effect on the effective ra-ev ofthe ru!e will be determnined on ablyc;ase basis and implernenterl thr"-,htri-ns and conditions of the licen- -er 'Iorecrs issued by the CommisMiisM.

Ther.' were a variety of conmmn'-sreha:ed to commenters qiiislions *':--Utthe development of new sites. crfnr-rn._ (over nuclear facilities becoming ra!-disposal sites. the need for anenvironmental impact statement. and -inextension of the comment period fr.Part 61 to correspond with th.t of :.eenvironmental impact statement. -'%#cnrmments are addressed in the 1"- lrd

57462 Federal Rexister I VAL 47. No. 248 1 Monday. December 27. . 198a /IRules and Rcg'ttations-

*analysis of commnents awnd haid no effecin the rat. ne comnrrent period was. 1i

fact. ex~tended fircm Octobier = 1-91 toJdsnunry 14. It'.e to cnrri ipiond with thafor thor FJS. . - 4

About nec third of allcn-nmrnlcrsoffered rulittiriai! sua~eilinns that wereaime.d dZ im'proivin.- 6inriy. carre ting

typwN~rdphic.1l ernk-ta. The' 'crer V-&Yh d p~ e an rcp ning th 'r fini l '.er icn o !

* £io~ee Proei'on* new l0OCFR e I9,hjbce nhj~dd

concernting, iob pro:ec:ion for cmplu~t4':-h.'. pr.o 'dc irrf.,r j:i,,in to the

(.q ~ .~ s ~ fl. T he n --*w ec tilo nils

**. -e 0 ,m is-n- intent thait .sU

r..; ini!ib~t.iunder its em plo iee

p- .01I requ!..tions. Sce the FederalHReiqtpr 11.c.:ee f47 FR NM53:1 dated fjoyi :!*C for the: b,,'s fir ths acrtion.

i.. rith anal thetr c~tr!.tc:nr..ar~dK ) .i. enra.tojr*-tni., term ination or'-. . IL t. of Iob d -scrinm en atte n . R l fs

:;ri rh. pirpoae~o f thi A~temic'. A f.: ..n d a' ...f .: v

R.'u~ni ..t ~ At t' m prohibited. In'a-.!...'. rev. 10 YR, tdl.9 tnd!.c3 the

.i%%.ire ib.,? if discrimin-itien bmita.,~.e i't larltcerd to btve ocrci:rred.

.e -sI .1r El ~ iof ?hf- Dcp~t m-n1 ofI..,'.-- *ru, * ~ .. i'..e r m'p % ccs io tIt and**. . i l ep: ... ,t .- arr 4- Wtv t .r-

* ': K ~ .: . . * :~ r ~ o th e

.. ~. * a. '.': ai f .t; r :h e ' c~ n t o f

r.4pvri6tkReduttso~nAct:-

Re'.--;::.asin Az,. ruth I.. I, . the

~ii .r ti~ il 1.1 il 10 U : f im -c r p or n e'nt

.end i~aed t.;o th e O re ugpp. cl'l rpra.t'.i-ed 4mer~d-'nen! Ue 10 CFR Prt r:

not -%:.n:ficdinlyv .atcerd as a rutif pahiec cor-uents, so thit approva~lrr~nnans valid. The apiplication.-nepnrtim. ;mnd recordkeeping9recruitrmeflts rcr.ntained in 10 CFR 61apply only to land disvooaal facilitj-Uperi tors and ariect fewer than 10~person~ anJd-th-zrefnre. are not sub jectto 0MBS clearence.

Retutstory Flexibility Act I- the Regulatory Flcxibility Act or the

n Bised upon the inforiation available summary analysis. One utility (which inand on the public comments received on nol a small entity) dtd malke a general

t the proposed ru e. and in accordance . qualitative reference tIo buzirdens nnwith the Regulatory Fle.-tibiity Act or small entities. Twelve cammentetrs* 19M. 5 U.S.C. brz(b). the Commistion n'pe tenting a variety of sectors (nothrrcby certi:ies that this rutraalking wil just tmmll entitics) addressed tha-not. it prctrulg.,ted. hale a aigniricant potenti;al bunren of the manifest systern.economi impact upon a stbstantlal - Section 604 of the Regulitorynumber -if t.ll ertitie,. . - .l exibiity Act further req'tircs am

The Rc.!.atu.'y Flexibilitv Ac: (IJu. L sumMryn aot rhc issucs and a mact'-ment9&-3431 was signed in-o las in -r, * of any r.h.nges made in the prol.msed- epleimbvr 19O The Act's principal . nate its a' iesult ofthe conimcnts. Twoobect` se is to m akc Crt-ain that Fretral r m unnentrrs * ;re concerner iloud tl:r'agencies t:y. where possible. to f buirt s :n o7 spcdfying ch f.rm.rt-p.zlno:y riquher-emnts to the scat,. of Four commenters objetcs; to shipperthe aectted .activity. Significant - l - resptun.bili:y for tratki.ng -hipmrnli;t.

.econom:c in spac: on a subs.:tnltai 7- Three camcrteitcrs including one lloru.'rv numle; of m.tl: entilies ;i i major - cons I rrd tIkc 1|tem to be a

-cunc. . rdrt C1 and acco'mipah)ing rutc papcrw.vn: b curden an.I ttwn. n'1.'nrrnAWh.:t¢, rnli pC,--n:e'.IV impct a burden. Tbre suplivrlv. t. IIv: strin a;nd

s;:*ndic.t. t number o! persons licensed o*ne indirat!c.l no prroabicms in &millying.by thetCu'rnimsson and the Agrcenrent Two obeicted to foirwaardint ;a rcipy i.':Std:ts. The fo!!n.vir: dov:s:c.sion the mani-et and one was conc:urn.dlad ircsses the t.ctors in the analv eLes- .aoul the imnplic..tions or gen-riturrcqql;acd by the ALt and the pubhe rer itf..iioni.-. -

co'.r-ents received. The draft ontJ fti.,1 The prepoct1n:l ru' :nc!ta!e drelietfUlS a for P ar 5 provide J.addittinail Lis *'r5ta-! ots crnplie:rly awo ptril:thC-alel'bari.1rounJ intfa-nut',ur. and dn;allsii of or Ur Ni-ci!ing chenical ft;rm. Sm:allthe cnp.ics of tr.is ruterr..kil-g noLtaa... rn tit;es gt e.... a ;ign i!ia..ant p6rns:n ot

Section 6t.S of thec R<ua!otvr w wrasles and dat i on these wastes isFembtll:vy Act reiqui-es :hit thletnLd for 'n-dced. so no frurlh.r rrtlat rv.Sth.r res-:t!o-r .actrion b,.: .:[earl - prtivided. OLicttion. to % hapj r ir X.-.rnesta!ilr.cd. The r.rei :I.:r s..and.s:ds tu .1*nd ftor-arding man!L.*'. . ,temn:mid

,,goue:n the dtospo3a! oU lo.;-lea %l prr!:ar;ivy frrom the n 0-.fl :. cl.ariry inatentraidioa : e wistes ani rd a reifi**ti.;gins nf the ru~e on waxvt'c Irtts~ : or uille.tcr

ir to im.plehren t:.ese s:.1ndilrd!1 'is role nnd :esponsilitl:y. The trintf.a'r !.r

1- discussed in de:.i! in :he :draft FIl ll. p.i;t rT air.'! tracPtii:g rc f~fl.ibilits i.ua.ajoraty of t;e p-ulic con.n.cnts' -" - mPr-I? LI!.Inly .aildne5s td in the, finet! rule.s1uppPrtCd thc rule arnJ :hjis afflirr.;J the * h: .r-nmnd'.f:iin tfr sinupflrvin,: !ht-n.etd for the' rl;tr- ;nd ::h.: rrgliel.tor ap 'tw ork fur ltreA.era aviaCadlupt.l.

m: n;' It est.iblts- , ;s. T hefse' i5s%4tf - I nd ..-Hcf:reM art::Section rJv9 of l e.i RC jg.t Or ' ;md.r %%td in -nor'e d:t.il in tleei.t.o f

Flexibility Ac: requirec tia.t snli .aralvsis;or comments in t1.e fat.lI US.entities hdile an opportunitv to Th-! eor.tments on w~a-tr r l.is~afii..n:*npa?:icip.itc i~i the .? m ung ih,?,n the *vere difcussed in ;he pr,-t ed:n#ru!e w; t1. 1.ve a s:: ir.:.rricconor...c suim.iry ;.nd resultedt in in tetsN:.irm.pact or. a subs: .ut:a! n...b..r a3 ce re*ison of tmis po:!;on off th.a nr : too

the Com.n.-:sso i.ns *r.::.il crrtariM:zui;Tr of Aimpiify .1nI! clarity the reui:em ntr-rnsnifkcant i-pa:! w'd al a ifuifitd The de-.a::ed so.3.1 inli tih- fira!

oine. s; ecial e~fur:s te r;:..h sm;.il - E15 prnvi!-es further d$isu :et u:cnri:;#!3 %%-re rnae'e~r -:::ture.ithe' lismzi;:s;d * -proposed rule wsj d:s;:;nutcd to.al; f rce!r-t ruies that '.ve: .Ip :h.-Cemmission licease-; jq9.0t)01 and 'malc ;p;up-.set:d ru'.e are pri.-natalv t 1hras- f :!:.

' l o DAgeemenr t.ates tz.tX1 D.:partrnent of Tr.n.spnrt~ltion (VOrJ.licenseesJ with a cov'er l-tter 1 The Commission and DOT hav, minhighi~g~tin; the points th;it might impart e:st.ibikhemd %orit:ng real;i::onshipthem. Comments were snli.ite:d from imnpl:n'-n:ed rhrt ugh a lormat

!3 groups such as ihe Itealth Phvsis` %temoranIu.n of LUndcrut;tndiv1e-. Tlb..1: Society. a national organization ofi *ulu i'.o!F acknovwledges the neaedl lo

proftessiono.!s cor cerned with radiation comnply with DOT rules. anti thesafey. mnany of whose tnembers will Commission currently inspects lice-nse-nzhave to prepil:e manufes-s and - *-- for compliance with DOT rcuqlirenients.coordinate cur-pli.anr.e twith, the ru!e. The manifest required by thisThc Ileal:h Physics Soeiety publicized :. rulema'3;ng i.s consistunt with DOTt:-n ruie in its neslet:ters to members,. shipping paper requirements. andl ti:eOf some 107 differen: commenters - s- snme document may be used byresponding. none speeiflcally addressed licensees to meet require-nents of litrth

Fedeal Register I VoL 47. No. "8 t Monday. December 27. 198Z I Rules and Regulations 574M.

aences. Neither NRC nr DOT requir* specific form cnd both allow such dcaluse. The waste for and packagingrequirements ar In addition to andcompatible with DOT rules. In addition.the manifest terminology sadrequirements were o-mpamd to those inthe proposed Uniform Hazardous WasteManifest, the joint EPA/DOT proposedform published March 4. 192 (47 FRM9338. A few min or pocednral and

terminology changes wva aadc tocnforn to this proposed form.

* Ucensees may use the UniformHazardous Waste ManifesL once It Isimplemented. as both a DOT shippingpaper and a NRC manifest forradioacti'w wastes by using additfioaspaces to descibe wastes and addinginformstion to the back. These changeswern made based on consultaion withEPA and DOT staff and will help toreduce the brden on all licensee

The following comnent was reeivedfrom EPA on possible duplicativeequlrements

NRC solidted comments an possibleduplicative requirents foe uffluent releaseand broker activities under theComprehensive Environmental Response.Compensation and tiabilty Act of tSWICERCIA This Superfund la euwptsfrom notification any &RVcse of soure.specil nuclear. or byproduct material . . incompliance with a legally enforceableticense. permit. regulations, or order Issuedputruant to the Atomic EneW Act of 1954ICIMCA Section 101f10l(KII. Radioactivereleases from nuclear waste disposalfadlittis which are not In compliance with anNRC license. permit. tgulabton or order fallwithin the reponting requbn ents ofCI.RCIA Furthermor. as part of thenotification regulations under CMCLA. EPAis planning to develop a notification schemefor releases of radioactive mateials notlicensed under the Atomic Enerpy Act of te54or the Uranium. Mill Tailings RadiationControl Act of 1978 EPA wishes to minimizeduplicative reporting requir eets forrleases reported to other ageCies. EPAIntends to worli with NRC to minirlhed.upicativet eportng requirements to theextent posible.

The EPA also addressed the potentialfor duplicative costs to the two agenciesfor wastes that are a mixture ofhazardous chemicals and radioactivematerials. Close coordination and amemorandum of understanding wersuggested. EPA has regulatoryresponsibility for the disposal ofhazardous wastes under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). NRC agrees that the tworegulatory programs need to becoordinated. and will take action in thatregard.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act alsorequires discussion of alternatives to theproposed action. The recordkeeping and

reporting requrerments Impose such aminor Incremental burden that noexemption was considered. Initialestimates wenr that about 2.000 of theCommission s 9.000 licensees are wastegenerator who might make wasteshipments. Waste generators mustprovide more complete Information onthe manifest than is currently requiredto meet DOT shipping paperrequirements and must report oninvestigations of missing shipments. Theadditional information required In themanlifest Includes the Identities ofsolidification agents; presence of anychelating agents. whether the waste IsClass A. B. or c; and the total quantityof H-. C-14I Tc-99. and 1-129. Theannual public burden for all licenseesshould be no more than about 4.S00 staffhours for the preparation of the manifestinstead of just preparation of DOTshipping papers and 1.000 hours forinvestigating and reporting on late ormissing shipments. Reactor licensees.who are not small entities. ship at Icasthalf the waste now shipped to disposalsites. The remainder Is shipped byhospitals. universities. Industrial firms.etc. who may or may not be smallentities. Thus. less than half this burdenshould fail on small entities based onrelative volumes of wastes shipped. Thewaste classification and charocteristicsportion of the rule does provide relief formost wastes produced by the smallentities. Le_ Class A wastes. Whereradiological hazard permits. segeateddisposal has been provided as an optionto complying with more restrictivewaste acceptance requirements forClass B and C wastes.

The Incremental burdens wereinitially judged small. Eased on furtherstaff evaluations and public commentson the rule. this initial judgment wascorrect and the rule will not have asignificant economic impact. Therulemaking will not affect economicfactor such as employment, businessviability. or ability of affected entities tocompete. The improvements In wastedisposal practices and the contributionof those improvements to establishingnew disposal capacity are judged tosignificantly outweigh the smalleconomic impact on small entities.

iUst of Subjects in 10 CFR Part B1

Low-level waste. Nuclear materials.Penalty. Waste treatment and disposal.

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of1954. as amended. the EnergyReorganization Act of 1974. as amended.and section 553 of title 5 of the UnitedStates Code. the following new 10 CFRPart 61 and the following amendmentsto 10 CFR Parts Z 19. 20.21. 30.40. 51.70.73. and 170 to Chapter 1 of Title 10.

of the Code of Federal Regulations arepublished as a document subject tcodification.

A new Part 61 Is added to 10 CFR toread as follows:

PART 6t-LUCENSINGREQUIREMENTS FOR LANDDISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Subpart A-General ProvIsions

Se-61.1 Purpo e and scope.612 Definitions.61.3 Ucense required.61.4 Communicationr61.5 Interpretations.61.6 Exemptions.6t.7 Concepts.61.5 Reporting. recorikeeping. and

application requirements: OM ~ar:not required.

61.9 Emnployee protection.Subpart .-L.icenses61.10 Content of application.61.11 General Information.61.12 Specific technical Informatloa..61.13 Technical analyses.61.14 Institulional Information.61.15 Financial Information.61.16 Other Information.61.: Filing and distrnbution of apptcmtion61.21 Elimination of repetition.61.22 tpdatling of applica tion and

environmental report.61:I Standards for issuance ofr a lcmse.6124 Conditions of licenses.6125 Changes.61.28 Amendment of license.01.27 Appliration for renewal or clasure.61.28 Contents of application for ctourS1.: Post-closure observation and

mnintenansc.61.30 Tran.nfer of license.61.31 Termination of license.

Subpart C-Performance Objective61.40 Ceneral requirement614 Protection of the general popctatmnn

from releases of radioactivity.61.42 Protection of Individuals from

inadvertent Intrusion.61.43 Protection of individuals durnes

*operations.6s.44 Stability of the disposal site af.r

closure.

Subpart D-Technical Requirements forLand Disposal Factiites61.50 Disposal site suinsability requiimensb

for land disposal.61.51 Disposal site design for land pora61.5Z land disposal facility operatioa and

disposal site closure.*ss 53 Environmentat monitoring.

l.!;4 Aitcrneutive requirements for cgSlg'and operations.

61.S5 Waste class;icration.81.58 Waste characteristics.61.57 Labeling.81.58 Alternative requirements for w-1st

classification and characteristics.61.59 Institutional requirements.

57484 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 248 / Monday, December 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart E-Flnanclal Assurances-Se.61.61 Applicant qualifications and

assurances.1.62 Funding for disposal site closure and

_4- stabilization.6163 Financial assurances for institutional

controls.Subpart F-Participation by StateGovernments and Indian Tribes61.70 Scope.61.71 State and Tribal government /

consultation.61.72 Filing of proposals for State and Tribal

participation.61.73 Commission approval of proposals.

Sdbpari G-iicord&, Reports, Teasts, andInspections61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and

transfers.61.81 Tests at land disposal facilities.61.82 Commission inspections of land

disposal facilities.61.83 Violations.

Authority. Secs. 53, 57,. 63, 65. 811. 16L182.183, 68 Stat. 930, 932 933. 935, 48, 953,954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077.2092,2093. 209S 2111.2201. 223Z 2,33): Ses. 202206,6 8 Stat. 1244,1248. (42 U.S.C. 5842 584ZJ;Secs. 1o and 14. Pub. L 95-01. 92 Stat. 2951(42 U.S.C. 2021a and 5851).

For the purposes of Sec. 223, 68 StaLt 95 asamended. (42 U.S.C. 2273J: Tables 1 and 2.

161.3 6124, 61.25, 61.27(a. 61A1 through61.43.61.52, 61.53.61.55, 6L56. and 61.61through 61.63 Issued under Sec. 161b. 68 Stat.948 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); II 61.10through 61.16.6 .24. and 61.80 Issued under

i ec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950. as amended (42 USSC.14_7201(o)).

Subpart A-General Provisions

§ 61.1 Purpose and scope.(a) Tle regulations in this part

establish, for land disposal ofradioactive waste, the procedures.criteria, and terms and conditions uponwhich the Commission issues licensesfor the disposal of radioactive wastescontaining byproduct. source andspecial nuclear material received fromother persons. Disposal of waste by anindividual licensee is set forth in Part 20of this chapter. Applicability of therequirements in this Part to Commissionlicenses for waste disposal facilities ineffect on the effective date of this rulewill be determined on a case-by-casebasis and implemented through termsand conditions of the license or byorders issued by the Commission.

(b) Except as provided in Part 150 ofthis chapter, which addressesassumption of certain regulatoryauthority by Agreement States, and§ 61.6 "Exemptions," the regulations inthis part apply to all persons in theUnited States. The regulations in thispart do not apply to (1) disposal of high-level waste as provided for in Part 60 of

'4 is chapter; (2) disposal of uranium or

thorium tailings or wastes (byproduct.material as defined in I 40.4(a-1)) asprovided for In Part 40 of this chapter Inquantities greater than 10,000 kilogramsand containing more than five (5)millicuries of radium-228 or (3) disposalof licensed material as provided for InPart 20 of this chapter.

1 61.2 Deflnitons.As used in this part-"Active maintenance' means any

significant remedial activity neededduring the period of institutional controlto maintain a reasonable assurance thatthe performance objectives in II 61.41and 61A2 are met. Such activemaintenance Includes ongoing activitiessuch as the pumping and treatment ofwater from a disposal unit or one-timemeasures such as replacement of adisposal unit cover. Active maintenancedoes not include custodial activitiessuch as repair of fencing, repair orreplacement of monitoring equipment.revegetation, minor additions to soilcover, minor repair of disposal unitcovers, and general disposal site upkeepsuch as mowing grass.

'Buffer zone" Is a portion of thedisposal site that is controlled by thelicensee and that lies under the disposalunits and between the disposal unitsand the boundary of the site.

"Chelating agent" means aminepolycarboxylic acids (e.g., EDTA.DTPAJ. hydroxy-carboxylic acids, andploycarboxylic acids (e.g., citric-acid,carbolic acid, and glucinic acid).

"Commencement of construction"means any clearing of land, excavation.or other substantial action that wouldadversely affect the environment of aland disposal facility. The term does notmean disposal site exploration,necessary roads for disposal siteexploration. borings to determinefoundation conditions, or otherpreconstruction monitoring or testing toestablish background informationrelated to the suitability of the disposalsite or the protection of environmentalvalues.

"Commission" means the NuclearRegulatory Commission or its dulyauthorized representatives.

"Custodial Agency" means an agencyof the government designated to act onbehalf of the government owner of thedisposal site.

"Director" means the Director. Officeof Nuclear Material Safety andSafeguards. U. S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

"Disposal" means the isolation ofradioactive wastes from the biosphereinhabited by man and containing hisfood chains by emplacement in a landdisposal facility.

"Disposal site" means that portion of-a land disposal facility which Is used fordisposal of waste. It consists of disposalunits and a buffer zone.

"Disposal unit" means a discreteportion of the disposal site into whichwaste Is placed for disposal. For nearsurface disposal the unit is usually atrench

"Engineered barrier" means a man-made structure or device that isintended to Improve the land disposalfacility's ability to meet the performanceobjectives In Subpart C

"Explosive material" means anychemical compound, mixture, or device.which produces a substantialinstantaneous release of gas and heatspontaneously or by contact with sparksor flame.

"Government agency" means anyexecutive department, commission,Independent establishment. orcorporation, wholly or partly owned bythe United States of America which Isan instrumentality of the United States;or any board. bureau, division. service.office, officer, authority, administration.or-other establishment in the executive.branch of the government.

"Hazardous waste" means thosewastes designated as hazardous byEnvironmental Protection Agencyregulations in 40 CFR Part 261.

"Hydrogeologic unit" means any soilor rock unit or zone which by virtue ofits porosity or permeability. or lackthereof, has a distinct influence on thestorage or movement of groundwater.

"Inadvertent intruder" means aperson who might occupy the disposalsite after closure and engage in normalactivities, such as agriculture, dwellingconstruction. or other pursuits in whichthe person might be unknowinglyexposed to radiation from the waste.

"Indian Tribe" means an Indian tribeas defined in the Indian Self-Determination and EducationAssistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450).

'Intruder barrier" means a sufficientdepth of cover over the waste thatInhibits contact with waste and helps toensure that radiation exposures to aninadvertent intruder will meet theperformance objectives set forth in thispart. or engineered structures thatprovides equivalent protection to theinadvertent intruder.

"Land disposal facility" means theland, buildings, and equipment which isintended to be used for the disposal ofradioactive wastes into the subsurfaceof the land. For purposes of this chapter,a geologic repository as defined in Part.60 is not considered a land disposalfacility.

Federal Regliter / VoL 47, No. 248 / Monday, December 27.198 / Rules and Regulations 57465

"License" means a license issuedunder the regulations In Part 61 of thischapter. "Licensee" means the holder ofsuch a license.

"Monitoring" means observing and%* / making measurements to provide data to

evaluate the performance andcharacteristics of the disposal site.

"Near-surface disposal facility"means a land disposal facility in whichradioactive waste is disposed of in orwithin the upper 30 meters of the earth'ssurface. I

"Person" means (1) any Individual.corporation, partnership. firm.association, trust, estate, public orprivate instiltuton. group. governmentagency other than the Cormmission orthe Department of Energy, (except thatthe Department of Energy is considereda person within the meaning of theregulations in this part to the extent thatits facilities and activities are subject tothe licensing and related regulatoryauthority of the Commission pursuant tosection 202 of the Energy ReorganizationAct of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244]), any State orany political subdivision of or anypolitical entity within a State, anyforeign government or nation or anypolitical subdivision of any suchgovernment or nation. or other entity;and (2) any legal successor.representative, agent, or agency of theforegoing,

"Pyrophoric liquid" means any liquidthat ignites spontaneously Li dry ormoist air at or below 130'F (54USC). Apyrophoric solid Is any solid material.other than one classed as an explosive.which under normal conditions is liableto cause fires through friction, retainedheat from manufacturing or processing.or which can be ignited readily andwhen ignited bums so vigorously andpersistently as to create a serioustransportation. handling. or disposalhazard. Included are spontaneouslycombustible and water-reactivematerials.

"Site closure and stablization" meansthose actions that are taken uponcompletion of operations that preparethe disposal site for custodial care andthat assure that the disposal site willremain stable and will not need ongoingactive maintenance.

"State" means any State. Territory, orpossession of the United States. PuertoRico, and the District of Columbia.

".Stability" means structural stabillity."Surveillance" means observation of

the disposal site for purposes of visualdetection of need for maintenance.custodial care, evidence of intrusion.and compliance with other license andregulatory requirements.

"Tribal Governing Body" means aTribal organization as defined in the

Indian Self-Determination and.Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.450).

"Waste' means those low-levelradioactive wastes containing source.special nuclear, or byproduct materialthat are acceptable for disposal in aland disposal facility. For the purposesof this definition. low-level waste hasthe same meaning as in the Low-LevelWaste Policy Act, that Is radioactivewaste not classified as high-levelradioactive waste. transuranic waste,spent nuclear fuel. or byproduct materialas defined in section 11e.(2) of theAtomic Energy Act (uranium or thoriurntailings and waste).

§ 61.3 Ucense required.(a) No person may receive, possess.

and dispose of radioactive wastecontaining source. special nuclear, orbyproduct material at a land disposalfacility unless authorized by a licenseissued by the Commission pursuant tothis part. or unless exemption has beengranted by the Commission under I 61.6of this part.

(b) Each person shall file anapplication with the Commission andobtain a license as provided in this partbefore commencing construction of aland disposal facility. Failure to complywith this requirement may be groundsfor denial of a license.

§61.4 CommunIcatons.- Except where otherwise specified. allcommunications and reports concerningthe regulations In this part andapplications filed under them should beaddressed to the Director, Office ofNuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, D.C. 20555Communications, reports, andapplications may be delivered In personat the Commission's offices at 1717 HStreet NW., Washington, D.C. or 7915Eastern Avenue, Silver Spring,Maryland.

§ 61.5 InterpretatIons.Except as specifically authorized by

the Commission In writing, nointerpretation of the meaning of theregulations in this part by any officer oremployee of the Commission other thana written interpretation by the GeneralCounsel will-be considered binding uponthe Commission.

I 61.6 ExemptIons.The Commission may, upon

application by any interested person. orupon its own Initiative. grant anyexemption from the requirements of theregulations In this part as it determinesis authorized by law, will not endanger

life or property or the common defenseand security, and is otherwise in thepublic interest.

§ 61.7 Concepts.(a) The Disposal Facility. (1) Part 81 is

intended to apply to land disposal ofradioactive waste and not to othermethods such as sea or extraterrestrialdisposal. Part 61 contains proceduralrequirements and performanceobjectives applicable to any method ofland disposal. It contains specifictechnical requirements for near-surfacedisposal of radioactive waste whichInvolves disposal in the uppermostportion of the earh. approximately 30meters. Burial deeper than 30 metersmay also be satisfactory. Technicalrequirements for alternative methodswill be added in the future.

(2) Near-surface disposal ofradioactive waste takes place at a near-surface disposal facility, which Includesall of the lind and buildings necessaryto carry out the disposal. The disposalsite is that portion of the facility whichwaste is used for disposal of waste andconsists of disposal units and a bufferzone. A disposal unit is a discreteportion of the disposal site into whichwaste is placed for disposal. For near-surface disposal, the'disposal unit isusually a trench. A buffer zone is aportion of the disposal site that iscontrolled by the licensee and that liesunder the site and between theboundary of the disposal site and anydisposal unit. It provides controlledspace to establish monitoring locationswhich are intended to provide an earlywarning of radionuclide movement, andto take mitigative measures If needed. Inchoosing a disposal site, sitecharacteristics should be considered interms of the indefinite future andevaluated for at least a 500 year timeframe.

(b) Waste Ckassification and Near-SwufaceDispisoJ. (1) Disposal ofradioactive waste in near-surfacedisposal facilities has the followingsafety objectives: protection of the -general population from releases ofradioactivity, protection of Individualsfrom inadvertent intrusion. andprotection of individuals duringoperations. A fourth objective is toensure stability of the site after closure.

(2) A cornerstone of the system isstability-stability of the waste and thedisposal site so that once emplaced andcovered. the access of water to thewaste can be minimized. Migration ofradionuclides is thus minimized. long-term active maintenance can beavoided. and potential exposures tointruders reduced. While stability is a

57466 Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 248 / Monday, December 27,- 1982 / Rules and Regulations

desirable characteristic for all wastemuch radioactive waste does notcontain sufficient amounts ofradionuclides to be of great concernfrom these standpoints: this waste.however, tends to be unstable, such asordinary trash type wastes. If mixedwith the higher activity waste, theirdeterioration could lead to failure of thesystem and permit water to penetratethe disposal unit and cause problemswith the higher activity waste. ,Therefore, in order to avoid placingrequirements for a stable waste form onrelatively innocuous waste, thesewastes have been classed as Class Awaste. The Class A waste will be -

disposed of in separate disposal units atthe disposal site. However, Class Awaste that is stable may be mixed withother classes of waste. Those higheractivity wastes that should be stable forproper disposal are classed as Class Band C waste. To the extent that it ispracticable, Class B and C waste formsor containers should be designed to bestable, i.e., maintain gross physicalproperties and identity, over 300 years.For certain radionuclides prone tomigration. a maximum disposal siteinventory based on the characteristics ofthe disposal site may be established tolimit potential exposure.

(3) It is possible but unlikely thatpersons might occupy the site in thefuture and engage in normal pursuitswithout knowing that they werereceiving radiation exposure. Thesepersons are referred to as inadvertentintruders. Protection of such intruderscan involve two principal controls:institutional control over the site afteroperations by the site owner to ensurethat no such occupation or Improper useof the site occurs; or, designating whichwaste could present an unacceptablerisk to an intruder, and disposing of thisWaste in a manner that provides someform of intruder barrier that is Intendedto prevent contact with the waste. Thisregulation incorporates both types ofprotective controls.

(4) Institutional control of access tothe site Is required for up to 100 years.This permits the disposal of Class A andClass B waste without specialprovisions for intrusion protection, sincethese classes of waste contain types andquantities of radioisotopes that willdecay during the 100-year period andwill present an acceptable hazard to anintruder. The government landowneradministering the active institutionalcontrol program has flexibility incontrolling site access which mayinclude allowing productive uses of theland provided the integrity and long-

term performance of the site are notaffected.

(5) Waste that will not decay to levelswhich present an acceptable hazard toan intruder within 100 years isdesignated as Class C waste. This wasteIs disposed of at a greater depth thanthe other classes of waste so thatsubsequent surface activities by anIntruder will not disturb the waste.Where .site conditions prevent deeperdisposal, intruder barriers such asconcrete covers may be used. Theeffective life of these intruder barriersshould be 50 years. A maximumconcentration of radionuclides isepeciied. or all wastes so that at theend of the 500 year period. remainingradioactivity will be at a level that doesnot pose an unacceptable hazard to anintruder or public health and safety.Waste with concentrations above theselimits Is generally unacceptable fornear-surface disposal. There may besome Instances where waste withconcentrations greater than permittedfor Glass C would be acceptable fornear-surface disposal with specialprocessing or design. These will beevaluated on a case-by-case basis. ClassC waste must also be stable.

(c) The Licensing Process. (1) Duringthe preoperational phase, the potentialapplicant goes through a process ofdisposal site selection by selecting aregion of interest, examining a numberof possible disposal sites within the areaof interest and narrowing the choice tothe proposed site. Through a detailedinvestigation of the disposal sitecharacteristics the potential applicantobtains data on which to base ananalysis of the disposal site's suitability.Along with these data and analyses. theapplicant submits, other more generalInformation to the Commission in theform of an application for a license forland disposal. The Commission's reviewof the application is in accordance withadministrative procedures establishedby rule and may involve participation byaffected State governments or Indiantribes. While the proposed disposal sitemust be owned by a State or the Federalgovernment before the Commission willIssue a license, it may be privatelyowned during the preoperational phaseif suitable arrangements have beenmade with a State or the Federalgovernment to take ownership in fee ofthe land before the license is issued.

(2) During the operational phase. thelicensee carries out disposal activities inaccordance with the requirements ofthis regulation and any conditions onthe license. Periodically, the authority toconduct the above ground operationsand dispose of waste will be subject to a

license renewal, at which time theoperating history will be reviewed and adecision made to permit or denycontinued operation. When disposal-operations are to cease, the licenseeapplies for an amendment to his licenseto permit site closure. After final reviewof the licensee's site closure andstabilization plan, the Commission mayapprove the final activities necessary toprepare the disposal site so that ongoingactive maintenance of the site is notrequired during the period ofinstitutional control.

(3) During the period when the finalsite closure and stabilization activitiesare being carried out, the licensee is in adisposal site closure phase. Followingthat, for a period of 5 years, the licenseemust remain at the disposal site foraperiod of post-closure observation andmaintenance to assure that the disposalsite is stable and ready for institutionalcontrol. The Commission may approveshorter or require longer periods ifconditions warrant At the end of thisperiod, the licensee applies for a licensetransfer to the disposal 'ite owner.

(4) After a finding of satisfactorydisposal site closure, the Commissionwill transfer the license to the State orFederal government that owns thedisposal site. If the Department ofEnergy is the Federal agencyadministering the land on bahalf of the (Federal government the license will be _'terminated because the Commissionlacks regulatory authority over theDepartment for this activity. Under theconditions of the transferred license. theowner will carry out a program ofmonitoring to assure continuedsatisfactory disposal site performance.physical surveillance to restrict accessto the site and carry out minor custodialactivities. During this period, productiveuses of the land might be permitted ifthose uses do not affect the stability ofthe site and its ability to meet theperformance objectives. At the end ofthe prescribed period of institutionalcontrol, the license will be terminatedby the Commission.

161.8 Reporting, recordkeeping, andapplication requirement= OMB approvalnot required.

The information collectionrequirements contained in this partaffect fewer than ten persons. Therefore.under section 3506(c)(5) of shePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.L 96-511). OMB clearance is notrequired for these information collectionrequirements. I

I Federal Register I VoL 47, No. 248 / Monday. December 27,1982 / Rules and Regulations 7W4=��=

61.9 Employeprotection.( (a) Discrimination by a Commissione licensee, an applicant for a Commission

licensee, or a contractor orQ subcontractor of a Commission licenseeor applicant against an employee forengaging in certain protected activitiesis prohibited. Discrimination includesdischarge and other actions that relateto compensation. terms. conditions, andprivileges of employment The protectedactivities are established in Section 210of the Energy Reorganization Act of1974. as amended, and in general arerelated to the administration orenforcement of a requirement imposed

_ .under the Atomic Energy Act or theLEnergy Reorganization Act.

(1) The protected activities include butare not limited to-(l) Providing theCommission information about possibleviolations of requirements Imposedunder either of the above statutes;

(II) Requesting the Comrmission toinstitute action against his or heremployer for the administration orenforcement of these requirements; or

(iii) Testifying in any Commissionproceeding.

(2) These activities are protected evenif no formal proceeding is actuallyinitiated as a result of the employeeassistance-or participation.

(3) This section has no application toany employee alleging discriminationprohibited by this section who, actingwithout direction from his or heremployer (or the employer's agent),deliberately causes a violation of anyrequirement of the EnergyReorganization Act of 1974, as amended,or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, asamended.

(b) Any employee who believes thathe or she has been discharged orotherwise discriminated against by anyperson for engaging in the protectedactivities specified In paragraph (aI)[i ofthis section may seek a remedy for thedischarge or discrunination through anadministrative proceeding In theDepartment of Labor. Theadministrative proceeding must beinitiated within 30 days after an allegedviolation occurs by filing a complaintalleging the violation with theDepartment of Labor. EmploymentStandards Administration, Wage andHour Division. The Department of Labormay order reinstatement, back pay, andcompensatory damages.

(c) A violation of paragraph (a) of thissection by a Commission licensee, anapplicant for a Commission licensee, or

* .a contractor or subcontractor of aCommission licensee or applicant maybe grounds for-

(1) Denial, revocation, or suspension- f the license.

(2) Imposition of a civil penalty on thelicensee or applicant.

(3) Other enforcement action.(d) Actions taken by an employer, of

others, which adversely affect anemployee may be predicated uponnondiscriminatory grounds. Theprohibition applies when the adverseaction occurs because the employee hasengaged in protected activities. Anemployee's engagement in protectedactivities does nbt automatically renderhim or her immune from discharge ordiscipline for legitimate reasons or fromadverse action dictated by non-prohibited considerations.

(e) Each licensee and eachapplicantshall post Form NRC-3. 'Notice toEmployees," on its premises. Postingmust be at locations sufficient to permitemployees protected by this section toobserve a copy on the way, to or fromtheir place of work. Premises must beposted not later than S0 days after anapplication is docketed and remainposted while the application is pendingbefore the Commission, during the termof the license, and for 30 days followinglicense termination.

Note,--Copies of Form NRC-3 may beobtained by writing to the RegionalAdministrator of the appropriate U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Regional Officelisted in Appendix D, Part 20of this chapteror the Director, OffEice of Inspection endEnforcements U.S. Nuclear Reg~ulatoryCommission. Washington. D.C. 20555.

Subpart B-Ucenses

161.10 Content of application.An application to receive from others,

possess and dispose of wastescontaining or contaminated with source,byproduct or special nuclear material byland disposal must consist of generalinformation, specific technicalinformation. Institutional information,and financial information as set forth in1§ 61.11 through 61.16. Anenvironmental report prepared inaccordance with Part 51 of this chaptermust accompany the application.

161.11 General information.The general information must include

each of the following:(a) Identity of the applicant including(1) The fiu name, address, telephone

number and description of the businessor occupation of the applicant;

(2) If the applicant is a partnership,the name, and address of each partnerand the principal location where thepartnership does business;

(3) If the applicant Is a corporation oran unincorporated association. (i) thestate where it is incorporated ororganized-and the principal locationwhere it does business, and (ii) the

names and addresses of Its drctcrsand principal officers; and

(4) If the applicant is acting as anagent or representative of anotherperson in filing the application allinformation required under thisparagraph must be supplied with respctto the otherperson.

(b) Qualifications of the applicant(1) The organizational structure of the

applicant, both offsite and onsite,induding a description of lines ofauthority and assignments ofresponslbilitie-. whether in the fann d'adminlitrative directives, contractprovisions, or otherwise.- (2) The-technical qualifiationsz-including training and experience. of theapplicant and members of theapplicant's staff to engage in theproposed activities. Minimumn traiingand experience requirements forpersonnel filling key positions describedIn Paragraph B1.fM(b)(2)r must beprovided;

(3) A description of the applicantspersonnel training program; and

(4) The plan to maintain an adequatecomplement of trained personnel tocarry out waste receipt, handling anddisposal operations in a safe marner.

(c) A description of:(1) The location of the proposed

disposal site;(2) The general character of jhe

proposed activities;(3) The types and quantities of

radioactive waste to be received.possessed, and disposed of

(4) Plans for use of the land disposalfacility for purposes other than disposal

'ofradioactive wastes; and(5) The proposed facilities and

equipment.(d) Proposed schedules for

construction. receipt of waste, and fistemplacement of waste at the proposedland disposal facility.

161.12 Spectfl technical InformaLThe specific technical information

must Include the following informationneeded for demonstration that theperformance objectives of Subpart C ofthis part and the applicable technicalrequirements of Subpart D of this partwill be met-

(a) A description of the natural anddemographic disposal sitecharacteristics as determined bydisposal site selection andcharacterization activities. Iledescription must include geologic.geotechnical. hydrologic, meteorologic.climatologic, and biotic features of thedisposal site and vicinity.

(b) A description of the designfeatures of the land disposal facility and

57468 Federal Register / Vol 47. No. 248 / Monday, December 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations= . _ =

the disposal units. For near-surfacedisposal, the description must includethose design features related toinfiltration of water. integrity of coversfor disposal units; structural stability ofbackfill wastes. and covers; contact ofwastes with standing water; disposalsite drainage; disposal site closure andstabilization; elimination to the extentpracticable of long-term disposal sitemaintenance; inadvertent Intrusion,occupational exposures; disposal Mitemonitoring and adequacy of the sze ofthe buffer zone for monitoring andpotential mitigative measures.

(c) A description of the principaldesign criteria and their relationship tothe performance objectives.

(d) A description of the design basisnatural events or phenomena and theirrelationship to the principal designcriteria.

(e) A description of codes andstandards which the applicant hasapplied to the design and which willapply to construction of the landdisposal facilities.

-(f) A description of the constructionand operation of the land disposalfacility. The description must include asa minimum the methods of constructionof disposal units: waste emplacement:the procedures for and areas of wastesegregation: types of intruder barriers;onsite traffic and drainage systems;survey control program: methods andareas of waste storage; and methods tocontrol surface water and groundwateraccess to the wastes. The descriptionmust also include a description of themethods to be employed in the handlingand disposal of wastes containingchelating agents or other non-radiological substances that might affectmeeting the performance objectives inSubpart C of this part.

(g) A description of the disposal siteclosure plan, including those designfeatures which are intended to facilitatedisposal site closure and to eliminatethe need for ongoing activemaintenance.

(h) An identification of the knownnatural resources at the disposal site.the exploitation of which could result ininadvertent intrusion into the low-levelwastes after removal of activeInstitutional control.

(i) A description of the kind, amount.classification and specifications of theradioactive material proposed to bereceived, possessed. and disposed of atthe land disposal facility.

(I) A description of the quality controlprogram for the determination of naturaldisposal site characteristics and forquality control during the design.construction, operation and closure ofthe land disposal facility and the

receipt. handling, and emplacement ofwaste. Audits and managerial controlsmust be Included.

(k) A description of the radiationsafety program for control andmonitoring of radioactive effluents toensure compliance with the performanceobjective in I 61141 of this part andoccupational radiation exposure toensure compliance with therequirements of Part 20 of this chapterand to control contamination ofpersonnel vehicles, equipment,buildings, and the disposal site. Bothroutine operations and accidents mustbe addressed. The program descriptionmust include procedures,instrumentation, facilities, andequipment

(l).A description of the environmentalmonitoring program to provide data toevaluate potential health andenvironmental Impacts and the plan foi-taking corrective measures if migrationof radionuclides Is indicated.

(m) A description of theadministrative procedures that theapplicant will apply to control activitiesat the land 'disposal facility.

161.13 Technical analyses.The specific technical Information

must also Include the following analysesneeded to demonstrate that theperformance objectives of Subpart C ofthis part will be met

(a) Pathways analyzed Indemonstrating protection of the generalpopulation from releases of radioactivitymust include air, soil, groundwater,surface water, plant uptake, andexhumation by burrowing animals. Theanalyses must clearly identify anddifferentiate between the rolesperformed by the natural disposal sitecharacteristics and design features inisolating and segregating the wastes.The analyses must clearly demonstratethat there is reasonable assurance thatthe exposure to humans from the releaseof radioactivity will not exceed thelimits set forth in J 61.41.

(bi Analyses of the protection ofindividuals from inadvertent intrusionmust include demonstration that there isreasonable assurance the wasteclassification and segregationrequirements will be met and thatadequate barriers to inadvertentintrusion will be provided.

(c) Analyses of the protection ofindividuals during operations mustinclude assessments of expectedexposures due to routine operations andlikely accidents during handling,storage, and disposal of waste. Theanalyses must provide reasonableassurance that exposures will be

controlled to meet the requirements ofPart 20 of this chapter.

(d) Analyses of the long-term stabilityof the disposal site and the need forongoing active maintenance afterclosure must be based upon analyses ofactive natural processes such as crossomass wasting, slope failure, settlementof wastes and backfilL infiltrationthrough covers over disposal areas andadjacent soils, and surface drainage ofthe disposal site. The analyses mustprovide reasonable assurance that therewill not be a need for ongoing activemaintenance of the disposal sitefollowing closure.

1 61.14 'Institutional Information.The institutional Information must

include:(a) A certification by the Federal or

State government which owns thedisposal site that the Federal or Stategovernment Is prepared to accepttransfer of the license when theprovisions of 1 61.30 are met, and willassume responsibility for custodial caeafter site closure and postclosureobservation and maintenance.

(b) Where the proposed disposal shbeIs on land not owned by the Federal cr aState government, the applicant mustsubmit evidence that afrangements havebeen made for assumption of ownershipin fee by the Federal or a Stategovernment before the Commissionissues a license.

161.15 Financial Information.The financial information must be

sufficient to demonstrate that thefinancial qualifications of the apphintare adequate' to carry out the activitiesfor which the license is sought and meetother financial assurance requirementsas specified in Subpart E of this part

161.16 Other Informatio.Depending upRn'the nature of the

wastes to be disposed of and the designand proposed operation of the landdisposal facility, additional Informationmay be requested by the Commissionincluding the following:

(a) Physical security measures, ifappropriate. Any application to receiveand possess special nuclear material inquantities subject to the requirements ofPart 73 of this chapter shall demonstratehow the physical security requirementsof Part 73 will be met. In determiningwhether receipt and possession will besubject to the requirements of Part a3.the applicant shall not consider thequantity of special nuclear material thathas been disposed of

(b) Safety information concerningcriticality, if appropriate.

(-)

Federal Register | Vol. 47, No. 248 1 Monday, December 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 57469

(1) Any application to receive andpossess special nuclear material inquantities that would be subject to theQ requirements of J 70.24, "Criticalityaccident requirements" of Part 70 of thischapter shall demonstrate how therequirements of that section will be met.unless the applicant requests anexemption pursuant to § 70.24(d). Indetermining whether receipt andpossession would be subjectto therequirements of f 70.24. the applicantshall not consider the quantity of specialnuclear material that has been disposedof.

(2J Any application to receive andpossess special nuclear material shalldescribe proposed procedures foravoiding accidental criticality, whichaddress both storage of special nuclearmaterial prior to disposal and wasteemplacement for disposal.

§ 61.20 Filing and distribution ofapplication.

(a) An application for a license underthis part, and any amendments thereto,shall be filed with the Director, must besigned by the applicant or theapplicant's authorized representativeunder oath, and must consist of 1 signedoriginal and 2 copies.

(b) Another 85 copies of theapplication and environmental reportmust be retained by the applicant fordistribution in accordance with writteninstructions from the Director ordesignee.

(c) Fees. Application. amendment, andinspection fees applicable to a licensecovering the receipt and disposal ofradioactive wastes in a land disposalfacility are required by Part 170 of thischapter.

5 61.21 Elfminaton of repetition.In Its application or environmental

report, the applicant may Incorporate byreference information contfined inprevious applications, statements, orreports filed with the Commission ifthese references are clear and specific.

§61.22 Updating of appication andenvironmental report.

(a) The application and environmentalreport must be as complete as possiblein the light of information that Isavailable at the time of submittal.

(b) The applicant shall supplement itsapplication or environmental report In atimely manner. as necessary, to permitthe Commission to review, prior toissuance of a license, any changes in theactivities proposed to be carried out ornew information regarding the proposed

%L activities.

§ 61.23 Standards for Issuance of alicense.

A license for the receipt, possession.and disposal of waste containing orcontaminated with source, specialnuclear, or byproduct material will beissued by the Commission upon findingthat the issuance of the license will notbe inimical to the common defense andsecurity and will not constitute anunreasonable risk to the health andsafety of the public, ands

(a) The applicant Is qualified byreason of training and experience tocarry out the disposal operationsrequested In a manner that-protecta-health andminimizes danger to life orproperty.

(b) The applicant's posed disposalsite, disposal design. and disposalfacility operations (including equipment,facilities, and procedures), disposal siteclosure, and postclosure institutionalcontrol are adequate to protect thepublic health and safety in that theyprovide reasonable assurance that thegeneral population will be protectedfrom releases of radioactivity asspecified in the performance objective in§ 61.41, Protection of the generalpopulation from releases ofradioactivity.

(c) The applicant's proposed disposalsite, disposal site design. land disposalfacility operations (including equipment,facilities, and procedures), disposal siteclosure, and postclosure institutionalcontrol are adequate to protect thepublic health and safety in that they willprovide reasonable assurance thatindividual inadvertent intruders areprotected in accordance with theperformance objective in I 61A2,Protection of individuals fromInadvertent intrusion.

(d) The applicants proposed landdisposal facility operations, includingequipment, facilities, and procedures.are adequate to protect the public healthand safety in that they will providereasonable assurance that the standardsfor radiation protection set out in Part 20of this chapter will be met.

(e) The applicant's proposed disposalsite, disposal site design. land disposalfacility operations, disposal site closure,and postclosure institutional control areadequate to protect the public healthand safety in that they will providereasonable assurance that long-termstability of the disposed waste and thedisposal site will be achieved and willeliminate to the extent practicable theneed for ongoing active maintenance ofthe disposal site following closure.

(I) The applicant's demonstrationprovides reasonable assurance that theapplicable technical requirements ofSubpart D of this part will be met.

(g) The-applicant's proposal forInstitutional control provides reasonableassurance that Institutional control willbe provided for the length of time foundnecessary to ensure the findings inparagraphs (b-e) of this section andthat the Institutional control meets therequirements of § 61.59, Institutionalrequirements.

(h) The information on financialassurances meets the requirements ofSubpart E of this part.

(i) The applicant's physical securityinformation provides reasonableassurance that the requirements of Part-'fthis chapteri7llbe met. iisofar as

they are applicable to special nuclearmaterial to be possessed before disposalunder the license.

) The applcant's criticality safetyprocedures are adequate to protect thepublic health and safety and provide'reasonable assurance that therequirements of 1 70.24. Criticalityaccident requirements, of Part 70 of thischapter will be met, insofar as they areapplicable to special nuclear material tobe possessed before disposal under thelicense.

(k) Any additional informationsubmitted as requested by theCommission pursuant to 61.16, OtherInformation, Is adequate.

(1) The requirements of Part 51 of thischapter have been met.

1 61.24 CondItions of licenses.(a) A license Issued under this par". or

any right thereunder. may betransferred, assigned, or in any mannerdisposed of. either voluntarily orinvoluntarily. directly or indirectly,through transfer of control of the licenseto any person, only if the Coimmissionfinds, after securing full information.that the transfer is in accordance withthe provisions of the Atomic Energy Actand gives its consent in writing in theform of a license amendment.

(b) The licensee shall submit writtenstatements under oath upon request ofthe Commission. at any time before'termination of the license, to enable theCommission to determine whether ornot the license should be modified.suspended, or revoked.

(c) The license will be transferred tothe site owner only on the fullimplementation of the final closure planas approved by the Commission,including postclosure observation andmaintenance.

(d) The licensee shall be subject to the _provisions of the Atomic Energy Actnow or hereafter in effect. and to allrules, regulations, and orders of theCommission. The terms and conditionsof the license are subject to amendment.

57470 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 248 / Monday, December 27, 1982- / Rules and Regulations

revision, or modification, by reason ofamendments to. or by reason of rules,regulations, and orders issued inaccordance with the terms of the AtomicEnergy Act.

(e) Any license may be revoked.suspended or modified in whole or inpart for any material false statement inthe application or any statement of factrequired under Section 182 of the Act. orbecause of conditions revealed by anyapplication or statement of fact or anyreport, record, or inspection or othermeans which would warrant theCommission to refuse to grant a licenseto the original application. or for failureto operate the facility in accordancewith the terms of the license. or for anyviolation of, or failure to observe any ofthe terms and conditions of the Act, or .any rule, regulation. license or order ofthe Commission.

(If) Each person licensed by theCommission pursuant to the regulationsin this part shall confine possession anduse of materials to the locations andpurposes authorized in the license.

(g) No radioactive waste may bedisposed of until the Commission hasinspected the land disposal facility andhas found It to be in conformance withthe description, design, and constructiondescribed in the application for alicense.

(h) The Commission may incorporateIn any license at the time of issuance, orthereafter, by appropriate rule,regulation or order, additionalrequirements and conditions withrespect to the licensee's receipt,possession. and disposal of source,special nuclear or byproduct material asit deems appropriate or necessary inorder to:

(1) Promote the common defense andsecurity.

(2) Protect health or to minimizedanger to life or property;

(3) Require reports and the keeping ofrecords. and to provide for inspectionsof activities under the license that maybe necessary or appropriate toeffectuate the purposes of the Act andregulations thereunder.

(i) Any licensee who receives andpossesses special nuclear materialunder this part in quantities that wouldbe subject to the requirements of I 70.24of Part 70 of this chapter shall complywith the requirements of that section.The licensee shall not consider thequantity of special nuclear material thathas been disposed of.

(j) The authority to dispose of wastesexpires on the date stated in the licenseexcept as provided in § 61.27(a) of thispart.

1 61.25 Changes.(a) Except as provided for in specific'

license conditions, the licensee shall notmake changes in the land disposalfacility or procedures described in thelicense application. The license willinclude conditions restrictingsubsequent changes to the facility andthe procedures authorized which areimportant to public health and safety.These license restrictions will fall intothree categories of descendingimportance to public health and safetyas follows: (1) those features andprecedures which may not be changedwit-out ()80 days prior notice-to the -Comnission. (1l) 30 days notice ofopportunity for a prior hearing, and (iii)prior Cominission approval;, (2) thosefeatures and procedures which may notbe changed without (1) 60 days priornotice to the Comnisson. and (ii) priorCommission approval and (3) thosefeatures and procedures which may notbe changed without 60' days prior noticeto the Commission. Features andprocedures falling in paragraph (a)(3) ofthis section may not be changed withoutprior Commission approval if theCommission, after having received therequired notice, so orders.

(b) Amendments authorizing siteclosure, license transfer. or licensetermination shall be included inparagraph (a)t1) of this section.

(c) The Commission shall provide acopy of the notice for opportunity forhearings provided in paragraph (a)(1) ofthis section to State and local officialsor tribal governing bodies specified in§ 2.104(e) of Part 2 of this chapter.

§ 61.26 Amendment of license.(a) An application for amendment of a

license must be filed in accordance with§ 61.20 and shall fully describe thechanges desired.

(b) In determining whether anamendment to a license will beapproved. the Commission will applythe criteria set forth in § 61.23.

§ 61.27 Application for renewal or closure.(a) Any expiration date on a-license

applies only to the above groundactivities and to the authority to disposeof waste. Failure to renew the licenseshall not relieve the licensee ofresponsibility for carrying out siteclosure. postclosure observation andtransfer of the license to the site owner.An application for renewal or anapplication for closure under § 61.28must be filed at least 30 days prior tolicense expiration.

(b) Applications for renewal of alicense must be filed in accordance with§ § 61.10 through 61.16 and § 61.20.Applications for closure must be filed in

accordance with § £ 61.20 and 6128.Information contained in previousapplications, statements or reports filedwith the Commission under the licensemay be incorporated by reference if thereferences are clear and specific.

(c) In any case in which a licensee hastimely filed an application for renewalof a license, the license for continuedreceipt and disposal of licensedmaterials does not expire until theCommission has taken final action onthe application for renewal.

(d) In determining whether a licensewill be renewed. the Commission willapply the riteriasei furihirj6l.123.

1 6128 Contents of application forclosure.

(a) Prior to final closure of thedisposal site, or as otherwise directedby the Commission. the applicant shallsubmit an application to amend thelicense for closure. This closureapplication must include a final revisionand specific details of the disposal siteclosure plan included as part of thelicense application submitted underI 61.12(g) that includes each of thefollowing -

(1) Any additional geologic.hydrologic, or other disposal site datapertinent to the long-term containmentof emplaced radioactive wastesobtained during the operational period.

(2) The results of tests, experiments. , )or other analyses relating to backfill ofexcavated areas, closure and sealing.waste migration and interaction withemplacement media, or any other tests,experiments. or analysis pertinent to thelong-term containment of emplacedwaste within the disposal site.

(3) Any proposed revision of plans for.(i) Decontamination and/or

dismantlement of surface facilities;(ii) Backfilling of excavated areas; or(iii) Stabilization of the disposal site

for post-closure care.(4) Any significant new information

regarding the environmental impact ofclosure activities and long-termperformance of the disposal site.

(b) Upon review and consideration ofan application to amend the license forclosure submitted in accordance withparagraph (a) of this section, theCommission shall issue an amendmentauthorizing closure if there is reasonableassurance that the long-termperformance objectives of Subpart C of'this part will be met.

§.61.29 Post-closure observation andmaintenance.

Following completion of closureauthorized in § 61.28. the licensee shallobserve. monitor. and carry out (_3

Federal Register I VoL 47, Fedra Reiser Vl. 7,No. 248 / Monday, December 27. 1982 / Rules -and Regulations 57471--

necessary maintenance and repairs atthe disposal site until the license istransferred by the Commission Inaccordance with 1 81.30. Responsibilityfor the disposal site must be maintainedby the licensee for 5 years. A shorter orlonger time period for post-closureobservation and maintenance may beestablished and approved as part of thesite closure plan, based on site-specificconditions.

- / .

5 61.30 Transfer of license.(a) Following closure and the period

of post-closure observation andmaintenance, the licensee may apply foran amendment to transfer the license tothe disposal site owner. The licenseshall be transferred when theCommission finds:

(1) That the closure of the disposalsite has been made in conformance withthe licensee's disposal site closure plan.as amended and approved as part of thelicense;

(2) That reasonable assurance hasbeen provided by the licensee that theperformance objectives of Subpart C ofthis part are met;

(3) That any funds and necessaryrecords for care will be transferred tothe disposal site owner,

(4) That the post-closure monitoringprogram Is operational forimplementation by the disposal siteowner, and

(5) That the Federal or Stategovernment agency which will assumeresponsibility for institutional control ofthe disposal site is prepared to assumeresponsibility and ensure that theinstitutional requirements foundnecessary under 1 61.23(g) will be met.

(b) [Reserved]

-§61.31 Termination of license.(a) Following any period of

Institutional control needed to meet therequirements found necessary under1 61.23, the licensee may apply for anamendment to terminate the license.

(b) This application must be filed, andwill be reviewed. in'accordance with the

: provision of § 61.20 and of this section.(c) A license is terminated only when

the Commission finds:(1) That the institutional control

requirements found necessary under§ 61.23(g) have been met: and

(2) That any additional requirementsresulting from new informationdeveloped during the institutionalcontrol period have been met, and thatpermanent monuments or markerswarning against intrusion have beeninstalled.

Subpart C-Performance Objectives

561.40 General requirement.Land disposal facilities must be sited.

designed. operated, closed. andcontrolled after closure so thatreasonable assurance exists thatexposures to humans are within thelimits established in the performanceobjectives in 1 161.41 through 61.44.

1 61.41 Protection of the generalpopulation from releases of radioactivity.

Concentrations of radioactivematerial which maybe released to thegeneral environment in ground water,surface water, air, soil, plants. oranimals must not result in an annualdose exceeding an equivalent of 25millirems to the whole body. 75millirems to the thyroid. and 25millirems to any other organ of any'member of the public. Reasonable effortshould be made to maintain releases ofradioactivity In effluents to the generalenvironment as low as is reasonablyachievable.

61.42 Protection of Individuals fromInadvertent Intrusion.

Design, operation, and closure of theland disposal facility must ensureprotection of any individualinadvertently intruding into the disposalsite and occupying the site or contactingthe waste at any time after activeinstitutional controls over the disposalsite are removed.

5 61.43 Protection of Individuals duringoperations.

Operations at the land disposalfacility must be conducted incompliance with the standards forradiation protection set out in Part 20 ofthis chapter, except for releases ofradioactivity In effluents from the landdisposal facility, which shall begoverned by 1 61.41 of this part. Everyreasonable effort shall be made tomaintain radiation exposures as low asis reasonably achievable.

§ 61.44 Stability of the disposal site afterclosure.

The disposal facility must be sited.designed. used, operated, and closed toachieve long-term stability of thedisposal site and to eliminate to theextent practicable the need for ongoingactive maintenance of the disposal sitefollowing closure so that onlysurveillance, monitoring, or minorcustodial care are required.

Subpart D-Technical Requirementsfor Land DIsposal Facilities

61.50 Disposal sIte suitabilityrequirements for land disposaL

(a) Disposal site suitability for near-surface disposal.

(1) The purpose of this section is tospecify the minimum characteristics adisposal site must have to be acceptablefor use as a near-surface disposalfacility. The primary emphasis Indisposal site suitability is given toIsolation of wastes, a matter-havinglong-term impacts, and to disposal sitefeatures that ensure-that the long-term-performance objectives of Subpart C of*thls part are met, as opposed to short-term convenience or benefits.

'(2) The disposal site shall be capableof being characterized. modeled.analyzed and monitored.

(3) Within the region or state wherethe facility Is to be located, a disposalsite should be selected so that projectedpopulation growth and futuredevelopments are not likely to affect theability of the disposal facility to meetthe performance objectives of Subpart Cof this part.

(4) Areas must be avoided havingknown natural resources which, Ifexploited, would result in failure to meetthe performance objectives of Subpart Cof this parLt

(5) The-disposal site must be generallywell drained and free of areas offlooding or frequent ponding. Wastedisposal shall not take place in a 100-year flood plain, coastal high-hazardarea or wetland. as defined in ExecutiveOrder 11988 "Floodplain ManagementGuidelines."

(6) Upstream drainage areas must beminimized to decrease the amount ofrunoff which could erode or inundatewaste disposal units.

(7) The disposal site must providesufficient depth to the water table thatground water intrusion, perennial orotherwise. into the waste will not occur.The Commission will consider an. texception to this requirement to allowdisposal below the water table if it canbe conclusively shown that disposal sitecharacteristics will result in moleculardiffusion being the predominant meansof radionuclide movement and the rateof movement will result in theperformance objectives of Subpart C ofthis part being met. In no case willwaste disposal be permitted in the zoneof fluctuation of the water table.

(8) The hydrogeologic unit used fordisposal shall not discharge groundwater to the surface within the disposalsite.

57472 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 248 | Monday. .December 27, 1982. / Rules and Regulations57472 Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 248 / Monday. December 27, 1982 I Rules and Regulations

(9) Areas must be avoided wheretectonic processes such as faulting.folding, seismic activity, or vulcanismaiay occur with such frequency andextent to significantly affect the abilityof the disposal site to meet theperformance objectives of Subpart C ofthis part. or may preclude defensiblemodeling and prediction of long-termimpacts.

(10) Areas must be avoided wheresurface geologic processes such as4nasswasting. erosion, slumping. landsliding.or weathering occur with such frequencyand extent to significantly affect theabilitv of the disposal site to meet theperformance objectives of Subpart C ofthis part, or may preclude defensiblemodeling and prediction of long-termimpacts.

(11) The disposal site must not belocated where nearby facilities or 'activities could adversely impact theability of the site to meet theperformance objectives of Subpart C ofthis part or significantly mask theenvironmental monitoring program.

(b) Disposal site suitabilityrequirements for land disposal otherthan near-surface (reserved).

§ 61.51 Disposal site design for landdisposaL

(a) Disposal site design for near-surface disposaL

(1) Site design features must bedirected toward long-term isolation andavoidance of the need for continuingactive maintenance after site closure.

(2) The disposal site design andoperation must be compatible with thedisposal site closure and stabilizationplan and lead to disposal site closurethat provides reasonable assurance thatthe performance objectives of Subpart Cof this part will be met.

(3)The disposal site must be designedto complement and improve, whereappropriate, the ability of the disposal-site's natural characteristics to assurethat the performance objectives ofSubpart C of this part will be met.

(4) Covers must be designed tominimize to the extent practicable waterinfiltration. to direct percolating orsurface water away from the disposedwaste. and to resist degradation bysurface geologic processes and bioticactivity.

(5) Surface features must directsurface water drainage away fromdisposal units at velocities andgradients which will not result inerosion that will require ongoing activemaintenance in -the future.

(6) The disposal site must be designedto minimize to the extent practicable thecontact of water with waste duringstorage. the contact of standing water

with waste during disposal. and thecontact of percolating or standing waterwith wastes after disposal.

(b) Disposal site design for other thannear-surface disposal (reserved).

§ 61.52 Land disposal facility operationand disposal oite closure.

(a) Near-surface disposal facilityoperation and disposal site closure.

(1) Wastes designated as Class Apursuant to I 61.55 must be segregatedfrom other wastes by placing In disposalunits which are sufficiently separatedfrom disposal units for the other wasteclasses so that any Interaction betweenClass A wasles amd ulier wasles willnot result in the failure to meet theperformance objectives in Subpart C ofthis Part. This segregation is notnecessary for Class A wastes if theymeet the stability requirements zin§ 61(b) of this part.

(2) Wastes designated as Class Cpursuant to I 6155. must be disposed ofso that the top of the waste is aminimum of 5 meters below the topsurface of the cover or must be disposedof with intruder barriers that aredesigned to protect against aninadvertent intrusion for a least 500years.

(3) All wastes shall be disposed of Inaccordance with the requirements ofparagraphs (a)t4) through (IL) of thissection.

(4) Wastes must be emplaced in amanner that maintains the packageIntegrity during emplacement, minimzesthe void spaces between packages, andpermits the void spaces to be filled.

(5) Void spaces between wastepackages must be filled with earth orother material to-reduce futuresubsidence within the fill.

(6) Waste must be placed and coveredin a manner that limits the radiationdose rate at the surface of the cover tolevels that at a minimum will permit thelicensee to comply with all provisions of§ 20.105 of this chapter at the time thelicense Is transferred pursuant to § 61.30of this part.

.(7) The boundaries and locations ofeach disposal unit (e.g., trenches) mustbe accurately located and mapped bymeans of a land survey. Near-surfacedisposal units must be marked in such away that the boundaries of each unitcan be easily defined. Three permanentsurvey marker control points, referencedto United States Geological Survey(USGS) or National Geodetic Survey(NGS) survey control stations, must beestablished n the site to facilitatesurveys. The USGS or NGS controlstations must provide horizontal andvertical centrols as checked againstUSGSD or NGS record files.

(8) A buffer zone of land must bemaintained between any buried wasteand the disposal site boundary andbeneath the disposed waste. The bufferzone shall be of adequate dimensions to.carry out environmental monitoringactivities specified in J 61.53(d) of thispart and take mitigative measures ifneeded.

(9) Closure and stabilization measuresas set forth in the approved site closureplan must be carried out as eachdisposal unit (e.g.. each trench) is filledand covered.

(10) Active waste disposal operationsmisat not have an adverse effect oncompleted closure and stabilizationmeasures.

(11) Only wastes containing orcontaminated with radioactive materi2aSshall be disposed of at the disposal sitsa

(b) Facility operationand disposal siteclosure for land disposal facilities otherthan near-surface (reserved).

§ 61.53 Environmental monitoring.(a) At the time a license application is

submitted, the applicant shall haveconducted a preoperational monitoringprogram to provide basic environmentaldata on -the disposal site characteristics.The applicant shall obtain Informationabout the ecology, meteorology. climate.hydrology, geology, geochemistry. andseismology of the disposal site. For'those characteristics that are subject toseasonal variation, data must cover atleast a twelve month period.

(b) The licensee must have plans fortaking corrective measures if migrationof radionuclides would indicate that ta-performance objectives of Subpart Cmay not be met.

(c) During the land disposal facilitysite construction and operation. thelicensee shall maintain a monitoringprogram. Measurements andobservations must be made andrecorded to provide data to evaluate z~epotential health and environmentalimpacts during both the constructionand the operation of the facility and toenable the evaluation of long-termeffects and the need for mitigativemeasures. The monitoring system must,be capable of providing early warning ofreleases of radionuclides from thedisposal site before they leave the siteboundary.

(d) After the disposal site is closed.the licensee responsible for post-operational surveillance of the disposnisite shall maintain a monitoring syste.based on the operating history and theclosure and stabilization of the disposalsite. The monitoring system must becapable of providing early warning ofreleases of radionuclides from the

(I..

IFederal Register / Vol. 47. No. 248 / Monday, December 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 57473

disposal site before they leave the siteboundary.

�W., -i561.54 Alternative requirements fordesign and operations.

The Commission may. upon request oron its own initiative, authorizeprovisions other than those set forth in§ § 61.51 through 61.53 for thesegregation and disposal of waste andfor the design and operation of a landdisposal facility on a specific basis, if itfinds reasonable assurance ofcompliance with the performanceobjectives of Subpart C of this part.

(iv) -Waste that is not generallyacceptable for near-surface disposal iswaste for which waste form anddisposal methods must be different, andin general more stringent, than thosespecified for Class C waste. In theabsence of specific requirements In thispart, proposals for disposal of this wastemay be submitted to the Commission forapproval, pursuant to § 61.58 of thispart.

(3) Classification determined by long-lived radionuclides. If radioactive wastecontains only radionuclides listed inTable 1, classification shall bedetermined as followsar'

(i) If the concentration does notexceed 0.1 times the value in Table 1,the waste is Class A.

(ii) If the concentration exceeds 0.1times the value in Table 1 but does notexceed the value in Table 1, the waste IsClass C

(iii) If the concentration exceeds thevalue in Table 1, the waste is notgenerally acceptable for near surfacedisposaL

(iv) For wastes containing mixtures of

(iv) If the concentration exceeds thevalue in Column 3. the waste is notgenerally acceptable for near-surfacedisposal.

(v) For wastes containing mixtures ofthe nuclides listed in Table 2. the totalconcentration shall be determined bythe sum of fractions rule described inparagraph (a)(7) of this section.

TABLE 2

Ratloucidec0 CLticc 3

_ _ __3 -

Toto al d cSides wfth less tan 511eW 11, . 700 ( 1'

4.1-3 00 (0' I'co-s__________70 (11 6N143_3. 70; 7vCNies hi activated metal 35 710. 7St-90 _ __ .04 ISO A7nCa-137 1 44;

Thr es no Wits esbished for smse raanOO cOass 5 or C waste. Practical wrereoe vxi as*ffects of extevrna adiation wdteal gena otVanspor.atin heridlg. and spsai wr km11na tw Vese wastes. These waste Sa be Can 3urness the cofnceneabors of cow TVa in Tale 2deltenve tme waste to the ClaSs C hitdepeldet ofrecldes.

§ 61.55- Waste classification.(a) Classification of waste for near

surface disposaL(1) Considerations. Determination of

the classification of radloaptive wasteinvolves two considerations. First.consideration must be given to theconcentration of long-livedradionuclides (and their shorter-livedprecursors) whose potential hazard willpersist long after such precautions asinstitutional controls, improved wasteform, and deeper disposal have ceasedto be effective. These precautions delaythe time when long-lived radionuclidescould cause exposures. In addition. themagnitude of the potential dose islimited by the concentration andavailability of the radionuclide at thetime of exposure. Second, considerationmust be given to the concentration ofshorter-lived radionuclides for whichrequirements on institutional controls,waste form, and disposal methods areeffective.

(2) Classes of waste. (i) Class A wasteis waste that is usually segregated fromother waste classes at the disposal site.The physical form and characteristics ofClass A waste must meet the minimumrequirements set forth In I 61.56(a). IfClass A waste also meets the stabilityrequirements set forth in I 61.56(b), it isnot necessary to segregate the waste fordisposal.

(ii) Class B waste is waste that mustmeet more rigorous requirements onwaste form to ensure stability afterdisposal. The physical form andcharacteristics of Class B waste mustmeet both the minimum and stabilityrequirements set forth in 1 61.56.

(iii) Class C waste is waste that notonly must meet more rigorousrequirements on waste form to ensurestability but also requires additionalmeasures at the disposal facility toprotect against inadvertent intrusion.The physical form and characteristics ofClass C waste must meet both theminimum and stability requirements setforth in § 61.56.

radionuclides listed in Table 1, Iconcentration shall be determinthe sum of fractions rule descritparagraph (a)(7) of this section.

TABLE 1

C-14C-14 hi activated e_Ni-59 hi activated etmlNb-94 hi acbeted metalTc-9i1-129Alphattog tNVatuaric udes woit hall-Wi

gater then &e YeasPu-241Crn.242

ntsan' retanocuiesa graim

(4) Classification determined Ilived radionuclides. If radioactiidoes not contain any of theradionuclides listed in Table 1,classification shall be determineon the concentrations shown inHowever, as specified in paragr(a)(6) of this section, if radioactiwaste does not contain any nucllisted in either Table I or 2. It is

(i) If the concentration does nexceed the value in Column 1, tIIs Class A.

(ii) If the concentration exceedvalue in Column 1, but does notthe value in Column 2. the wastiClass B.

(iii) If the concentration excetvalue in Column 2. but does notthe value in Column 3, the wastiClass C.

the total (5) Classification determined by bothed by long- and short-lived radionuclides. Ifbed in radioactive waste contains a mixture of

radionuclides, some of which are listedin Table 1, and some of which are listedin Table Z. classification shall be

concent. determined as follows:VXspn (i) If the concentration of a nuclide

bic listed in Table I does not exceed 0.1times the value listed in Table 1. the

_ class shall be that determined by the_ w concentration of nuclides listed in Table

_220

_02 2._ 300 (ii) If the concentration of a nuclide0. listed in Table 1 exceeds 0.1 times the

_ 111 value listed in Table 1 but does not3'5° exceed the value in Table 1. the waste

_ 0 shall be Class C. provided theconcentration of nuclides listed in Table

by short- 2 does not etxceed the value shown inre waste Column 3 of Table 2.

(6) Classification of wastes withradionuclides other than those listed in

Ad based Tables 1 and 2. If radioactive wasteTable 2. does not contain any nuclides listed inaph either Table 1 or 2 it is Class A.yve (7) The sum of the fractions rule for[ides .mixtures of radionuclides. ForClass A. determining classification for waste thatot contains a mixture of radionuclides. it isie waste necessary to determine the sum of

fractions by dividing each nuclide'sds the concentration by the appropriate limitexceed and adding the resulting values. The le is appropriate limits must all be taken

from the same column of the same table.!ds the The sum of the fractions for the columnexceed must be less than 1.0 if the waste classa is is to be determined by that column, '

Example: A waste contains Sr-90 in a

57474 lFederal-Register / Vol. 47. No. 248 / Monday, December 27, 198! / Rules and Regulations1. - -I

concentration of 50 Cl/mrn and Cs-137 ina concentration of 22 Ci/mt Since theconcentrations both exceed the valuesin Column 1. Table 2. they must becompared to Column 2 values. For Sr-90fraction 50/150=0.33: for Cs-137fraction. 22144=0.5: the sum of thefractions =0.3 Since the sum is lessthan 1.0. the waste Is Class B.

(8) Deternination of concentrations inwastes. The concentration of aradionuclide may be determined byindirect methods such as .use of scalingfactors which relate the inferredconcentration of one radionuclide toanother that is easur.-d or:radionuclide material accountability, ifthere is reasonable assurance that theindirect methods can be correlated withactual measurements. The concentrationof a radionuclide may be averaged overthe volume of the waste, or weight of thewaste if the units are expressed asnanocuries per gram.

561.56 Waste eharacteristcs.(a) The following requirements are

minimum requirements for all classes ofwaste and are intended to facilitatehandling at the disposal site and provideprotection of health and safety ofpersonnel at the disposal site.

(1) Waste must not be packaged fordisposal in cardboard or fiberboardboxes.

(2) Liquid waste must be solidified orpackaged in sufficient absorbentmaterial to absorb twice the volume ofthe liquid.

(3) Solid waste containing liquid shallcontain as little free standing andnoncorrosive liquid as is reasonablyachievable. but in no case shall theliquid exceed 1% of the volume.

(4) Waste must not be readily capableof detonation or of explosivedecomposition or reaction at normalpressures and temperatures. or ofexplosive reaction with water.

(5) Waste must not contain. or becapable of generating, quantities of toxicgases, vapors, or fumnes harmful topersons transporting, handling ordisposing of the waste. This does notapply to radioactive gaseous wastepackaged in accordance with paragraph(a)(7) of this section.

(6) Waste must not be pyrophoric.Pyrophoric materials contained in wasteshall be treated. prepared. and packagedto be nonflammable.

(7) Waste in a gaseous form must bepackaged at a pressure that does notexceed 1.5 atmospheres at 20.C. Totalactivity must not exceed 100 curies percontainer.

(8) Waste containing hazardous.biological pathogenic, or infectiousmaterial must be treated to reduce to the

mazimum extent practicable thepotential hazard from the non-radiological materials.

(b) The requirements in this sectionare intended to provide stability of thewaste. Stability is intended to'ensurethat the waste does not structurallydegrade and affect overall stability ofthe site through slumping, collapse. orother failure of the disposal unit andthereby lead to water infiltration.Stability is also a factor in limitingexposure to an.inadvertent intruder.since it provides a recognizable andnondispersible waste.

(1) Wasiu must have structural-stability. A structurally stable wasteform will generally maintain its physicaldimensions and its form, under theexpected disposal conditions such asweight of overburden and compactionequipment. the presence of moisture,and microbial activity, and internalfactors such as radiation effects andchemical changes. Structural stabilitycan be provided by the waste formitself. processing the waste to a stableform. or placing the waste in a disposalcontainer or structure that providesstability after disposal.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions In11 61.56(a) (2) and (3), liquid wastes, orwastes containing liquid. must.beconverted into a form that contains aslittle free standing and noncorrosiveliquid as Is reasonably achievable, butin no case shall the liquid exceed 1% ofthe volume of the waste when the wasteis in a disposal container designed toensure stability, or 0.5% of the volume ofthe waste for waste processed to astable form.

(3) Void spaces within the waste andbetween the waste and its package mustbe reduced to the extent practicable.161.57 Labeling.

Each package of waite must beclearly labeled to identify whether it isClass A waste, Class B waste, or class Cwaste in accordance with 1 61.55.

£ 61.58 Alternative requirements for wasteclassification and characteristics.

The Commission may. upon request oron its own initiative, authorize otherprovisions for the classification andcharacteristics of waste on a specificbasis, if, after evaluation, of the specificcharacteristics of the waste. disposalsite, and method of disposal, it findsreasonable assurance of compliancewith the performance objectives inSubpart C of this parL1 61.59 Institutional requirements.

(a) Land ownership. Disposal ofradioactive waste received from otherpersons may be permitted only on land

owned in fee by the Federal or a Stategovernment.

(Ib) bstitutional control The landowner or custodial agency shall carryout an institutional control program tophysically control access to the disposalsite following transfer of control of thedisposal site from the disposal siteoperator. The institutional controlprogram must also include. but not belimited to. carrying out anenvironmental monitoring program atthe disposal site, periodic surveillance.minor custodial care, and otherrequirements as determined by theCommClQon-anYd eadminlistration offunds to cover the costs for theseactivities. The period of institutionalcontrols will be determined by theCommission. but institutional controlsmay not be relied upon for more than100 years following transfer-of control ofthe disposal site to the owner.

Subpart E-Fnanclal Assurances5 61.61 ApplIcant quaflficatlons andasswrances.

Each applicant shall show that Iteither possesses the necessary fiunds cchas reasonable assurance of obtainingthe necessary funds, or by acombination of the two. to cover theestimated costs of conducting alllicensed activities over the plannedoperating life of the project, includingcosts of construction and disposal.

1 61.62 Funding for disposal sete closureand stabilzatlon.

(a) The applicant shall provideassurance that sufficient funds will beavailable to carry out disposal siteclosure and stabilization. including: (1)Decontamination or dismantlement ofland disposal facility structures; and '()closure and stabilization of the dispo&sasite so that following transfer of thedisposal site to the site owner, the needfor ongoing active maintenance iseliminated to the extent practicable andonly minor custodial care. surveillanceand monitoring are required. Theseassurances shall be based onCommission-approved cost estimatesreflecting the Commission-approvedplan for disposal site closure andstabilization. The applicant's costestimates must take into account totalcapital costs that would be incurred ifan independent contractor were hired toperform the closure and stabilizationwork.

(b) In order to avoid unnecessaryduplication and expense, theCommission will accept financialsureties that have been consolidatedwith earmarked financial or suretyarrangements established to meet

*I Federal Register j Vol. 47, No. 248 / Monday, December 27. 1982 ( Rules and Regulations 57475 ,

requirements of other Federal or State'agencies and/or local governing bodiesfor such decontamination closure andstabilization. The Commission willaccept this arrangement only if they areconsidered adequate to satisfy theserequirements and that the portion of thesurety which covers the closure of thedisposal site is clearly identified andcommitted for use in accomplishingthese activities.

(c) The licensee's surety mechanismwill be annually reviewed by theCommission to assure that sufficientfunds are available for completion of theclosure plan, assuming that the workhas to be performed by an independentcontractor.

(d) The amount of surety liabilityshould change in accordance with the'predicted cost of future closure andstabilization. Factors affecting closureand stabilization cost estimates include:inflation, increases in the amount ofdisturbed land; changes in engineeringplans; closure and stabilization that hasalready been accomplished and anyother conditions affecting costs. Thiswill yield a surety that is at leastsufficient at all times to cover the costsof closure of the disposal units that areexpected to be used before the nextlicense renewal.

(e) The term of the surety mechanismmust be open ended unless it can bedemonstrated that another arrangementwould provide an equivalent level ofassurance. This assurance could beprovided with a surety mechanismwhich is written for a specified period oftime (e.g.. five years) yet which must beautomatically renewed unless the partywho issues the surety notifies theCommission and the beneficiary (thesite owner) and the principal (thelicensee) not less than go days prior tothe renewal date of Its intention not torenew. In such a situation the licenseemust submit a replacement surety within'30 days after notification ofcancellation. If the licensee fails toprovide a replacement surety acceptableto the Commission. the site owner maycollect on the original surety.

(f) Proof of forfeiture must not benecessary to collect the surety so that inthe event that the licensee could notprovide an acceptable replacementsurety within the required time, thesurety. shall be automatically collected-prior to its expiration. The conditionsdescribed above would have to beclearly stated on any surety instrumentwhich is not open-ended. and must beagreed to by all parties. Liability underthe surety mechanism must remain ineffect until the closure and stabilizationprogram has been completed andapproved by the Commission and the

license has been transferred to the siteowner.

(g) Financial surety arrangementsgenerally acceptable to the Commissioninclude: surety bonds, cash deposits.certificates of deposits, deposits ofgovernment securities, escrow accounts.irrevocable letters or lines of credit,trust funds, and combinations of theabove or such other types ofarrangements as may be approved bythe Commission. However, self-Insurance. or any arrangement whichessentially constitutes pledging theassets of the licensee, will not satisfythe s--rety raqufrcmcnt for private sectorapplicants since this provides noadditional assurance other than thatwhich already exists through licenserequirements.161.63 .Financial assurances forInstitutional controls.

(a) Prior to the issuance of the license,the applicant shall provide forCommission review and approval acopy of a binding arrangement, such asa lease. between the applicant and thedisposal site owner that ensures thatsufficient funds will be available tocover th costs of monitoring and anyrequired maintenance during theinstitutional control period. The bindingarrangement will be reviewedperiodically by the Commission toensure that changes in inflation,technology and disposal facilityoperations are reflected in thearrangements.

(b) Subsequent changes to the bindingarrangement specified in paragraph (a)of this section relevant to Institutionalcontrol shall be submitted to theCommission for approval.

Subpart F-Participation by StateGovernments and Indlan Tribes1 61.70 Scope.

This subpart describes mechanismsthrough which the Commission willimplement a formal request from a Stateor tribal government to participate in thereview of a license application for aland disposal facility. Nothing in thissubpart may be construed to bar theState or tribal governing body fromparticipating in subsequent Commissionproceedings concerning the licenseapplication as provided under Federallaw and regulations.§ 61.71 State and Tribal governmentconsultation.

Upon request of a State or tribalgoverning body, the Director shall makeavailable Commission staff to discusswith representatives of the State ortribal governing body informationsubmitted by the applicant, applicable

Commission regulations, licensingprocedures. potential schedules. and thetype and scope of State activities in thelicense review permitted by law: Inaddition. staff shall be made availableto consult and cooperate with the Stateor tribal governing body in developingproposals for participation in the licensereview.

1 61.72 Filing of proposals for State andTribal participation.

(a) A State or tribal governing bodywhose interest Is affected by a near-surface disposal facility at the proposedsite may-submit to tha DireCtor-aproposal for participation in the reviewof a license application. Proposals mustbe submitted within the following timeperiods:

(1) For the State in which the disposalfacility will be located, or any. State thatis member of an interstate compabt thatincludes the State in which the disposalfacility is located, no later than 45 daysfollowing publication in the FederalRegister of the notice of tendering of anapplication submitted under I 6120.

(2) For any other State, or for a tribalgoverning body, no later than 120 daysfollowing publication in the FederalRegister of the notice of tendering of anapplication submitted under § 61.20.

(b) Proposals for participation in thelicensing process must be made inwriting and must be signed by theGovernor of the State or the officialotherwise provided for by State or triballaw.

(c) At a minimum, proposals mustcontain each of the following items ofinformation:

(1) A general description of how theState or tribe wishes to participate inthe licensing process specificallyidentifying those issues it wishes toreview.

(2) A description of material andinformation wlich the State or tribeplans to submit to the Commission forconsideration in the licensing process. Atentative schedule referencing steps inthe review and calendar dates forplanned submittals should be included.

(3) A description of any work that theState or tribe proposes to perform forthe Commission in support of thelicensing process.

(4) A description of State or tribalplans to facilitate local government andcitizen participation.

(5) A preliminary estimate of the typesand extent of impacts which the Stateexpects. should a disposal facility belocated as proposed.

(6) If desired. any requests foreducational or information services(seminars, public meetings) or other

57476 Federal Register / VoL 47, No. 248 1 Monday, December 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

actions from the Commission such asestablishment of additional PublicDocument Rooms or exchange of Statepersonnel under the IntergovernmentalPersonnel Act.

5 61.73 Commission approval ofproposals.

(a) Upon receipt of a proposalsubmitted in accordance with i 61.the Director shall arrange for a meetingbetween the representatives of the'Stateor tribal governing body and theCommission staff to discuss theproposal and to ensure full and effectiveparticipation by the State or tribe in theCommission's license review.

(b) If requested by a State or tribalgoverning body, the Director mayapprove all or any part of a proposal if-the Director determines that:

'(1) The proposed activities are withinthe scope of Commission statutoryresponsibility and the type andmagnitude of impacts which the State ortribe may bear are sufficient to justifytheir participation: and

(2) The proposed activities willcontribute productively to'the licensingreview.

(cl The decision of the Director will betransmitted in writing to the governor orthe designated official of the tribalgoverning body.

(d) Participation by a State or Indiantribe shall not affect their rights toparticipate in an adjudicatory hearing asprovided by Part 2 of this chapter.

Subpart 0-Records, Reports, Tests,and Inspections

§ 61.50 Malntenance of records, reports,and transfers.

(a) Each licensee shall maintain anyrecords and make any reports inconnection with the licensed activitiesas may be required by the conditions ofthe license or by the rules, regulations.and orders of the Commission.

(b) Records which are required by theregulations in this part or by licenseconditions must be maintained for aperiod specified by the appropriateregulations in this chapter or by licensecondition. If a retention period is nototherwise specified. these records mustbe maintained and transferred to theofficials specified in paragraph (e) ofthis section as a condition of licensetermination unless the Commissionotherwise authorizes their disposition.

(c) Records which must be maintainedpursuant to this part may be the originalor a reproduced copy or microfilm if thisreproduced copy or microfilm is capableof producing copy that is clear andlegible at the end of the requiredretention period.

(d) If there is a conflict between theCommission's regulations in this part.license condition, or other writtenCommission approval or authorizationpertaining to the retention period for thesame type of record, the longestretention period specified takesprecedence.

(e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)through (d) of this section. copies of .records of the location and the quantityof radioactive wastes contained in thedisposal site must be transferred uponlicense termination to the chiefexecutive of the nearest munlcipality,the chief executive of the county inwhich the facility is located, the countyzoning board or land development andplanning agency, the State governor andother State. lical and Federalgovernmental agencies as designated bythe Commission at the time of licensetermination.

(f) Following receipt and acceptanceof a shipment of radioactive waste, thelicensee shall record the date of disposalof the waste, the location in the disposalsite, the condition of the waste packagesas received, any discrepancies betweenmaterials listed on the manifest andthose received, and any evidence ofleaking or damaged packages orradiation or contamination levels inexcess of limits specified in Departmentof Transportation and Commissionregulations. The licensee shall brieflydescribe any repackaging operations ofany of the waste packages included inthe shipment, plus any other informationrequired by the Commission as a licensecondition.

(g) Each licensee shall comply withthe safeguards reporting requirements of§ I 30.55, 40.64. 70.53 and 70.54 of thischapter if the quantities or activities ofmaterials received or transferred exceedthe limits of these sections. Inventoryreports required by these sections arenot required for materials after disposal.

(h) Each licensee authorized todispose of radioactive waste receivedfrom other persons shall file a copy ofits financial report or a certifiedfinancial statement annually with theCommission in order to update theinformation base for determiningfinancial qualifications.

(i(l1) Each licensee authorized todispose of waste materials receivedfrom other persons, pursuant to thispart, shall submit annual reports to theappropriate Commission regional officeshown in Appendix D of Part 20 of thischapter, with copies to the Director ofthe Office of Inspection andEnforcement and the Director of theDivision of Waste Management.USNRC. Washington. D.C.. 20555.Reports shall be submitted by the end of

the first calendar quarter of each yearfor the preceding year, (2) The reportsshall include (I) specification of thequantity of each of the principalradionuclides released to unrestrictedareas in liquid and in airborne effluentsduring the preceding year, [ii) the resuLtsof the environmental monitoringprogram. (lii) a summary of licenseedisposal unit survey and maintenanceactivities, (iv) a summary. by wasteclass, of activities and quantities ofradionuclides disposed of, (v) anyinstances in which observed sitecharacteristics were significantly*different from those described in theapplication for a license: and (vi) anyother Information the Commission mayrequire. If the quantities of radioactivematerials released durng the reportingperiod, monitoring resilts, ormaintenance performed aresignificantlly different from thoseexpected in the-materials previouslyreviewed as part of the licensing actionthe report must cover this specifically-

(jI Each licensee shall report inaccordance with the requirements of1 70.52 of this chapter.

(k) Any transfer of byproduct, source.and special nuclear materials by thelicensee is subject to the requirements inSi 30.41. 40.51, and 70A2 of this chapterByproduct, source and special nuclearmaterial means materials as defined i:these parts, respectively.

qm

561.81 Tests at and disposal acilUes

(a) Each licensee shall perform, orpermit the Commission to perform. anytests as the Commission deemsappropriate or necessary for theadministration of the regulations in thispart, including tests of:

(1) Radioactive wastes and facilitiesused for the receipt. storage, treatmenthandling and disposal of radioactivewastes.

(2) Radiation detection andmonitoring instruments; and

(3) Other equipment and devices usedin connection with the receipt.'possession, handling, treatment. storageor disposal of radioactive waste.

(b) [Reserved]

561.82 Commission Inspections of landdisposal facilities.

(a) Each licensee shall afford to theCommission at all reasonable timesopportunity to inspect radioactive wastenot yet disposed of, and the premises,equipment. operations, and facilities IEwhich radioactive wastes are received.possessed, handled, treated. stored. ordisposed of.

(b) Each licensee shall make availabieto the Commission for inspection. upon =

,,. ' Federal Register / Vol.. 47, No. 248 / Monday, December 27- 1982 | Rules and Regulations 5747

reasonable notice. records kept by itpursuant to the regulations in thischapter. Authorized representatives ofthe Commission may copy and takeaway copies of. for the Commission'suse, any record required to be keptpursuant to this part.

J 61.83 Vlolatrons.An Injunction or other court order

may be obtained prohibiting anyviolation of any provision of the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended. or anyregulation or order issued thereunder. Acourt order may be obtained for thepayment of a civil penalty imposedpursuant to section 234 of the Act forviolation of section 53, 57, 62 63, 81. 82.101. 103, 104. 107, or 109 of the Act. orsection 206.of the Energy ReorganizationAct of 1974. or any rule.

The following amendments are alsomade to existing parts of the regulationsin this chapter.

PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE

2. In i 2.101, paragraph (a)(2). (b). and(d) are revised and a new (g) Is added toread as follows:

§ 2.101 Filing of application.(a)(2) Each application for a license for a

facility or for receipt of wasteradioactive material from other personsRLe J for the purpose of commercial disposalby the waste disposal licensee will beassigned a docket number. However, toallow a determination as to whether anapplication for a construction permit or

- operating license for a production orutilization facility is complete andacceptable for docketing. it will beinitially treated as a tenderedapplication after it is received and acopy of the tendered application will beavailable for public inspection In theCommission's Public Document Room.1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.Generally, that determination will bemade within a period of thirty (30) days.However, in selected constructionpermit applications, the Commissionmay decide to determine acceptabilityon the basis of the technical adequacyof the application as well as itscompleteness. In such cases, the

- Commission. pursuant to § 2.104(a). willdirect that the notice of hearing beissued as soon as practicable after theapplication has been tendered, and thedetermination of acceptability willgenerally be made within a period ofsixty (60) days. For docketing and otherrequirements for applications pursuantto Part 61 of this chapter. see paragraph(g) of this section.

(b) After the application has beendocketed each applicant for a license forreceipt of waste' radioactive materialfrom other persons for the purpose ofcommercial disposal by the wastedisposal licensee except-applicantsunder Part 81 of this chapter, who mustcomply with paragraph (g) of thissection. shall serve a copy of theapplication and environmental report, asappropriate, on the chief executive ofthe municipality in which the activity Isto be conducted or, if the activity Is notto be conducted within a municipality

-on the chief executive of the county, and- serve a notice of avalaubility uf hem- --

application or environmental report onthe chief executives of the municipalitiesor counties which have been IdentifiedIn the application or environmentalreport as the location of all or part of thealternative sites, containing thefollowing information: Docket number ofthe application; a brief description of theproposed site and facility, the locationof the site and facility as primarilyproposed and alternatively listed; thename, address, and telephone number ofthe applicant's representative who maybe contacted for further information;notification that a draft environmentalimpact statement will be issued by theCommission and will be made availableupon request to the Commission; andnotification that if a request Is receivedfrom the appropriate chief executive, theapplicant will transmit a copy of theapplication and environmental report,and any changes to such documentswhich affect the alternative sitelocation, to the executive who makesthe request. In complying with therequirements of this paragraph (b) theapplicant should not make publicdistribution of those parts of theapplication subject to I 12790(d). Theapplicant shall submit to the Director ofNuclear Material Safety and Safeguardsan affidavit that service of the notice ofavailability of the application orenvironmental report has beencompleted along with a list of namesand addresses of those executives uponwhom the notice was served.. . . . .

(d) The Director of Nuclear ReactorRegulation or Director of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards. asappropriate, will give notice of thedocketing of the public health andsafety, common defense and security,and environmental parts of anapplication for a license for a facility orfor receipt of waste radioactive materialfrom other persons for the purpose ofcommercial disposal by the wastedisposal licensee, except that forapplications pursuant to Part 61 of this

chapter paragraph (g) of this sectionapplies, to the Governor or otherappropriate official of the State in whichthe facility is to be located or theactivity is to be conducted and willcause to be published in the FedemlRegister a notice of docketing of theapplication which states the purpose ofthe application and specifies thelocation at which the proposed activitywould be conducted.

Cg) Each application for a license toreceive radioactive waste from otherpersons for disposal under-Part 61 of

-thIs chapter and the accompanyingenvironmental report shall be processedIn accordance with the provisions of thisparagraph.

(i To allow a determination as towhether the application orenvironmental report is complete andacceptable for docketing. It will beinitially treated as a tendered document.and a copy will be available for publicinspection in the Conimission's PublicDocument Room 1717 H Street NW.Washington, D.C. One original and twocopies shall be filed to-enable thisdetermination to be made.* (I) Upon receipt of a tenderedapplication, the Commission will publisEin the Federal Register notice of thefiled application and will notify thegovernors, legislatures and otherappropriate State, county, and municipalofficials and tribal governing bodies ofthe States and areas containing orpotentially affected by the activities atthe proposed site and the alternativesites. The Commission will inform theseofficials that the Commission staff willbe available for consultation pursuant to5 61.71 of this chapter. The FederalRegister notice will note the opportunityfor interested persons to submit viewsand comments on the tenderedapplication forsconsideration by theCommission and applicant. TheCommission will also notify the U.S. -

Bureau of Indian Affairs when tribalgoverning bodies are notified.

- (ii) The Commission will also post apublic notice in a newspaper ornewspapers of general circulation in theaffected States and areas summarizinginformation contained in the applicantstendered application and noting the -opportunity to submit views andcomments.

(iii) When the Director of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguardsdetermines that the tendered documentis complete and acceptable fordocketing. a docket number will beassigned and the applicant will benotified of the determination. If it isdetermined that all or any part of the