[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15649-15667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7302]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 15649]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 20 and 61
RIN 3150-AD33
Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is
amending its regulations to improve low-level waste (LLW) manifest
information and reporting. The amendments will: Improve the quality and
uniformity of information contained in manifests that are required to
control transfers of LLW that is ultimately intended for disposal at a
land disposal facility; establish a set of forms that allows LLW to be
tracked from its origin, and serves as a national Uniform Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Manifest to meet NRC, Department of Transportation
(DOT), and State and Compact information requirements; require LLW
disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific
manifest information; and require the disposal site operators to be
capable of reporting the stored Uniform Manifest information on a
computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on March 1, 1998.
However, licensees may implement the regulation at an earlier date, if
a LLW disposal facility or its regulatory authority, to which shipped
LLW is to be ultimately consigned, desires earlier implementation of
these provisions.
ADDRESSES: Copies of documents relating to the proposed rule that was
published on April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14500), or copies of this document
may be examined and copied for a fee in the Commission's Public
Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of NRC's Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest forms and
the general instructions can be obtained from the Information and
Records Management Branch, Mail Stop T-6 F33, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or telephone (301) 415-7230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Lahs, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6756 or Mark Haisfield,
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Purpose of the Revision
Low-Level Waste Shipment and Disposal
Rulemaking History
II. Implementation
III. Summary of Public Comments and Changes From Proposed Rule
Part 20
--Section 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests
--Appendix F to Secs. 20.1001 through 20.2402 (Appendix G to
Secs. 20.1001 through 20.2402 in this final rule)
I. Manifest--Introduction
I. Manifest--Definitions
A. General Information
B. Shipment Information
C. Disposal Container and Waste Information
D. Uncontainerized Waste Information
E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container Information
II. Control and Tracking--Appendix G, paragraph III.A
III. Control and Tracking--Appendix G, paragraph III.B
Part 61
--Section 61.12 Specific technical information (as contained in
Sec. 61.80)
--Section 61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and transfers,
Uniform Manifest Forms and Instructions
--General Comments
--Form 540
--Form 541
--Form 542
National Data Base Comments
Regulatory Analysis Comments
IV. Compatibility Agreement of State Regulations
V. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
VII. Regulatory Analysis
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
IX. Backfit Analysis
I. Background
Purpose of the Revision
The purpose of this amendment to 10 CFR parts 20 and 61 is to
modify the NRC's LLW shipment manifest information and reporting
requirements to address the regulatory information needs for the
transfer and disposal of LLW. The amended information defines the
chemical, physical, and radiological properties of LLW that can be used
to determine the expected performance of disposal facilities during
operations and following closure. Thus, a principal objective of these
amendments is to ensure that the information, initially reported by
those generating the LLW, eventually received and recorded by the LLW
disposal facility operator, and made available to the NRC or an
Agreement State regulatory agency, is sufficiently comprehensive and
consistent for its intended use. To enhance regulatory oversight and
assist regulatory agencies and others in their assessments of normal
operations or potential problems, such as questions about the adequacy
of a particular disposal container, the amendment requires that the
manifest information be stored electronically at the disposal facility
operated under an NRC license and be capable of being conveyed by a
computer-readable medium. The specific content and schedule for any
reports containing the stored information will be established as a
condition of the license or, if necessary, in a future rulemaking
action.
The Commission recognizes that several entities have legitimate
needs for LLW shipment information that should reasonably be included
on a shipment manifest. In fact, Compacts,1 unaffiliated States,
and an increasing number of consignees, including disposal facility
operators, have interests in waste shipment and disposal information
that could be contained in a shipment manifest. To provide a degree of
standardization in format and a baseline of manifest
[[Page 15650]] information, the amendment requires the use of an NRC-
developed Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. This manifest,
to which additional information can be added, responds to a request
from the Host State Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)2 and
the expressed views of several other parties having an interest in the
information contained in the manifest. The uniform manifest meets DOT
shipping paper requirements, contains the information required by the
NRC, and provides a baseline set of information to address Compact,
unaffiliated State, and consignee needs.
\1\With the passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1985 and the Low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980,
many States have organized into regional Compacts. These Compacts,
together with unaffiliated States, are attempting to facilitate the
development and operation of new disposal facilities.
\2\NRC staff interactions with the Compacts and unaffiliated
States has occurred principally with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Forum and the Host State Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The
TCC requested that the Commission consider the development of a
uniform manifest in this rulemaking action, and on November 9, 1990,
transmitted to NRC an example manifest with supporting material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Level Waste Shipment and Disposal
LLW may be shipped to a LLW disposal facility directly from a waste
generator (potentially after the waste has been sent offsite for
processing and has been returned) or may be shipped from a waste
collector or processor. The collector is a licensee who typically
handles prepackaged waste from hospitals, laboratories, or other
licensees who generate only small volumes of waste. A shipment from a
collector may have been temporarily stored at the collector's facility
and, when eventually transported to a disposal facility, shipped with
other containers of waste obtained from several generators.
Waste may be shipped from a waste processor, who has received
radioactive material or waste from other licensees (generators,
collectors, or other processors), and has repackaged the waste after
possibly changing the waste's chemical or physical characteristics. For
example, the waste processor may have compacted or incinerated the
waste or segregated contaminated waste from non-contaminated material
or waste. A single container of waste shipped from a waste processor
may contain wastes from a number of different generators.
Companies generating, collecting, processing, or disposing of the
waste are licensed either by the NRC or by an Agreement State.3
Any step in the waste management chain (e.g., temporary storage by a
collector, processing, or disposal) may have occurred in a State
different from that in which the waste was generated. Thus, from a
radiological safety standpoint, several regulatory entities may have an
interest in particular waste shipments and disposals.
\3\Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the
Commission has the authority to relinquish part of its regulatory
authority to a State, contingent upon making a determination that
the State's regulatory program is compatible with the Commission's.
Twenty-nine States, under formal agreements with the Commission,
have assumed this regulatory responsibility. Negotiations with other
States are underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each shipment of LLW is currently accompanied by a multi-page
manifest that describes the shipment contents. These manifests, which
include specifically formatted versions developed by the disposal
facility operators, are frequently large multi-copy detailed documents
that contain information required by the Commission's regulations in 10
CFR part 20,4 DOT regulations in 49 CFR part 172, and State
requirements imposed as conditions on disposal facility licensees. The
manifests also include information required by the consignee who
receives the LLW or radioactive material shipment.
\4\The Commission's LLW manifest and tracking requirements are
codified in Sec. 20.2006 and appendix F to 10 CFR part 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three disposal facilities are currently in operation. The Barnwell,
South Carolina, disposal facility is operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems,
Inc., the Richland, Washington, facility is operated by US Ecology,
Inc., (both of these facilities are only accepting waste from their
respective Compacts), and the Utah facility near Clive, Utah, is
operated by Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Upon receipt of a shipment of LLW
at these facilities, operators perform quality control checks on the
shipment and the information in the manifest. Portions of the manifest
information are transferred into their computer-based recordkeeping
systems. The existing disposal facility operators have developed
computer systems to store and process the voluminous manifest
information because the operators receive thousands of shipment
manifests each year.
Rulemaking History
In 1989, the NRC initiated this rulemaking to improve the quality
and consistency in reporting of information that was contained on
manifest documents. In that same year, a draft of the proposed rule was
provided to the Agreement States for comment. As a result of this early
interaction, the Commission became aware that a significant improvement
to the current manifesting system would be the development of a
national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. This was
described in a letter to former Chairman Carr in May 1990 from the TCC
and a corresponding letter from the LLW Forum. The NRC agreed that
incorporation of a uniform manifest would provide a number of
advantages and agreed to consider this concept. In November 1990, the
TCC provided a draft uniform manifest for the NRC's consideration.
The NRC seriously considered the recommendations of the TCC in
developing a draft uniform manifest. The NRC also consulted with the
DOT on those parts of the proposed rule and uniform manifest that
address DOT radioactive material transportation (shipping paper)
requirements. Based on these interactions, a draft of the proposed rule
and uniform manifest was developed and was sent to the Agreement States
in March 1991. Subsequently, the proposed rule and uniform manifest
forms were sent to DOT, and in July 1991, the NRC received DOT
concurrence that the applicable parts of the uniform manifest met its
requirements for shipping papers in 49 CFR part 172.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April
21, 1992 (57 FR 14500). The NRC received 40 comment letters on its
proposed rule, and referenced forms and instructions. The issues raised
by these commenters are discussed in Section III of this preamble.
During the comment period, the LLW Forum members also received input
from parties in their respective Compacts. As a result, the LLW Forum
suggested that, to produce a more effective rule, the NRC should
sponsor a public meeting to further discuss concerns raised by
commenters, and thereby clarify the purpose of the rule. In response to
this request, the NRC noticed a public meeting in the Federal Register
on April 27, 1993 (58 FR 25578), and held the meeting on June 15, 1993,
in Bethesda, Maryland. A transcript and detailed summary are available
in the NRC Public Document Room.
The two most significant issues discussed at this meeting dealt
with the format of the uniform manifest and how and when the manifest
will be used. The formatting issue was a source of concern because the
NRC changed the ``look and feel'' of the manifest from the style of the
manifests developed by the LLW disposal facility operators and used for
shipments consigned to these facilities. Furthermore, the NRC's
formatting approach would require some data to be recorded twice on the
same set of manifest forms. It was noted by NRC that the proposed
changes were made to meet DOT requirements. [[Page 15651]] Although
unable to satisfy individual commenters who prefer the existing
manifest formats, the NRC staff has worked with DOT staff and has
minimized any difference in the reporting burden for completing the
uniform manifest as opposed to the burden imposed by existing
manifests. As discussed in Section II of this preamble, before the
compliance date specified in the rule, the NRC intends to facilitate
trial uses of the manifest to ensure a common understanding of
information reporting requirements.
The ``manifest use'' issue deals with industry concerns that the
uniform manifest will be used to track radioactive material in addition
to radioactive waste. The NRC manifest is designed to be used for the
transfer of LLW, but the NRC recognizes industry's concerns that
Compacts or unaffiliated States may require the NRC's or some other
manifest format to be used for all shipments to processors or
decontamination facility licensees. Existing NRC regulations require
the manifesting of shipments of LLW to collectors and processors before
eventual disposal. Nothing in these amendments changes that
requirement, nor adds new requirements for shipments of material.
Compacts or unaffiliated States may require additional reporting and
this reporting could be accomplished through use of the NRC manifest
format.
II. Implementation
Sections 20.2006, 61.12(n), and 61.80 (f) and (l) of the amendments
to 10 CFR parts 20 and 61 in this final rule require NRC licensees to
use the Uniform Manifest in appendix G beginning March 1, 1998. This
late date is intended to allow existing LLW disposal facility licensees
(all located in Agreement States), and their respective Agreement State
regulators, to consider the length of time that the existing disposal
facility will continue to operate under current rules before closure,
and to make revisions to existing Agreement State regulations. For
example, shippers to a facility that will close before March 1, 1998
need not use the new manifest unless required to do so by a disposal
facility operator or its regulatory authority.
A few of the amendments in this final rule have been incorporated
into the existing 10 CFR part 20 to be applicable at the stated future
date in a manner that retains existing requirements in the interim. The
majority of the new requirements imposed by this final rule have been
included in a new appendix G to Secs. 20.1001 through 20.2402.
NRC Agreement States each have regulations compatible with the
existing 10 CFR part 20. Agreement States normally amend their
regulations to preserve compatibility within three years after NRC
issues final rules. In the Commission's view, it is desirable to
publish this rule before any new LLW disposal site is licensed and
operating. Even if Agreement State regulations are not yet final, LLW
facility operators will have knowledge available on NRC's future
manifesting requirements.
Before the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest becomes
mandatory, the NRC intends to initiate trial use of the manifest to
reveal any practical problems in its use.
III. Summary of Public Comments and Changes From Proposed Rule
This section presents the principal issues raised in public
comments on the proposed rule, the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Manifest forms, and the instructions that support the manifest. This
section also contains the NRC response to the comments and a summary of
the principal changes that were made to the proposed rule or to the
Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and its supporting
instructions. This section has been arranged so that it corresponds to
the structure of the proposed rule. However, a number of comments
addressed specific aspects of the manifest forms or the supporting
instructions. These comments are addressed following those that relate
to specific provisions of the rule. The overall format involves a
listing of the applicable rule section, any minor changes to that
section, principal comments and issues, NRC's response, and the effect
on the final rule section.
The NRC received 40 comment letters. Fourteen were from States or
their representatives (i.e., LLW Forum and Compact Commissions). Eight
were from LLW generators or their representatives. Six were from
utilities or their representative. Four were from service industries
(processors and collectors) or their representative. Four were from
Federal agencies. Two were from environmental organizations. And two
were from LLW disposal facility operators.
10 CFR Part 20
Section 20.2006 Transfer for Disposal and Manifests
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the
preamble, the final rule has been clarified by specifically stating
that the manifesting requirements apply to any licensee who ships LLW
to a licensed LLW land disposal facility, a waste collector, or a waste
processor.
Comment: Four commenters believe that it is too early to promulgate
a uniform manifest rule. These commenters pointed to the fact that this
rulemaking would change 10 CFR part 20 before the new 10 CFR part 20
regulations have been implemented and argued that the Compacts and
States are unsure, at this time, as to what information they need. One
commenter stated that the uniform manifest would not be accepted by
State jurisdictions. Other commenters believe that, to facilitate
development of Compact or State LLW tracking systems, the rulemaking
should be finalized without delay.
Response: These comments on 10 CFR part 20 have been overtaken by
the fact that all licensees were required to implement the new
standards for protection against radiation in 10 CFR part 20 by January
1, 1994. The NRC sees no other reason to delay promulgation of this
rule. From NRC's perspective, the schedule for this rule is, in large
measure, driven by the need to gain access to the waste form, content,
and disposal container information that is expected to be useful in
assessing the performance of LLW disposal sites. Although a significant
fraction of this information is currently collected by the current
disposal facility operators, the compatibility and completeness of the
existing data was of concern. The NRC concluded that these drawbacks
could be accentuated if each future LLW disposal site collected,
stored, and reported data in an uncoordinated manner. Thus, the timing
for implementation of the rule has considered the proposed schedules
under which new LLW disposal sites are being developed.
Other parties also have critical interests in manifest information.
The DOT imposes regulations applying to shipping papers for hazardous
materials. The Compacts and States, given the responsibility for
developing LLW disposal sites under provisions of the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), are
interested in tracking LLW. Publication of the rule, at this time,
provides these parties the information requirements needed to
effectively develop their tracking systems and allows all parties
involved in LLW shipments to become familiar with the presentation of
shipping paper information that has been found acceptable by DOT.
Finally, because all the existing disposal sites are located in
Agreement [[Page 15652]] States, these States must be provided
sufficient time to work closely with the NRC and their licensees,
especially existing LLW disposal facility operators, to implement this
rule. To facilitate a smooth transition, the rule allows approximately
3 years from publication for Agreement States to implement their
regulations. The rule also allows implementation prior to March 1, 1998
for any LLW disposal facilities that are operating prior to this date.
On the question of manifest acceptability by State jurisdictions,
the NRC is not aware of any States that would not accept the manifest.
The NRC notes that State and Compact groups have been in the forefront
in suggesting the need for a uniform manifest and that the manifest has
been approved by the DOT as meeting that agency's shipping paper
requirements.
Final rule: Sec. 20.2006(b) has been divided into two paragraphs.
The first, (b)(1), is the existing Sec. 20.2006(b). The second, (b)(2),
reflects the new Sec. 20.2006(b), but with added phrases reflecting the
implementation provisions discussed in Section II, affecting the change
from appendix F to appendix G. A clarifying paragraph,
Sec. 20.2006(a)(2), has also been added to describe implementation
provisions, and a consistent clarifying phrase has been added to
Secs. 20.2006 (c) and (d).
Comment: Several commenters questioned whether implementation of
the rule would provide any significant public health and safety
benefit. These commenters stated that the rule identifies no current
problems or concerns that could jeopardize the safe transportation or
disposal of LLW. Two commenters supported the rule citing the need for
source term and waste characteristic information. One commenter
believes that the increased cost of documentation and recordkeeping is
outweighed by the need to have reliable up-to-date information.
Response: The benefit of the rule is tied to: (1) Being able to
develop specific data needed for assessments to demonstrate compliance
with the performance objectives in 10 CFR part 61, specifically
pertaining to protection of the general population from the releases of
radioactivity at LLW disposal facilities, and to the understanding of
potential wastes requiring special consideration, (2) the improvement
in quality and uniformity of data collected and reported that could
affect the aforementioned performance estimates, and (3) efficiencies
in data recovery and use when addressing health and safety issues.
Benefits may also occur in transportation-related emergency response
situations from the use of a standard DOT shipping paper format and a
reduction in the manifest paperwork needed to accompany the LLW
shipments. Finally, by providing information that the States and
Compacts believe necessary to carry out their responsibilities, a
consistency in view of LLW is fostered that could minimize the
potential creation of waste that cannot be disposed of (``orphan
waste'') and assist in efficient and safe LLW management nationwide.
Final rule: No change.
Comment: Three commenters questioned whether the rule explicitly or
implicitly expands the authority of LLW Compacts to regulate the
shipment of radioactive materials that are not LLW.
Response: The rule does not change the intent of the regulations as
expressed in Sec. 20.311 of the expired provisions of part 20 or in
appendix F to part 20. In both cases, the (waste) generating licensees
who transfer waste to a licensed waste processor are subject to
manifesting requirements. In this context, the rule provides
definitions for ``waste generator,'' ``waste collector,'' and ``waste
processor.'' The rule is not viewed as having any impact on the Compact
or State authorities defined in the LLRWPAA. In fact, the NRC believes
that the manifesting required by the rule should provide most
information sought by State or Compact LLW tracking systems. See
comment and response under appendix F, I. Manifest--Introduction and
Definitions sections, for related discussion.
Final rule: No change.
Appendix F to Sections 20.1001 Through 20.2401 (Appendix G to Sections
20.1001 Through 20.2402 in this Final Rule)
I. Manifest--Introduction
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the
preamble, corrections have been made to the Title number referred to in
citing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and the
definition of ``EPA identification number.'' The reference to Xerox
copies has been deleted because the word ``photocopy'' is sufficient.
In response to a point made by some commenters, the first paragraph
under ``I. Manifest'' has been amended to be consistent with the
remainder of the rule in stating that the rule applies only to
shipments of LLW intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed LLW land
disposal facility.
Comment: Five commenters and several attendees at the June 15,
1993, public meeting questioned the need for licensees to be required
to complete the uniform manifest for shipments to waste processors,
especially in those cases where the processor could be making
significant changes to the volume, form, activity, or radionuclide
concentration. These commenters also questioned whether shipments of
LLW from processors or decontamination facilities back to the original
``generators'' for interim storage should be manifested using Form 541.
One commenter questioned whether the intent of the rule was to require
manifesting of ``materials'' (e.g., laundry from a nuclear facility).
Another commenter stated that the rule is confusing with regard to when
various forms must be used.
Response: The five commenters are correct in stating that the
primary interest of NRC (i.e., for performance assessment purposes) is
on the characteristics of LLW that is being shipped for disposal.
However, the manifesting requirement for those shipping LLW to
processors originated with the 10 CFR part 61 rulemaking. One of the
reasons for this requirement was to develop a representative data base
unskewed by large volumes of LLW that may pass through waste processors
and collectors. Moreover, for waste being shipped to a processor for
compaction, the information provided by the waste generator would be
the basis for completing and certifying the manifest that the processor
must complete when the LLW is forwarded for eventual disposal at a land
disposal facility. In considering shipments to incinerators, the NRC
agrees that NRC's need for incoming manifest information is not
relevant to the gathering of information useful to conduct performance
assessments but is directed at waste tracking. The NRC believes, based
on its interactions with the States and Compacts, that these parties
are primarily interested in large volume or high activity LLW for which
they are responsible under the LLRWPAA. Thus, NRC believes the
shipments to an ``incinerator'' processor should not generally be
subject to the manifesting provisions of this rule and that any
resultant contaminated ash should be considered residual waste assigned
to the processor. If this interpretation is agreed to by the
appropriate State or Compact authorities, manifesting of material sent
to incinerators is not required. The case of shipments of laundry from
a nuclear facility is more clear-cut. The incoming laundry shipment is
not considered waste and would not be required by NRC to be manifested.
For shipments of LLW being shipped to and subsequently returned by
a [[Page 15653]] processor to the original ``waste generator'' or
``generator,'' the NRC believes that, under these special
circumstances, completion of the uniform manifest is not necessary to
meet NRC needs and this exception has been included in the rule. The
potential need for NRC to track LLW in storage may result in a
reexamination of this exemption. Licensees should be aware that,
because the shipments in question are LLW, the States or Compacts may
require completion of manifest documentation. Note also, that if the
processor ships processed LLW to a licensee other than the original
generator, manifesting under this rule is required.
Final rule: A sentence has been added to the introductory paragraph
of appendix G which states that ``Licensees are not required by NRC to
comply with the manifesting requirements of this part when they ship:
(a) LLW for processing and expect its return (i.e., for storage under
their license) prior to disposal at a licensed land disposal facility,
(b) LLW that is being returned to the licensee who is the `waste
generator' or `generator,' as defined in this part, or (c)
radioactively contaminated material to a `waste processor' that becomes
the processor's `residual waste'.''
Comment: Two commenters noted that NRC will allow the use of
substitute forms if they are equivalent in all respects (content, size,
shading, color, etc.). They noted that the requirement for equivalent
color and shading will create problems for computer generated forms,
and suggested the following definition, ``* * * Licensees need not use
originals of these NRC Forms as long as any substitute forms are
equivalent to the original documentation in respect of form, content
and location of information.''
Response: The NRC agrees that the requirement that any substitute
forms use the same color and shading of the NRC Forms would likely
preclude the use of licensee generated forms.
Final rule: The NRC is modifying the definition in a manner
consistent with the commenter's proposal. The appropriate part of the
definition will read, ``* * * Licensees need not use originals of these
NRC Forms as long as any substitute forms are equivalent to the
original documentation in respect to content, clarity, size, and
location of information.''
I. Manifest--Definitions
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the
preamble, definitions have been added for the terms: ``consignee'' and
``computer-readable medium.'' The definitions for ``shipper'' and
``decontamination facility'' have been expanded to provide the basis
for deleting the ``Note'' in the originally proposed definition of
``waste generator.''
Comment: Two commenters stated that the definitions of
``decontamination facility,'' ``waste generator,'' and ``waste
processor'' were muddled in that a clear distinction between these
terms may not be evident. One commenter suggested that, if waste is
created from a service industry (e.g., decontamination facilities), the
service organization should be considered the generator of the waste.
Response: The three definitions were considered necessary to allow
the Compacts/States the greatest flexibility in carrying out their
authorities to track low-level waste generated, processed,
decontaminated or disposed of within their Compact/State. This includes
the possibility that, as the commenters suggested, wastes created from
certain service organizations in the treatment of contaminated material
could be attributed to the service organization.
The definition of ``decontamination facility'' is included in the
rule to ensure that these facilities complete the uniform manifest (at
a minimum, Forms 540 and 541) if they were shipping waste to a licensed
land disposal facility. The Compacts or States must decide whether the
radioactivity resulting from the processes undertaken at these
facilities must be assigned to originating generators. The rule
includes a definition of ``residual waste,'' that provides a basis for
this waste to be assigned to the decontamination facility for waste
tracking purposes. This approach may also apply to certain processors.
The rule would allow the Compacts and States to determine what
constitutes ``residual waste,'' and as a result, if the decontamination
facility or processor can be considered a ``waste generator'' and,
therefore, need not complete Form 542 of the manifest. This rule does
not require shippers of radioactive materials to either decontamination
facilities or waste processors to comply with the rule's manifesting
requirements. The rule does apply to shippers of radioactive waste to
waste processors. In the context of the rule, decontamination
facilities would not be expected to be consignees for shipments of LLW.
Final rule: A phrase has been added to the definition of
``decontamination facility,'' which states that, ``* * *, and for
purposes of this Part, is not considered to be a consignee for LLW
shipments.''
Comment: One commenter stated that the distinction between the
terms ``generator'' and ``waste generator'' was confusing and, in view
of the definition of ``residual waste,'' was not needed. Other
commenters stated that the phrase, ``* * * for which no further use is
foreseen * * *,'' used in the definition of ``waste generator,'' is
inappropriate. Three commenters and attendees at the June 15, 1993,
public meeting suggested that the rule focus on the entity to whom LLW
or radioactive material is being shipped--suggesting one manifest for
shipments to a LLW disposal site and a different manifest for shipments
to material/waste processors. One commenter stated that the starting
and ending points for the paper trail for material/waste shipments were
unclear.
Response: All three terms, ``generator,'' ``waste generator,'' and
``residual waste'' are needed. Under the approach followed in the rule,
the definition of the term ``generator'' is included to ensure that
information is collected on Forms 541 and 542 of the manifest that will
allow Compacts and States to demonstrate that the wastes disposed of at
their LLW sites is that for which they are responsible under the
LLRWPAA. In the rule, the term ``waste generator'' is used to define a
category of licensees who must use the uniform manifest. The term
``generator'' defines the licensee to whom specific LLW must be
attributed in the context of the LLRWPAA. A ``waste processor''
(including ``decontamination facilities'') must reasonably attempt to
assign the waste shipped from the processor's facility to the
originating ``generator.'' The rule provides an exception to this
accountability provision if the waste being shipped by the processor
can be categorized as ``residual waste''; that is, waste originating as
a result of processing or decontamination activities performed for
others, but which cannot be easily categorized into distinct batches
attributable to specific ``generators.'' Conceptually, the definition
of ``residual waste'' would be used for small volumes of waste
containing minimal levels of radioactivity. The NRC has encouraged the
Compacts and States to develop a common definition of what constitutes
``residual waste.'' The rule would not be affected if different
Compacts or States impose a different definition. However, ``waste
processor'' or ``decontamination facility'' licensees could be required
to complete Form 542 of the uniform manifest.
The phrase ``* * * for which no further use is foreseen * * *,''
was included in the definition of ``waste generator'' to provide one
basis upon [[Page 15654]] which a licensee can decide if a shipment to
a waste processor is considered a LLW shipment that must be manifested
under the provisions of this rule. The intent of the rule is to require
manifesting if the licensee considers the entire shipment to be LLW.
The commenter's suggestion for a ``two-manifest'' approach,
although theoretically feasible, was considered a less justifiable
regulatory approach, because it would impose manifesting requirements
for certain material shipments. The NRC did not consider it necessary
to require manifesting of material shipments sent for decontamination
or sorting, or coupled to energy recovery, because the waste processor
would be manifesting the subsequent outgoing LLW shipment. In the
outgoing shipment from the waste processor, the assignment of the
radioactivity on the manifest, completed by the waste processor, would
be to either a particular ``generator'' or if appropriate, to the waste
processor, as ``residual waste.''
The starting and ending points for the paper trail may not be
completely clear because different Compact/States may impose different
requirements based on their authorities. The approach taken in the rule
was to provide a manifesting system that could accommodate these
differences.
Final rule: The phraseology of the ``waste generator'' definition
has been changed to clarify that, under this definition, the shipping
licensee, absent any regulation or guidance to the contrary, must
decide if the shipment constitutes a LLW shipment.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``waste
type'' be expanded to cover ``chemical'' description.
Response: The chemical description is reported separately for each
waste type and therefore, the definition of ``waste type'' does not
need to be expanded. The major purpose of defining ``waste type'' in
the rule is to identify the detail needed when describing the contents
of containers including two or more specific waste types as further
discussed in the response to comments under ``Disposal Container
Information.''
Final rule: No change.
A. General Information
Corrections have been made in appendix G, paragraph A.2 to change
``identifier'' to ``identifiers'' and appendix G, paragraph A.3 to
properly refer to the EPA identification number for the carrier
transporting LLW.
Comment: Six commenters expressed views on whether the Uniform
Manifest and its supporting instructions should be incorporated in the
rule. Some commenters stated that because completion of the manifest
forms is required by the rule, the forms should be incorporated in the
rule. This action was suggested to facilitate comments on the forms and
to allow Agreement States appropriate opportunity for their involvement
and sufficient time to make any changes that NRC may make to the forms
over time. One commenter stated that the failure to include the
manifest forms in the rule could be considered arbitrary. Three
commenters argued that the Manifest and its supporting instructions
should not be a part of the regulation. With this approach, the NRC
would retain the flexibility to make non-substantive changes to the
Forms or instructions without a rulemaking action.
Response: Although the uniform manifest forms are not physically a
part of the rule, their availability was noticed and they were widely
distributed. The advantage of separating the forms from the rule is
that minor changes to the forms, such as additions to the container
description, waste descriptor, or sorption, solidification, and
stabilization media codes that appear at the bottom of Form 541, can be
made without the need for a rulemaking action or the replacement of the
manifest forms then in use. Minor changes, or any changes in the format
or instructions for the uniform manifest, would be treated as NRC
currently treats regulatory guides. Regulatory guides are issued for
public comment and these comments are analyzed before the guide is
issued in final form. As one commenter presumed, the minor revision and
changes to the manifest or instructions would be tracked (e.g., a form
revision number). Any significant changes to the uniform manifest
forms, such as a request for further basic information on the waste or
disposal container, would be accomplished through a rulemaking.
The NRC recognizes the importance of input from those most
immediately affected by the requirement to complete the uniform
manifest. It was principally this reason that led to the NRC holding
the public meeting on June 15, 1993. Thus, the NRC does not consider
separation of the Forms and instructions from the rule arbitrary.
Final rule: No change.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule should require the
generators to provide the ``generator type'' code called for in item 5
of Form 540.
Response: Because this information would be obtainable through the
generator ID or user permit number, the need to complete the block in
question was not sufficiently important for the NRC to require its
completion. The States, Compacts, or the consignee could require this
information to be completed.
Final rule: No change.
B. Shipment Information
Comment: One commenter questioned the need to report small
quantities of Tc-99 on manifests while another commenter was unclear on
why certain nuclides were singled out in reporting source and special
nuclear material. One commenter stated that the reporting of
Sec. 20.311 radionuclide LLD values and the delisting criteria, as
described in the instructions for uniform manifest completion, should
be incorporated in the rule.
Response: The need to report Tc-99 represents an existing manifest
requirement in Sec. 20.2006 and appendix F to Secs. 20.1001 through
20.2402 and was addressed in the 10 CFR part 61 rulemaking; that is,
the nuclide's long half-life, mobility, and influence on performance
assessment results. The singling out of specific nuclides for source
and special nuclear material was done to emphasize that it was the
weight of these nuclides that was being requested and not the weight of
any compound or media with or within which these nuclides may be
associated or contained. The instructions for the uniform manifest
specify the minimal levels of activity that must be reported on the
manifest and, without a specific reason to include this information in
the rule, this information continues to be addressed in the
instructions.
Final rule: No change.
C. Disposal Container [and Waste] Information
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the
preamble, the heading has been broadened to more precisely reflect the
general types of information being requested and the listing of items
has been reorganized and clarified to describe the variations in
required information that are dependent on whether: (1) The waste is
containerized or uncontainerized, and (2) the consignee for the waste
is a licensed low-level waste disposal facility. Furthermore, a
clarification has been made in Appendix G, paragraph I.C.4 to indicate
that the gross weight of the waste and disposal container is required.
The NRC requirement to report contamination levels on the surface of
disposal containers has been deleted to correct a typographical error.
This item still appears on the manifest [[Page 15655]] as a non-Federal
informational need because it is required by one of the current
disposal facility operators for operational safety reasons.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the level of reporting
required in the current appendix G, paragraph I.C.9 (previously
appendix F, paragraph I.C.8) did not go far enough and that Class A
sorbed or solidified waste should be reported in a similar manner to
Class B and C wastes. Other commenters stated that shippers of Class A
waste were being unduly impacted. One commenter stated that it was
impractical and/or not meaningful to provide separate isotopic
breakdowns for all mixtures of Class B and C wastes. Another commenter
believes the requirements for nuclide reporting of Class A versus B and
C wastes was unclear.
Response: The principal purpose of requiring wastes to be described
by individual waste descriptors is related to the capability of
performance assessment methodologies to distinguish between certain
types of wastes in terms of their public health significance. The
commenter who indicated that the proposed rule was too broad in its
requirement to distinguish between all Class B and C waste types is
correct. The data likely to have the greatest significance are those
associated with waste types from which radioactivity releases could
reasonably be limited. The ability to distinguish differing
radioactivity release rates from Class A wastes could also be
significant to site performance assessments.
Final rule: Appendix G, paragraph I.C.9 (previously appendix F,
paragraph I.C.8) has been modified to delete the phrase at the end of
the proposed paragraph which stated, ``if the media is claimed to meet
stability requirements in 10 CFR 61.56(b)''; and paragraph I.C.10
(second sentence) has been modified to read, ``For discrete waste types
(i.e., activated materials, contaminated equipment, mechanical filters,
sealed source/devices, and wastes in solidification/stabilization
media), the identities and activities of individual radionuclides
associated with or contained on these waste types within a disposal
container shall be reported.''
Comment: One commenter asked that the need to identify each drum
(disposal container) of waste be reconsidered because of the impact on
small generators. Another commenter noted that the proposed disposal
container for most new disposal sites is a concrete overpack and stated
that, although each container of each shipment must be indicated on the
manifest, tracking of the waste by overpack is more relevant. One
commenter believes that accountability necessitated a drum/container
number.
Response: The need for disposal container information is not only
to provide data that could be useful for performance assessment
purposes but is required by DOT if the disposal container and transport
package are identical. Identification of each drum would provide a
basis for associating a waste generator with specific waste in a
shipment. The suggestion regarding tracking of waste by overpack at the
disposal site is allowed under the provisions of this rule if the
container description code indicates, through use of the symbol ``-
OP,'' that disposal in an approved structural overpack is required.
Final rule: No change.
D. Uncontainerized Waste Information
Final rule: The introductory language of appendix G, paragraph I.D.
has been made consistent with the revised paragraph I.C, and paragraph
I.D.1 has been modified to require that information on the approximate
volume, as well as the weight of the uncontainerized waste, be provided
on the manifest.
E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container Information
Final rule: The wording of appendix G, paragraph I.E.2 has been
changed to be consistent with the change made to appendix G, paragraph
I.C.10. The ``note'' has been clarified to state that, ``The origin of
the LLW resulting from a processor's activities may be attributable to
one or more `generators' (including `waste generators') as defined in
this part.''
III. Control and Tracking--Appendix G, Paragraph III.A
Appendix G, paragraph III.A.2 has been modified to allow the label
indicating classification of the waste (including the potential for a
``greater-than-Class C classification'') to be provided on the
transport package (instead of the container) for those shipments for
which labeling of the disposal container presents a potential radiation
hazard.
Comment: Two commenters stated that Form 541 of the manifest may
contain information important to emergency response teams responding to
a transportation accident involving a LLW shipment and may be required
by State agencies to accompany shipments. One commenter indicated that
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requires
information that is found on both Forms 540 and 541.
Response: The DOT has the Federal responsibility to determine what
information must accompany a shipment to meet potential emergency
response needs. The NRC has obtained DOT concurrence that the
information provided on Form 540 meets their requirements for shipping
papers. However, the rule does not preclude Form 541 from accompanying
the shipment. Thus, if authoritative State requirements exist for
information contained on Form 541, this information could accompany the
shipment as Form 541 or a separate additional item of paperwork.
Final rule: No change.
Comment: One commenter stated that 60 days between a consignee's
receipt of an advance manifest and a requirement to inform the NRC and
the shipper that the consignee has not received the shipment seemed
like a long time. Another commenter questioned what, exactly, needed to
be completed within the one week window provided in the acknowledgement
of shipment receipt.
Response: Advance notification can take place weeks before a
shipment leaves the consignor's facility. As a result, 60 days is not
considered too long a period. This period has not been changed from the
current regulation. The rule states that the consignee must send the
acknowledgement of receipt (a signed copy of Form 540) within one week
of shipment receipt. Paragraph E of the existing rule, which has not
been changed, addresses actions to be taken if acknowledgement of
receipt is not received.
Final rule: No change.
Comment: One commenter asked who would be responsible for verifying
and assuring the currentness of generators' QA programs.
Response: As indicated in the ``Certification'' section, the person
signing the shipment manifest is certifying that the transported
materials are properly classified, described, packaged, marked, and
labeled. To the extent that a processor must rely on the information
supplied by the waste generator, the processor must assure that the
information received is sufficient, accurate, and current. Any QA
program mandated by this rule, as adopted by Agreement States, would be
subject to either NRC or Agreement State inspection and enforcement. On
this subject, this rule has not instituted any substantive change.
Final rule: No change.
Comment: One commenter stated that the rule, in the current
appendix F, paragraphs III.A.5, III.B.3, and III.C.6,
[[Page 15656]] requires that a manifest both precede and be delivered
to the consignee at the time the LLW is transferred. This commenter
also suggested that the licensing authority be informed of a shipper's
failure to receive acknowledgement of receipt of shipment at the time
the shipper begins the required investigation or when the shipper has
reason to believe a problem exists.
Response: The NRC does not see an NRC need to transmit both
manifests. However, States or Compacts could impose this requirement.
Similarly, because failure to receive acknowledgement is highly likely
to be an administrative problem, the NRC sees no reason to change the
existing regulation that requires reporting within two weeks of
completion of the shipper's investigation.
Final rule: No change.
III. Control and Tracking--Appendix G, Paragraph III.B
Comment: Two commenters questioned whether the chain of custody of
wastes handled by waste collectors can be determined under the
requirements of this rule if more than one entity was involved with the
waste before its handling by the collector. Another commenter stated
that the identification of the original generator of LLW sent through
processors or collectors must be ensured.
Response: Under the final rule, all waste collectors and processors
must complete NRC Manifest Forms 540, 541 and 542. The information on
these forms (including previous manifest numbers of shipments in which
radioactive material was received) would allow any waste the collector
or processor handles to be tracked back through one or more manifests
to the originating ``generator'' or ``waste generator,'' as defined in
the final rule.
Final rule: No change.
10 CFR Part 61
Section 61.12 Specific Technical Information (As Contained in Section
61.80)
Comment: Nine commenters discussed the concept of requiring that
the storage of data be kept on electronic recordkeeping systems and
reporting of data be accomplished on a machine (computer) readable
medium. This requirement only applies to LLW disposal facilities. Eight
of these commenters supported the requirements in the proposed rule.
One commenter agreed with the NRC view that Agreement States should
determine whether or not they will require their licensees to report
stored information on a computer-readable medium. One commenter stated
that there will be a need for quality assurance programs for both
hardware and software of both the disposal facility operator and the
generator of the waste. This commenter asked who would be responsible
for verifying the generator's quality assurance programs. Because the
disposal facility operators have different hardware and software, this
commenter was concerned that information transfers may be so garbled as
to be unusable.
Response: This rule does not change the existing requirement in 10
CFR Part 20 for a quality assurance program by any licensee who
transfers radioactive waste to a land disposal facility. The
appropriate licensing authority is, therefore, responsible for
verifying that an acceptable program is in place. The disposal site
operators currently verify incoming shipments as part of their quality
assurance program. The NRC does not envision any change to these
existing procedures. Any reporting of the information electronically
stored at the LLW disposal facility would comply with the American
Standard Code for Information Interchange requirements.
Final rule: No change.
Section 61.80 Maintenance of Records, Reports, and Transfers
In addition to the change discussed in this section, the proposed
rule made an administrative correction to Sec. 61.80(i)(1) regarding to
whom the annual report should be submitted. This correction has been
revised in the final rule to reflect the most recent NRC organizational
changes. References to ``Appendix F'' have been changed to ``Appendix
G.''
Comment: One commenter questioned the need to record and track
discarded material (pallets, bracing, etc.), as the volume of these
materials is insignificant and does not impact the performance of the
facility. The commenter also believes this will be a burdensome chore.
Response: The NRC believes the commenter is correct and will make
this requirement only applicable to contaminated material that is
disposed of.
Final rule: The requirement will read, ``* * * the volume of any
pallets, bracing, or other shipping or onsite generated materials that
are contaminated, and * * *.''
Uniform Manifest Forms and Instructions
General Comments
Over two thirds of the commenters specifically stated their support
for the development of a Uniform Radioactive Waste Manifest. None
opposed the concept, but a few saw no problem with the manifests
currently being used.
Many commenters went on to identify specific areas which they
believe could improve upon the NRC's proposal. The NRC has incorporated
many of these suggestions into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest
forms, and the supporting instructions. One of the most significant
comments on the forms dealt with the format in which the material is
presented. As discussed in the Rulemaking History Section of this
preamble, the NRC has attempted to meet the requirements of various
Federal, State, and operator needs.
Several commenters noted that the proposed forms require some
duplication of reporting between what is required for the DOT and the
NRC. By far the most significant element of duplication dealt with
reporting radionuclides and their activity on both NRC Forms 540 and
541. This resulted from the NRC staff's understanding of DOT's views of
the regulatory acceptability of manifests currently in use, and was
confirmed in a DOT letter to the NRC dated January 6, 1994. The DOT
requires all their information to be together and not commingled with
information requirements of the NRC, States, or the operating facility.
Given this requirement to separate the information, the NRC believed
that, in complying with the DOT requirements, a significant amount of
physical paperwork accompanying the shipment could also be reduced by
the use of electronic or other transfer of non-DOT information. Only
DOT-required information must physically accompany the shipment.
Therefore, the concept of three forms, each with a specific purpose,
was developed.
NRC Form 540 is used to meet DOT shipping paper requirements for
transportation and NRC waste tracking requirements. NRC Form 541 is
used for waste and container information needed for assessing and
monitoring disposal of radioactive waste. NRC Form 542 is used to
collect waste generator information for LLW shipped from a waste
collector or processor that can be used by the Compacts to establish
the ``generator'' of LLW in the context of the LLRWPAA.
The NRC has worked with DOT in an attempt to minimize the burden of
duplicative reporting. The DOT has [[Page 15657]] made an
interpretation of its regulations that the shipping paper need only
include a listing of the significant nuclides in a transportation
package and document the total activity information on a ``package''
basis. The proposed rule required activity information by radionuclide.
The NRC believes that this interpretation will significantly reduce
duplicative reporting initially required for each nuclide and its
respective activity.
Within the Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Low-Level Waste
Management Program, a software package is under development that will
prompt the user to provide the information needed to complete the
uniform manifest and will then be capable of producing the completed
manifest forms. It is intended that this software will be provided to
requesters, and, if this activity is successful, the reporting burden
will be further minimized.
Comment: Six commenters noted that the NRC Forms use a combination
of English and metric (International System of Units (SI)) units. These
commenters wanted the NRC to standardize the use of reporting units to
reduce the inherent confusion. Of the commenters stating a preference,
English units is the preferred choice.
Response: The NRC agrees that the use of dual units causes
confusion. The proposed forms were designed to combine proposed
requirements of DOT with standard reporting currently in use. Based on
the presumed final DOT requirements and NRC's policy statement on the
use of units (57 FR 46202; October 7, 1992), the forms and instructions
have been revised to require the use of metric units (except one column
on Form 540 to comply with a unique DOT requirement). The NRC has
presumed that final DOT regulations will require the use of metric
units for shipping papers (NRC Form 540). Because this requirement is
consistent with NRC goals, the NRC Forms 541 and 542 will also require
reporting in metric units. Note that reporting in metric units with
English units following would also be acceptable. The rulemaking also
modifies Sec. 20.2101 (which requires records required by 10 CFR part
20 to use the curie, rad, and rem units) to require use of SI units for
the manifest forms.
Comment: Nine commenters responded to NRC's request for comments on
the potential to broaden the current purpose of the manifest number to
provide information other than that required for tracking. These
commenters were about equally split on the advisability of broadening
the use of the manifest number. The supporters generally believe that a
unique number may reduce some reporting requirements and would add a
degree of control. One commenter noted that, while supporting the
concept of a unique manifest number, its implementation could, however,
be cumbersome, confusing and difficult. Those commenters not supporting
broadening the manifest number's purpose, generally did not see a clear
benefit to the change.
Response: While the NRC believes a unique manifest number could
provide some benefits, the difficulty in implementing the concept at
this time does not appear to warrant the resources that would be
necessary. Also, at this time, the NRC does not have a clear concept of
what a unique manifest number would include. Therefore, for this
rulemaking, the NRC will not change the manifest number's purpose.
After the Uniform Manifest is in use, the NRC will evaluate all aspects
of the forms to identify potential improvements. The usefulness of the
manifest number will be reviewed at that time to determine if changes
are warranted.
Form 540
Comment: One commenter stated that it appeared that Form 540 is
intended to replace the Bill of Lading.
Response: Form 540 is not intended to replace the Bill of Lading.
However, the form does provide a format for reporting information to
satisfy DOT's shipping paper requirements.
Box 1--Emergency Telephone Number and Organization
Comment: Several commenters questioned what organization is to be
identified with the emergency telephone number. Information in this box
was stated as being insufficient in light of other information
accompanying shipments.
Response: The organization to be identified may be the shipper but
could also be an organization, such as Chemtel. The telephone number is
all that is required on the shipping paper by DOT. Other emergency
response information required by DOT (49 CFR 172.602), but not as a
shipping paper requirement, would still have to accompany the shipment.
Boxes 2 and 4--Exclusive Use and Regulated Waste Checkoff Boxes
Comment: Several commenters questioned why it is necessary to check
these boxes indicating whether the shipment is ``Exclusive Use'' or
includes EPA or State-designated hazardous waste. One commenter also
asked whether a negative declaration would satisfy EPA that no material
is present.
Response: Box 2 is provided to comply with the proposed DOT
descriptive requirements for Sec. 172.203 of title 49. The current
Chem-Nuclear manifest contains this information item. Box 4 provides a
crosscheck to ensure that an EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest is
attached to the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, if
required. It is not necessarily intended to provide a basis to satisfy
EPA.
Box 5--Shipper--Name and Facility, Identifiers
Comment: Several commenters suggested that unique generator ID
numbers should be developed to allow optimal tracking and possibly
reduce the information required on the manifest. One commenter
supported the addition of ``Fuel Cycle Industry'' to the ``Generator
Type'' codes but suggested that the ``Other'' Code be deleted.
Response: The development of an ID system has merit. The NRC has
concluded, however, that the development of such a system would be a
significant undertaking and would have a serious impact on the
rulemaking schedule. The NRC may consider development of an ID system
after implementation of the rule if it appears necessary or worthwhile.
Although the listed codes should cover the universe of generators, the
``Other'' code is being retained. A review of the use of this code may
lead to appropriate expansions or clarifications of the coding system.
Box 6--Carrier Name and Address
Comment: One commenter suggested that space for more than one
carrier was needed to be consistent with the requirements on the
uniform hazardous waste manifest.
Response: The NRC believes that the required tracking can be
accomplished through identification of the original carrier.
Box 7--Listing of the Number of Manifest Form Pages
Comment: Several commenters expressed views on the flexibility
implied by this box that indicates the possibility of additional
information being appended to the manifest by disposal facility
operators, States, or Compacts. Four commenters believed that the rule
should specifically prevent the possibility of unfettered additional
uniform manifest requirements. Four other commenters supported this
flexibility. However, most of these [[Page 15658]] commenters
recognized that wide ranging additional reporting requirements would
defeat the purpose of the Uniform Manifest. On a different point on
this box, two commenters stated that the page numbering system was
absurd.
Response: The NRC believes that the information being collected on
the uniform manifest may not always be completely sufficient to meet a
variety of legitimate needs. Because the manifest data requirements
have been selected to satisfy the great majority of needs, the NRC
believes the need for additional information should not present an
overwhelming burden. If additional information is required on the
manifest, it must be appended to the uniform manifest forms. This
information, along with Forms 541 and 542, if required, may be
transmitted electronically, by mail, or by some other mutually accepted
method. The NRC agrees with those commenters that stated that transfer
of unnecessary information would dilute a major purpose behind the
development of a Uniform Manifest.
The NRC believes there may be some confusion on the page numbering
system. All that is being asked for is the total number of pages
comprising the manifest. The NRC believes this is a standard pagination
scheme for ensuring completeness of a documentation package.
Box 8--Manifest Number
Comment: One commenter suggested that further guidance for uniquely
identifying manifests is needed because LLW can move between several
entities before being shipped to a disposal site. Two commenters
questioned how tracking would be accomplished if the chain-of-custody
involved more than one entity.
Response: As currently envisioned, all collectors or processors
must complete Form 542 and, in so doing, identify a manifest number
associated with the incoming shipment. Thus, LLW received at an LLW
disposal site will be traceable back to the original generator, and no
further guidance is needed.
Box 10--Certification
Comment: One commenter suggested further guidance on whose
signature should appear in this block. One commenter stated that site-
specific needs may dictate different wording. Another commenter stated
that, in certain cases, certification to 10 CFR part 61 requirements is
being requested for shipments not directed to a disposal facility. One
commenter suggested that the certification statement should include an
appropriate caveat for collectors who do not alter the form of LLW. One
commenter generally addressed the responsibility issue.
Response: The NRC envisions that the person certifying the shipment
will not change from existing practice. If it is necessary to change
the wording of the statement, an additional certification sheet may be
necessary. The words ``if applicable,'' have been added before the
reference to 10 CFR part 61. The NRC believes the wording in the rule,
appendix G, Section II, provides the caveat the commenter suggests.
Column 11--U.S. Department of Transportation Description
Comment: One commenter stated that the instructions were confusing
in defining whether shipment or package information was being
requested. Another commenter believes it was not clear how a shipper
would describe a shipment of multiple disposal containers contained
within a single transportation package.
Response: All information on Form 540 is on an individual package
basis in compliance with DOT shipping paper regulations. Thus, Form 540
would include total package information while the information called
for on Form 541 is on a ``disposal container'' basis.
Columns 12 and 14--DOT Label and Physical/Chemical Form
Comment: One commenter suggested that codes be used in documenting
this information.
Response: The NRC seriously considered this possibility, but
decided that, given the typical ``single word entries'' required, the
flexibility provided without the use of codes outweighed the minimal
savings in reporting burden that would be achieved.
Column 13--Transport Index
Comment: One commenter postulated an accident event involving a Low
Specific Activity (LSA) shipment for which the information on Form 540
would not be useful because the Transport Index (TI) is not currently
required to be contained on the shipping paper documentation. For this
reason, the commenter suggested that NRC eliminate the requirement to
use Form 540.
Response: The information requirements on NRC Form 540 are required
by DOT for transportation of hazardous materials. The principal
information on this form is for use by the first-on-the-scene responder
to a transportation accident. Identification of the proper shipping
name and U.N. ID number provides valuable information. These
identifiers correlate with proper emergency actions. The TI is
information which would be more useful in controlling normal
occupational exposures.
Column 15 (Now Divided Into Columns 15 and 16)--Individual
Radionuclides and Activity (Now Total Package Activity)
Comment: One commenter questioned what is meant by, ``* * * list
all radionuclides that are present in the transport packaging,'' and
suggested that guidance be provided on the specific SI units to be
used. One commenter stated that requirements for listing of a
radionuclide should be included in the rule. Two commenters stated that
insufficient space is provided for both a listing of the nuclide and
activity. Six commenters suggested that only a vertical listing, with
one nuclide per line, should be considered. Another commenter suggested
that the column be split into nuclide and activity columns.
Response: Reporting of radionuclides in the transport packaging is
a DOT shipping paper requirement in which the instructions reference
the appropriate DOT regulations for more information. The NRC is not
providing detailed interpretive instructions of DOT regulations. The
NRC has explained what is meant regarding the reporting units needed on
NRC Form 541 (for NRC use). The NRC believes that the radionuclides
reported on Form 541 should also be appropriate for DOT purposes. A DOT
telephone number is provided if additional information or
interpretation is needed. On the spacing issue, the NRC has completed
several manifests from actual shipments and these examples indicate
that more than enough space is provided for at least a double columnar
listing of nuclides and respective activities on NRC Form 541, although
the choice on the formatting in this column is left to the shipper and
consignee. Because the DOT has agreed that only the total package
activity needs to be reported, the spacing issue would now only involve
Form 541. On the multiple columnar presentation, the NRC would note
that current Transportation Shipment Package Records, that have been
used when conveying radioactive material to processors, portray
nuclides and their respective activities in a triple columnar field.
Column 16 (Now Column 17)--LSA/SCO Class
Comment: One commenter suggested codes for documenting this
information, [[Page 15659]] while two commenters questioned the
regulatory basis.
Response: The information in this column is based on a requirement
proposed by DOT in their ``IAEA Compatibility'' rulemaking. Coding is
not allowed by DOT for reporting this information. The NRC has presumed
that this classification system will be incorporated into DOT's final
rule.
Column 17 (Now Column 18)--Total Weight or Volume
Comment: One commenter questioned the multiple number of times that
this type of information was requested on the three manifest forms.
Response: Although requests for volume and weight information do
occur on each of the manifest forms, the volumes or weights requested
are not necessarily identical. For example, the transportation package
volume may not be the same as the disposal container volume, if
multiple disposal containers are contained within a shielded overpack.
The total volumes requested on Form 542 would represent the sum of all
generator volumes which may be contained in a number of different
disposal containers. This Form 542 summary contains information very
similar to that required on the Manifest Index and Regional Compact
Tabulation Sheets used by a current disposal site operator. This
information is used for waste tracking purposes to ensure that sites
are receiving wastes for which their State or Compact is responsible
for disposal.
Column 18 (Now Column 19)--Identification Number of Package
Comment: One commenter suggested that this instruction should be
worded as a requirement.
Response: Although the listing of the disposal container number on
Form 541 is a requirement, this does not generally carryover to the
transport packaging when the packaging and the disposal container are
not identical. DOT does not require a package number to be provided on
shipping papers.
Form 541
Box 1--Manifest Totals
In addition to the change discussed in this section of the
preamble, the headings for the shipment volume and weight totals have
been changed to reflect that total net values are being requested for
any low-level radioactive waste shipment to which manifesting applies.
Comment: Five commenters brought up the issue of reporting of
radionuclides (specifically Tc-99 and I-129) that are reported based on
lower limits of detection (LLD). Concerns were expressed that if the
totals, as presented in this box, represent the sum of the LLDs, or
LLD's and ``real'' values in all disposal containers, a very
significant overestimation of these nuclides in a disposal facility
could result. One commenter suggested that this block require entry of
net waste volume and weight.
Response: The NRC believes these comments have merit. Because it
would be important to distinguish between ``real'' and LLD values, the
instructions have been modified to indicate that the sums of the
``real'' and LLD values should be separately reported in this box, with
the summed LLD value in parenthesis. Although the NRC recognizes that
this reporting scheme does not solve the problem, this reporting
approach will ``flag'' the conservative nature of the appropriate
fraction of the inventories of these nuclides. The commenter is correct
in presuming that net waste volumes and weights are being requested.
Appropriate clarifications have been made to the manifest forms and
instructions.
Columns 5 through 10--Disposal Container Description
Comment: One commenter stated that repetitive listing of a
generator ID number, if more than one container is attributed to a
generator, is unnecessary. Another commenter pointed out that the
container described may not always be the ``disposal'' container and
that, in these cases (e.g., shipments (of LLW) to waste processors),
this column may not need to be completed. One commenter suggested that
Column 8 should pertain to net waste weight. One commenter asked how a
shipper should respond if more than one container description code
applies. Another commenter asked if it was intended to use the numeric
codes or the actual verbiage.
Response: The instructions have been clarified to avoid unnecessary
repetition of generator ID numbers. The ``exemption'' referred to by
the commenter was included in the instructions. This ``exemption'' is
now the subject of a ``Note'' preceding the instructions for Column 5.
The possibility that some of the container information may be required
by the consignee also appears italicized in the introductory paragraph
in the instructions for Form 541. Instructions that are not ``tied'' to
information being required to comply with Federal regulations also now
appear in italics.
Column 8 refers to total container and waste weight (See discussion
pertaining to Column 12).
The intent is to report code numbers, if applicable. If more than
one container description code applies, multiple codes can be reported.
Column 9--Surface Radiation Level
Comment: Two commenters suggested that this column could be better
situated on Form 540 adjacent to the Transport Index.
Response: Combining this information with the information required
by DOT on shipping papers would not, based on NRC staff interactions
with DOT staff, be accepted by DOT. The information in this column is
also required by one of the current disposal facility operators.
Column 10--Surface Contamination
Comment: Four commenters questioned the need for this information,
especially in light of DOT standards.
Response: The information being requested in this column is
directed at contamination levels on the surfaces of disposal
containers, not transportation packagings. This information is
currently requested by one of the disposal facility operators on their
manifest in order to minimize contamination and control potential
operational exposures. Through typographical error, this informational
need was included as an NRC requirement in the proposed appendix F,
paragraph I.C.10. As indicated in the response to comments on the rule,
this requirement has been deleted from the rule but remains as a non-
Federal information item on the manifest.
Column 12--Approximate Waste Volume(s) in Container
Comment: Two commenters suggested that if the waste volume
information is only intended to meet disposal site acceptance criteria,
this column could be deleted because the certification statement could
be used to accomplish the same purpose. One commenter questioned
whether the information on the manifest allowed an accurate estimate of
the mass of the waste and whether the NRC recognized that the volume of
the inner container may be substantially different from the actual
waste volume. One commenter suggested that adjustments be considered so
that the weight of the waste would be documented. One commenter
suggested that this column be completed if the container fill volume
was less than 90%. One commenter asked whether, if perlite was
[[Page 15660]] used to fill void volume, this volume should be included
in the total.
Response: For discrete waste items (e.g., activated metals), the
volume of these items is of interest for waste classification purposes.
The instructions have been expanded to make this clear and, for
homogeneous type wastes, the instructions indicate that ``>85%'' can be
entered if this fill volume is exceeded. The NRC believes that the
weight of the waste can be estimated by either knowing the volume and
density of the waste or subtracting container weight from the weight of
the waste and container. If fill material is used, this volume may be
included in the reported volume, but may not be considered for waste
classification purposes. An alternative approach would be to report
waste volume, but note that a ``fill'' has been used (e.g., to comply
with disposal site acceptance criteria).
Column 14--Weight % Chelating Agent
Comment: One commenter suggested a code for ``None present'' and
``O'' be provided in this column. Another commenter asked what methods
would be used to identify chelating agents.
Response: The commenter's suggestion was not taken because only an
``NP'' or ``O'' would need to be entered, and space for providing the
preprinted codes is limited. NRC's intent in identifying chelating
agents is described in general terms in the ``Final Waste
Classification and Waste Form Technical Position,'' dated May 11, 1983.
Column 15--Radiological Description
Comment: Two commenters questioned the desirability of reporting
individual nuclide activities as a percentage of total container
activity. One commenter erroneously thought that this column limited
the recording of nuclides to three entries. Another commenter suggested
that the NRC consider establishing reporting thresholds for H-3, C-14,
Tc-99, and I-129, and stated that explicit instructions are needed on
the reporting of source and special nuclear material, ``daughter
radionuclides,'' and the impact of nuclides with less than 5-year half-
life on waste classification. One commenter pointed out that the
passage of ``Reportable Quantity'' requirements should be considered in
establishing the reporting thresholds defined in the instructions. A
number of commenters questioned the effectiveness of allowing multiple-
columnar reporting of radionuclides with their respective activities.
Response: Percentage reporting is not being mandated, but allowed.
This method of reporting is allowed by a current disposal facility
operator. The instructions have also been appended to clarify how the
reporting of more than three significant radionuclides in a container
should be achieved.
Although the concept of establishing threshold reporting quantities
for the four indicated nuclides has merit, the analysis needed to
support a specific threshold has not been defined. Thus, consistent
with the existing regulation, no threshold for the reporting of these
four nuclides is included in the instructions.
On the reporting of source material, the instructions have been
expanded to clarify that the ``mass'' being asked for applies only to
the elemental mass of uranium and thorium (including uranium and
thorium contained in ``unimportant quantities,'' as defined in 10 CFR
40.13), and not the weight of the waste containing these nuclides. The
instructions now also specifically state that the activities of the
nuclides specifically referred to in the ``Manifest Total'' Box (i.e.,
H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and I-129) must always be manifested. The
instructions also state that daughter products must be either
individually reported or, if within a factor of 2 of being in
equilibrium with its (their) parent, be reported as the parent with its
activity listed, but with the symbol ``D'' or ``NAT'' indicating
daughter products in equilibrium (i.e., Cs-137D or ThNAT).
``Significant quantities'' of nuclides with half-lives less than 5
years must be included in determining the waste classification of a
disposal container (note that this will only apply in determining
whether the Class should be Class A or B). Finally, the instructions
have been expanded to indicate that any radionuclide whose activity
represents a Reportable Quantity under DOT regulations must be included
on the manifest.
In response to comments on multicolumnar reporting, the NRC has
reconfigured the item 15 column to indicate the possibility of using
two subcolumns. The first subcolumn must include the radionuclide and
its activity in metric units. The second subcolumn may be: (1) Used to
include the activity in English units, if required by the State or
operating facility, (2) left blank if not needed, or (3) used to report
a second radionuclide and its activity. The line which splits column 15
is provided to minimize imputing and checking errors, if the third
option is chosen.
Column 16--Waste Classification
Comment: One commenter suggested that boxes be provided to check a
waste class. Two commenters stated that the ``Class'' designations do
not establish whether Class B and C waste has been stabilized.
Response: The instructions have been broadened to indicate that
Class B and C waste should be classified as BU or BS, or CU or CS; the
U or S indicating whether the waste is in stable or unstable form.
Because the combination of possibilities has been increased to six, the
information to be recorded would only consist of two letters, and space
on the form is limited, ``checkoff'' boxes have not been added to the
form.
Container, Waste, and Media Codes
Comment: One commenter stated that the waste descriptor codes
should be consistent with existing NRC classifications of LLW. Another
commenter pointed out that the codes do not match directly with those
of US Ecology. One commenter suggested that ``EPA (or State)
hazardous'' should not be a physical descriptor for waste and
questioned why ``concrete'' was specifically identified as an
encapsulation media. One commenter suggested that the descriptor,
``wooden box'' be dropped and ``woven polypropylene bulk bag'' be added
to reflect actual practices. This commenter also believed that the
waste descriptors were excessive for the purposes being addressed. One
commenter suggested that Zonolite grade 4 be deleted and ``Vinyl
Chloride'' replace ``Vinyl Toluene.'' One commenter suggested that
``State hazardous'' be added along with ``EPA hazardous.''
Response: The NRC believes the codes are somewhat more detailed
than the waste streams characterized in the Environmental Impact
Statement that supported the 10 CFR part 61 rulemaking. Although the
codes are not identical to those used by US Ecology, the NRC staff
believes that all the US Ecology codes can be related to the codes on
Form 541, and the ``other'' code can also be used. If a rationale for a
specific code, that is not included exists, it can be added to the
list. The ``EPA (or State) hazardous'' descriptor is provided as a
``tie-in'' to EPA's or a State's Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. The
specific identification of concrete as an encapsulation media has been
deleted and the commenter's suggestion on container descriptions has
been accepted. The NRC believes that feedback from the performance
assessment process may indeed lead to a consolidation of waste
descriptor codes, with time. The suggestions that Zonolite grade 4 be
deleted and ``Vinyl Chloride'' replace ``Vinyl Toluene'' have been
accepted. The phrase ``EPA [[Page 15661]] hazardous'' has been modified
to read ``EPA or State Hazardous.''
Form 542
Column 5--Generator Name, Permit Number, and Telephone Number
Comment: One commenter suggested that the ``generator type'' code
should also be included. Two commenters questioned why ``permit
number'' is called for, given that the generator ID number is provided
in Column 4.
Response: Because the generator ID number should allow the
determination of generator type, the inclusion of this information was
not considered necessary. Permit number was included because, for
certain generators, the generator ID number assigned by the disposal
facility operator is not identical to the permit number assigned by the
appropriate regulatory authority. Optimization of these identifiers
could lead to elimination of this reporting need.
Column 9--Waste Code
Comment: One commenter suggested that boxes be provided to check
whether the waste represents processed or collected waste.
Response: Given the single letter entry needed, and the fact that
an existing manifest does not preprint these letters, the NRC did not
see a need to provide individual ``C'' or ``P'' boxes to be checked.
Column 10--Originating Compact Region or State
Comment: One commenter suggested that codes be used for the
Compacts or States. Another commenter stated that if the Generator ID
number included the two-digit State abbreviation, there would be no
need to report this information in Column 10.
Response: The NRC's intent was that codes be used. The instructions
have been expanded to state this preference. Because current generator
ID numbers do not uniformly include the State abbreviation, it was
included in Column 10. If generator ID numbers are systematized, as the
commenter suggests, and as membership in Compacts stabilizes, this
column could be deleted.
National Data Base Comments
Comment: In the proposed rule, the NRC discussed possible uses of
and needs for a national computer LLW data base. The NRC expressed
interest in public views on the benefits in developing such a system,
and if developed, who would be an appropriate operator. Eighteen
commenters spanned a spectrum of responses, from support for a national
data base with NRC as the operator, to the belief that a national data
base is unnecessary. Comments also spanned the topic of data
availability, from making sure the information is publicly accessible
to the need to ensure that sensitive data is protected. One commenter
noted that because disposal options have been significantly reduced,
much LLW may end up in extended storage and a national data base as
envisioned (data reported by the LLW disposal facilities) would not
yield the quantity of data originally expected. Two commenters noted
that LLW data bases already exist and that the NRC should use these
existing systems and work with the DOE to make any necessary
modifications to meet the informational needs of both NRC and state
regulators.
Response: The NRC believes that because there will only be a few
LLW facility operators in the near future, it is premature to establish
a new national LLW data base. The NRC agrees with those commenters that
stated that the existing systems can be the basis for a broad and
uniform national system. The NRC will work with DOE and Agreement
States to improve the existing data base, as necessary. Improvements
may result from the use of the Uniform Manifest and the improved
ability to report and compile this data.
Regulatory Analysis Comments
Comment: One commenter stated that the economic impact analysis is
unclear in the ``Regulatory Flexibility Certification'' section. The
commenter stated that according to the discussion, the proposed rule
would have a negative $480,000 to a positive $100,000 impact on the
regulated community. If one back calculates to the 34,000 cubic feet
generated by hospitals, the range would be negative $13,600 to a
positive $2,400. These figures deserve to be substantiated and
justified.
Response: The costs and cost savings associated with the uniform
manifest are mainly associated with additional entry costs from the
uniform manifest having more fields than the currently used shipment
manifest forms and from the development of computer software to
generate the forms. The data entry costs are related to the amount of
additional data entered per shipment, the number of shipments, and the
degree of automation of data entry. It appears that data entry costs
were underestimated and the final regulatory analysis contains updated
estimates. Whether there is a cost or cost savings related to
development of manifest generation software depends on the number of
different manifest forms there would be in the absence of a uniform
manifest. If each regional disposal facility would require its own
manifest forms, a savings in software development costs would result
from the use of a uniform manifest. If the current US Ecology and Chem-
Nuclear Systems forms would still be used for all regional disposal
facilities, additional software generation costs would result from use
of the uniform manifest. Because costs are not related to waste volume,
the impact of the proposed rule on hospitals that generate LLW is not
directly related to the volume of LLW that these hospitals generate.
Comment: Two commenters questioned the incremental time and cost to
generate the new uniform manifest versus current manifests in use. One
commenter stated that the requirements of Form 540 could increase the
time to generate a manifest to 5 hours or more for a large shipment
rather than the 0.65 hours shown in the Federal Register notice (57 FR
14500; April 21, 1992). One commenter stated that the response time for
collection of information is substantially underestimated and that the
increased complexity of the forms is expected to significantly increase
clerical costs well beyond the estimate of $5,000 to $15,000.
Response: The estimate of the amount of time it takes to enter data
on the uniform manifest was based on the number of fields, the nature
of the field (i.e., whether it contains fixed point, floating point, or
alphanumeric data) and whether the data is entered manually on the
forms, on a computer, or from a waste management database. An
experienced data entry clerk was consulted. From this and other
comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking, including the comments
made at the public meeting held on June 15, 1993 and subsequent NRC
experience, it appears that the effort required to complete the
manifest forms was underestimated. In the final regulatory analysis,
the estimated time to complete a manifest by a generator (NRC Forms 540
and 541) has been changed from 2.5 hours to 2.8 hours. The estimated
time to complete the manifest for a collector/processor (NRC Forms 540,
541, and 542) has been changed from 3.1 to 9.2 hours. The significant
change for the collector/processor comes from information in a January
1994, report prepared for the NRC (NUREG/CR-6147) that resulted in more
than twice the estimated size (number of containers) in collector/
[[Page 15662]] processor shipments. The end result, however, is not as
drastic since the total number of shipments is accordingly reduced.
Final rule: The Regulatory Analysis has been updated to reflect
more accurate estimates of effort. The resulting changes have not
changed the conclusion to implement the final rulemaking.
IV. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
The Commission is requiring that the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Manifest be used by all shippers of low-level radioactive waste;
that is, by all waste generators, waste collectors, and waste
processors licensed by either the Commission or Agreement States. The
Commission and Agreement State licensees required to use the Uniform
Manifest, therefore, would also be required to record the minimal
information requirements as called for on the applicable Uniform
Manifest forms.
In the development of the three sets of forms comprising the
Uniform Manifest, the NRC staff has coordinated its efforts with staff
at DOT and with Agreement and non-Agreement States. Most State
representatives have indicated support for a base set of information
needs and a uniform manifest. The Commission believes the information
called for on the Uniform Manifest not only satisfies Commission
requirements and DOT shipping paper requirements, but also the majority
of requirements of Agreement State regulatory authorities (and land
disposal facility operators).
The Commission recognizes that a particular Agreement State may
require additional information for their unique regulatory purposes and
that disposal site operators may require further information to satisfy
operational and administrative considerations. Therefore, this
regulation does not prohibit Agreement States or disposal site
operators from broadening manifest usage or from imposing additional
manifest requirements which may be transmitted as additional pages to
the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. Serious consideration
should be given to the need for specific additional information vis-a-
vis the advantages in maintaining a ``uniform'' manifesting system.
Caution must be taken, however, to ensure that any additional
requirements for information are reported in a format which does not
conflict with DOT regulations for shipping papers (i.e., 49 CFR part
172). Also, the NRC Forms, although requiring the use of metric units,
does not preclude reporting in metric and English units.
Accordingly, the Commission designates 10 CFR 20.2006, Transfer for
Disposal and Manifests (excluding appendix F)--as Division 1. This
designation maintains uniformity in manifest format and content while
at the same time allowing flexibility for additional information being
supplied in the manifest by adding supplemental pages. 10 CFR 20.2101,
which discusses units to use, is designated Division 2, since although
SI units must be used, English units can also be reported.
The Commission designates 10 CFR 61.12, Specific Technical
Information, including the new paragraph (n) that deals with a
description of an electronic record keeping system, as Division 2
because Agreement States can satisfy the principles using alternate
language.
10 CFR 61.80, Maintenance of Records, Reports and Transfers,
remains designated Division 3, except for Sec. 61.80(l)(1) which is
designated Division 2 because it requires that the disposal facility
licensee maintain an electronic record keeping system. This designation
will help ensure that manifest information will be available in an
electronic format for both NRC and Agreement State licensed sites. The
new requirement to report such stored information on a computer-
readable medium, however, should be the prerogative of each Agreement
State, and this new requirement in Sec. 61.80(l)(2), is designated
Division 3.
V. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The Commission has determined that this final rule is the type of
action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3) (ii) and
(iii). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an
environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule amends information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and
Budget, approval number 3150-0014, -0135, -0164, -0165, and -0166.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 1.04 hours per response under 10 CFR parts 20 and
61, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information. The time to complete
standard shipping manifests required by this rulemaking, NRC Forms 540,
541, and 542, depends upon the size and complexity of the shipment and
whether the shipment is from a generator or a collector/processor. A
shipment from a generator is estimated to require 2.8 hours (63 minutes
to complete Form 540 and 103 minutes for Form 541--no Form 542 is
needed). A shipment from a collector/processor is estimated to require
9.2 hours (161 minutes to complete Form 540, 363 minutes for Form 541,
and 26 minutes for Form 542). The representative collector/processor's
manifest takes longer to complete primarily because it is assumed that
their shipments have more than twice as many containers as from a
generator's shipment. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records
Management Branch, Mail Stop T-6 F33, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0014, -0135, -
0164, -0165, and -0166), Office of Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503.
VII. Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available
for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be
obtained from M. Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Mail Stop T-9 F33.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities. A significant number of hospitals and academic institutions
are LLW waste generators, and most of these are non-profit
organizations. During 1986-1990, about 4.6% of the 7.8 million cubic
feet of disposed of LLW was generated by hospitals and academic
institutions. Thus, a substantial number of small entities could be
affected by the rule. [[Page 15663]]
With an expected disposal fee of approximately $150/cubic foot,
annual disposal costs for these small entities will be in the range of
$11 million. The estimated upper limit costs to implement this rule for
the small entities is approximately $65,000. Similarly, the estimated
upper limit of annual operational cost for these small entities is
approximately $2,000. These costs are insignificant relative to the
annual disposal costs (which do not include costs such as packaging and
transportation). Because the percentage increases in disposal costs
that may be caused by the rule is substantially less than 1%, the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on the small entities
affected by the rule.
IX. Backfit Analysis
The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109,
does not apply to this final rule because these amendments do not
involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1). The additional information to be placed on NRC manifest
forms will not require nuclear power licensees to change existing
procedures used in operation of their facilities. Therefore, a backfit
analysis is not required.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 20
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and
health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material,
Waste treatment and disposal.
10 CFR Part 61
Criminal penalties, Low-level waste, Nuclear materials, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting
the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 20 and 61.
PART 20--STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68
Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955 as amended (42 U.S.C.
2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as
amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846).
2. Section 20.1009 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 20.1009 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
(a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information
collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB has approved
the information collection requirements contained in this part under
control number 3150-0014.
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in
this part appear in Secs. 20.1101, 20.1202, 20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1301,
20.1302, 20.1501, 20.1601, 20.1703, 20.1901, 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1905,
20.1906, 20.2002, 20.2004, 20.2006, 20.2102, 20.2103, 20.2104, 20.2105,
20.2106, 20.2107, 20.2108, 20.2109, 20.2110, 20.2201, 20.2202, 20.2203,
20.2204, 20.2206, and appendices F and G to 10 CFR part 20.
(c) This part contains information collection requirements in
addition to those approved under the control number specified in
paragraph (a) of this section. These information collection
requirements and the control numbers under which they are approved are
as follows:
(1). In Sec. 20.2104, NRC Form 4 is approved under control number
3150-0005.
(2). In Secs. 20.2106 and 20.2206, NRC Form 5 is approved under
control number 3150-0006.
(3). In Sec. 20.2006 and appendix G to 10 CFR part 20, NRC Form 540
and 540A is approved under control number 3150-0164.
(4). In Sec. 20.2006 and appendix G to 10 CFR part 20, NRC Form 541
and 541A is approved under control number 3150-0165.
(5). In Sec. 20.2006 and appendix G to 10 CFR part 20, NRC Form 542
and 542A is approved under control number 3150-0166.
3. Section 20.2006 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests.
(a)(1) The requirements of this section and appendices F and G to
10 CFR part 20 are designed to
(i) Control transfers of low-level radioactive waste by any waste
generator, waste collector, or waste processor licensee, as defined in
this part, who ships low-level waste either directly, or indirectly
through a waste collector or waste processor, to a licensed low-level
waste land disposal facility (as defined in part 61 of this chapter);
(ii) Establish a manifest tracking system; and
(iii) Supplement existing requirements concerning transfers and
recordkeeping for those wastes.
(2) Beginning March 1, 1998, all affected licensees must use
Appendix G. Prior to March 1, 1998, a LLW disposal facility operator or
its regulatory authority may require the shipper to use appendix F or
appendix G. Licensees using appendix F shall comply with paragraph
(b)(1) of this section. Licensees using appendix G shall comply with
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(b)(1) Each shipment of radioactive waste intended for disposal at
a licensed land disposal facility must be accompanied by a shipment
manifest in accordance with section I of appendix F to 10 CFR part 20.
(2) Any licensee shipping radioactive waste intended for ultimate
disposal at a licensed land disposal facility must document the
information required on NRC's Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Manifest and transfer this recorded manifest information to the
intended consignee in accordance with appendix G to 10 CFR part 20.
(c) Each shipment manifest must include a certification by the
waste generator as specified in section II of appendix F or appendix G
to 10 CFR part 20, as appropriate. See paragraph (a)(2) of this section
to determine the appropriate appendix.
(d) Each person involved in the transfer for disposal and disposal
of waste, including the waste generator, waste collector, waste
processor, and disposal facility operator, shall comply with the
requirements specified in section III of appendix F or appendix G to 10
CFR part 20, as appropriate. See paragraph (a)(2) of this section to
determine the appropriate appendix.
4. Section 20.2101 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b) as
paragraph (c) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 20.2101 General provisions.
* * * * *
(b) Not withstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, when recording information on shipment manifests, as required
in Sec. 20.2006(b), information must be recorded in the International
System of Units (SI) or in SI and units as specified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
* * * * * [[Page 15664]]
5. A new appendix G is added to 10 CFR part 20 to read as follows:
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20--Requirements for Transfers of Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Intended for Disposal at Licensed Land
Disposal Facilities and Manifests
I. Manifest
A waste generator, collector, or processor who transports, or
offers for transportation, low-level radioactive waste intended for
ultimate disposal at a licensed low-level radioactive waste land
disposal facility must prepare a Manifest (OMB Control Numbers 3150-
0164, -0165, and -0166) reflecting information requested on
applicable NRC Forms 540 (Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Manifest (Shipping Paper)) and 541 (Uniform Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Manifest (Container and Waste Description)) and, if necessary,
on an applicable NRC Form 542 (Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Manifest (Manifest Index and Regional Compact Tabulation)). NRC
Forms 540 and 540A must be completed and must physically accompany
the pertinent low-level waste shipment. Upon agreement between
shipper and consignee, NRC Forms 541 and 541A and 542 and 542A may
be completed, transmitted, and stored in electronic media with the
capability for producing legible, accurate, and complete records on
the respective forms. Licensees are not required by NRC to comply
with the manifesting requirements of this part when they ship:
(a) LLW for processing and expect its return (i.e., for storage
under their license) prior to disposal at a licensed land disposal
facility;
(b) LLW that is being returned to the licensee who is the
``waste generator'' or ``generator,'' as defined in this part; or
(c) Radioactively contaminated material to a ``waste processor''
that becomes the processor's ``residual waste.''
For guidance in completing these forms, refer to the
instructions that accompany the forms. Copies of manifests required
by this appendix may be legible carbon copies, photocopies, or
computer printouts that reproduce the data in the format of the
uniform manifest.
NRC Forms 540, 540A, 541, 541A, 542 and 542A, and the
accompanying instructions, in hard copy, may be obtained from the
Information and Records Management Branch, Office of Information
Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-7232.
This appendix includes information requirements of the
Department of Transportation, as codified in 49 CFR part 172.
Information on hazardous, medical, or other waste, required to meet
Environmental Protection Agency regulations, as codified in 40 CFR
parts 259, 261 or elsewhere, is not addressed in this section, and
must be provided on the required EPA forms. However, the required
EPA forms must accompany the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Manifest required by this chapter.
As used in this appendix, the following definitions apply:
Chelating agent has the same meaning as that given in Sec. 61.2
of this chapter.
Chemical description means a description of the principal
chemical characteristics of a low-level radioactive waste.
Computer-readable medium means that the regulatory agency's
computer can transfer the information from the medium into its
memory.
Consignee means the designated receiver of the shipment of low-
level radioactive waste.
Decontamination facility means a facility operating under a
Commission or Agreement State license whose principal purpose is
decontamination of equipment or materials to accomplish recycle,
reuse, or other waste management objectives, and, for purposes of
this part, is not considered to be a consignee for LLW shipments.
Disposal container means a container principally used to confine
low-level radioactive waste during disposal operations at a land
disposal facility (also see ``high integrity container''). Note that
for some shipments, the disposal container may be the transport
package.
EPA identification number means the number received by a
transporter following application to the Administrator of EPA as
required by 40 CFR part 263.
Generator means a licensee operating under a Commission or
Agreement State license who (1) is a waste generator as defined in
this part, or (2) is the licensee to whom waste can be attributed
within the context of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1985 (e.g., waste generated as a result of
decontamination or recycle activities).
High integrity container (HIC) means a container commonly
designed to meet the structural stability requirements of Sec. 61.56
of this chapter, and to meet Department of Transportation
requirements for a Type A package.
Land disposal facility has the same meaning as that given in
Sec. 61.2 of this chapter.
NRC Forms 540, 540A, 541, 541A, 542, and 542A are official NRC
Forms referenced in this appendix. Licensees need not use originals
of these NRC Forms as long as any substitute forms are equivalent to
the original documentation in respect to content, clarity, size, and
location of information. Upon agreement between the shipper and
consignee, NRC Forms 541 (and 541A) and NRC Forms 542 (and 542A) may
be completed, transmitted, and stored in electronic media. The
electronic media must have the capability for producing legible,
accurate, and complete records in the format of the uniform
manifest.
Package means the assembly of components necessary to ensure
compliance with the packaging requirements of DOT regulations,
together with its radioactive contents, as presented for transport.
Physical description means the items called for on NRC Form 541
to describe a low-level radioactive waste.
Residual waste means low-level radioactive waste resulting from
processing or decontamination activities that cannot be easily
separated into distinct batches attributable to specific waste
generators. This waste is attributable to the processor or
decontamination facility, as applicable.
Shipper means the licensed entity (i.e., the waste generator,
waste collector, or waste processor) who offers low-level
radioactive waste for transportation, typically consigning this type
of waste to a licensed waste collector, waste processor, or land
disposal facility operator.
Shipping paper means NRC Form 540 and, if required, NRC Form
540A which includes the information required by DOT in 49 CFR part
172.
Source material has the same meaning as that given in Sec. 40.4
of this chapter.
Special nuclear material has the same meaning as that given in
Sec. 70.4 of this chapter.
Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest or uniform manifest
means the combination of NRC Forms 540, 541, and, if necessary, 542,
and their respective continuation sheets as needed, or equivalent.
Waste collector means an entity, operating under a Commission or
Agreement State license, whose principal purpose is to collect and
consolidate waste generated by others, and to transfer this waste,
without processing or repackaging the collected waste, to another
licensed waste collector, licensed waste processor, or licensed land
disposal facility.
Waste description means the physical, chemical and radiological
description of a low-level radioactive waste as called for on NRC
Form 541.
Waste generator means an entity, operating under a Commission or
Agreement State license, who (1) possesses any material or component
that contains radioactivity or is radioactively contaminated for
which the licensee foresees no further use, and (2) transfers this
material or component to a licensed land disposal facility or to a
licensed waste collector or processor for handling or treatment
prior to disposal. A licensee performing processing or
decontamination services may be a ``waste generator'' if the
transfer of low-level radioactive waste from its facility is defined
as ``residual waste.''
Waste processor means an entity, operating under a Commission or
Agreement State license, whose principal purpose is to process,
repackage, or otherwise treat low-level radioactive material or
waste generated by others prior to eventual transfer of waste to a
licensed low-level radioactive waste land disposal facility.
Waste type means a waste within a disposal container having a
unique physical description (i.e., a specific waste descriptor code
or description; or a waste sorbed on or solidified in a specifically
defined media).
Information Requirements
A. General Information
The shipper of the radioactive waste, shall provide the
following information on the uniform manifest:
1. The name, facility address, and telephone number of the
licensee shipping the waste;
2. An explicit declaration indicating whether the shipper is
acting as a waste [[Page 15665]] generator, collector, processor, or
a combination of these identifiers for purposes of the manifested
shipment; and
3. The name, address, and telephone number, or the name and EPA
identification number for the carrier transporting the waste.
B. Shipment Information
The shipper of the radioactive waste shall provide the following
information regarding the waste shipment on the uniform manifest:
1. The date of the waste shipment;
2. The total number of packages/disposal containers;
3. The total disposal volume and disposal weight in the
shipment;
4. The total radionuclide activity in the shipment;
5. The activity of each of the radionuclides H-3, C-14, Tc-99,
and I-129 contained in the shipment; and
6. The total masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special
nuclear material, and the total mass of uranium and thorium in
source material.
C. Disposal Container and Waste Information
The shipper of the radioactive waste shall provide the following
information on the uniform manifest regarding the waste and each
disposal container of waste in the shipment:
1. An alphabetic or numeric identification that uniquely
identifies each disposal container in the shipment;
2. A physical description of the disposal container, including
the manufacturer and model of any high integrity container;
3. The volume displaced by the disposal container;
4. The gross weight of the disposal container, including the
waste;
5. For waste consigned to a disposal facility, the maximum
radiation level at the surface of each disposal container;
6. A physical and chemical description of the waste;
7. The total weight percentage of chelating agent for any waste
containing more than 0.1% chelating agent by weight, plus the
identity of the principal chelating agent;
8. The approximate volume of waste within a container;
9. The sorbing or solidification media, if any, and the identity
of the solidification media vendor and brand name;
10. The identities and activities of individual radionuclides
contained in each container, the masses of U-233, U-235, and
plutonium in special nuclear material, and the masses of uranium and
thorium in source material. For discrete waste types (i.e.,
activated materials, contaminated equipment, mechanical filters,
sealed source/devices, and wastes in solidification/stabilization
media), the identities and activities of individual radionuclides
associated with or contained on these waste types within a disposal
container shall be reported;
11. The total radioactivity within each container; and
12. For wastes consigned to a disposal facility, the
classification of the waste pursuant to Sec. 61.55 of this chapter.
Waste not meeting the structural stability requirements of
Sec. 61.56(b) of this chapter must be identified.
D. Uncontainerized Waste Information
The shipper of the radioactive waste shall provide the following
information on the uniform manifest regarding a waste shipment
delivered without a disposal container:
1. The approximate volume and weight of the waste;
2. A physical and chemical description of the waste;
3. The total weight percentage of chelating agent if the
chelating agent exceeds 0.1% by weight, plus the identity of the
principal chelating agent;
4. For waste consigned to a disposal facility, the
classification of the waste pursuant to Sec. 61.55 of this chapter.
Waste not meeting the structural stability requirements of
Sec. 61.56(b) of this chapter must be identified;
5. The identities and activities of individual radionuclides
contained in the waste, the masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in
special nuclear material, and the masses of uranium and thorium in
source material; and
6. For wastes consigned to a disposal facility, the maximum
radiation levels at the surface of the waste.
E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container Information
This section applies to disposal containers enclosing mixtures
of waste originating from different generators. (Note: The origin of
the LLW resulting from a processor's activities may be attributable
to one or more ``generators'' (including ``waste generators'') as
defined in this part). It also applies to mixtures of wastes shipped
in an uncontainerized form, for which portions of the mixture within
the shipment originate from different generators.
1. For homogeneous mixtures of waste, such as incinerator ash,
provide the waste description applicable to the mixture and the
volume of the waste attributed to each generator.
2. For heterogeneous mixtures of waste, such as the combined
products from a large compactor, identify each generator
contributing waste to the disposal container, and, for discrete
waste types (i.e., activated materials, contaminated equipment,
mechanical filters, sealed source/devices, and wastes in
solidification/stabilization media), the identities and activities
of individual radionuclides contained on these waste types within
the disposal container. For each generator, provide the following:
(a) The volume of waste within the disposal container;
(b) A physical and chemical description of the waste, including
the solidification agent, if any;
(c) The total weight percentage of chelating agents for any
disposal container containing more than 0.1% chelating agent by
weight, plus the identity of the principal chelating agent;
(d) The sorbing or solidification media, if any, and the
identity of the solidification media vendor and brand name if the
media is claimed to meet stability requirements in 10 CFR 61.56(b);
and
(e) Radionuclide identities and activities contained in the
waste, the masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special nuclear
material, and the masses of uranium and thorium in source material
if contained in the waste.
II. Certification
An authorized representative of the waste generator, processor,
or collector shall certify by signing and dating the shipment
manifest that the transported materials are properly classified,
described, packaged, marked, and labeled and are in proper condition
for transportation according to the applicable regulations of the
Department of Transportation and the Commission. A collector in
signing the certification is certifying that nothing has been done
to the collected waste which would invalidate the waste generator's
certification.
III. Control and Tracking
A. Any licensee who transfers radioactive waste to a land
disposal facility or a licensed waste collector shall comply with
the requirements in paragraphs A.1 through 9 of this section. Any
licensee who transfers waste to a licensed waste processor for waste
treatment or repackaging shall comply with the requirements of
paragraphs A.4 through 9 of this section. A licensee shall:
1. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is classified according
to Sec. 61.55 and meets the waste characteristics requirements in
Sec. 61.56 of this chapter;
2. Label each disposal container (or transport package if
potential radiation hazards preclude labeling of the individual
disposal container) of waste to identify whether it is Class A
waste, Class B waste, Class C waste, or greater then Class C waste,
in accordance with Sec. 61.55 of this chapter;
3. Conduct a quality assurance program to assure compliance with
Secs. 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter (the program must include
management evaluation of audits);
4. Prepare the NRC Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest
as required by this appendix;
5. Forward a copy or electronically transfer the Uniform Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to the intended consignee so that
either (i) receipt of the manifest precedes the LLW shipment or (ii)
the manifest is delivered to the consignee with the waste at the
time the waste is transferred to the consignee. Using both (i) and
(ii) is also acceptable;
6. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form 540A, if required) with
the shipment regardless of the option chosen in paragraph A.5 of
this section;
7. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt of the shipment in the
form of a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
8. Retain a copy of or electronically store the Uniform Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and documentation of
acknowledgement of receipt as the record of transfer of licensed
material as required by 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter;
and
9. For any shipments or any part of a shipment for which
acknowledgement of receipt has not been received within the times
set forth in this appendix, conduct an investigation in accordance
with paragraph E of this appendix. [[Page 15666]]
B. Any waste collector licensee who handles only prepackaged
waste shall:
1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste from the shipper within one
week of receipt by returning a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
2. Prepare a new manifest to reflect consolidated shipments that
meet the requirements of this appendix. The waste collector shall
ensure that, for each container of waste in the shipment, the
manifest identifies the generator of that container of waste;
3. Forward a copy or electronically transfer the Uniform Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to the intended consignee so that
either: (i) Receipt of the manifest precedes the LLW shipment or
(ii) the manifest is delivered to the consignee with the waste at
the time the waste is transferred to the consignee. Using both (i)
and (ii) is also acceptable;
4. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form 540A, if required) with
the shipment regardless of the option chosen in paragraph B.3 of
this section;
5. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt of the shipment in the
form of a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
6. Retain a copy of or electronically store the Uniform Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and documentation of
acknowledgement of receipt as the record of transfer of licensed
material as required by 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter;
7. For any shipments or any part of a shipment for which
acknowledgement of receipt has not been received within the times
set forth in this appendix, conduct an investigation in accordance
with paragraph E of this appendix; and
8. Notify the shipper and the Administrator of the nearest
Commission Regional Office listed in appendix D of this part when
any shipment, or part of a shipment, has not arrived within 60 days
after receipt of an advance manifest, unless notified by the shipper
that the shipment has been cancelled.
C. Any licensed waste processor who treats or repackages waste
shall:
1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste from the shipper within one
week of receipt by returning a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
2. Prepare a new manifest that meets the requirements of this
appendix. Preparation of the new manifest reflects that the
processor is responsible for meeting these requirements. For each
container of waste in the shipment, the manifest shall identify the
waste generators, the preprocessed waste volume, and the other
information as required in paragraph I.E. of this appendix;
3. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is classified according
to Sec. 61.55 of this chapter and meets the waste characteristics
requirements in Sec. 61.56 of this chapter;
4. Label each package of waste to identify whether it is Class A
waste, Class B waste, or Class C waste, in accordance with
Secs. 61.55 and 61.57 of this chapter;
5. Conduct a quality assurance program to assure compliance with
Secs. 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter (the program shall include
management evaluation of audits);
6. Forward a copy or electronically transfer the Uniform Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to the intended consignee so that
either: (i) Receipt of the manifest precedes the LLW shipment or
(ii) the manifest is delivered to the consignee with the waste at
the time the waste is transferred to the consignee. Using both (i)
and (ii) is also acceptable;
7. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form 540A, if required) with
the shipment regardless of the option chosen in paragraph C.6 of
this section;
8. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt of the shipment in the
form of a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
9. Retain a copy of or electronically store the Uniform Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and documentation of
acknowledgement of receipt as the record of transfer of licensed
material as required by 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter;
10. For any shipment or any part of a shipment for which
acknowledgement of receipt has not been received within the times
set forth in this appendix, conduct an investigation in accordance
with paragraph E of this appendix; and
11. Notify the shipper and the Administrator of the nearest
Commission Regional Office listed in appendix D of this part when
any shipment, or part of a shipment, has not arrived within 60 days
after receipt of an advance manifest, unless notified by the shipper
that the shipment has been cancelled.
D. The land disposal facility operator shall:
1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste within one week of receipt
by returning, as a minimum, a signed copy of NRC Form 540 to the
shipper. The shipper to be notified is the licensee who last
possessed the waste and transferred the waste to the operator. If
any discrepancy exists between materials listed on the Uniform Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and materials received, copies or
electronic transfer of the affected forms must be returned
indicating the discrepancy;
2. Maintain copies of all completed manifests and electronically
store the information required by 10 CFR 61.80(l) until the
Commission terminates the license; and
3. Notify the shipper and the Administrator of the nearest
Commission Regional Office listed in appendix D of this part when
any shipment, or part of a shipment, has not arrived within 60 days
after receipt of an advance manifest, unless notified by the shipper
that the shipment has been cancelled.
PART 61--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE
WASTE
6. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat.
930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077,
2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat.
1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5842, 5846); secs. 10 and 14, Pub. L. 95-601,
92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 2021a and 5851) and Pub. L. 102-486, sec.
2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
7. Section 61.12 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 61.12 Specific technical information.
* * * * *
(n) A description of the facility electronic recordkeeping system
as required in Sec. 61.80.
8. Section 61.80 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and (i)(1),
and adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and transfers.
* * * * *
(f) Following receipt and acceptance of a shipment of radioactive
waste, the licensee shall record the date that the shipment is received
at the disposal facility, the date of disposal of the waste, a
traceable shipment manifest number, a description of any engineered
barrier or structural overpack provided for disposal of the waste, the
location of disposal at the disposal site, the containment integrity of
the waste disposal containers as received, any discrepancies between
materials listed on the manifest and those received, the volume of any
pallets, bracing, or other shipping or onsite generated materials that
are contaminated, and are disposed of as contaminated or suspect
materials, and any evidence of leaking or damaged disposal containers
or radiation or contamination levels in excess of limits specified in
Department of Transportation and Commission regulations. The licensee
shall briefly describe any repackaging operations of any of the
disposal containers included in the shipment, plus any other
information required by the Commission as a license condition. The
licensee shall retain these records until the Commission transfers or
terminates the license that authorizes the activities described in this
section.
* * * * *
(i)(1) Each licensee authorized to dispose of waste materials
received from other persons, pursuant to this part, shall submit annual
reports to the appropriate Commission regional office shown in Appendix
D to 10 CFR part 20, with copies to the Director, Division of Waste
Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Reports must be
submitted by the end of the first calendar quarter of each year for the
preceding year.
* * * * *
(l) In addition to the other requirements of this section, the
licensee shall store, or have stored, manifest and other information
pertaining to receipt and disposal of [[Page 15667]] radioactive waste
in an electronic recordkeeping system.
(1) The manifest information that must be electronically stored
is--
(i) That required in 10 CFR part 20, appendix G, with the exception
of shipper and carrier telephone numbers and shipper and consignee
certifications; and
(ii) That information required in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) As specified in facility license conditions, the licensee shall
report the stored information, or subsets of this information, on a
computer-readable medium.
Dated at Rockville, MD this 20th day of March 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-7302 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P