[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40290-40348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-13302]
[[Page 40289]]
Vol. 91
Wednesday,
No. 125
July 1, 2026
Part IV
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 20, 61, 73 et al.
Integrated Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 40290]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 20, 61, 73, and 150
[NRC-2011-0012, NRC-2015-0003, and NRC-2017-0081]
RIN 3150-AI92
Integrated Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule and draft guidance; public meeting; request for
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its regulations that govern the land disposal of low-level
radioactive waste to expand regulatory coverage to include certain
transuranic wastes. The rule also introduces a new risk-informed
framework for low-level waste disposal in which sites can develop waste
acceptance criteria based on site-specific characteristics rather than
using prescriptive limits. The proposed rule would allow for a graded
approach: facilities that do not plan to accept significant quantities
of long-lived radionuclides or Greater-Than-Class C waste will only
need to meet a streamlined set of requirements, while those managing
these waste streams must conduct technical assessments to ensure long-
term safety. The proposed rule would also introduce new options for
disposal of higher concentrations of waste, providing new alternatives
for safe low-level waste management. These innovations support public
health and environmental protection, as well as safe disposal of low-
level radioactive waste, encourage operational efficiency, and offer
greater flexibility for both current and future disposal facilities. In
addition, the NRC is issuing draft implementing guidance for public
comment.
DATES: Comments must be submitted electronically using https://
www.regulations.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on August 17,
2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID NRC-2011-0012,
at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted
using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the individuals listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as
name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business
information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are
public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and
will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted
anonymously.
Follow the search instructions on https://www.regulations.gov to
view public comments.
You can read a plain language description of this proposed rule at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NRC-2011-0012. For additional
direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Tartal, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-0016, email:
[email protected]; and Priya Yadav, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-6667, email:
[email protected]. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
A. Need for the Regulatory Action
The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations in part 61 of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Licensing
Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,'' to require, for
existing low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities that accept LLW
containing significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides and
future applications for disposal of LLW (including Greater-Than-Class C
(GTCC) waste), new and revised site-specific technical analyses.
Currently, many GTCC waste streams are stranded at operating reactors,
sealed-source facilities, and Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. As
explained in the technical analysis supporting this rule, some of those
GTCC waste streams may present radiological hazards that could be
appropriate for land disposal. However, the NRC's current regulations
in part 61 are insufficiently flexible to accommodate land disposal of
those waste streams, absent a special finding from the Commission. This
rule would modernize the NRC's regulations by permitting disposal of
these waste streams in land disposal facilities, provided the applicant
makes an appropriate safety case. This modernization will not only
provide greater flexibility for addressing existing GTCC waste streams
but would also widen the scope of disposal options for waste streams
from emerging technologies.
Providing this flexibility for future waste streams is part of a
coherent Federal effort. While the DOE builds the industrial base for
the nuclear lifecycle, through programs such as the Nuclear Lifecycle
Innovation Campuses that would provide an integrated approach to
managing the nuclear fuel cycle, the NRC's efforts to modernize waste
disposal will provide a clear licensing pathway for the back end of the
fuel cycle. In concert, these activities will help reestablish the
United States as a global nuclear energy leader with technically sound
life cycle management approaches for all nuclear waste except spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. However, while this
rulemaking provides more flexible disposal options for waste classified
as GTCC, it does not alter legal requirements or policies to dispose of
high-level radioactive waste or spent fuel in a geological repository
including the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 10101, et seq.
Specifically, this proposed rule would not redefine what constitutes
high-level radioactive waste.
The rule revisions would also permit the development of site-
specific waste acceptance criteria (WAC) based on the results of these
analyses. These amendments are needed to ensure that LLW streams that
are significantly different from those considered during the
development of the current regulations (e.g., significant quantities of
depleted uranium) can be disposed of safely in the near surface and
meet the performance objectives for land disposal of LLW. These
amendments would also allow the use of site-specific information to
demonstrate compliance with performance objectives that are designed to
protect public health and safety and the environment. The NRC is also
proposing to consolidate and integrate criteria for NRC licensing of
the disposal of GTCC waste streams that meet the regulatory
requirements for land disposal. The NRC is also proposing editorial
changes within 10 CFR part 61 and conforming changes to regulations in
10 CFR parts 20, 73, and 150. The proposed revisions improve alignment
of NRC requirements with current health and safety standards.
This proposed rule would affect existing LLW facility licensees and
future applicants to varying degrees. All future license applicants
that are regulated by the NRC or by an Agreement State would be
required to meet the revised regulations, subject to compatibility
categories assigned to each NRC regulation for Agreement State
equivalent regulatory frameworks.
[[Page 40291]]
Any currently licensed LLW site that plans to apply to NRC for a
license to dispose of GTCC waste or plans to accept significant
quantities of long-lived radionuclides after the effective date of this
rule or after the effective date of equivalent Agreement State
regulations, would be required to meet the revised regulations.
Currently operating LLW facilities that do not plan to apply to NRC
for a license to dispose of GTCC waste or plan to accept significant
quantities of long-lived radionuclides after the effective date of this
rulemaking would not be required to adopt substantially new or revised
requirements. Some existing requirements that apply to these facilities
would be clarified.
Finally, the NRC has developed a draft guidance document for
comment, NUREG-2175, Revision 1, ``Guidance for Conducting Technical
Analyses for 10 CFR part 61.'' This document provides guidance on the
development of information and analyses submitted by licensees or
license applicants to demonstrate that they meet the new regulatory
requirements.
B. Major Changes
Existing LLW facility licensees that do not accept
significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides under Agreement
State licenses: These facilities need not comply with the new proposed
requirements in Sec. Sec. 61.10(c), 61.13(a) through (e), 61.24(l),
61.41(a) and (b), 61.42(a) and (b), 61.50(a) and (b) and 61.58 and may
instead continue to meet the existing part 61 requirements, which would
be retained in Sec. Sec. 61.13(f), 61.41(c), 61.42(c), and 61.50(c).
Existing LLW facility licensees that do not apply to the
NRC for a license to accept GTCC waste: These facilities need not
comply with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 61.10(c), 61.13(a) through
(e), 61.24(l), 61.41(a) and (b), 61.42(a) and (b), 61.50(a) and (b) and
61.58 and may instead continue to meet existing part 61 requirements
which would be retained in Sec. Sec. 61.13(f), 61.41(c), 61.42(c) and
61.50(c).
Existing LLW disposal facilities that do plan to accept
GTCC waste or significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides: These
facilities must comply with the new proposed technical analysis,
intruder assessment, and other revised requirements.
Introduction of site-specific and generic WAC: Allows
facilities to develop waste acceptance criteria tailored to their site-
specific technical analyses, or to use generic criteria based on
existing LLW classification requirements (Sec. 61.58). This
flexibility supports safe and efficient disposal practices.
Specification of compliance periods: Specification of a
1,000-year compliance period for sites that do not contain significant
quantities of long-lived radionuclides or a 10,000-year compliance
period for sites that are planning to accept significant quantities of
long-lived radionuclides (Sec. Sec. 61.2, 61.41(a), and 61.42(a)).
Requirements for performance period analyses: Requires
additional, potentially more qualitative analyses for post-closure
periods beyond 10,000 years if significant quantities of long-lived
radionuclides are disposed (Sec. 61.13(e)), to ensure long-term
safety.
New provisions for near-surface and specialized land
disposal facilities: Introduces requirements for disposal of GTCC waste
containing certain concentrations of radionuclides (Sec. Sec. 61.13
and 61.52) at both near-surface and specialized land disposal
facilities.
Establishment of thresholds for radionuclide
concentrations: Specification of thresholds for radionuclide
concentrations above which GTCC waste is generally not acceptable for
near-surface disposal, and for any type of land disposal. This ensures
only suitable waste is managed at each facility type (Sec. 61.55).
Clarification of NRC regulatory authority over GTCC waste:
Provides that regulation of GTCC waste disposal is not an area of
regulation that can be relinquished to Agreement States. As such, the
NRC would retain authority over GTCC waste disposal.
Technical analyses for GTCC waste: Requires operational
safety assessment and analyses for demonstration of additional waste
characteristic requirements to demonstrate safe disposal of GTCC waste
(Sec. Sec. 61.13(c) and 61.56).
Criticality safety: Clarifies that requirements for
avoiding accidental criticality during storage of special nuclear
material (SNM) prior to disposal and waste emplacement for disposal do
not apply for radioactive waste that meets the exemption requirements
under 10 CFR 71.15(c) as non-fissile material (Sec. 61.16(b)) and
requires that the near-surface disposal of GTCC waste streams
containing SNM in quantities subject to 10 CFR 70.24 include design
features to limit the reconcentration of fissile material following
disposal (Sec. 61.16(b)(3)).
Physical protection: Clarifies the applicable physical
protection requirements for LLW containing dilute concentrations of SNM
of low strategic significance or a Category III quantity of SNM (Sec.
73.67).
``As low as is reasonably achievable'' (ALARA)
requirements: Replaces the ``as low as is reasonably achievable''
requirements in the performance objectives for protection of the
general population from releases of radioactivity and protection of
individuals during operations in Sec. Sec. 61.41 and 61.43,
respectively, with references to dose limits in 10 CFR part 20. Other
requirements in the proposed rule continue to reflect a graded approach
to dose management for part 61.
C. Costs and Benefits
The NRC prepared a draft regulatory analysis to determine the
expected quantitative costs and benefits of this proposed rule and
associated guidance as well as qualitative factors to be considered in
the NRC's rulemaking decision. The conclusion from the 30-year analysis
is that this rule and associated guidance would result in net cost
savings to the industry, Agreement States, and the NRC of $39.4 million
using a 7-percent discount rate and $69.9 million using a 3-percent
discount rate. The net annualized cost savings at a 7-percent discount
rate are approximately $3.17 million per year, and $3.57 million per
year at a 3-percent discount rate.
The draft regulatory analysis also includes a qualitative analysis
of the direct and indirect benefits from risks that could be avoided if
the NRC adopts the rule. The principal qualitative benefits of the
proposed rule include: (1) ensuring that LLW streams that are
significantly different from those considered during the development of
the current regulations (e.g., significant quantities of depleted
uranium, blended LLW, and GTCC waste streams) can be disposed of safely
and meet the performance objectives for land disposal of LLW; (2)
facilitating the use of site-specific information and up-to-date
dosimetry methodology in site-specific technical analyses to ensure
public health and safety is protected; and (3) promoting a risk-
informed regulatory framework that specifies what requirements need to
be met and provides licensees or applicants flexibility regarding what
information or approach they use to satisfy those requirements.
For more information, please refer to the draft regulatory analysis
cited in the Availability of Documents section of this proposed rule.
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
[[Page 40292]]
B. Submitting Comments
II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
III. Background
A. Existing Regulatory Framework
B. Previous Rulemaking Activities
C. Integration of the Rulemakings
D. Public Interactions During Proposed Rule Development
IV. Discussion
A. Objectives of This Proposed Rule
B. Applicability and NRC Authority Over GTCC Disposal
C. Technical Areas With Proposed Revisions to Requirements
V. Specific Request for Comment
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VII. Regulatory Analysis
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
X. Plain Writing
XI. National Environmental Policy Act
A. Introduction
B. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Agency Action
C. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Agency
Action
D. Environmental Impacts of the Alternative to the Proposed
Agency Action
E. Agencies and Persons Consulted
F. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
XIII. Executive Orders
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as
Amended by Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All
Agencies)
B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy
C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
D. Executive Order 14270: Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To
Unleash American Energy
E. Executive Order 14294: Fighting Overcriminalization in
Federal Regulations
XIV. Criminal Penalties
XV. Coordination With NRC Agreement States
XVI. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
XVII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XVIII. Availability of Guidance
XIX. Public Meeting
XX. Availability of Documents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0012 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0012.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin ADAMS Public Search.''
For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email
to [email protected]. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
[email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Public Meeting: The NRC may conduct a public meeting to
describe the proposed amendments and answer questions from the public
on the proposed rule. If the NRC determines it will hold a public
meeting, the NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and
agenda of the meeting on the NRC's public meeting website within 10
calendar days of the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's
public meeting website for information about the public meeting at:
https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.
B. Submitting Comments
Comments must be submitted electronically using https://
www.regulations.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on August 17,
2026. Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0012 in your comment
submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions
into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order
(E.O.) 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.'' Section 5, ``Reforming and Modernizing the NRC's
Regulations,'' requires the NRC to undertake a review and wholesale
revision of its regulations and guidance documents as guided by the
policies set forth in section 2 of the E.O. This rulemaking addresses
section 5 of the E.O., focusing on the regulations in part 61 of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The proposed rule would
introduce a new risk-informed framework for low-level waste disposal
that would allow greater regulatory certainty on a disposal pathway for
GTCC waste. These proposed revisions support public health and
environmental protection, as well as safe disposal of LLW, encourage
operational efficiency, and offer greater flexibility for both current
and future disposal facilities.
III. Background
A. Existing Regulatory Framework
NRC Regulation of Low-Level Waste (LLW)
The NRC's licensing requirements for the land disposal of LLW can
be found in 10 CFR part 61. The NRC originally promulgated 10 CFR part
61 on December 27, 1982 (47 FR 57446).
The purpose of LLW disposal is to isolate and contain the waste
while it remains hazardous. The LLW disposal requirements emphasize a
diversity of systems to achieve safety from the disposal of commercial
LLW, including site selection, land disposal facility design and
operation, LLW characteristics, and site closure. To limit reliance on
institutional controls, part 61 emphasizes passive features (e.g., site
stability, favorable site characteristics, and low-population density)
rather than active systems to limit contact with and releases of LLW to
the environment. Some examples include requiring that the disposal site
design complement and improve upon the ability of the site's natural
characteristics to ensure the performance objectives (i.e., a part of
the regulatory safety standards for protecting the public and workers)
will be met; imposing concentration limits on waste that presents a
higher hazard through the waste classification requirements, which
categorize LLW by its radioactive content and hazard level
[[Page 40293]]
(Class A, B, C, and Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC)); requiring the
segregation of unstable waste from waste that must be stable for proper
disposal; imposing requirements on waste form and packaging
characteristics; and requiring the use of intrusion barriers for wastes
that will not decay to levels that represent an acceptable impact
should an inadvertent intruder contact the waste within 100 years.
The current regulations in 10 CFR part 61 cover all phases of near-
surface commercial LLW disposal from site selection through facility
design, licensing, operations, site closure, postclosure stabilization,
and the end of active institutional controls. Under the existing
regulatory framework, near-surface disposal refers to the placement of
radioactive waste in engineered facilities located generally within the
upper 30 meters of the earth's surface, as specified in NRC regulations
at Sec. 61.2, ``Definitions.'' To grant a license, the NRC must
conclude that there is reasonable assurance that the performance
objectives in subpart C of part 61 will be met. To demonstrate that an
applicant will meet these performance objectives, 10 CFR part 61
applicants need to prepare the analyses required by Sec. 61.13,
``Technical analyses.''
Some radioactive material added to the AEA definition of byproduct
material by Section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has special
status relating to its disposal at NRC or Agreement State licensed LLW
disposal facilities. These ``11e.(3) and (4) byproduct materials''
include certain discrete sources of radium-226 (11e.(3)(A)),
radioactive material resulting from operation of an accelerator
(11e.(3)(B)), and certain other ``discrete source[s] of naturally
occurring radioactive material, other than source material'' (11e.(4)).
Pursuant to AEA Sections 81b. and c., 11e.(3) and (4) byproduct
materials intended for disposal are not considered LLW under the Low-
Level Waste Policy Act but may nevertheless be disposed of at near-
surface LLW disposal facilities. In addition, AEA Section 81c. ensures
that 11e.(3) and (4) byproduct material may also be disposed of at
hazardous waste facilities.
To demonstrate that the general population is protected from
releases of radioactivity, licensees and applicants are currently
required to prepare an analysis of exposure pathways leading to
potential radiological doses to the general population. The original 10
CFR part 61 did not impose a specific performance timeframe for use in
the analysis to protect the general population, and Agreement States
that currently regulate the existing land disposal facilities differ in
the analysis timeframes they require.
The existing framework also requires that licensees demonstrate
that potential inadvertent intruders into the LLW disposal site will be
protected. Inadvertent intruders might occupy the disposal site after
closure of the land disposal facility and may not be aware of the
radiation hazard from the buried LLW. Disposal site landowners or
custodial agents are required to carry out an institutional control
program that ensures that no such occupation or improper use of the
site occurs. However, the NRC only permits licensees to take credit for
institutional controls in their technical analyses for up to 100 years
following closure and transfer of control of the disposal site to the
owner, even if a longer institutional control program is required by an
Agreement State regulator. Under the existing regulations, protection
of inadvertent intruders is demonstrated by compliance with the LLW
classification (Sec. 61.55, ``Waste classification'') and segregation
requirements (Sec. 61.52, ``Land disposal facility operation and
disposal site closure''), and by providing adequate barriers to
inadvertent intrusion.
The NRC developed the LLW classification requirements as part of
the original 10 CFR part 61 rulemaking. Explicit dose limits for an
inadvertent intruder were not provided in the original 10 CFR part 61
because an inadvertent intruder dose assessment was not required, but
the LLW classification concentration limits for radionuclides, in
tables 1 and 2 of Sec. 61.55, were based on a range of critical organ
doses, including an annual whole-body dose of 5 milliSievert (mSv) (500
millirems (mrem)) to a hypothetical inadvertent intruder. The LLW
classification tables were developed assuming that only a fraction of
the LLW being disposed would approach the LLW classification limits.
The analysis used to develop the 10 CFR part 61 LLW classification
system is conservative in nature. Nonetheless, in a theoretical
scenario under the current regulations, if an inadvertent intruder is
exposed to a large volume of disposed LLW near or at the classification
limits, protection of an inadvertent intruder may not be assured. To
address this issue, for licensees that do not meet the criteria in
Sec. 61.1(b), the new inadvertent intruder assessment would require
licensees to analyze the LLW disposed at each site in accordance with
the site-specific waste acceptance criteria (WAC) to demonstrate that
the annual limit of 5 mSv (500 mrem) total effective dose or total
effective dose equivalent to the inadvertent intruder is not exceeded.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Classification System
The NRC developed 10 CFR part 61 based on assumptions regarding the
types of LLW likely to go into a commercial land disposal facility at
the time the original rule was promulgated in 1982. These assumptions
were based on a survey of LLW generators, and the results were
published in NUREG-0945, Volumes 1 through 3, ``Final Environmental
Impact Statement on 10 CFR part 61, `Licensing Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste.''' The results of this survey ultimately
formed the regulatory basis for the source terms used in the analysis
to define the allowable isotopic concentration limits in tables 1 and 2
of Sec. 61.55 that established three classes of LLW (Class A, Class B,
Class C) and criteria for GTCC. Table 1 of Sec. 61.55 provides
limiting concentrations for long-lived radionuclides, and table 2 of
Sec. 61.55 provides limiting concentrations for short-lived
radionuclides. Class A LLW is the least hazardous to the inadvertent
intruder and requires the fewest controls, while Class C LLW is more
hazardous and requires additional controls. As the LLW class increases
in hazard, greater controls (e.g., protection for a longer period of
time or greater burial depth) are required to reduce the risk from
disposal of the LLW. For example, Class C LLW may require either
greater burial depth (e.g., 5 meters (m) (16 feet (ft))) or an
engineered barrier that will deter inadvertent intrusion for 500 years.
As part of the original 10 CFR part 61 rulemaking, the NRC
considered inadvertent intrusion receptor scenarios and the physical
stability and isotopic concentration of the LLW. These isotopic
concentration limits were based on the NRC's understanding of the
characteristics and volumes of commercial LLW reasonably expected for
commercial disposal through the year 2000, as well as the disposal
methods likely to be used.
In the statement of considerations for the final rule for the
original 10 CFR part 61, the Commission noted (1) waste that is stable
for a long period helps to ensure the long-term stability of the site
after the site is closed and helps to assure against water infiltration
caused by failure of the disposal covers and, with the improved
leaching properties implicit in a stable waste form, minimizes the
potential for radionuclide migration in groundwater, and (2)
[[Page 40294]]
stability also plays an important role in protecting an inadvertent
intruder, since the stable waste form is recognizable for a long period
of time and minimizes any effects from dispersion of the waste upon
intrusion.
The Commission also noted that to the extent practicable,
wasteforms or containers should be designed to maintain gross physical
properties and identity over 300 years, approximately the time required
for Class B waste to decay to acceptable levels.
Finally, 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,'' imposes manifest requirements on
shipments of LLW consigned for disposal. Manifests for LLW shipments
must identify the LLW classification and provide a certification that
the LLW is properly classified, described, packaged, marked, and
labeled.
The Role of Agreement States in the Regulation of LLW Disposal
Section 274b. of the AEA, ``Cooperation with States'' authorizes
the NRC to enter into an agreement with a State whereby the NRC
discontinues its regulatory authority over certain material, and the
State assumes that authority (therefore becoming an ``Agreement
State''). Agreement States can assume authority from the NRC for one or
more of the following categories of materials within the State: (1)
byproduct materials; (2) source materials; and (3) special nuclear
material (SNM) in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass.
Currently, there are four operating LLW disposal facilities for
Class A, B, and C waste, and all are located in and licensed by
Agreement States: EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah; U.S. Ecology, Inc. in
Richland, Washington; Waste Control Specialists LLC in Andrews, Texas;
and Energy Solutions in Barnwell, South Carolina. In accordance with
Section 274 of the AEA, the NRC has found these Agreement States'
regulatory programs are adequate to protect public health and safety
and compatible with the NRC's program. These Agreement States have also
adopted regulations equivalent to 10 CFR part 61. Even Agreement States
without a LLW disposal facility are required to adopt equivalent
requirements of those sections of 10 CFR part 61 that have basic
radiation protection and transboundary implications because LLW is
generated in all States.
Regulation of GTCC Waste
The NRC previously established three classes of LLW (Class A, Class
B, Class C). The current regulation at Sec. 61.55(a)(2)(iv) was
promulgated May 25, 1989 (54 FR 22578) and prescribes that GTCC waste
must be disposed of in a geologic repository as defined in 10 CFR part
60 or part 63 unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal
site licensed pursuant to part 61 are approved by the Commission. As
presented within the 2019 draft regulatory basis, the NRC has
determined that most GTCC waste streams are potentially suitable for
near-surface disposal.
Section 3(b)(1) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRPAA) (42 U.S.C. 2021) designates the
disposal of certain federally owned or generated LLW and all GTCC waste
(as defined by the version of 10 CFR 61.55 in effect on January 26,
1983) as a Federal responsibility. Section 3(b)(3) of the LLRWPAA
required the Department of Energy (DOE) to submit to Congress a
comprehensive report with recommendations ensuring the safe disposal of
all GTCC waste no later than 1 year after its enactment. In February
1987, the DOE completed this action by issuing a report to Congress
entitled, ``Recommendations for Management Greater-Than-Class C Low-
Level Radioactive Waste, DOE/NE-0077.'' In the 1987 report, DOE
acknowledged its responsibility for the disposal of commercially
generated GTCC waste, as described in section 3(b)(1)(D) of the
LLRWPAA.
On February 25, 2016, the DOE issued its ``Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-
Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like Waste'' (FEIS). In the FEIS, the
DOE stated that its preferred alternative for the disposal of GTCC
waste is disposal in the DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
geologic repository near Carlsbad, New Mexico, and/or land disposal at
generic commercial facilities. Currently, WIPP is authorized to accept
only defense generated transuranic (TRU) waste pursuant to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act. Unless there is a
legislative change, GTCC waste disposal at WIPP is not an option. The
NRC has no regulatory role over LLW disposal at WIPP.
In a March 2016 Federal Register notice, the DOE announced the
availability of the FEIS. The DOE's proposed action was to construct
and operate a new facility or facilities, or use an existing facility
or facilities, for the disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste. The
DOE defines GTCC-like waste as radioactive waste that is owned or
generated by the DOE (including LLW and non-defense generated TRU
waste), has no identified path to disposal, and has characteristics
similar to those of GTCC LLW waste suggesting that a common disposal
approach may be appropriate. Though the 2016 FEIS analyzed generic
commercial facilities, it did not analyze a specific commercial
facility because, while there was interest from vendors, no vendors
provided specific information on disposal locations and methods. In its
November 2017 report to Congress, the DOE affirmed that its preferred
alternative for the disposal of GTCC and GTCC-like waste is land
disposal at generic commercial facilities and/or the WIPP geologic
repository. In October 2018, DOE published ``Environmental Assessment
for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive
Waste and GTCC-Like Waste at Waste Control Specialists, Andrews County,
Texas,'' in which it evaluated its proposal to dispose of the entire
GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste inventory detailed in the 2016 FEIS in the
Waste Control Specialists' Federal Waste Facility situated in Texas.
Accordingly, this proposed rule would address land disposal
requirements for GTCC waste. GTCC-like waste would need to meet NRC
requirements when an NRC licensee assumes responsibility for management
of the material under its NRC license, which typically would occur when
the licensee accepts the shipment of material for disposal. At that
point in time, NRC regulations would apply and, if the material meets
the criteria for GTCC waste, it would be subject to the requirements
for GTCC waste disposal. Therefore, in this rulemaking, the NRC does
not distinguish between GTCC and GTCC-like waste.
B. Previous Rulemaking Activities
This proposed rule was predated by two Commission-directed
activities related to 10 CFR part 61: low-level radioactive waste
disposal and disposal of GTCC and transuranic waste.
i. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
On July 18, 2013, the NRC staff submitted SECY-13-0075, ``Proposed
Rule: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal (10 CFR part 61) (RIN-3150-
AI92),'' to the Commission with a proposed rule to amend 10 CFR part
61. The NRC staff explained that the potential for LLW streams to
differ significantly in quantity and
[[Page 40295]]
concentration from that initially considered by the 10 CFR part 61
regulations warranted an update to the overall regulatory framework to
ensure the protection of the public health and safety. These waste
streams include depleted uranium and blended LLW streams (e.g.,
blending of some types of Class B and C wastes with Class A wastes to
produce a Class A mixture that can be disposed of at LLW facilities
licensed to dispose of Class A waste) in quantities greater than
previously expected. In addition, new technologies, such as advanced
reactors, might result in the generation of different LLW streams that
have not previously been considered.
In SRM-SECY-13-0075, dated February 12, 2014, the Commission
approved publication of that proposed rule. The NRC published the
proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 16081)
for public comment. The comments represented a wide variety of
viewpoints. As a result of the comments, the NRC staff made significant
changes in the draft final rule. The NRC staff also had numerous
interactions with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials Subcommittee and full
committee, before and after publication of the proposed rule. Summaries
and transcripts of these meetings can be found at the ACRS website,
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/index.html.
In SECY-16-0106, ``Final Rule: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
(10 CFR part 61) (RIN 3150-AI92),'' dated September 15, 2016, the NRC
staff submitted a draft final 10 CFR part 61 rule to the Commission.
Enclosure 1 to SECY-16-0106 contains NRC responses to the public
comments received on that proposed rule. In SRM-SECY-16-0106, dated
September 8, 2017, the Commission directed the staff to revise the
draft final rule and to publish it as a supplemental proposed rule for
public comment. The proposed rule was merged into a parallel rulemaking
effort, as explained in Section III.B.iii of this proposed rule.
ii. Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C and Transuranic Waste Regulatory
Basis
In September 2014, the Commission directed the staff to provide a
historical perspective on GTCC waste disposal in SRM-M140918, ``Staff
Requirements--Briefing on Management of Low-Level Waste, High-Level
Waste, and Spent Nuclear Fuel.'' Following the September 2014
Commission direction, on January 30, 2015, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted a letter to the NRC staff
regarding whether the State of Texas had authority to regulate the
disposal of GTCC waste. In response to the Commission's direction and
TCEQ's letter, the staff submitted SECY-15-0094, dated July 17, 2015,
to provide the Commission with a historical perspective on the disposal
of GTCC waste and to seek Commission approval of the staff's
recommendation to allow the State of Texas to license the disposal of
GTCC waste.
In SRM-SECY-15-0094, dated December 22, 2015, the Commission
directed the NRC staff to prepare a regulatory basis for the disposal
of GTCC waste through means other than deep geologic disposal,
including near-surface disposal, and to provide the regulatory basis to
the Commission for information within 6 months of completing the 10 CFR
part 61 rule. The Commission further directed that the regulatory basis
should analyze whether, in accordance with Section 274c.(4) of the AEA,
the disposal of GTCC waste presents a hazard such that the NRC should
retain authority over its disposal. The Commission directed that, if
the staff concluded that some or all GTCC waste is potentially suitable
for near-surface disposal, the staff should then proceed to develop a
proposed rule to include disposal criteria for licensing the disposal
of such waste under 10 CFR part 61. The Commission also affirmed that
the case-by-case review contemplated in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv) is
available to parties who seek to dispose of GTCC waste in the near
term. In addition, the Commission approved the staff's recommendation
to address transuranic waste disposal in the definition of ``waste'' in
10 CFR 61.2.
On October 23, 2018, in SRM-M181011, the Commission directed staff
to decouple, to the extent practicable, the issuance of the draft GTCC
waste regulatory basis directed in SRM-SECY-15-0094 from Commission
action on the 10 CFR part 61 rulemaking to allow for earlier public
engagement on staff's analysis of potential regulatory barriers to the
disposal of GTCC waste.
A draft regulatory basis, ``Disposal of Greater-than-Class C (GTCC)
and Transuranic Waste,'' was issued for public comment on July 22, 2019
(84 FR 35037). The NRC staff concluded in its regulatory basis that
most of the GTCC waste streams were potentially suitable for near-
surface disposal (i.e., approximately 80 percent of the total volume of
all GTCC waste analyzed at that time), provided appropriate controls
are implemented and a sufficient site-specific analysis is conducted to
ensure protection to inadvertent intruders and offsite individuals.
Site-specific analyses and refinement in the waste stream inventories
could also result in a differing quantity of GTCC waste identified in
the DOE FEIS potentially acceptable for near-surface disposal than was
determined in NRC's generic analysis.
Additionally, in the 2019 regulatory basis the NRC staff determined
that most GTCC waste identified in the DOE FEIS could be safely
regulated by an Agreement State (i.e., approximately 75 percent of the
total volume of all GTCC waste). However, the NRC has re-examined the
prior conclusion and determined that in accordance with Section 3(b) of
the LLRWPAA, disposal of GTCC waste must remain within the NRC's
exclusive authority. This reexamination of NRC's retention of authority
over disposal of GTCC is discussed in further detail in section IV.B of
this proposed rule.
The public comment documents on the regulatory basis are available
for review in https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2017-
0081. As stated in the Federal Register notice that issued the
regulatory basis, the NRC did not provide formal written responses to
each of the comments received on the draft regulatory basis. However,
the NRC reviewed the comments in each submission, grouped the comments
by category, and developed a summary of and responses to the comments.
A brief overview of the categorization of the comments on the GTCC
regulatory basis and how they informed the proposed rule follows.
The NRC received over 70 individual comment submissions from
members of the public, environmental groups, industry stakeholders, a
Tribal nation, various State agencies, and the DOE, and approximately
7,000 form letters from environmental groups. Specific concerns
included: the role of generic versus site-specific analyses in
determining the safety of near-surface disposal of GTCC waste; the
compliance period for long-lived radioactive waste; the role of
Agreement States in the licensing of disposal of GTCC waste; protection
of the inadvertent intruder; and characteristics of GTCC waste that
could impact operational safety (e.g., criticality controls). This
proposed rule and the document summarizing the responses to comments
provides further discussion of these concerns and describes the
proposed regulatory requirements that address these concerns, and in
certain cases identifies where additional guidance has been developed
by the NRC.
[[Page 40296]]
C. Integration of the Rulemakings
On October 21, 2020, the NRC staff submitted SECY-20-0098, ``Path
Forward and Recommendations for Certain Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Rulemakings,'' to the Commission. In the paper, the staff
recommended that the two Commission-directed rulemaking activities that
could result in amendments to 10 CFR part 61 (Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal draft final rule and the GTCC waste draft regulatory
basis) be consolidated and integrated into one proposed rule based on
overlapping technical requirements, expected cost savings,
consideration of stakeholder input, and efficiencies. In SRM-SECY-20-
0098, ``Staff Requirements--SECY-20-0098--Path Forward and
Recommendations for Certain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Rulemakings,'' dated April 5, 2022, the Commission approved the staff's
recommendation to issue a new proposed rule that consolidates and
integrates criteria for licensing and disposal of GTCC waste and 10 CFR
part 61 rulemaking activities.
On May 29, 2024, the NRC staff submitted to the Commission SECY-24-
0045, ``Proposed Rule: Integrated Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
(RIN 3150-AI92; NRC-2011-0012).'' On September 11, 2025, the Commission
approved the staff's request to withdraw SECY-24-0045 and other
rulemaking papers because they were in the scope of rules to be issued
pursuant to Executive Order 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission'' (``Staff Requirements--SECY-24-0045--Withdrawal
of Rulemaking Plan and Proposed Rules (SECY-21-0067, SECY-210110, SECY-
23-0062, SECY-24-0045)'').
D. Public Interactions During Proposed Rule Development
The NRC conducted several outreach activities with stakeholders
during the development of the proposed rule. These activities included
holding public meetings to share preliminary proposed rule concepts and
to receive public feedback. These interactions also included
discussions on the draft proposed rule guidance. The public feedback
received was considered during the development of this proposed rule.
The following table provides a list of the recent stakeholder
interactions conducted during the proposed rule development.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[[Page 40297]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.018
BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
[[Page 40298]]
IV. Discussion
A. Objectives of This Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend 10 CFR part 61 for existing low-
level waste disposal facilities that accept LLW containing significant
quantities of long-lived radionuclides and future applications for
disposal of LLW, including GTCC wastes. It would require new and
revised site-specific technical analyses and other requirements and
would permit the development of site-specific WAC based on the results
of these analyses. These amendments will also better align the
requirements with current health and safety standards by allowing the
application of new dosimetry models (e.g., as used in 10 CFR part 20).
Additionally, this proposed rule will amend 10 CFR part 61 to provide
specific regulatory requirements for the land disposal of GTCC waste
streams, including radiological protection requirements to protect
individuals during the facility's operational period and after the
closure of the disposal facility, inadvertent intruders, and offsite
individuals. This proposed rule will also amend 10 CFR parts 20 and 61
to revise the definition of ``waste'' such that LLW that is acceptable
for disposal under 10 CFR part 61 no longer excludes ``transuranic
waste.'' Lastly, this proposed rule will (1) amend 10 CFR part 150 to
allow contaminated equipment or waste incidental to reprocessing that
has been evaluated and approved as material to be disposed at a near-
surface land disposal facility, and (2) amend 10 CFR part 73 to exempt
certain waste material at a near-surface disposal facility from the
requirements for physical protection of SNM of low strategic
significance.
B. Applicability and NRC Authority Over GTCC Disposal
This proposed rule will apply to existing and future LLW disposal
facilities that are regulated by the NRC or an Agreement State.
Currently licensed LLW sites that do not plan to accept GTCC waste or
significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides after the effective
date of this rulemaking will not be required to comply with new
regulations under a new provision in 10 CFR part 61.
i. Application of New Requirements for Existing Licensees
The current regulation in 10 CFR 61.1(a) includes a statement that
the applicability of requirements in 10 CFR part 61 to existing LLW
facility licensees on the effective date of the rule will be determined
on a case-by-case basis and implemented through license conditions or
orders. The NRC proposes to delete this statement, and as directed in
SRM-SECY-16-0106, revise the existing language in 10 CFR 61.1 to add a
new paragraph (b) to allow currently licensed LLW facilities that do
not plan to accept significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides
and do not plan to apply to the NRC for a license to dispose of GTCC
waste after the effective date of this rulemaking to continue to meet
the original 10 CFR part 61 requirements for Sec. Sec. 61.13, 61.41,
61.42, and 61.50 that are found in revised sections Sec. Sec.
61.13(f), 61.41(c), 61.42(c), and 61.50(c). Licensees that meet the
Sec. 61.1(b) criteria could continue their current waste acceptance
practices and would not be required to comply with new proposed
requirements in Sec. Sec. 61.10(c), 61.13(a) through 61.13(e),
61.24(l), 61.41(a) and (b), 61.42(a) and (b), 61.50(a) and (b), and
61.58. Significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides are defined
in the proposed rule to mean an amount (volume or mass) and
concentration that could, if released, result in the performance
objectives of the proposed rule not being met. Some GTCC waste includes
significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides.
All LLW disposal facilities licensed after the effective date of
this rulemaking will be required to meet the new requirements in
Sec. Sec. 61.10(c), 61.13(a) through 61.13(e), 61.24(l), 61.41(a) and
(b), 61.42(a) and (b), 61.50(a) and (b), and 61.58, regardless of the
quantities of long-lived radionuclides that they plan to accept for
disposal and regardless of whether they apply to the NRC for a license
to dispose of GTCC waste. LLW land disposal facilities already licensed
prior to the effective date of this rulemaking that plan to accept
significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides or plan to apply to
the NRC for a license to dispose of GTCC after the effective date of
this rulemaking will continue to be required to meet the current 10 CFR
part 61 requirements until: (1) licensed to allow the disposal of
significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides, (2) licensed to
dispose of GTCC, or (3) application for license renewal (Sec. 61.27),
site closure (Sec. 61.28), or updates required under Sec. 61.24(l).
ii. NRC Authority Over GTCC Waste
As discussed above, in 2020, the Commission directed the
consolidated rulemaking to provide for ``Agreement State licensing of
those GTCC waste streams that meet the regulatory requirements for
near-surface disposal and do not present a hazard such that the NRC
should retain disposal authority.'' At the time, the Commission
determined that the better interpretation of LLRWPAA was that authority
to license a disposal facility for GTCC waste can be relinquished to
Agreement States.
Upon reexamination of the LLRWPAA, the Commission now finds the
plain language reading of the LLRWPAA, where the Federal Government
must retain sole authority over the regulation of GTCC waste, to be the
better interpretation. Section 3 of the LLRWPAA states: (1) the Federal
Government is responsible for GTCC waste disposal; and (2) the NRC must
license any facility for the disposal of GTCC waste resulting from NRC-
licensed activities. Section 3(a)(1) delineates the waste streams that
are the States' responsibility, while Section 3(b)(1) lists the
specific waste streams that are the Federal Government's
responsibility--and Section 3(b)(1) includes GTCC waste. Crucially,
Section 3(b)(2) specifically states that the NRC shall license any
facility for GTCC waste disposal. The entirety of Section 3, and, in
particular, the language in Section 3(b)(2), indicate that licensing of
disposal facilities for GTCC waste must be done by the NRC and not
Agreement States.
Therefore, consistent with the best reading of LLRWPAA, this
proposed rule would retain NRC sole authority over licensing GTCC waste
disposal facilities.
C. Technical Areas With Proposed Revisions to Requirements
This proposed rule would amend requirements in several technical
areas. First, the definition of LLW, which applies to all existing and
future licensees, will now include TRU.
Next are several technical topics that most directly apply to those
facilities that do not meet the criteria in proposed 10 CFR 61.1(b)--
i.e., they are licensed after the effective date of this rulemaking,
they plan to accept significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides,
or they plan to apply to NRC for a license to dispose of GTCC waste.
These topics include:
Site-Specific, Graded Approach to Compliance Period;
New and Revised Technical Analyses, including a
performance assessment (Sec. 61.13(a)), an inadvertent intruder
assessment (Sec. 61.13(b)), an operational safety assessment (Sec.
61.13(c)), a site stability assessment (Sec. 61.13(d)), and
performance period analyses (Sec. 61.13(e));
Revised Performance Objectives (Sec. Sec. 61.41 through
61.44);
[[Page 40299]]
Flexibility for Facilities to Develop Site-Specific Waste
Acceptance Criteria (Sec. 61.58); and
Safety Case for new applications, including defense-in-
depth (Sec. Sec. 61.10 and 61.23).
With respect to technical areas that address GTCC waste disposal,
this proposed rule offers several new provisions, including:
Safety Criteria and Limits for Licensing Land Disposal of
GTCC Waste;
Disposal Depth;
Physical Protection of LLW Including GTCC Waste; and
Criticality Safety of LLW Including GTCC Waste.
Lastly, this proposed rule discusses Agreement State licensing of
LLW disposal and includes revisions related to the replacement of
references to ALARA with references to 10 CFR 20.1101(b).
i. Inclusion of Transuranic Waste in the Definition of LLW
The NRC proposes to revise the definition of LLW to address
transuranic waste, as directed in SRM-SECY-15-0094, and in accordance
with revisions in the definition resulting from the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. Specifically, the NRC
proposes to delete the term ``transuranic waste'' from the second
sentence of the ``waste'' definition paragraph in 10 CFR 20.1003 and 10
CFR 61.2, which currently excludes transuranic waste from what
constitutes LLW. This change would apply to all existing and future
licensees. In the current regulation, transuranic waste is excluded
from the definition of LLW while transuranic radionuclides are not. It
is typical for LLW to contain transuranic radionuclides in limited
concentrations, and up to 100 nanocuries per gram (nCi/g) of
transuranic radionuclides is permitted for disposal within the 10 CFR
61.55 limits. The proposed revision to the definition of LLW would
allow the safety and suitability of the disposal of waste containing
higher concentrations of transuranic radionuclides to be assessed with
site-specific technical analyses. The definition of ``waste'' in 10 CFR
20.1003 and 10 CFR 61.2 is also revised consistent with Section 3(f) of
the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011, which provides
that notwithstanding section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(42 U.S.C. 10101), radioactive material resulting from the production
of medical isotopes that has been permanently removed from a reactor or
subcritical assembly and for which there is no further use shall be
considered low-level radioactive waste if the material is acceptable
under Federal requirements for disposal as low-level radioactive waste.
ii. Site-Specific, Graded Approach to Compliance Period
Consistent with SRM-SECY-20-0098, in this proposed rule the NRC
considered establishing a site-specific, graded approach based on when
the peak dose is projected to occur or establishing a longer compliance
period for disposal sites containing significant quantities of long-
lived radionuclides. This proposed rule would implement a site-
specific, graded approach for the compliance period:
1. For currently licensed land disposal facilities that meet the
Sec. 61.1(b) criteria, these licensees would not be required to meet
the revised requirements (e.g., proposed revisions to Sec. 61.10(c),
which includes a new requirement for a safety case and Sec. 61.50(a)
and (b) revised disposal site suitability requirements).
2. For land disposal sites, either current licensees or future
applicants that plan to dispose of LLW with significant quantities of
long-lived radionuclides that are not GTCC waste, after the effective
date of this rulemaking would be required to complete a performance
assessment using a compliance period of 10,000 years and an annual dose
limit of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) for the protection of the general
population from releases of radioactivity. Similarly, licensees or
applicants would be required to complete an inadvertent intruder
assessment with an annual dose limit of 5 mSv (500 mrem) for the
10,000-year compliance period. These licensees or applicants would also
have to complete performance period analyses to understand and
effectively manage future doses resulting from the disposal of the
long-lived radionuclides beyond 10,000 years.
3. Future applicants that plan to dispose of GTCC waste with
significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides after the effective
date of this rulemaking would also be required to use a 10,000-year
compliance period, an annual dose limit of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) for the
protection of the general population, and an annual dose limit of 5 mSv
(500 mrem) for the protection of an inadvertent intruder. A more
detailed description of the requirements for GTCC waste is provided in
Section IV.C.vii of this proposed rule.
The current regulations in 10 CFR part 61 do not provide a specific
time period to demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives.
The original regulatory basis for 10 CFR part 61 and the related
guidance in NUREG-1573, ``A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities: Recommendations of NRC's
Performance Assessment Working Group,'' recognized the need to use an
analysis timeframe commensurate with the persistence of the hazard of
the source. In selecting an analysis timeframe, the general practice is
to consider the characteristics of the LLW, the analysis framework
(e.g., assumed scenarios, receptors, and pathways), societal
uncertainties, and uncertainty in predicting the behavior of natural
systems over time. Typically, both technical factors (e.g., the
characteristics and persistence of the radiological hazard attributed
to the LLW) and socioeconomic factors are considered. The purpose of
analyzing a land disposal facility is to provide reasonable assurance
that adequate protection of public health and safety will be achieved
while the hazard exists. To achieve that purpose, the analyses must
demonstrate acceptable performance of the land disposal facility.
The NRC evaluated approaches used by other countries and
international agencies for managing the radiological risks from the
disposal of LLW containing long-lived radionuclides. Many approaches
evaluated are similar to the NRC approach. For example, some
organizations impose a requirement to identify impacts from the
disposal of LLW containing long-lived radionuclides using technical
analyses. Results of those analyses are used to impose appropriate
restrictions on LLW disposal, if necessary. Similarly, almost every
country that the NRC considered places restrictions on how much LLW can
be disposed of in the near-surface environment. The NRC also limits LLW
disposal amounts, but uses a performance-based approach by requiring
licensees to demonstrate that someone who lives near the site will not
receive a dose exceeding the regulatory limit. In contrast, some
countries do not allow near-surface disposal of LLW containing long-
lived radionuclides; however, the NRC has not found that approach to be
necessary to ensure safety. Like the NRC's existing regulatory
framework, most countries place explicit numerical limits on
concentrations of LLW containing long-lived alpha-emitting
radionuclides. These concentration limits are commonly set by
regulators based on generic technical analyses or policy decisions
rather than on the results of
[[Page 40300]]
site-specific technical analyses. Technical analyses are performed, but
only for LLW that satisfies the generic limits. This approach is very
similar to what was done for the initial development of the original 10
CFR part 61. The original requirements in 10 CFR part 61 supplemented
technical analyses with LLW concentration limits and other disposal
requirements, such as minimum disposal depth for certain types of LLW.
However, the drawback of that approach is that regulating multiple land
disposal facilities using generic technical analyses results in
potentially overly conservative limits because the concentration limits
for all facilities are based on the most limiting conditions across the
various sites to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of
public health and safety. Therefore, the NRC is adopting a more risk-
informed approach by providing greater flexibility to use site-specific
considerations (e.g., greater depth to disposal, more robust
wasteforms, greater distance to groundwater) as the basis for waste
acceptance criteria.
Other countries have used regulatory approaches that vary
considerably in the methodology used to achieve protection of future
generations from the disposal of LLW. However, countries and
international safety organizations consistently apply limiting
conditions on the near-surface disposal of LLW (e.g., they prohibit
disposal, or they impose concentration limits, or disposal depth
requirements, or flux limits, or they require development of long-term
analyses). Consequently, very limited amounts and concentrations of
uranium-bearing wastes have been disposed internationally. Technical
analyses are used by licensees, applicants, and regulators domestically
and internationally to understand how a land disposal facility,
together with the general environment, may perform and include the
potential impacts of uncertainties on public health and safety. There
are many sources of uncertainty associated with projecting the future
radiological risks from disposal of LLW which include, but are not
limited to, natural, engineered, and societal factors. The NRC's
selection of analyses timeframes for the evaluation of the disposal of
LLW in this proposed rule considers the different sources of
uncertainty and how the uncertainties may impact projected future
radiological risk.
One of the factors underlying this rulemaking is the unique
radiological characteristics of depleted uranium when compared to
traditional LLW. Depleted uranium is very long-lived, and there is a
substantial quantity of depleted uranium that is being considered for
disposal in commercial land disposal facilities. In addition, the
hazard of depleted uranium increases over very long periods of time
because of the slow decay of uranium and the in-growth of progeny. The
time at which the concentration of radionuclides in the LLW is within
one order of magnitude of the peak concentration is sensitive to the
assumed isotopic mass fractions in the initial LLW. For depleted
uranium, this time is approximately 10,000 years or longer.
Accordingly, a compliance period of 1,000 years is not likely to
sufficiently capture the decay and ingrowth characteristics of
significant quantities of depleted uranium. Therefore, land disposal
facilities that dispose of significant quantities of depleted uranium
(or other long-lived radionuclides) would be required to use a
compliance period of 10,000 years.
Further, the NRC's approach to analysis timeframes is suitable
because, in addition to the 10,000-year compliance period, licensees
must also complete performance period analyses for depleted uranium and
other long-lived radionuclides to understand and effectively manage
future doses resulting from the disposal of the long-lived
radionuclides after 10,000 years. This proposed rule balances differing
views associated with how impacts over very long time periods should be
evaluated by having a maximum 10,000-year compliance period, followed
by performance period analyses beyond 10,000 years, when significant
quantities of long-lived radionuclides would be disposed.
This approach provides reasonable assurance that public health and
safety are protected and only imposes a regulatory burden upon
licensees or applicants when it is necessary due to the risks
associated with the LLW that is accepted for disposal. An applicant
wishing to use a 1,000-year compliance period would demonstrate that
the LLW to be accepted for disposal will not contain significant
quantities of long-lived radionuclides such that the disposal would
require a 10,000-year compliance period. An evaluation of the inventory
can be used to demonstrate that the performance objectives would not be
exceeded. Licensees or applicants may use the draft guidance in NUREG-
2175, Revision 1, to determine significant quantities of long-lived
radionuclides for their specific land disposal facilities.
iii. New and Revised Technical Analyses
This proposed rule would require a new applicant and licensees that
do not meet the criteria in Sec. 61.1(b) to prepare technical analyses
consistent with Sec. Sec. 61.13(a) through (e) to demonstrate that
their land disposal facilities and design meet the performance
objectives. Existing licensees that meet the criteria in Sec. 61.1(b)
may instead comply with proposed Sec. 61.13(f), which retains the
requirements in current 10 CFR 61.13(a) through (d). The current
regulations already require technical analyses; however, the NRC is
amending 10 CFR 61.13 to provide additional details for analyses
requirements (revising certain technical analyses) as well as requiring
new analyses.
Under this proposed rule, except for licensees that meet the
criteria in Sec. 61.1(b), licensees or applicants would be required to
prepare the following as part of their technical analyses: (a) a
revised analysis, called a performance assessment, to demonstrate the
protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity
(Sec. 61.41); (b) a new analysis,\1\ called an inadvertent intruder
assessment, to demonstrate the protection of inadvertent intruders
(Sec. 61.42); (c) an operational safety assessment to demonstrate the
protection of individuals during operations (Sec. 61.43); (d)
performance period analyses for licensees or applicants using the
10,000-year compliance period to evaluate how the disposal system may
mitigate the long-term risk from disposal of significant quantities of
long-lived radionuclides in the LLW inventory (Sec. Sec. 61.41(b) and
61.42(b)); and (e) a site stability assessment to demonstrate the
stability of the site after closure (Sec. 61.44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The inadvertent intruder assessment analysis is new only
from the standpoint that it was not required in the original
regulations. This analysis has been performed for some U.S.-
operating facilities and for many international facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the current requirements in Sec. Sec. 61.27 and
61.28, existing licensees would be required to update their current
technical analyses upon the next license renewal and site closure.
Licensees would also be required to update their technical analyses
before receiving new waste streams not analyzed in their current
technical analyses, and as otherwise required by Agreement State
regulations.
For all the required updates during license renewal, site closure,
or before receiving new waste streams, existing licensees who meet the
criteria in 10
[[Page 40301]]
CFR 61.1(b) may choose to comply with the original part 61 regulations
for technical analyses, which would be retained in 10 CFR 61.13(f),
that generally require: (1) demonstrating protection of the general
population from releases of radioactivity, (2) analyses of the
protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion, (3) analyses of
the protection of individuals during operations, and (4) analyses of
the long-term stability of the disposal site (i.e., current Sec. Sec.
61.13(a) through (d)). These licensees may also continue to use the
timeframes in their analyses deemed acceptable by the appropriate
regulator prior to the revisions to 10 CFR part 61 in the proposed
rule.
For required updates prior to site closure, as set forth in the
proposed 10 CFR 61.28, revisions to the technical analyses at site
closure must consider the waste disposed of during operations and
reflect significant changes to the human activities occurring in and
around the site. The proposed rule would also require that an
application for site closure must include the total volume and mass of
waste that was disposed of as well as the total radioactivity in curies
of each radionuclide that was disposed of. The NRC has developed draft
guidance in NUREG-2175, Revision 1, that would facilitate the
development of information and analyses to support licensees in
addressing the regulatory requirements.
Under the proposed rule, the licensee would be required to operate
the land disposal facility in a manner consistent with the technical
analyses. In addition, as set forth in the proposed 10 CFR 61.24(l),
new applicants and licensees that do not meet the criteria in Sec.
61.1(b) would evaluate whether updates to the technical analyses are
warranted if significant changes have occurred at the site or before
receiving new waste streams not analyzed in the most recent approved
technical analyses. The required analyses are set forth and described
as follows:
1. Performance Assessment
Compliance with the first performance objective of subpart C of 10
CFR part 61, which provides protection of the general population from
releases of radioactivity, would continue to be demonstrated with a
technical analysis. The NRC proposes to rename this analysis in current
Sec. 61.13(a) as a ``performance assessment.'' Under the proposed
rule, an applicant or licensee not meeting the criteria in Sec.
61.1(b) would conduct a performance assessment to demonstrate the
protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity,
thereby meeting the performance objective set forth in Sec. 61.41(a).
A performance assessment would evaluate the projected behavior of an
LLW disposal site and the uncertainties in its projected behavior. The
performance assessment would include the specific characteristics of
the disposal site (e.g., hydrology, meteorology, geochemistry, biology,
geomorphology) and degradation, deterioration, or alteration processes
of the engineered barriers (including the waste form and container) and
its natural system. The performance assessment would also identify
interactions between the disposal site characteristics and engineered
barriers that might affect the performance of the LLW disposal site.
The performance assessment would examine the effects of these processes
and interactions on the ability of the LLW disposal site to limit
releases and would calculate the projected annual dose to a member of
the public for comparison with the appropriate performance objective.
The results of a performance assessment would assist in providing
reasonable assurance that the general population is adequately
protected from releases of radioactivity. The NRC proposes to revise
its regulations to require licensees that do not meet the criteria in
Sec. 61.1(b) to complete a performance assessment to demonstrate
compliance with the public dose limit of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) required in
10 CFR 61.41(a) for the duration of the compliance period.
With the exception of existing licensees that meet the criteria in
Sec. 61.1(b), the dose limit would apply to a compliance period of
1,000 years after closure, or 10,000 years after closure if there are
significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides in the LLW that will
be disposed of after the effective date of this rulemaking. The
licensee or applicant would provide a technical rationale to its
regulator to support the decision to use a 1,000-year compliance
period. Should a 10,000-year compliance period be necessary, the
licensee or applicant would also be required to conduct performance
period analyses beyond 10,000 years to demonstrate that releases from
the disposal site are effectively managed. Draft guidance is provided
in NUREG-2175, Revision 1, that can be used to help determine what is a
significant quantity of long-lived radionuclides.
Under the proposed rule, a licensee or applicant must evaluate: the
interactions between the disposal site and engineered barriers that
might affect performance of the disposal site; radionuclide transport
characteristics of the waste; features, events, and processes that
might affect demonstrating compliance with Sec. 61.41(a); contaminant
transport pathways and processes in environmental media; and
uncertainties and variability in the projected performance of the
disposal site and surrounding environment. In the performance
assessment, a licensee or applicant would be required to use a dose
methodology consistent with the dose methodology specified in the
standards for radiation protection set forth in part 20 of this
chapter. The weighting factors used in the calculation of the dose
would be required to be consistent with the methodology used to perform
the calculation.
2. Inadvertent Intruder Assessment
In 10 CFR part 61, the NRC recognizes that it is possible, though
unlikely, that an inadvertent intruder might occupy a disposal site in
the future and engage in normal activities without knowing that they
are receiving radiation exposure from buried LLW. Therefore, the second
performance objective in subpart C of 10 CFR part 61 is the protection
of inadvertent intruders. The current regulations have a performance
objective and related technical analysis requirements to demonstrate
protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion. Licensees who
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 61.1(b) have the option of using those
existing technical requirements, which are retained in the proposed 10
CFR 61.13(f).
This proposed rule would add a requirement in 10 CFR 61.13 for
licensees that do not meet the criteria in Sec. 61.1(b) to conduct a
site-specific inadvertent intruder assessment to demonstrate compliance
with Sec. 61.42(a) and (b). The inadvertent intruder assessment would
quantitatively estimate the radiological exposure of an inadvertent
intruder at a LLW disposal site who is unknowingly exposed to radiation
from the LLW following an assumed loss of institutional controls after
the end of the active institutional control period. The results of the
inadvertent intruder assessment would be compared to the performance
objective in Sec. 61.42(a). The inadvertent intruder assessment would
assume that an inadvertent intruder occupies the disposal site and
engages in agricultural and residential activities and other reasonably
foreseeable pursuits that are consistent with the activities occurring
in and around the site at the time of development of the inadvertent
intruder assessment; identify barriers to inadvertent intrusion that
inhibit contact with the waste or limit radiation
[[Page 40302]]
exposure from the waste and provide a basis for the barriers degree of
effectiveness; and account for uncertainties and variability in the
projected performance of the disposal site and surrounding environment.
For near-surface disposal facilities, the inadvertent intrusion
assessment would include the projected dose for an individual who
inadvertently disrupts or contacts the waste. For waste disposal in a
specialized land disposal facility, the inadvertent intruder assessment
must also demonstrate that the engineered barriers and natural features
ensure that an inadvertent intruder will not disrupt or contact
emplaced waste during any part of the compliance period in which the
waste remains a radiological hazard. Therefore, for a specialized land
disposal facility, the inadvertent intruder assessment would not
include the projected dose from direct contact with the waste but would
include the projected dose from onsite exposure to released
radioactivity (e.g. from contaminated groundwater pumped onsite). More
information on new requirements for specialized land disposal
facilities is provided in Section IV.C.vii of this proposed rule.
For new licensees and existing licensees that do not meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 61.1(b), the NRC is proposing that licensees
perform a site-specific inadvertent intrusion assessment with a 5 mSv/
yr (500 mrem/yr) dose limit. Existing licensees that meet the criteria
in Sec. 61.1(b) would have the option to use the existing technical
analysis requirements, which are retained in Sec. 61.13(f).
For the licensees that perform a site-specific intruder assessment
(i.e., licensees that do not meet the criteria for Sec. 61.1(b)), the
NRC is also proposing an inadvertent intruder annual dose limit of 5
mSv (500 mrem) for the compliance period in the 10 CFR 61.42(a)
performance objective, consistent with the critical organ dose limits
used to develop the LLW classification tables in the original 10 CFR
part 61. The regulatory basis for the current 10 CFR part 61 assumed
that inadvertent intrusion occurred following a cessation of an active
institutional control period administered by the landowner or custodial
agent. Institutional control of the disposal site was expected to occur
beyond the active institutional control period; however, control
becomes increasingly difficult to assure for longer periods of time and
therefore it could not be relied upon to provide adequate assurance of
public safety. Therefore, an inadvertent intruder was assumed to occupy
the LLW disposal site and engage in normal activities, such as
agriculture or dwelling construction. The analysis in the regulatory
basis assumed that the inadvertent intruder directly contacted the
disposed LLW and was exposed to radionuclides through inhalation of
contaminated air, direct radiation, ingestion of contaminated food and
water, and inadvertent ingestion of soil. The NRC based the LLW
classification tables in the current Sec. 61.55 on radionuclide
concentrations that would yield an annual dose comparable to 5 mSv (500
mrem) and adjustments to those values based on expectations about the
composition of waste streams, among other factors.
The annual dose limits used to develop the LLW classification
tables were selected from a range of values that were consistent with
exposure guidelines of different orders of magnitude that were
applicable at that time. In NUREG-0945, the NRC selected a range of
critical organ dose limits, including a whole-body annual dose of 5 mSv
(500 mrem) considering safety, costs, disposal efficiency, and the
potential for increased disposal of waste containing long-lived
radionuclides that could increase the hazard for long time periods. The
NRC reaffirmed the foregoing selection in its denial of a petition for
rulemaking PRM-61-2, ``New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution,
Inc.; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking,'' dated March 29, 1994, and
continues to believe that an annual dose limit of 5 mSv (500 mrem)
total effective dose or total effective dose equivalent provides an
acceptable level of protection to an inadvertent intruder.
Given the uncertainty in predicting human behavior into the distant
future and to limit associated speculation, the proposed inadvertent
intruder assessment assumes an inadvertent intruder occupies the
disposal site and engages in activities and other reasonably
foreseeable pursuits consistent with expected activities in and around
the disposal site at the time of the assessment and that might
unknowingly expose the person to radiation emitted or released from the
waste in the disposal units. The NRC has prepared draft guidance in
NUREG-2175, Revision 1, for the inadvertent intruder assessment that
describes approaches that the NRC staff would find acceptable for
determining reasonably foreseeable inadvertent intruder activities that
are consistent with activities in and around the land disposal
facility. The draft guidance also describes how licensees or applicants
could take credit for physical characteristics (e.g., water quality)
and societal information (e.g., land use patterns) related to the land
disposal facility to limit speculation about the types of activities in
which an inadvertent intruder might engage. The NRC is not proposing
that licensees or applicants should assume that contact with the LLW by
an inadvertent intruder is certain to occur. A 5 mSv (500 mrem) dose
limit for the inadvertent intruder, compared to a 0.25 mSv (25 mrem)
annual dose limit for the public during the compliance period in Sec.
61.41(a), provides a dose limit that considers both the health risk to
the inadvertent intruder and the likelihood of the inadvertent intruder
receptor scenario. Furthermore, as in the current regulations,
engineered barriers and disposal practices, such as greater disposal
depth, could be considered in the inadvertent intruder assessment. For
example, if the disposal site implements a protective cover of at least
5-m (16-ft) thickness, it would not be reasonable to consider a
receptor scenario in which (1) a residential dwelling foundation is
excavated below 5 m (16 ft) and (2) waste is exhumed from a disposal
unit if it is not normal to construct foundations in the surrounding
area to that depth.
In summary, the NRC proposes new regulations in 10 CFR 61.13(b)
that would specify that licensees that do not meet the criteria in
Sec. 61.1(b) must conduct an inadvertent intruder assessment to
demonstrate compliance with the inadvertent intruder dose limit of 5
mSv (500 mrem) in the proposed 10 CFR 61.42(a) for the duration of the
compliance period. The dose limit would apply to a compliance period of
1,000 years after closure or 10,000 years after closure if there are
significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides in the LLW that will
be disposed after the effective date of this rulemaking. Should a
10,000-year compliance period be necessary, the licensee or applicant
would then be required to conduct performance period analyses beyond
10,000 years, to characterize inadvertent intruder exposures.
3. Operational Safety Assessment
Because GTCC waste may require additional operational safety
procedures and specialized handling, the NRC proposes to add
requirements to the analyses of the protection of individuals during
operations in 10 CFR 61.13(c). Under the proposed rule, licensees that
do not meet the criteria in Sec. 61.1(b) would conduct an operational
safety assessment to demonstrate that exposures to individuals during
operation will be controlled to meet the
[[Page 40303]]
requirements of 10 CFR part 20, thereby meeting the performance
objective set forth in Sec. 61.43.
The operational safety assessment would be required to include
analyses of expected exposures due to routine operations and likely
accidents during handling, storage, and disposal of waste. These
analyses could be qualitative and could credit administrative controls
and procedures. Operational safety assessments involving GTCC waste
would also be required to include quantitative analyses of expected
exposures due to unlikely accidents (including fire, handling events,
and other credible accidents) and the identification of safety features
to prevent and mitigate accidents. Draft NUREG-2175, Revision 1
includes guidance on performing operational safety assessments for GTCC
waste.
Licensees or applicants for licenses to operate LLW disposal
facilities handling and disposing of Class A, B, and C wastes would
complete operational safety assessments through mostly qualitative
analyses using management controls such as operational procedures,
training and qualifications, radiological protection systems,
monitoring, and inspection. Existing LLW disposal facilities have been
very successful using management controls to provide a high-level of
protection to workers and the public during operations. Licensees of
disposal facilities or applicants requesting NRC authorization for
handling and disposing of GTCC wastes would likely use similar
approaches to satisfying operational safety requirements but would need
to complete a quantitative operational safety assessment. Under the
proposed rule, an operational safety assessment should be more detailed
and comprehensive as the level of hazard posed by the waste increases.
4. Site Stability Assessment
The current regulations in Sec. 61.50 require that LLW disposal
sites not be susceptible to erosion, flooding, seismic activity, or
other disruptive events or processes to such a degree or frequency that
compliance with the 10 CFR part 61 performance objectives cannot be
demonstrated with reasonable assurance. Under the current and proposed
rule, all applicants and licensees must demonstrate that the Sec.
61.44 performance objective for the stability at the disposal site
after closure will be met. For licensees that do not meet the criteria
in Sec. 61.1(b), this proposed rule would provide more details in 10
CFR 61.13(d) and would require that the site stability assessment must
demonstrate that long-term stability of the disposal site can be
ensured and that there will not be a need for ongoing active
maintenance following site closure, thereby meeting the performance
objective set forth in Sec. 61.44 of this part.
The NRC has developed draft guidance stating that the site
stability assessment should focus on stability of the wasteform,
stability of the engineered land disposal facility, and geomorphic
stability of the disposal site. For disposal of traditional LLW (i.e.,
the range and type of LLW that was analyzed for preparation of the
current 10 CFR part 61), site stability assessments would likely focus
on the wasteform and engineered features. For disposal of LLW
containing significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides, the
focus would likely be on the engineered land disposal facility and
geomorphic stability of the disposal site. The extent of the site
stability assessments would be strongly influenced by the radiological
characteristics of waste to be disposed. Under the proposed rule,
stability of wasteforms, disposal units, engineered barriers (such as
cover systems), disposal site, land disposal facility, and the general
environment may all be within the scope of the site stability
assessment.
5. Performance Period Analyses
A long-term analysis (e.g., longer than 10,000 years) was not
considered necessary in current 10 CFR part 61 because of the waste
streams being disposed at that time. The original regulatory system was
designed to ensure that the short- and long-term impacts were limited
by regulatory requirements such as the LLW classification system and
based upon waste inventories expected to be disposed of at that time.
As set forth in the proposed Sec. 61.13(e), licensees that do not
meet the criteria in Sec. 61.1(b) and applicants that plan to dispose
of LLW containing significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides
would be required to prepare long-term analyses, termed ``performance
period analyses,'' that assess how the land disposal facility and site
characteristics limit the potential long-term radiological impacts,
consistent with available data and current scientific understanding.
The performance period analyses would be required only when a
compliance period of 10,000 years is used by the applicant or licensee.
The proposed requirement for the performance period analyses is not a
dose limit, but rather a requirement that releases of radioactivity
from the disposal site and exposures to the inadvertent intruder must
be effectively managed during the performance period. The NRC
considered a variety of requirements for performance period analyses.
The requirement for effective management of doses was selected because
it allows socioeconomic information to be considered in a risk-informed
manner. Considering the timeframes involved, uncertainties may be
considerable and therefore the precision typically assigned to a dose
limit is not warranted. Although a dose limit is not prescribed, doses
or concentrations and fluxes of radionuclides in the environment may be
calculated, as they are commonly used in comparing alternative
approaches. Acceptable approaches to performing the analyses for the
performance period are described in draft guidance NUREG-2175, Revision
1.
In the performance period analyses, a licensee would be required to
identify and describe the features of the design and site
characteristics that will demonstrate that the performance objectives
set forth in the proposed Sec. Sec. 61.41(b) and 61.42(b) will be met.
These analyses would also help determine whether additional measures
are needed at a disposal site to ensure the protection of the general
population and the inadvertent intruder from disposal of LLW containing
long-lived radionuclides. The performance period analyses would
determine whether new or additional limitations are needed for the
disposal of some LLW streams at certain land disposal facilities.
No ending time for the performance period analyses is specified in
this proposed rule. Several different factors influenced this decision.
First, the analyses may demonstrate the time when the peak impact is
likely to occur such that further calculation beyond when peak dose
occurs is unnecessary. Because long-term impacts are driven by site-
specific characteristics and the LLW that is disposed, the timing of
peak impacts may differ substantially at each land disposal facility. A
licensee must demonstrate that releases are effectively managed,
ensuring that facilities and disposal units are not under-designed.
Second, the analyses that are developed for the performance period may
differ from traditional projections of long-term radiological doses.
Performance period analyses may demonstrate that the performance period
requirements have been satisfied irrespective of peak radiological
impacts. There is uncertainty in the projected radiological risk to
future populations from LLW disposal that may be based on different
assumptions about the behavior and
[[Page 40304]]
characteristics of future society. Because of this uncertainty, this
proposed rule focuses on a demonstration of how the natural and
engineered barriers of the disposal system could limit future releases
of material rather than the exact radiological impact to an individual
or group.
iv. Revised Performance Objectives
The NRC is proposing revisions to the performance objectives found
in Sec. Sec. 61.41 through 61.44. The performance objectives at Sec.
61.41, ``Protection of the general population from releases of
radioactivity,'' and Sec. 61.42, ``Protection of individuals from
inadvertent intrusion,'' would be divided into two sections, (a) and
(b), that distinguish between demonstrating meeting the dose limits for
the compliance period and effectively managing releases of
radioactivity from the land disposal site or exposures to the
inadvertent intruder during the performance period. Both Sec. Sec.
61.41 and 61.42 also would include an item (c), that maintains the
current 10 CFR part 61 regulations that licensees who meet the criteria
in Sec. 61.1(b) would be required to comply with (instead of (a) and
(b)).
The current performance objective at Sec. 61.41 requires that
concentrations of radioactive material that may be released from the
disposal site to groundwater, surface water, air, soil, plants, or
animals must not result in an annual dose exceeding an equivalent of 25
mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any
other organ of any member of the public. In this proposed rule,
consistent with the direction provided in Staff Requirements--COMWDM-
11-0002/COMGEA-11-0002--Revision To 10 CFR part 61 (January 19, 2012),
the NRC is proposing to move the current regulation's whole body and
organ dose limits to Sec. 61.41(c) for licensees that meet the
criteria in Sec. 61.1(b) and add an annual dose of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem)
in Sec. 61.41(a) that would require all other applicants and licensees
to use a dose methodology consistent with the dose methodology
specified in the standards for radiation protection set forth in part
20 of this chapter. The weighting factors used in the calculation of
the dose would be required to be consistent with the methodology used
to perform the calculation.
The current performance objective at Sec. 61.42 requires the
design, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility must
ensure protection of an inadvertent intruder into the disposal site who
occupies the site or contacts the waste at any time after active
institutional controls over the disposal site are removed. In this
proposed rule, the NRC is proposing a new inadvertent intruder annual
dose limit of 5 mSv (500 mrem) for the compliance period in the 10 CFR
61.42 performance objective, which is comparable to the dose limits
used to develop the LLW classification tables in the original 10 CFR
part 61. The dose limit would be imposed in Sec. 61.42(a), which would
not apply to licensees who meet the criteria in Sec. 61.1(b). These
licensees would instead comply with the current regulations that are
maintained in Sec. 61.42(c).
The current performance objective at Sec. 61.43, ``Protection of
individuals during operations'' requires that operations at the land
disposal facility must be conducted in compliance with the standards
for radiation protection set out in part 20 of this chapter, except for
releases of radioactivity in effluents from the land disposal facility
governed by Sec. 61.41 of this part. In this proposed rule, the NRC is
proposing to revise the performance objective at Sec. 61.43 to specify
an annual dose limit (rather than referencing Sec. 61.41) and add that
compliance with this section must be demonstrated through the
operational safety assessment.
The current performance objective at Sec. 61.44, ``Stability of
the disposal site after closure,'' requires that the disposal facility
be sited, designed, used, operated, and closed to achieve long-term
stability of the disposal site and to eliminate to the extent
practicable the need for ongoing active maintenance of the disposal
site following closure so that only surveillance, monitoring, or minor
custodial care are required. In this proposed rule, the NRC is
proposing to revise the performance objective at Sec. 61.44 to
indicate that compliance with this section must be demonstrated through
the site stability assessment. The land disposal facility would be
required to be sited, designed, used, operated, and closed to achieve
long-term stability of the disposal site. The NRC is not proposing to
specify that stability of the disposal site must be demonstrated for
the compliance period, because instability is only significant if it
translates to health and safety impacts and stakeholders provided input
that such a demonstration out to potentially 10,000 years is difficult
to support with modeling tools currently available. Compliance with the
10 CFR 61.44 performance objective would require demonstration of long-
term stability to the degree it is important to continue to isolate and
contain the LLW. Some instability may be tolerable. Site stability
would be required to be evaluated for the compliance period, but that
demonstration could transition from justifying that adequate
dimensional stability will be achieved early in the compliance period
to demonstrating that expected instability later in the compliance
period would not compromise compliance with Sec. Sec. 61.41 and 61.42.
v. Flexibility for Facilities To Develop Site-Specific Waste Acceptance
Criteria
The NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR 61.58 to require land disposal
facility licensees that do not meet the Sec. 61.1(b) criteria to
implement WAC approved by the Commission (or Agreement State regulator)
that provide reasonable assurance that the performance objectives of
subpart C of 10 CFR part 61 will be met. The revisions would provide a
risk informed approach to establishing waste acceptance criteria rather
than relying on prescriptive, conservative limits. The proposed
revisions include a minimum set of requirements for determining waste
that is acceptable for disposal. The proposed revisions (e.g., site-
specific WAC, waste characterization, waste certification) would ensure
that the type of information included in the WAC is adequate to
characterize the waste and certify its acceptability for disposal.
The NRC's current waste acceptance requirements can be found in
subpart D of 10 CFR part 61 and specify technical requirements for land
disposal facilities for commercial LLW. The NRC is not proposing to
revise the general organization of these requirements. The technical
requirements specify the classes and characteristics of LLW that are
acceptable for near-surface disposal, as well as other requirements.
Section 61.55 defines the classes of LLW that are generally acceptable
for near-surface disposal (i.e., the LLW classification system).
Section 61.56 defines the minimum characteristics for all classes of
LLW and characteristics intended to provide stability of certain LLW
(i.e., Class B, Class C, and GTCC LLW). Additionally, Sec. 61.52(a)
specifies requirements for near-surface disposal facility operation,
including segregation and intruder barrier requirements for various
classes of LLW. In the current regulations, Sec. 61.58 allows the NRC
to authorize other provisions for the classification and
characteristics of waste. The NRC is proposing that the new waste
acceptance requirements replace the requirements permitting alternative
classification and characteristics in the current Sec. 61.58, and the
alternative classification and characteristics provision in the current
[[Page 40305]]
Sec. 61.58 would be retained and moved to new Sec. 61.55(c). Requests
for alternative classification and characteristics could still be made
through Sec. 61.6, ``Exemptions.''
Differences between actual site conditions and practices at land
disposal facilities and the generic assumptions used to develop the LLW
classification system may result in the radionuclide concentration
limits being overly restrictive. If radionuclide concentration limits
are overly restrictive based on actual site characteristics, facility
design, and operational practices, the LLW classification system would
ensure the safe disposal of LLW, but it could impose unnecessary
regulatory burdens on licensees and LLW generators. In addition, wastes
may be proposed for disposal that are significantly different from
those analyzed to develop the generic concentration limits found in the
current regulation. The addition of the proposed requirement for an
inadvertent intruder assessment would require that these significantly
different wastes are analyzed to ensure that the 10 CFR part 61
performance objectives would be met prior to being accepted for
disposal. The flexibility for licensees to develop site-specific WAC
would provide assurance that public health and safety will be
protected, while offering flexibility for facilities with strong site
characteristics, design, and operational practices. This flexibility is
constrained for existing Agreement State licensees by the requirement
that waste with radionuclide concentrations in excess of the Class C
limits codified at 42 U.S.C. 2021c(b)(1)(D) on a sum-of-fractions basis
must be disposed of in a site licensed by the Commission.
This proposed rule would revise 10 CFR 61.58 to require that WAC
may be either generic WAC, based on the concentration limits in Sec.
61.55 and the waste characteristics in 10 CFR 61.56, or site-specific
WAC based on the results of the technical analyses described in Sec.
61.13. Because licensees other than those meeting the Sec. 61.1(b)
criteria would be required to develop WAC for the acceptability of LLW
for disposal, this proposed rule also would revise appendix G to 10 CFR
part 20 to conform to the new requirements for LLW acceptance. Waste
generators would continue to comply with LLW manifesting requirements
in appendix G to 10 CFR part 20 and should continue to classify LLW for
shipment in accordance with the waste class as prescribed in 10 CFR
61.55 (Class A, B, C, or GTCC), such that there are no changes to
current LLW shipment and transportation practices and Department of
Transportation regulations.
vi. Safety Case
Licensees are responsible for demonstrating that their land
disposal facilities are constructed, operated, and closed safely. To
this end, 10 CFR part 61 establishes the requirements that licensees
must meet to operate a land disposal facility. While the NRC concluded
that the requirements specified in Sec. 61.10, ``Content of
applications,'' through Sec. 61.16, ``Other information,'' together
with the performance objectives of subpart C and the technical
requirements of subpart D, ensure that a licensee or an applicant
demonstrates the safety of a proposed land disposal facility, the
current regulations do not require the development of a ``safety
case.'' As directed by the Commission in SRM-SECY-13-0075, and to
better align with international practice and provide greater
transparency of safety decisions with stakeholders, the NRC is
proposing to add a requirement for a safety case for new applicants and
licensees that do not meet the criteria in Sec. 61.1(b). A safety case
is a high-level evaluation of the information and analyses that support
the licensee's or applicant's demonstration that the land disposal
facility will be constructed and operated safely. The safety case,
which would be a component of an application, would provide a summary
of the safety basis that the disposal site will be capable of isolating
waste and limiting releases to the environment; describe the strength
and reliability of the technical analyses described in Sec. 61.13; and
include consideration of defense-in-depth protections and safety
relevant aspects of the site, the facility design, and the managerial,
engineering, regulatory, and institutional controls.
The purpose of a safety case is to inform the decision whether to
grant a license for a land disposal facility and provide a summary of
the safety basis that the land disposal facility will be designed,
constructed, operated, and closed safely. As such, the NRC is proposing
to amend Sec. 61.10 to require that an application must include the
safety case. This proposed rule would also amend 10 CFR 61.23 to
require that the safety case is adequate to support the decision to
issue a license.
The primary components of the safety case are the results of the
Sec. 61.13 analyses. The NRC envisions that the safety case for a land
disposal facility would evolve over time as new information is gained
during the various phases of the facility's development and operation
(e.g., site-specific information on types, forms, and activities of LLW
disposed at the site; hydrology; geography). Therefore, the NRC
proposes to require the safety case be updated at license renewal if
new information that could significantly impact safety of the facility
is acquired. The NRC is also proposing to amend 10 CFR 61.28 to require
that the application for site closure of a licensed land disposal
facility include a final revision to the safety case. This requirement
does not apply to licensees who meet the criteria in Sec. 61.1(b).
The defense-in-depth principle has served as a cornerstone of the
NRC's regulatory framework for nuclear reactors, and it provides an
important tool for making regulatory decisions in the face of
significant uncertainties. The NRC has applied the concept of defense-
in-depth throughout its regulations to ensure the safety of licensed
facilities through requirements for multiple, independent layers of
defense, and, where possible, redundant safety systems. Traditionally,
the reliance on independence and redundancy of barriers has been used
to provide assurance of safety when reliable, quantitative assessments
of barrier reliability are unavailable. The NRC maintains, as it has in
other regulations for disposal (such as for high-level radioactive
waste), that the application of the defense-in-depth concept to a LLW
land disposal facility is appropriate and reasonable.
Licensees applying defense-in-depth protections for land disposal
facilities need to recognize differences between operating facilities
and closed land disposal facilities. While waste is being disposed, and
before a land disposal facility is closed, defense-in-depth protections
provide for active and passive safety systems commensurate with the
hazard and complexity of the activities. Licensees applying defense-in-
depth principles for regulation of land disposal facility performance
for long time periods following site closure, however, must account for
the difference between an operating land disposal facility with active
safety systems and the potential for active control and intervention
(i.e., taking action to address) and a closed land disposal facility,
which relies upon passive barriers. A closed disposal site is a passive
system, and assessment of its safety over long timeframes is best
evaluated through consideration of the relative likelihood of threats
to its integrity and performance. With respect to the long-term
performance of the disposal site, and in particular for the disposal of
long-lived radionuclides, defense-in-depth is provided through
[[Page 40306]]
the diversity and capabilities of the components and attributes of the
disposal site (e.g., wasteform, container, engineered features, depth
of the disposal unit below the land surface, hydrologic and geochemical
characteristics).
Diversity in the capabilities of the components and attributes of
the disposal site and its design increases the resilience of the
disposal site to contend with unanticipated degradation or external
challenges. This diversity also compensates, in part, for uncertainties
in the long-term estimation of performance of the disposal site. The
NRC continues to hold that each layer of defense must make a definite
contribution to the isolation of the waste, so that the NRC can find
with reasonable assurance that no single layer of defense will be
relied upon exclusively to achieve the overall safety objectives over
the compliance period. Disposal of LLW is predicated on the expectation
that attributes of the disposal site, in combination with engineered
features, will minimize the migration of radionuclides away from the
disposal site. However, the capabilities of site characteristics and
engineered features are subject to many uncertainties. Engineered
features generally are considered more durable over short time periods
as compared to periods longer than a few hundred years when
uncertainties in degradation rates and natural events may be more
significant. The NRC expects that licensees will rely on both the
natural site characteristics and the engineered features, in
combination, to provide defense-in-depth protections and reasonable
assurance that the overall performance of the disposal site will be
adequate over long time periods.
Defense-in-depth includes, but is not limited to, the use of
siting, wasteforms and radionuclide content, engineered features, and
geologic features of the land disposal facility to enhance the waste
isolation resiliency of the disposal site. In addition, defense-in-
depth is used to mitigate the effects of large uncertainties identified
during the development of the technical analyses. Therefore, NRC is
proposing that licensees or applicants, as part of the safety case
specified at Sec. 61.10(c), describe the defense-in-depth protections
that enhance the resiliency of the facility in complying with the
performance objectives specified at Sec. Sec. 61.41 and 61.43.
vii. Safety Criteria and Limits for Licensing Land Disposal of GTCC
Waste
The proposed rule introduces new provisions for specialized land
disposal facilities, which are designed to safely dispose of waste
streams with radionuclide concentrations exceeding the limits for near-
surface disposal. These facilities must demonstrate, through a
combination of engineered barriers and natural features, that
inadvertent intruders will not disrupt or contact emplaced waste during
the compliance period. The rule specifies technical requirements,
including minimum disposal depths and performance objectives, to ensure
long-term safety and environmental protection for these higher-risk
waste streams. This approach provides additional disposal options for
GTCC waste and supports a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory
framework for low-level radioactive waste management.
The classification scheme for low-level radioactive wastes at 10
CFR part 61 is predicated on radiological risk, with Class A posing the
lowest and GTCC posing the greatest risks. Commensurate with these
risks, the regulations at 10 CFR part 61 provide for graded approaches
for disposal of the different waste classes to ensure adequate
protection of the health and safety of the public, inadvertent
intruders, and workers.
For disposal of Class A, B, and C wastes, the NRC's existing
regulations include requirements for disposal that align with the waste
classes. For protection of inadvertent intruders, the NRC evaluated a
variety of potential exposure pathways and receptors and developed
limiting concentrations, as well as other requirements, to provide
protection. Class A waste was assumed to be disposed with no intruder
barriers and be disturbed by excavation for construction of a home
after 100 years of institutional control. Class B waste is required to
be disposed in a stable wasteform, which was also assumed to provide a
recognizable wasteform and therefore limited the assumed exposure time
to a short ``discovery'' scenario after 100 years of institutional
control. Class C waste is required to be disposed of at a depth of at
least 5 m or with a 500-year intruder barrier, which was assumed to
provide an additional 400 years for radioactive decay after the end of
institutional controls before intrusion could occur. The importance of
disposal depth for Class C and GTCC waste was, and still is, that at a
sufficient depth the exposure of inadvertent intruders would be via
drilling to acquire resources rather than excavation of a foundation
for construction of a home. Drilling typically results in disturbance
of a much smaller volume of buried waste. Even if waste is disposed
deeply at a facility, the concentrations provided by table 1 and 2 of
10 CFR 61.55 are based on the assumption of shallow burial and
subsequent excavation.
Unlike waste that has been disposed at currently operating LLW
facilities, the radiological characteristics of GTCC wastes are quite
varied--some GTCC wastes have mostly short-lived radionuclides while
others have more long-lived radionuclides. GTCC wastes may have
concentrations of short- and long-lived radionuclides that are
significantly larger than in Class A, B, or C LLW.
The proposed safety criteria and limits for licensing land disposal
of GTCC waste account for these unusual characteristics. For GTCC
waste, NRC's 2019 regulatory basis document concluded that some GTCC
waste streams with concentrations of transuranic alpha-emitting
radionuclides below 10,000 nanocuries per gram are suitable for near-
surface disposal. In a 2026 supplement to the 2019 technical analysis
of hazards document that supported the 2019 draft regulatory basis
document, NRC determined that additional GTCC waste streams could be
generally acceptable for disposal in a specialized land disposal
facility.
Specifically, the NRC determined that waste streams with the
radionuclide concentrations not exceeding the values in the following
table could be generally acceptable for disposal in a specialized land
disposal facility.
[[Page 40307]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.019
For land disposal facilities, the NRC proposes new requirements for
protection of the public after closure of the disposal facility (Sec.
61.41(a) and (b)), protection of the public who may inadvertently use
the disposal facility after closure (Sec. 61.42(a) and (b)), and
protection of the public during operations (Sec. 61.43). The NRC
considered a variety of approaches to provide criteria that would
ensure protection of public health and safety from the disposal of GTCC
wastes. In the United States, there are multiple operating disposal
facilities located in different environments using different designs.
They also accept different concentrations and quantities of waste.
Facilities that may be developed in the future are likely to have
corresponding differences. Requiring prescriptive design features in
regulations is difficult in light of these different facilities in
different environments disposing of different wastes. High-quality,
site-specific technical analyses can more effectively and efficiently
be used to identify design, operational, and other limits to provide
protection.
Because GTCC wastes exceed the concentrations of Class C waste,
some additional prescriptive requirements are warranted. For near-
surface disposal facilities, the NRC is proposing minimum requirements
for GTCC waste of a 500-year intruder barrier and a 5-m (16-ft)
disposal depth. This would ensure that at least 500 years of decay will
occur before an intruder could interact with the waste and when they do
interact it is unlikely to be from excavation given the depth at which
the waste is disposed. Depending on the characteristics of the GTCC
waste, an applicant would be able to identify in the technical analyses
those additional barriers or performance characteristics that are
necessary to provide protection, such as a greater disposal depth or an
intruder barrier of greater longevity. The disposal depth will need to
be maintained for as long as the waste is hazardous.
The NRC is proposing an upper limit for GTCC waste disposal of
long-lived transuranic radionuclides in near-surface disposal of
370,000 becquerel per gram (Bq/g) (10,000 nCi/g). Previously, the NRC
staff had analyzed the disposal of different types of GTCC waste and
determined that, when the waste approaches concentrations of long-lived
transuranic radionuclides of 370,000 Bq/g (10,000 nCi/g), it can be
very difficult to establish that an intruder who inadvertently drills a
well into the waste in the future would not receive an acute dose more
than 0.5 mSv (500 mrem) (84 FR 35037; July 22, 2019). Therefore, the
NRC is proposing this upper limit for the concentration of long-lived
transuranic radionuclides in waste for near-surface disposal. However,
with special technology or designs a licensee may be able to justify
that performance criteria could be met with quantities in excess of
this limit. Such circumstances would be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
The NRC is proposing an upper limit for GTCC waste land disposal as
shown in the table in this section of the proposed rule entitled
``Upper Limit of Radionuclide Concentrations in GTCC Waste Generally
Acceptable for Land Disposal.'' At a specialized land disposal
facility, the NRC is proposing that an applicant must demonstrate that
an inadvertent intruder will not disrupt or contact emplaced waste
during any part of the compliance period in which the waste remains a
radiological hazard. In addition, the NRC is proposing that the
licensee or applicant must demonstrate that an inadvertent intruder
will not receive a dose exceeding 5 mSv (500 mrem) from unlikely but
plausible onsite releases of radioactivity from the waste (e.g., which
could occur from using potentially contaminated groundwater pumped
onsite).
Because of the difficulty of demonstrating that engineered
intrusion barriers will function effectively for thousands of years
into the future, the proposed rule would require licensees or
applicants to demonstrate that a combination of engineered barriers and
natural features will prevent an inadvertent intruder from disrupting
or contacting emplaced waste while it remains a radiological hazard
during the compliance period (i.e., either 1,000 or 10,000 years). For
example, one such natural feature might be disposal at significant
depth in chemically reducing saline water under any potable aquifer an
inadvertent intruder could potentially attempt to access. One such
engineered feature could be a deflection plate made of a sufficient
thickness of a hard, corrosion-resistant metal, such as titanium or
appropriately designed alloys, which may be cost prohibitive over a
large near-surface facility but could be cost effective over a small
footprint, such as over a borehole waste disposal unit.
Safety of the public and workers during operation of a low-level
waste disposal facility has traditionally been achieved using
management controls, active and passive safety features, procedures,
inspections, training, emergency response, and monitoring. The NRC
evaluated accidents (e.g., fires and drops) when the waste
[[Page 40308]]
classification system was developed, but accident scenarios did not
result in modifications to limiting derived concentrations. The
disposal of GTCC waste could, under certain accident conditions, result
in increased offsite impacts to a member of the public. For this
reason, the NRC is proposing requirements for an operational safety
assessment in 10 CFR 61.13 and proposing that these assessments be
quantitative for GTCC wastes.
In addition, GTCC waste may have unique characteristics compared to
Class A, B, and C low-level wastes. These characteristics include heat
generation, radiolysis, criticality, and dispersibility. The NRC is
proposing additional waste characteristics requirements in Sec.
61.56(c) specific to GTCC wastes that a licensee must consider. These
requirements would ensure that the technical analyses are comprehensive
and necessary restrictions, limits, or design modifications to account
for the unique characteristics are identified and implemented.
viii. Disposal Depth
The NRC proposes different disposal depth considerations for GTCC
disposal in near-surface and specialized facilities. For near-surface
disposal, the NRC proposes to include a minimum disposal depth
requirement of 5 meters for GTCC wastes and for waste with significant
quantities of long-lived radionuclides (e.g., depleted uranium). This
approach would help ensure that uncertainties associated with future
human activities and geomorphic evolution of landforms are mitigated by
simple and easily implemented design-based requirements. A licensee
would also be permitted to use greater disposal depth to mitigate
uncertainties. The GTCC wastes would also be required to be disposed
with intruder barriers that are designed to protect against an
inadvertent intrusion for a least 500 years. For waste streams with
significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides, the longevity of
intruder barriers and site conditions need to be factored into the
approach used to protect against an inadvertent intrusion at a closed
disposal site. Because the proposed rule would also define a
specialized land disposal facility to exclude near-surface disposal,
waste disposed in a specialized land disposal facility would be a
minimum of 30 meters below the ground surface. Furthermore, disposal of
waste at significant depth (e.g., below any potable water) could be a
natural feature that, in combination with engineered barriers, would
preclude an inadvertent intruder from disrupting or contacting emplaced
waste while it remains a radiological hazard.
Requiring that certain wastes must be disposed at a minimum depth
is a method used throughout the world to limit the accessibility to the
waste. Some wastes may contain radionuclides that persist for long
periods of time (thousands of years and longer). Other wastes, such as
some GTCC wastes, may contain short-lived radionuclides in
concentrations that are higher than in A, B, and C wastes. In general,
near-surface disposal is used as the disposal concept for wastes that
contain limited amounts of short- and long-lived radionuclides. The NRC
also requires that inadvertent intruders be protected from the disposal
of LLW. In the current regulations, use of the classification tables,
site ownership requirements, and institutional controls provide this
protection for Class A and B wastes. In addition, to achieve protection
for Class C waste, the NRC currently requires that the waste must be
disposed so that the top of the waste is a minimum of 5 meters below
the top of the cover or must be disposed with intruder barriers that
are designed to protect against an inadvertent intrusion for at least
500 years. The basis for this requirement is that if an intruder were
to excavate into a closed disposal facility potentially large volumes
of waste would be exhumed. Radiological impacts to inadvertent
intruders are driven by the concentrations of radionuclides, which in
turn are a product of the amount of waste exhumed and the volume of
media in which it is dispersed in the environment. The imposition of a
depth requirement for certain wastes ensures that normal means of
excavation, if they were to occur, will not disturb the waste. Rather,
the NRC assumed that drilling or some other form of less intrusive
disturbance may occur.
The NRC is proposing to require different reference points for the
determination of disposal depth for different types of waste. The NRC
is requiring the reference point for determination of the disposal
depth for Class C wastes to ensure that if inadvertent intrusion were
to occur before sufficient decay of radioactivity in the waste, that
the disturbance would not be from excavation, but rather from drilling
for a well. For GTCC waste or waste with significant quantities of
long-lived radionuclides (e.g., depleted uranium) the reference point
for the depth requirement is the land surface. This is to help mitigate
uncertainties in the long-term performance of the disposal system
impacted by natural and anthropogenic surface processes and events for
waste that will not decay sufficiently for long periods of time.
ix. Physical Protection of LLW Including GTCC Waste
The NRC is proposing to revise its physical security regulations to
clarify physical protection requirements for SNM being disposed in a
land disposal facility licensed by the NRC. These revisions would take
into account the material attractiveness of the SNM and are intended to
provide a set of security measures that would reduce the regulatory
burden on licensees of such facilities.
As discussed in the DOE FEIS], GTCC waste streams are quite varied.
Some of the GTCC waste streams may contain quantities of SNM that would
require physical protection measures. Additionally, specific wastes
that fall under Classes A, B, C low-level radioactive wastes could
contain sufficient quantities of SNM that could require physical
protection under the current regulations. The current regulations at 10
CFR part 61 require any application to receive and possess SNM in
quantities subject to the requirements of 10 CFR part 73 (Physical
Protection of Plants and Materials) to include information on how the
physical security requirements will be met (see 10 CFR 61.16). These
requirements are limited to quantities of SNM prior to disposal and do
not apply to quantities that have been disposed.
The objective of physical protection of radioactive waste at a land
disposal facility is to prevent the theft or diversion of radioactive
material with the intent of nefarious purposes (e.g., potential use in
an improvised nuclear device [IND]), and limiting, as appropriate, the
potential for a successful sabotage event. The regulations at 10 CFR
part 73 require, in part, the establishment and maintenance of a
physical protection system that will have capabilities for the
protection of SNM at fixed sites. A low-level waste disposal facility
is expected to only have dilute concentrations of SNM in quantities of
low strategic significance; therefore, multiple thefts would be
required for an adversary to obtain a formula quantity of plutonium,
uranium-233, or high enriched uranium.
In the physical security context, material attractiveness refers to
form and concentration of the material, the relative ease of theft or
diversion, and the capability level required to process material
containing SNM for use in an IND. Material in forms and concentrations
that are more difficult to readily turn into an IND are considered less
attractive for potential theft or
[[Page 40309]]
diversion. A radioactive waste disposal facility presents some unique
challenges to an adversary seeking to obtain SNM for use in an IND.
These challenges include the following:
1. Radioactive waste containers are very similar in appearance.
Radioactive waste containing SNM at a land disposal facility can be
expected to be stored in similar containers as other waste types. For
theft or diversion of SNM to occur, an adversary would need to have
knowledge of which containers have higher concentrations of SNM,
therefore increasing the volume of waste that would need to be stolen
to obtain a quantity of SNM potentially useful for an IND.
2. Radioactive waste only contains dilute amounts of SNM.
Processes and activities using SNM can generate waste material
containing SNM; however, SNM that is readily separable from a waste
stream is typically removed, resulting in low concentrations of SNM in
waste materials. Low concentrations of SNM in waste materials present
difficulties in separating SNM from waste material due to the need to
process large volumes of waste material. Dilution of SNM in radioactive
waste materials inhibits an adversary's ability to acquire and use the
material in an IND. Greater levels of material dilution create a set of
progressively greater complexities associated with material acquisition
(because of material weight and size) and processing (because of larger
equipment and process scales, increased processing timelines, and
higher cost). Additionally, the increased time and resource burden on
the adversary to process dilute material increases the chances for
timely interruption of adversary actions and material recovery by law
enforcement organizations. The SNM in waste material is typically
highly dilute and distributed through a high volume of waste. This
limits the attractiveness of this material as a target for theft or
diversion.
3. Separation of SNM as usable material for an IND can be complex.
Separation of SNM from radioactive waste material for an IND can be
complicated for radioactive waste streams due to the presence of both
non-radioactive material and other radionuclides and isotopes of
uranium and plutonium.
Radioactive waste containing low concentrations of SNM that is not
readily separable from the radioactive waste presents adversaries with
greater technical, operational, and logistical challenges when
conducting SNM processing operations and constructing an IND. All of
these challenges result in such waste materials being more difficult to
steal and easier to recover. For example, obtaining a formula quantity
of strategic SNM from radioactive waste at a concentration of 0.01% of
SNM would require theft and subsequent processing of tens of tons of
radioactive waste. Assuming that an adversary was able to select
primarily those packages with plutonium at a concentration very near to
a concentration of 0.01% (e.g., assume half of the diverted waste
containers contain SNM at concentrations much less than 0.01%), an
adversary would need 40 metric tons of radioactive waste or on the
order of 100 waste drums. Although detection of the diversion of a
single radioactive waste drum may go unnoticed, diversion or theft of
tens of drums is easily detected. A large pickup truck (e.g., one-ton
truck) could potentially remove five waste drums. Theft of 100 drums
would be far more noticeable, take longer to load, and require
significantly more SNM waste to be available at the time of the theft.
Further, the additional limitation that the quantity is of low
strategic significance would require multiple thefts even if the
adversary successfully found and removed only those packages with an
amount of SNM at the maximum quantity to be considered of low strategic
significance (e.g., regardless of truck size and number of waste
containers removed an adversary would need a larger quantity of low
strategic significance material than is present at the facility, prior
to disposal, to obtain sufficient material for the purpose of
constructing an IND assuming the adversary could separate all the SNM
from the waste). Multiple attempts at removing all the SNM waste
containers present at a facility would be extremely unlikely to succeed
without detection.
Additionally, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has
provided recommendations on physical protection (INFCIRC/225/Revision
5, IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 13, IAEA, Vienna (2011)) that
recognizes a graded approach for physical protection based on the
attractiveness of the material. Paragraph 4.7 of the IAEA report states
that nuclear material, which is in a form that is no longer usable for
any nuclear activity, minimizes environmental dispersal and is
practicably irrecoverable, may be protected against unauthorized
removal in accordance with prudent management practice.
The limited attractiveness of radioactive waste with specific
characteristics (i.e., quantity of material of low strategic
significance containing very dilute concentrations of SNM such as
0.01%, SNM that is not readily separable from the non-SNM waste
material using equipment commercially available to individuals--such as
bulk screening and sifting equipment) provides a reasonable demarcation
for physical protection of radioactive waste materials at a land
disposal facility.
The NRC is proposing a revision to its regulations at 10 CFR part
73 to include an exemption from the physical protection requirements in
10 CFR 73.67 for SNM of limited attractiveness at a land disposal
facility licensed by the NRC. The NRC's proposed approach is similar to
exemptions currently specified at Sec. 73.67(b)(1)(i) through (iii)
that exempt materials containing SNM from the requirements of Sec.
73.67 due to specific attributes and characteristics of the material.
Adding an exemption to Sec. 73.67(b)(1) for radioactive waste
containing SNM of limited attractiveness would allow for more risk-
informed security requirements for land disposal facilities accepting
such waste than is currently provided for in Sec. 73.56(b)(1)(i)
through (iii).
These proposed changes to part 73 would affect only facilities
licensed by the NRC and not Agreement State licensees because the
security requirements in 10 CFR part 73 were promulgated pursuant to
the NRC's authority to protect the common defense and security.
Consistent with section 274 of the AEA, the NRC cannot discontinue its
regulatory authority over matters related to common defense and
security.
The exemption from the requirements at Sec. 73.67 for radioactive
waste containing SNM to be disposed at a land disposal facility that is
of limited attractiveness for theft and diversion would not exempt the
licensee from physical protection and security requirements in other
parts of NRC's regulations. Any land disposal facility is still
required to provide physical protection and security for radioactive
material under 10 CFR part 20, subpart I, as well as other physical
protection requirements under 10 CFR part 37 for radioactive waste
regulated by that part. This proposed revision is intended to provide
appropriate flexibility to NRC regulating Class A, B, C, and GTCC
wastes that meet the requirements for safe disposal at a near-surface
disposal facility. Draft NUREG-2175, Revision 1 would provide guidance
regarding physical protection.
x. Criticality Safety of LLW Including GTCC Waste
The current regulations at Sec. 61.16(b) identify other safety
information
[[Page 40310]]
concerning criticality that, if appropriate, is required for
demonstrating criticality safety. The NRC is proposing to revise Sec.
61.16(b) with respect to criticality safety during operations so that
NRC applicants and licensees would not be required to consider
radioactive waste containing fissile material meeting the requirements
specified at Sec. 71.15(c). As specified in the first sentence of
Sec. 61.23(j), which is current existing language, an applicant must
demonstrate the adequacy of its criticality safety procedures to
protect the public health and safety and provide reasonable assurance
that the requirements of Sec. 70.24, ``Criticality accident
requirements,'' will be met, insofar as they are applicable to SNM to
be possessed before disposal under the license. These requirements
would apply when a licensee is authorized to possess SNM in a quantity
exceeding the amounts specified at Sec. 70.24(a) (e.g., 700 grams (g)
of U-235, 450 grams of plutonium). The second sentence of Sec.
61.23(j) is new regulatory text and applies only to disposal of GTCC
waste.
Some of the GTCC waste streams described in the DOE's FEIS contain
SNM in quantities and concentrations significantly greater than that
associated with Class A, B, and C wastes. The NRC staff is proposing
revisions to provide for appropriate criticality controls for GTCC
waste (1) during the operation period of a land disposal facility prior
to disposal (i.e., receipt, handling, emplacement of waste) and (2)
after the operational period has ended and the facility is closed
(i.e., waste is no longer being disposed).
Most GTCC waste in DOE's FEIS is expected to be packaged in a
variety of different container types depending on the type of waste and
radionuclides present (e.g., sealed sources in a 210 L (55-gallon)
sized container, a stainless-steel activated metal canister, a standard
waste box that holds approximately five times more waste volume than a
210 L (55-gallon) drum). Future GTCC wastes from a reprocessing
facility may be disposed in specialized canisters used for very
specific wasteforms. These wasteforms could also include SNM in a
quantity exceeding the amounts specified at Sec. 70.24(a). As GTCC
waste containers are received at a land disposal facility, the
requirements for criticality safety would apply when the threshold
amounts specified at Sec. 70.24(a) are exceeded for those waste
containers that are not yet disposed (i.e., waste containers on the
surface of the facility). In general, criticality safety would be
associated with the configuration of those waste packages containing
SNM during storage on the surface and how they are emplaced within a
disposal unit (e.g., both the stacking of waste containers and the
areal array of packages).
The NRC has previously considered specific configurations of waste
packages containing fissile material in the context of transportation
packages that are also appropriate for criticality safety during
operations at a low-level waste facility with waste packages containing
similar fissile material. In particular, 10 CFR part 71 provides
exemptions from classification of radioactive material as fissile
material when specific requirements are met (e.g., Sec. 71.15(c)
provides an exemption for low concentrations of solid fissile material
commingled with solid nonfissile material meeting certain
specifications). NUREG/CR-7239, ``Review of Exemptions and General
License for Fissile Material in 10 CFR [Part] 71,'' provides
explanatory information on the background, intent, and anticipated use
of the provisions to assist fissile material licensees in their
interpretation and application of the provisions such that criticality
safety is ensured during transportation activities. This document
states that criticality safety risk depends on several factors
including the mass, concentration, or isotopic distribution of the
fissile material and the system geometry and surrounding materials
(reflectors) that might reflect neutrons back into the package (NUREG/
CR-7239, page 1).
The NRC is proposing to amend Sec. 61.16 to adopt an exemption at
10 CFR 71.15 for the disposal of certain solid fissile material at low-
level waste disposal facilities because the criticality considerations
for transportation packages are also appropriate for operations at a
low-level waste facility. The NRC's transportation regulations at 10
CFR 71.15 provide that certain material is exempt from classification
as fissile material under conditions for the fissile material type,
quantity, form, moderation, and mass concentration for which there are
no credible means to achieve a critical condition under normal
conditions of transport or hypothetical accident conditions. The intent
of including exemptions from classification as fissile material in the
regulations is to reduce the burden and cost imposed for packages that
contain quantities and concentrations of fissile material that are low
risk in terms of potential for inadvertent criticality in transport.
These packages can be shipped without a packaging assessment for
criticality safety purposes and require little or no regulatory
oversight to ensure inadvertent criticality will not occur (NUREG/CR-
7239, page 16).
The exemption for low concentrations of solid fissile material at
Sec. 71.15(c) is a condition that is applicable to radioactive waste
packages containing waste material that meets the requirements for the
exemption. NUREG/CR-7239 considered a variety of scenarios and accident
conditions in analyzing the safety margin provided by the low
concentration exemption at Sec. 71.15(c), which requires at least 2000
grams of solid nonfissile material for every gram of fissile material.
These accident conditions included fire, water immersion,
reconfiguration into a worst-case geometry, and the combining of
material from multiple packages.
As stated in NUREG/CR-7239, the criteria for exemption from
classification as fissile material are designed to maintain the fissile
concentration, fissile mass, and/or fissile enrichment sufficiently low
that accidental criticality is not credible under normal conditions of
transport or hypothetical accident conditions, as defined in 10 CFR
part 71. Under normal conditions of transport, a single package could
easily be shown to remain subcritical; however, the fissile exemptions
also consider the accumulation of fissile mass as a result of the
commingling of multiple packages. Therefore, the fissile mass or mass
concentration must be sufficiently low, based on conservative
assumptions, to assure a subcritical arrangement for transport of
individual or multiple packages. The exemption criteria are based on
worst-case or optimal conditions, including: unlimited accumulation;
optimum moderation by water; presence of low-neutron-absorbing
moderators such as beryllium, graphite, or hydrogenous material
enriched in deuterium; spherical geometry; and pure fissile content
(i.e., plutonium-239, plutonium-241, uranium-235, or uranium-233,
without nonfissile uranium and plutonium nuclides). For purposes of
ensuring criticality safety, the exemptions consider that the material
can be released from any packaging during transport, may reconfigure
into a worst-case geometric arrangement, may combine with material from
other transport vehicles, and may be subject to the fire and water
immersion conditions assumed as part of the criticality safety
assessment for package designs approved to transport fissile material.
NUREG/CR-7239 is a bounding analysis for a land disposal facility
because the accidents analyzed for NUREG/CR-7239 (fire, water
[[Page 40311]]
immersion, reconfiguration into worst-case geometry, unlimited
accumulation from multiple packages) are representative of extreme
accidents and conditions during operations at a disposal facility
(e.g., handling accidents, flooding, fires). The concentrations that
form the basis for the exemption at Sec. 71.15(c) are based on
accident scenarios analyzed in NUREG/CR-7239. Importantly, if the
exemption at Sec. 71.15(c) were adopted for low-level waste
facilities, it would not restrict the number and configuration of the
waste packages stored on the surface or emplaced within a disposal
unit. However, such an exemption would place certain requirements on
the commingling of fissile and nonfissile material and homogeneity of
the wasteform, which are also addressed in NUREG/CR-7239.
Homogeneity of the wasteform is important to ensure that
heterogeneities within the wasteforms are such that it would not be
credible to accumulate the volume and configuration of fissile material
to introduce criticality concerns. Small heterogeneous volumes can be
expected to exist in a number of wasteforms, however, the requirement
that 180 g of fissile material be distributed within a minimum of
360,000 g (360 kilogram (kg)) of contiguous nonfissile material
provides added assurance that redistribution of the potentially
heterogeneous portions of the fissile material will not result in a
criticality concern (see NUREG/CR-7239 pages 20 and 21 for further
details).
In summary, the NRC considers the exemption at Sec. 71.15(c) and
the associated criteria for its implementation to be appropriate for
waste packages received, handled, stored, and emplaced at a land
disposal facility. NUREG/CR-7239 provides extensive evaluations of
criticality risk over a range of accident conditions designed to
enhance the likelihood of a criticality (e.g., fire, waste immersion,
reconfiguration into a worst-case geometry, and the combining of
material from multiple packages). NUREG/CR-7239 demonstrated that even
under these optimum conditions for a criticality to occur there is
still a large safety margin in preventing a criticality (NUREG/CR-7239;
Figure 3). The NRC is therefore proposing to revise Sec. 61.16(b) with
respect to criticality safety during operations so that an applicant
for an NRC license would not be required to consider radioactive waste
containing fissile material meeting the requirements specified at Sec.
71.15(c). Draft guidance is provided in NUREG-2175, Revision 1
regarding criticality controls during operations.
Following the cessation of operations and after a land disposal
facility is closed, the overall amount of GTCC waste disposed could
contain significant amounts of fissile material (i.e., greater than a
critical mass). The DOE's FEIS accounted for approximately 12,000m\3\
of waste streams that, when combined, have the potential to include
large quantities of fissile material (e.g., tens to hundreds of
kilograms). Depending on the wasteform and disposal system design,
reconcentration of fissile material could occur following disposal as
containers degrade and radionuclides are mobilized by infiltrating
water. An applicant should consider the potential for reconcentration
of fissile material contained in GTCC waste at a facility that disposes
of significant amounts of fissile material. The NRC is proposing to add
a requirement in Sec. 61.16(b)(3) that an applicant must provide
information identifying the design attributes that limit the potential
for reconcentration of fissile material following disposal when
disposing of more than a critical mass of material in a disposal unit.
Draft guidance is provided in NUREG-2175, Revision 1 to help determine
what is a significant quantity of long-lived radionuclides. The NRC has
provided draft guidance in NUREG-2175, Revision 1, related to
postclosure criticality safety considerations. For example, NUREG-2175
contains guidance regarding the potential for reconcentration of
fissile material.
Although the exemption at Sec. 71.15(c) for designating SNM
radioactive waste material as non-fissile was evaluated in the context
of land disposal of GTCC radioactive waste rather than Classes A, B,
and, C low-level waste, the basis for this exemption is equally valid
for Classes A, B, and C radioactive waste because radionuclides are
fissile or non-fissile regardless of waste class. Application of this
exemption to Classes A, B, and C low-level waste would provide NRC
licensees with the flexibility to dispose of certain, limited waste
streams containing fissile material.
Section 274b.(3) of the AEA precludes the NRC from relinquishing
its authority over SNM unless the material quantities are not
sufficient to form a critical mass. Those limits are defined in 10 CFR
150.11, ``Critical mass.'' The Commission Staff Requirements Memorandum
on SECY-98-226, ``Issuance of a Section 274f, Atomic Energy Act Order
to Exempt Envirocare of Utah, Inc. From Licensing Requirements for
Special Nuclear Material in Diffuse Waste That Will be Regulated by the
State of Utah,'' issued on October 22, 1998, allowed the NRC to
conclude that an exemption from 10 CFR part 70 license requirements for
a land disposal facility could be based on concentration limits and
other considerations to ensure that quantities greater than a critical
mass are safe. As stated in SECY-98-226: ``At the time Part 150 was
developed, the Commission likely did not envision that large quantities
of diffuse waste containing low concentrations of SNM would be
generated. Therefore, mass limits that are in part 150 have little
relevance to large quantities of diffuse waste containing low U-235
concentrations, other than providing absolute assurance of criticality
safety by preventing accumulation of a critical mass'' (September 29,
1998).
For over 20 years, the NRC has implemented a process for commercial
LLW sites located in an NRC Agreement State that allows for Agreement
State authority over the receipt, possession, and disposal of
quantities SNM greater than a critical mass that are safe under certain
prescribed conditions. That process must have the support of the NRC
Agreement State in which the commercial LLW site is located with an
effective NRC Exemption Order for SNM.
Currently, there are two near-surface disposal facilities with an
NRC Exemption Order for SNM:
1. NRC Exemption Order for SNM to EnergySolutions-Utah is from
January 2003 (68 FR 7399; February 13, 2003); but, with the name change
from Envirocare-Utah to EnergySolutions-Utah from May 2006 (71 FR
34168; June 13, 2006).
2. NRC Exemption Order for SNM to Waste Control Specialists LLC-
Texas is from December 2014 (79 FR 73647; December 11, 2014), as
supplemented by the five NRC letters dated September 23, 2016,
September 26, 2017, December 19, 2018, December 7, 2020, and June 8,
2022.
The proposed changes to Sec. 61.16(b)(1) and (2) for disposal of
radioactive waste would not change the current orders for Energy
Solutions-Utah and Waste Control Specialists LLC-Texas.
xi. Agreement State Authorities Under 10 CFR Part 150
The NRC is proposing several changes to 10 CFR part 150 to clarify
LLW disposal activities that can be regulated by Agreement States and
which activities must be regulated by the NRC. As discussed in Section
IV. B. ii. of this proposed rule, the NRC has determined that it may
not relinquish its regulatory
[[Page 40312]]
authority with respect to the disposal of GTCC waste. Section 3 of the
LLRWPAA delineates the LLW disposal responsibilities between the States
and the Federal Government. Section 3(b)(1) of the LLRWPAA provides
that the Federal Government is responsible for regulating and providing
for the disposal of GTCC waste streams. Section 3(b)(2) of the LLRWPAA
provides that all radioactive waste designated a Federal responsibility
pursuant to (b)(1)(D) (a section which pertains to GTCC waste) that
results from activities licensed by the NRC under the AEA shall be
disposed of in a facility licensed by the NRC that the Commission
determines is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
Accordingly, the NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR 150.15(a) to reflect
that disposal of GTCC waste is an activity that must be exclusively
licensed by the NRC.
Additionally, the NRC is proposing to revise 10 CFR 150.15(a)(4) to
maintain federal oversight in determining which wastes are incidental
to reprocessing but also allow the Agreement States to regulate
disposal sites that receive this waste if it is Class A, B, or C.
Section 150.15(a)(4) precludes, on a generic basis, Agreement State
authority for the transfer, storage, or disposal of radioactive waste
material resulting from the separation in a production facility of SNM
from irradiated nuclear reactor fuel (reprocessing waste). This
exclusion was adopted by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1962
without a distinction whether the radioactive waste was high-level or
low-level waste. At that time, the AEC determined that high-level
radioactive waste should not be disposed of without a license from the
AEC and stated the States would have control over land disposal of LLW
(27 FR 1350; February 14, 1962).
The concept of waste incidental to reprocessing, or waste that can
be managed based on the risk rather than the source, has been
recognized since 1969 when the AEC issued a proposed rulemaking
regarding the siting of reprocessing facilities. Waste incidental to
reprocessing can include a variety of items (e.g., ion exchange beds,
sludges, contaminated laboratory items, clothing, tools, and
equipment). The history of NRC's role in waste incidental to
reprocessing is provided in NUREG-1854, ``NRC Staff Guidance for
Activities Related to U.S. Department of Energy Waste Determinations.''
In 1993, the Commission approved specific criteria for determining
whether a waste was incidental to reprocessing and appropriate for
disposal as low-level waste (58 FR 12342; March 4, 1993). The
determination is made by the appropriate Federal regulator (NRC for
commercial licensees; DOE for wastes generated by DOE) for the waste
generator to treat the waste as incidental and appropriate for land
disposal.
Accordingly, the NRC is proposing revisions to clarify that
Agreement States may still regulate the transfer, storage or disposal
of contaminated equipment or waste incidental to reprocessing that has
been evaluated and approved as material to be disposed at a near-
surface land disposal facility. Stated differently, while the Federal
government retains authority over reprocessing facilities, Agreement
States may regulate waste determined to be incidental to reprocessing
that qualifies as Class A, B, or C.
xii. ALARA Discussion
The proposed rule replaces the ALARA references in Sec. 61.41 and
61.43 with a reference back to 10 CFR 20.1101(b). The proposed cross-
reference will provide consistency across NRC's regulatory framework
and allow part 61 to remain consistent with any changes to part 20.
xiii. Commencement of Construction
The NRC proposes to clarify the definition of ``commencement of
construction'' and add a definition for ```construction'' consistent
with changes made in a 2011 rulemaking for licensing and approval
processes for byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials
licenses, and irradiators (76 FR 56951; September 15, 2011). A licensee
may commence construction, at its own risk, provided there is no nexus
to radiological safety.
xiv. Preoperational Monitoring Data Collection
The NRC proposes to amend Sec. 61.53(a) to remove the requirement
that an applicant conduct a preoperational monitoring program as the
source of the required environmental data on disposal site
characteristics. This amendment would allow applicants flexibility to
rely on multiple sources of information, such as pre-existing
environmental data, as applicable, as part of the required
environmental data submission.
xv. Unofficial Redline Strikeout
The NRC prepared an unofficial redline strikeout version of the
proposed changes to regulatory text that is intended to help the reader
identify the proposed changes. This document compares the proposed
changes to the NRC's regulations to the current regulations in the CFR.
The unofficial redline strikeout version of the proposed rule is
publicly available and is listed in the ``Availability of Documents''
section.
V. Specific Request for Comment
The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on
the proposed rule. The NRC is particularly interested in comments and
supporting rationale from the public on the following:
1. The proposed rule contemplates performance evaluations that can
cover periods up to 10,000 years and qualitative analyses of periods
beyond those time frames. The new specialized land disposal category
for GTCC waste encompasses a wide range of concentrations of long-lived
alpha-emitting radionuclides, generally from 10,000 to 500,000 nCi/g,
with the potential for higher concentrations through the site-specific
waste acceptance criteria process. Because this approach is new and
applies to GTCC waste streams with potentially high concentrations of
long-lived alpha emitters, the NRC seeks stakeholder perspectives on:
(a) What challenges could arise from performing analyses over these
timeframes?
(b) What steps can the agency take to clarify expectations and to
help applicants and licensees maximize the realism and fidelity of
these analyses?
(c) What alternative approaches, such as durations or additional
qualitative factors graded by the concentration of waste, should the
NRC consider to improve the effectiveness or clarity of either the
compliance period or the performance period?
2. Under the proposed rule, the NRC would license disposal of GTCC
waste streams under part 61.
(a) What steps can the NRC take to ensure that states' insights are
considered and received with respect to licensing GTCC facilities?
(b) Does part 61, subpart F, appropriately enable states to
consider and provide input in NRC licensing of GTCC facilities?
3. Proposed section 61.58(e) requires licensees to undertake an
annual review of the inputs to the site-specific performance analysis.
Does the annual review provide sufficient flexibility to licensees?
4. Advanced reactors, advanced reactor fuels, emerging reprocessing
approaches, and expanded medical and industrial uses of radioisotopes
will potentially generate novel GTCC streams. A clear disposal pathway
for
[[Page 40313]]
these emerging waste streams is essential.
(a) Do the proposed concentration limits, performance assessment
methodology and waste characterization expectations remain valid for
these emerging waste streams?
(b) Are there alternatives or other considerations that should be
addressed to accommodate novel GTCC waste streams?
5. In the draft regulatory analysis, the NRC's cost-benefit
evaluation focusses primarily on quantified costs and averted storage
costs associated with earlier disposal of GTCC waste. The analysis
notes that many potential benefits--such as increased disposal
efficiencies, expanded disposal options for generators, and reductions
in long term uncertainties--were not quantified.
(a) To help the NRC further inform and enhance the regulatory
analysis, the NRC requests stakeholder input on any additional data,
analyses, or supporting information that could help characterize costs
or benefits not currently quantified. Specifically, the NRC is seeking
information, operational experience, or cost data that the NRC can
leverage to refine or expand the analysis of impacts associated with
the proposed rule. Benefits of providing an alternative path for
disposal for reprocessing wastes and other waste streams, which
previously would not have been considered for land disposal, are of
particular interest to the NRC.
6. The proposed rule permits the use of site-specific Waste
Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for GTCC specialized land disposal, which
could allow for the disposal of waste with concentrations exceeding the
standard specified limits established for GTCC specialized land
disposal.
(a) What are the expected benefits and drawbacks of allowing a
higher GTCC specialized land disposal limit with a site-specific WAC?
What specific use cases are expected to leverage these flexibilities
and what benefits are anticipated for these use cases if the
flexibilities are adopted? Please provide quantitative information and
description of use cases to the extent possible; however, qualitative
assessments would be useful, as well.
(b) Are there potential qualitative or quantitative limits on the
concentration of activity allowed in a GTCC specialized land disposal
with a site-specific WAC that the NRC should consider? Are there any
practical use cases that would be challenged by limiting the
concentration?
7. The proposed rule would require an application for a LLW
disposal facility to include a safety case as newly defined in this
proposed rule. The safety case is an integrated, concise, and
transparent synthesis of technical analyses, site characteristics,
facility design, and management/regulatory controls that collectively
demonstrate how the facility will meet the performance objectives in
subpart C of part 61. The safety case is intended to support the
licensee's demonstration that the land disposal facility will be
constructed and operated safely and facilitate effective review by the
NRC and public understanding. Recognizing that most of the technical
elements are already required under current regulations, this proposed
requirement seeks to ensure these elements are integrated and
communicated in a coherent manner.
(a) Is the guidance provided in draft NUREG-2175 sufficient to
address the appropriate scope, structure, and level of detail that
should be included in the safety case for land disposal facility
license applications? If not, what additional guidance or
clarifications would be beneficial to ensure the safety case provides a
clear, integrated, and risk-informed basis for regulatory decision-
making?
(b) Are there international or domestic best practices regarding
the scope of the safety case that NRC should consider?
(c) Are there additional guidance documents or supporting materials
that should be updated or developed to facilitate effective
implementation of the safety case requirement?
Provide the basis for your responses, including any relevant
experience, best practices, or suggestions for further clarifying the
safety case requirement in the final rule.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation
of LLW disposal facilities. The companies that own these facilities do
not fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set
forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards
established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
Any small entity subject to this regulation that determines,
because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse
economic impact should notify the Commission of this opinion in a
comment that indicates--
(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would
impose a significant economic burden on the licensee as compared to the
economic burden on a larger licensee;
(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into
account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities;
(c) The benefits that would accrue or the detriments that would be
avoided if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the
licensee;
(d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely
equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to
the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special
advantages to any individual or group; and
(e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still
adequately protect public health and safety.
Comments should be submitted as indicated under the ADDRESSES
caption.
VII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the NRC. The NRC requests public comment on
the draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis is available as
indicated in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this
document. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as
indicated under the ADDRESSES caption of this document. The conclusion
from the analysis is that this proposed rule and associated guidance
will result in net cost savings to the industry, the NRC, and Agreement
States of $39.4 million using a 7-percent discount rate and $69.9
million using a 3-percent discount rate, using a 30-year analysis
period. Detailed information on the costs and cost savings is presented
in Table 1.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[[Page 40314]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.020
BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
The NRC has determined that the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR
50.109, 53.1390, 70.76, 72.62, and 76.76 and the issue finality
provisions in 10 CFR parts 52 and 53 do not apply to this proposed
rule. This rulemaking would apply to applicants for a new low-level
waste facility license, current low-level waste facility licensees, and
current low-level waste facility licensees that submit an application
to the NRC to dispose of GTCC waste or submit a license amendment
request to dispose of significant quantities of long-lived
radionuclides, the application for which is submitted after the
effective date of this rulemaking. These licensees would be regulated
in accordance with 10 CFR part 61. As 10 CFR part 61 contains no
backfitting provisions, and these licensees are not within the scope of
an NRC regulation that contains a backfitting or issue finality
provision, this proposed rule is not within the scope of the NRC's
backfitting and issue finality provisions.
However, while this proposed rule is not within the scope of NRC's
backfitting and issue finality provisions, the NRC nevertheless
considered what new or revised regulations in proposed 10 CFR part 61
should apply to existing facilities. Proposed Sec. 61.1(b)(1) lists
the new or revised regulations that need not apply to existing
licensees. To arrive at the regulations listed in proposed Sec.
61.1(b)(1), the NRC relied upon principles in its backfitting
regulations. The regulations listed in proposed Sec. 61.1(b)(1) need
not apply to licensees that are conducting activities that already have
a clear safety basis. As a consequence, the NRC determined that a
consideration of backfitting principles warrants excusing those
licensees from adopting the new regulations.
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
The NRC seeks to minimize potential negative consequences resulting
from the cumulative effects of regulation
[[Page 40315]]
(CER). The NRC believes that the de-regulatory impacts of this
rulemaking activity are unlikely to cause implementation challenges for
stakeholders. In addition, during the pendency of this rulemaking, the
NRC is deprioritizing issuance of regulatory actions that might
influence the implementation date for the new rule requirements (e.g.,
orders, generic communications, license amendment requests, and
inspection findings of a generic nature).
To fully understand any potential CER implications that could
result from this rulemaking, the NRC is asking the following questions.
Response to these questions is voluntary and any input will be
considered during development of the final rule.
1. The NRC is proposing an effective date that will be 30 days
after the date of publication of a final rule. Does this provide
sufficient time to implement the proposed requirements? Please provide
a rationale for your response.
2. Are there unintended consequences related to this rulemaking and
how should they be addressed? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
3. Please comment on the NRC's cost and benefit estimates in the
regulatory analysis that supports this proposed rule.
X. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized
manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the
Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31885). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the
clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
XI. National Environmental Policy Act
A. Introduction
The NRC has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) of the
proposed rule amending low-level radioactive waste disposal regulations
to determine the significance of the environmental effects of the
proposed agency action in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) and NRC's NEPA implementing
regulations in 10 CFR part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations
for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.'' As explained
in this assessment, the NRC has determined that the proposed agency
action to amend low-level radioactive waste disposal regulations would
have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
B. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Agency Action
Proposed rule changes would occur in 10 CFR parts 20, 61, 73, and
150. Conforming changes would be made to guidance consistent with
changes to regulations. Table B-1 lists the sections of the regulations
being changed and affected guidance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.021
Conforming changes are administrative actions with no physical
environmental effect and provide for the appropriate administrative and
regulatory framework for package certification under title 10 of the
CFR. An example would be adding a reference to a newly created
subsection in an existing regulation. All proposed amendments to NRC
regulations in the proposed rule occur within their affected
regulation.
i. Rule Amendments Addressed Under Categorical Exclusion
The NRC has determined that some of the changes to the regulations
identified in this proposed rule meet criteria for categorical
exclusion under Sec. 51.22, ``Categorical exclusions.'' Categorical
exclusions provide a mechanism to identify Federal actions that
normally do not have a significant environmental effect on the human
environment and for which neither an environmental assessment nor
environmental impact statement is normally required. This ensures that
resources are not expended on the environmental analysis of proposed
actions that do not present the potential for significant environmental
effects. Rule amendments with applicable categorical exclusions are
presented in Table B-2 in this assessment and no further NEPA analysis
is required.
These proposed rule amendments belong to categories of actions that
the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical
exclusion, after first finding that the actions within the category do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. In reviewing the list of regulations in Table B-1, the NRC
has determined that several of the rule amendments are actions eligible
for categorical exclusion under Sec. 51.22(a)(1) or Sec. 51.22(a)(3).
Specifically, Sec. 51.22(a)(1) cites actions that are administrative,
procedural, or solely financial in nature, including, for example:
issuance of or changes to procedures for filing and reviewing
applications, recordkeeping or reporting requirements, and amendments
to the regulations in this chapter that are corrective or of a minor or
nonpolicy nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations.
Also, Sec. 51.22 (a)(3) cites amendments to parts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 25, 26, 55, 75, 95, 110, 140, 150, 160,
170, or 171 of this chapter.
The following rulemaking actions meet the criterion for categorical
exclusion under Sec. 51.22(a)(1) or Sec. 51.22(a)(3):
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[[Page 40316]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.022
These proposed rule amendments, meeting criteria for categorical
exclusion under Sec. 51.22, consist of administrative and procedural
changes--taking place in an office setting, relying on paper or
electronic (e.g., computer) screen to demonstrate compliance would not
authorize any site-specific action on the part of the NRC or licensee.
They clarify NRC regulations and would not change radiation protection
and emergency preparedness requirements while continuing to provide
reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and
safety.
ii. Rule Amendments Requiring Environmental Assessment
The NRC also identified rule amendments that do not meet the
eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR
51.22. The NRC evaluated these proposed rule amendments for their
potential to have an effect on the quality of the human environment and
determined that the proposed agency action (this rulemaking) would not
have a significant environmental effect. Most environmental effects
would be the same for a given facility regardless of whether the NRC
approves these amendments. However, some amendments involve safety
requirements that differ from those under the existing regulatory
framework. Therefore, the following analysis focuses on whether these
different safety requirements would lead to different environmental
effects than those expected under the NRC's existing regulations. As
explained in this assessment, these rule amendments would clarify NRC
regulations, would continue to provide reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of public health and safety, and therefore, would result in
no new or different environmental effects. The following table presents
the basis for why these proposed rule amendments would have no
significant environmental effects.
[[Page 40317]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.023
[[Page 40318]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.024
BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
The proposed rule amendments listed in Table B-3 would modernize
existing NRC regulations while ensuring the continued safe, effective,
and efficient low-level radioactive waste disposal regulations and
continuing to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of
public health and safety and the environment. As noted in Table B-3,
the proposed amendments would not authorize any site-specific action on
the part of the NRC or licensee and would have no significantly
different environmental effects than those from the current regulatory
framework.
C. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Agency Action
Implementation of the proposed rule would result in no physical
changes to the environment, and, therefore, the NRC has determined that
this proposed agency action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Proposed rule amendments are
administrative in application, matters of procedure, clarify record
keeping and reporting requirements, maintains ample margins of safety
for public exposure, and would provide an equivalent level of safety
and security as current NRC regulations.
Since no physical changes would occur in the human environment, the
proposed agency action (rulemaking) would not affect any threatened or
endangered species or historic properties. Accordingly, the NRC finds
that the proposed rulemaking would have no significant environmental
impact.
D. Environmental Impacts of the Alternative to the Proposed Agency
Action
Under the no-action alternative (i.e., the status quo), NRC
regulations would remain unchanged. As stated in section B of this EA,
the proposed rule would not have a significant effect on the quality of
the human environment. Therefore, the no action alternative and the
proposed agency action (rulemaking) would have the same environmental
effect, although there would be costs attributable to reviewing the
environmental effects of exemption and license amendment requests under
the no action alternative. Licensees would continue to comply with
existing NRC regulations or request regulatory relief (exemption) from
the regulations. The NRC would continue to evaluate the environmental
effects of exemption and license amendment requests. The averted costs
(benefits) of the rulemaking would not occur. The regulatory analysis
for the proposed rule provides information about the costs and benefits
of the no action alternative and the proposed agency action (refer to
the Availability of Documents section of this proposed rule).
E. Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC is requesting public comments on the proposed rule, draft
EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The NRC will consider
public comments in the development of the final rule, EA, and FONSI and
will issue the EA and FONSI when it publishes the final rule.
The proposed rule is one step in the rulemaking process. During the
development of this proposed rule, the NRC conducted public meetings
and other interactions with stakeholders. As discussed in Section C,
the proposed rule provisions would not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment or impact threatened or endangered
species or critical habitat, and the NRC has determined that section 7
consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is
not necessary. The proposed regulatory changes do not involve any
ground disturbing activities or visual effects that would adversely
affect historic properties. Therefore, the NRC has determined that
consultation is not required under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
F. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC has prepared this EA to determine the environmental effects
of the proposed agency action (rulemaking). Proposed rule amendments
are primarily administrative or procedural in nature and therefore
would not have any physical environmental effect. As explained in the
EA, the NRC has determined the proposed rulemaking would not change
radiation protection and emergency preparedness requirements or overall
risk, would continue to provide reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of public health and safety, and would result in no new or
different environmental effects. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the
proposed regulatory changes would not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Based on this conclusion, the NRC has
determined there is no need to prepare an environmental impact
statement. Accordingly, the NRC finds the proposed agency action would
have no significant environmental impact.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains new or amended collections of
information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
et seq.). This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and approval of the information
collections. The proposed changes to 10 CFR parts 20, 73 and 150 do not
contain any new or amended collections of
[[Page 40319]]
information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Type of submission: Revision.
The title of the information collection: Information Collections
Contained in the Integrated Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Proposed Rule.
OMB approval number(s): 3150-0135.
The form number if applicable: Not applicable.
How often the collection is required or requested: Information is
required to be submitted with an application for a new facility or an
amendment to an existing facility. Records are required to be retained
as they are generated or completed.
Who will be required or asked to respond: Current and future LLW
disposal facilities that are regulated by the NRC or an Agreement
State.
An estimate of the number of annual responses: 4.
The estimated number of annual respondents: 4.
An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply
with the information collection requirement or request: 160 hours (0
hours reporting + 160 hours recordkeeping + 0 hours third party
disclosure).
Abstract: The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to require
LLW disposal facilities to conduct site-specific technical analyses to
demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives of 10 CFR part
61. The intent of the rule is to ensure performance objectives are met
at disposal sites for disposal of LLW that was not analyzed in the
original 10 CFR part 61 regulatory basis (e.g., significant quantities
of depleted uranium, GTCC waste). The site-specific technical analyses
would include compliance period analyses with both a performance
assessment and an intruder assessment, performance period analyses to
evaluate how the disposal system could mitigate the risk from long-
lived LLW, and an LLW acceptance plan identifying the WAC for the
disposal facility. In addition, licensees must review their LLW
acceptance plan annually and update analyses as part of the application
for closure.
The information collection would be conducted to demonstrate
compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR part 61 and
develop criteria for LLW acceptance based on the results of these
analyses that would continue to ensure the safe disposal of LLW.
Information would be used by the NRC to ensure compliance with the
performance objectives in subpart C of 10 CFR part 61 to ensure that
LLW streams that are significantly different from those considered
during the development of the original regulations can be disposed of
safely and meet the performance objectives for land disposal of LLW.
These amendments would also increase the use of site-specific
information to better ensure that public health and safety continues to
be protected.
The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the
information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the
following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility? Please explain your response.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information
collection accurate? Please explain your response.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected? Please explain your response.
4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on
respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance
package and proposed rule are available in the ``Availability of
Documents'' section of this document or may be viewed free of charge by
contacting the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-
4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. You may
obtain information and comment on submissions related to the OMB
clearance documents by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID NRC-2011-0012.
You may submit comments on any aspect of these proposed information
collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the
issues mentioned in this section, by the following method:
Federal rulemaking website: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0012.
Submit comments by July 31, 2026.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting
or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
XIII. Executive Orders
The following are Executive Orders that are related to this
proposed rule:
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as Amended by
Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies)
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has
determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action.
Accordingly, NRC submitted this proposed rule to OIRA for review. The
NRC is required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with
section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. More can be found in Section VII of
this document, ``Regulatory Analysis.''
B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy
The NRC has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it
is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.
C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is tentatively determined to be a deregulatory action
as defined by E.O. 14192. An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined
as ``an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than
zero.'' The proposed rule and associated guidance, if finalized, would
be expected to result in net cost savings to the industry and the NRC
of $39.2 million using a 7-percent discount rate and $69.7 million
using a 3-percent discount rate, over the 30-year analysis period. The
annualized costs are approximately $49,200 per year at a 7 percent
discount rate, and $36,200 per year at a 3 percent discount rate. The
annualized cost savings are approximately $3.21 million per year at a 7
percent discount rate, and $3.59 million per year at a 3 percent
discount rate. Therefore, the annualized net cost savings are estimated
at $3.16 million per year at a 7 percent discount rate and $3.55
million per year at a 3 percent discount rate. Accordingly, this
proposed rule would be expected to have total costs less than zero, and
therefore would qualify as an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action if
finalized. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be
found in Section VII of this document, ``Regulatory Analysis.''
D. Executive Order 14270: Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To Unleash
American Energy
E.O. 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American
Energy,'' requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all
new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1)
promulgated under the AEA, the Energy Reorganization Act
[[Page 40320]]
of 1974, as amended (ERA), or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended (NWPA); (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the
NRC's permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes
proposed in this rule are for licensing and oversight of LLW disposal
facilities, which are part of the NRC's permitting regime. Therefore,
the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of Executive
Order 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for the
regulatory changes in this proposed rule.
E. Executive Order 14294: Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal
Regulations
This proposed rule includes Federal regulations that, if adopted,
would be enforceable by criminal penalty, as authorized by Section 223
of the AEA. Therefore, per Executive Order 14294, those regulations
constitute ``criminal regulatory offenses.''
For the purposes of Section 223 of the AEA, the NRC is issuing this
proposed rule that would amend 10 CFR parts 61, 73, and 150 under one
or more of Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA, except as noted in
10 CFR 61.84(b), 73.81(b), and 150.33(b), respectively. The
applicability of criminal penalties to regulations in parts 20, 61, 73,
and 150 is set forth in Sec. Sec. 61.84, 73.81, and 150.33,
respectively. Willful violations of the 10 CFR parts 61, 73, and 150
regulations, other than those listed in Sec. Sec. 61.84(b), 73.81(b),
and 150.33(b) (including as updated by this proposed rule), would be
subject to criminal enforcement.
XIV. Criminal Penalties
This proposed rule includes Federal regulations that, if adopted,
would be enforceable by criminal penalty, as authorized by Section 223
of the AEA. Therefore, per E.O. 14294, those regulations constitute
``criminal regulatory offenses.''
For the purposes of Section 223 of the AEA, the NRC is issuing this
proposed rule that would amend 10 CFR parts 61, 73, and 150 under one
or more of Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA, except as noted in
10 CFR 61.84(b), 73.81(b), and 150.33(b), respectively. The
applicability of criminal penalties to regulations in parts 20, 61, 73,
and 150 is set forth in Sec. Sec. 61.84, 73.81, and 150.33,
respectively. Willful violations of the 10 CFR parts 61, 73, and 150
regulations, other than those listed in Sec. Sec. 61.84(b), 73.81(b),
and 150.33(b) (including as updated by this proposed rule), would be
subject to criminal enforcement.
XV. Coordination With NRC Agreement States
The NRC coordinated with the Agreement States during the
development of this rulemaking, through consultation with the Standing
Committee on Compatibility for the review of the rulemaking and the
compatibility determinations.
XVI. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
On the basis of the ``Agreement State Program Policy Statement''
approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the
Federal Register (82 FR 48535; October 18, 2017), NRC program elements
can be placed into six categories (A, B, C, D, NRC, or health and
safety (H&S)) to form the basis for evaluating and classifying the
program elements. Under the Policy Statement, a program element means
any component or function of a radiation control regulatory program,
including regulations and other legally binding requirements imposed on
regulated persons, which contributes to implementation of that program.
Compatibility Category A are those program elements that include
basic radiation protection standards and scientific terms and
definitions that are necessary to understand radiation protection
concepts. Compatibility Category A program elements adopted by an
Agreement State should be essentially identical to those of the NRC to
provide uniformity in the regulation of agreement material on a
nationwide basis.
Compatibility Category B pertains to a limited number of program
elements that cross jurisdictional boundaries and should be addressed
to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis. For
Compatibility Category B, the Agreement State program element shall be
essentially identical to that of NRC. Program elements in Compatibility
Category C include those program elements that are important for an
Agreement State to have in order to avoid conflict, duplication, gaps,
or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the
regulation of agreement material on a national basis. An Agreement
State program shall embody the essential objectives of the Category C
program elements.
Under Category C, Agreement State program elements may be more
restrictive than NRC program elements; however, they should not be so
restrictive as to prohibit a practice authorized by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, and in the national interest without an
adequate public health and safety or environmental basis related to
radiation protection.
Compatibility Category D are those program elements that do not
meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C, and are not required
to be adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility. An
Agreement State has the flexibility to adopt and implement program
elements within the State's jurisdiction that are not addressed by the
NRC or that are not required for compatibility (i.e., Compatibility
Category D). However, such program elements of an Agreement State
relating to agreement material shall (1) not create conflicts,
duplications, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an
orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide
basis; (2) not preclude a practice authorized by the AEA and in the
national interest; and (3) not preclude the ability of the NRC to
evaluate the effectiveness of Agreement State programs for agreement
material with respect to protection of public health and safety.
Compatibility Category NRC are those program elements that address
areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States
under the AEA, or provisions of Title 10 of the of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The NRC maintains regulatory authority over these program
elements and the Agreement States must not adopt these NRC program
elements. However, an Agreement State may inform its licensees of these
NRC requirements through a mechanism under the State's administrative
procedure laws, as long as the State adopts these provisions solely for
the purposes of notification, and does not exercise any regulatory
authority as a result. Regardless of a requirement's compatibility
category, if any portion of that requirement addresses areas reserved
to the NRC, that portion is designated as a Compatibility Category NRC.
Category H&S program elements embody the basic health and safety
aspects of the NRC's program elements. Although H&S program elements
are not required for purposes of compatibility, they do have particular
health and safety significance. The Agreement State must adopt the
essential objectives of such program elements to maintain an adequate
program.
The proposed rule is a matter of compatibility between the NRC and
the Agreement States, thereby providing consistency among Agreement
State and NRC requirements. The NRC is proposing to designate those
aspects of
[[Page 40321]]
the proposed rule in 10 CFR parts 20 and 150, 10 CFR 61.55 through
61.57 (note, all Agreement States are currently required to adopt 10
CFR 61.58, however this requirement has been redesignated as 10 CFR
61.55(c) and the new 61.58 is only applicable to LLW licensees), and
the definition of waste acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 61.2 as
Compatibility Category B since they have cross jurisdictional impacts
(e.g., for shipping waste consistently across States) regardless of
whether they have exercised their authority to license an operating LLW
disposal facility. The NRC is proposing to designate the new
requirements in 10 CFR 61.58 as Compatibility Category C. These new
requirements provide flexibility for facilities to develop site-
specific waste acceptance criteria. While this flexibility itself is
important for Agreement States to adopt to avoid conflict, duplication,
gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern of
regulation, the State may be more restrictive in implementing the site-
specific waste acceptance criteria for their licensees. That said,
consistent with Compatibility Category C, all State equivalent
regulations to 10 CFR 61. 58 must embody the essential objectives of
the regulation, namely that the type of information included in the WAC
is adequate to characterize the waste and certify its acceptability for
disposal.
Further, the NRC is proposing to designate 10 CFR 61.1(b) as
Compatibility Category B. At a high level, proposed 10 CFR 61.1(b)
would allow entities licensed before the effective date of this rule
and that do not accept Greater-Than-Class C waste or a significant
quantity of long-lived radionuclides to continue their current waste
acceptance practices. The proposed 10 CFR 61.1(b) criteria must be
adopted in an essentially identical manner in order to ensure
uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis. Otherwise, licensees
could be subject to a patchwork of ranging requirements such that
existing licensees would be required to meet new requirements in one
jurisdiction but not another.
The NRC is also proposing to change the compatibility or adequacy
category for some of the proposed amended regulations. For example, the
NRC is proposing to change the category for 10 CFR 61.10(a) from
Category D to Category H&S. Under the proposed rule 10 CFR 61.10(a)
concerns the content of applications and specifies that an application
must consist of general information, specific technical information,
technical analyses, institutional information, and financial
information as set forth in Sec. Sec. 61.11 through 61.16. With the
exception of 61.16, which is Category NRC, the NRC is proposing
designating Sec. Sec. 61.11 through 61.15 H&S as well. Taken together,
Sec. Sec. 61.10 through 61.15 require an application demonstrates the
facility can meet the performance objectives in 10 CFR part 61, subpart
C. As such, these requirements embody particular health and safety
considerations appropriate for an H&S designation and therefore must be
adopted by Agreement States.
Agreement States that have exercised their assumed authority to
regulate the land disposal of byproduct, source, or special nuclear
waste materials received from other persons and plan to authorize a LLW
disposal facility within their State to receive significant quantities
of long-lived radionuclides would be required to develop compatible
requirements to 10 CFR part 61 in accordance with the assigned
Compatibility Category designations. Agreement States that do not have
authority or do not plan to license a LLW disposal facility within
their State are not required to adopt the amendments to 10 CFR part 61,
except for 10 CFR 61.55 through 61.57 (this exception would no longer
apply to 10 CFR 61.58 in this proposed rule) and the definition of
waste acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 61.2. Regulations that contain
technical content categorized as necessary for adequacy, i.e., those
designated as category H&S, reflect the rigor with which the NRC
believes these topics should be addressed. The compatibility (A, B, C,
D, and NRC) and adequacy (H&S) categories are designated in the
following tables:
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.025
[[Page 40322]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.026
[[Page 40323]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.027
[[Page 40324]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.028
[[Page 40325]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.029
[[Page 40326]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.031
BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
The NRC invites comment on the compatibility category designations
in the proposed rule and suggests that commenters refer to Management
Directive 5.9, ``Adequacy and Compatibility of Program Elements for
Agreement State Programs,'' and its Handbook for more information. The
NRC notes that, like the rule text, the compatibility category
designations can change between the proposed rule and final rule, based
on comments received and NRC decisions regarding the final rule. The
NRC encourages anyone interested in commenting on the compatibility
category designations in any manner to do so during the comment period.
XVII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC
is proposing to amend its regulations that govern LLW disposal
facilities to require new licensees or existing licensees wanting to
accept GTCC waste or a significant quantity of long-lived radionuclides
to develop new and revised site-specific technical analyses and to
permit the development of site-specific WAC based on the results of
these analyses. These amendments would ensure that LLW streams that are
significantly different from those considered in the regulatory basis
for the current regulations can be disposed of safely and meet the
performance objectives for land disposal of LLW. These amendments would
also increase the use of site-specific information to ensure public
health and safety is protected. This action does not constitute the
establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable
requirements.
XVIII. Availability of Guidance
The NRC is issuing revised draft guidance in NUREG-2175, Revision
1, ``Guidance for Conducting Technical Analyses for 10 CFR part 61,''
for implementation of the proposed requirements in this rulemaking. The
draft guidance is available in ADAMS as shown in the ``Availability of
Documents'' section of this document. When finalized, ``Guidance for
Conducting Technical Analyses for 10 CFR part 61'' will provide
stakeholders with guidance for implementing the final requirements
contemplated by this proposed rule. You may submit comments on the
draft regulatory guidance by the methods outlined in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. You may obtain information and comment
submissions related to the previous draft guidance document that was
issued concurrent with the LLW disposal proposed rule in March 2015 by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2015-0003.
All subsequent changes to this guidance for this rulemaking can be
found under Docket ID NRC-2011-0012.
In the draft NUREG-2175, Revision 1, the NRC provides guidance on
conducting technical analyses (i.e., performance assessment,
inadvertent intruder assessment, operational safety assessment, site
stability assessment, and performance period analyses) to demonstrate
compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR part 61. This
guidance should facilitate licensees' implementation of the amendments
in this proposed rule as well as assist regulatory authorities in
reviewing the technical analyses. This guidance would apply to all
waste streams disposed of at a land disposal facility licensed under 10
CFR part 61, including waste streams with significant quantities of
long-lived radionuclides (e.g., significant quantities of depleted
uranium), blended waste, and GTCC waste.
In addition, draft NUREG-2175, Revision 1, provides detailed
guidance in new areas, such as waste acceptance, defense-in-depth,
determination of significant quantities, and GTCC waste disposal
considerations both in the context of near-surface disposal and in a
specialized land disposal facility. This guidance discusses the use of
a graded level of effort needed to risk-inform the analyses for the
compliance period (1,000 or 10,000 years after disposal site closure)
and cover the performance period analyses that should be performed for
analysis of long-lived waste beyond 10,000 years. Additional topics
covered in this document include (1) identification and screening of
the features, events, and processes to develop scenarios for technical
analyses; (2) use of the waste classification tables or the results of
the technical analyses to develop generic or site-specific WAC; and (3)
use of performance confirmation to evaluate and verify the accuracy of
information used to demonstrate compliance prior to site closure.
XIX. Public Meeting
The NRC plans to conduct a public meeting on the proposed rule for
the purpose of describing the proposed rule
[[Page 40327]]
to the public and answering questions from the public on the proposed
rule. The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda
of the meeting in the Federal Register, on Regulations.gov, and on the
NRC's public meeting website within at least 10 calendar days before
the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting
website for information about the public meeting at: https://
www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.
XX. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[[Page 40328]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.032
[[Page 40329]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.033
[[Page 40330]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.034
[[Page 40331]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.035
[[Page 40332]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY26.036
BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including
public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2011-0012. In addition, the
Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive
alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To
subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder NRC-2011-0012; (2) click
the ``Subscribe'' button; and (3) enter an email address and click on
the ``Subscribe'' button.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 20
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Fusion, Hazardous waste,
Licensed material, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power
plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and
containers, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material,
Waste treatment and disposal.
10 CFR Part 61
Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental
relations, Low-level waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment
and disposal, Whistleblowing.
10 CFR Part 73
Criminal penalties, Exports, Hazardous materials transportation,
Imports, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures.
10 CFR Part 150
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation,
Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures,
Source material, Special nuclear material.
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 proposing
to amend 10 CFR parts 20, 61, 73 and 150 as follows:
PART 20--STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 20 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 53, 63, 65, 81,
103, 104, 161, 170H, 182, 186, 223, 234, 274, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2014,
2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2210h, 2232, 2236, 2273,
2282, 2021, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201,
202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1985, sec. 2 (42 U.S.C. 2021b); 44 U.S.C. 3504
note; American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011 sec. 3(f).
0
2. In Sec. 20.1003, revise the definition ``Waste'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 20.1003 Definitions.
* * * * *
Waste means those low-level radioactive wastes containing source,
special nuclear, or byproduct material that are acceptable for disposal
in a land disposal facility. For the purposes of this definition, low-
level radioactive waste means radioactive waste not classified as high-
level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material as
defined in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of the definition of Byproduct
material set forth in this section. Low-level waste also includes
radioactive material resulting from the production of medical isotopes
that has been permanently removed from a reactor or subcritical
assembly for which there is no further use and the disposal of which
can meet the requirements of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Appendix G to part 20 to read as follows:
Appendix G to Part 20--Requirements for Transfers of Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Intended for Disposal at Licensed Land Disposal
Facilities and Manifests
I. Manifest
* * * * *
Information Requirements
* * * * *
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:
* * * * *
12. For wastes consigned to a disposal facility, the
classification of the waste pursuant to Sec. 61.55 of this chapter.
Unless the disposal facility has established waste acceptance
criteria under Sec. 61.58 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:
* * * * *
4. For waste consigned to a disposal facility, the
classification of the waste pursuant to Sec. 61.55 of this chapter.
Unless the disposal facility has established waste acceptance
criteria under Sec. 61.58 of this chapter, waste not meeting the
structural stability requirements of Sec. 61.56(b) of this chapter
must be identified;
* * * * *
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
[[Page 40333]]
uncontainerized form, for which portions of the mixture within the
shipment originate from different generators.
* * * * *
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:
* * * * *
(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)
or the disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria established
under 10 CFR 61.58; and
* * * * *
II. Certification
An authorized representative of the waste generator, processor,
or collector must 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, and equivalent
Agreement State regulations. For materials that are consigned to a
land disposal facility or waste collector, the authorized
representative must certify that the materials are classified per
the applicable requirements of part 61 of this chapter, meet the
land disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria, and are in
proper condition for disposal as described in accordance with the
applicable requirements in this part and in part 61 of this chapter,
or equivalent Agreement State regulations. If the land disposal
facility to which the material is consigned has established waste
acceptance criteria under Sec. 61.58, the authorized representative
must certify that the material meets the waste acceptance criteria
in accordance with the land disposal facility's authorized waste
certification program. 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, or if the land disposal facility to
which the material is consigned has established waste acceptance
criteria under Sec. 61.58, prepare the waste so that it meets the
land disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria;
2. Label each disposal container (or transport package if
potential radiation hazards preclude labeling of the individual
disposal container) of waste in accordance with Sec. 61.57 of this
chapter;
3. Conduct a quality assurance program, which must include
management evaluation of audits, to ensure compliance with both
Sec. Sec. 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter or, if the land disposal
facility to which the material is consigned has established waste
acceptance criteria under Sec. 61.58, to ensure the waste meets the
land disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria;
* * * * *
C. Any licensed waste processor who treats or repackages waste
shall:
* * * * *
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, or if the land disposal
facility to which the material is consigned has established waste
acceptance criteria under Sec. 61.58, prepare the waste so that it
meets the land disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria;
4. Label each package of waste, in accordance with Sec. 61.57
of this chapter;
5. Conduct a quality assurance program (which must include
management evaluation of audits) to ensure compliance with both
Sec. Sec. 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter or, if the land disposal
facility to which the material is consigned has established waste
acceptance criteria under Sec. 61.58, to ensure the waste meets the
land disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria;
* * * * *
PART 61--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE
WASTE
4. The authority citation for part 61 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65,
81, 161, 181, 182, 183, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093,
2095, 2111, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2273, 2282); Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841,
5846, 5851); Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of
1985, sec. 2 (42 U.S.C. 2021b); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; American
Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011 sec. 3(f).
0
5. Revise Sec. 61.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) The regulations in this part establish, for land disposal of
radioactive waste, the procedures, criteria, and terms and conditions
upon which the Commission issues licenses for the disposal of
radioactive wastes containing byproduct, source and special nuclear
material received from other persons. Disposal of waste by an
individual licensee is set forth in part 20 of this chapter.
(b) The regulations in this part apply with the following
accommodation for certain licensees:
(1) Licensees need not comply with the requirements in Sec. Sec.
61.10(c), 61.13(a) through 61.13(e), 61.24(l), 61.41(a) and (b),
61.42(a) and (b), 61.50(a) and (b), and 61.58, if the following
criteria are met:
(i) The land disposal facility license was originally issued before
[30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]; and
(ii) The licensee does not accept Greater-Than-Class C waste or a
significant quantity of long-lived radionuclides. For purposes of this
paragraph, an amount greater than or equal to 10 metric tons of
depleted uranium is considered a significant quantity of long-lived
radionuclides.
(2) Licensees who meet the criteria of Sec. 61.1(b)(1)(i) and (ii)
and who choose not to comply with the requirements in Sec. Sec.
61.10(c), 61.13(a) through (e), 61.24(l), 61.41(a) and (b), 61.42(a)
and (b), 61.50(a) and (b), and 61.58 must instead comply with
Sec. Sec. 61.13(f), 61.41(c), 61.42(c), and 61.50(c).
(c) Except as provided in part 150 of this chapter, which addresses
assumption of certain regulatory authority by Agreement States, and
Sec. 61.6, ``Exemptions,'' the regulations in this part apply to all
persons in the United States. The regulations in this part do not apply
to--
(1) Disposal of high-level waste as provided for in part 60 or 63
of this chapter;
(2) Disposal of uranium or thorium tailings or wastes (byproduct
material as defined in Sec. 40.4 as provided for in part 40 of this
chapter in quantities greater than 10,000 kilograms and containing more
than 5 millicuries of radium-226; or
(3) Disposal of licensed material as provided for in part 20 of
this chapter.
(d) This part also gives notice to all persons who knowingly
provide to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor,
components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that
relate to a licensee's or applicant's activities subject to this part,
that they may be individually subject to NRC enforcement action for
violation of Sec. 61.9b.
0
6. Revise and republish Sec. 61.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.2 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Active maintenance means any significant remedial activity needed
to
[[Page 40334]]
maintain a reasonable assurance that the performance objectives in
Sec. Sec. 61.41 and 61.42 of this part are met. Such active
maintenance includes ongoing activities such as the pumping and
treatment of water from a disposal unit or one-time measures such as
replacement of a disposal unit cover. Active maintenance does not
include custodial activities such as repair of fencing, repair or
replacement of monitoring equipment, revegetation, minor additions to
soil cover, minor repair of disposal unit covers, and general disposal
site upkeep such as mowing grass.
Buffer zone is a portion of the disposal site that is controlled by
the licensee and that lies between the disposal units and the boundary
of the site. For near-surface disposal, the buffer zone also extends
under the disposal units. For a specialized land disposal facility, the
presence of a buffer zone under the disposal units depends on the
facility design.
Chelating agent means amine polycarboxylic acids (e.g.,
ethylenediaminetetraacetic, diethylenetriaminepentaacetic), hydroxy-
carboxylic acids, and polycarboxylic acids (e.g., citric acid, carbolic
acid, and gluconic acid).
Commencement of construction means taking any action defined as
``construction'' or any other activity at the site of a facility
subject to the regulations in this part that has a reasonable nexus to:
(1) Radiological health and safety; or
(2) Common defense and security.
Commission means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its duly
authorized representatives.
Compliance period means the time from the completion of site
closure to 1,000 years after site closure for disposal sites that do
not contain significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides. For
disposal sites that contain significant quantities of long-lived
radionuclides, the compliance period ends 10,000 years after closure of
the disposal site.
Construction means the installation of foundations, or in-place
assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing for any structure, system,
or component of a facility or activity subject to the regulations in
this part that are related to radiological safety or security. The term
``construction'' does not include:
(1) Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational
purposes;
(2) Site exploration, including necessary borings to determine
foundation conditions or other preconstruction monitoring to establish
background information related to the suitability of the site, the
environmental impacts of construction or operation, or the protection
of environmental values;
(3) Preparation of the site for construction of the facility,
including clearing of the site, grading, installation of drainage,
erosion and other environmental mitigation measures, and construction
of temporary roads and borrow areas;
(4) Erection of fences and other access control measures that are
not related to the safe use of, or security of, radiological materials
subject to this part;
(5) Excavation;
(6) Erection of support buildings (e.g., construction equipment
storage sheds, warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete
mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and office buildings)
for use in connection with the construction of the facility;
(7) Building of service facilities (e.g., paved roads, parking
lots, railroad spurs, exterior utility and lighting systems, potable
water systems, sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, and transmission
lines);
(8) Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the
proposed facility occurring at other than the final, in-place location
at the facility; or
(9) Taking any other action that has no reasonable nexus to:
(i) Radiological health and safety, or
(ii) Common defense and security.
Custodial Agency means an agency of the government designated to
act on behalf of the government owner of the disposal site.
Defense-in-depth means the use of multiple independent and, where
possible, redundant layers of defense against release of radioactive
material such that no single layer, no matter how robust, is
exclusively relied upon.
Director means the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Disposal means the removal of radioactive wastes from the biosphere
inhabited by a person and containing the person's food chains by
emplacement in a land disposal facility.
Disposal site means that portion of a land disposal facility which
is used for disposal of waste. It consists of disposal units and a
buffer zone.
Disposal unit means a discrete portion of the disposal site into
which waste is placed for disposal (e.g., a trench, borehole,
specialized vault).
Engineered barrier means a man-made structure or device that is
intended to improve the disposal site's ability to meet the performance
objectives in subpart C of this part.
Explosive material means any chemical compound, mixture, or device,
which produces a substantial instantaneous release of gas and heat
spontaneously or by contact with sparks or flame.
Government agency means any executive department, commission,
independent establishment, or corporation, wholly or partly owned by
the United States of America which is an instrumentality of the United
States; or any board, bureau, division, service, office, officer,
authority, administration, or other establishment in the executive
branch of the government.
Hazardous waste means those wastes designated as hazardous by
Environmental Protection Agency regulations in 40 CFR part 261.
Hydrogeologic unit means any soil or rock unit or zone which by
virtue of its porosity or permeability, or lack thereof, has a distinct
influence on the storage or movement of groundwater.
Inadvertent intruder means a person who occupies the disposal site
after closure and might engage in agricultural or residential
activities and other reasonably foreseeable pursuits that could
unknowingly expose the person to radiation emitted or released from the
waste in the disposal units.
Inadvertent intruder assessment is an analysis performed to
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 61.42(a) and (b) that includes
assessment of appropriate exposure pathways and consideration of
barriers and site features that limit or prohibit inadvertent
intrusion.
Indian Tribe means an Indian Tribe as defined in the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).
Intruder barrier means an engineered structure or natural feature
over the waste that inhibits contact with waste and helps to ensure
that radiation exposures to an inadvertent intruder will meet the
performance objectives set forth in this part.
Land disposal facility means the land, building, structures,
disposal sites, and equipment which are intended to be used for, or to
support, the disposal of radioactive wastes. For purposes of this
chapter, a ``geologic repository'' as defined in part 60 or 63 is not
considered a land disposal facility.
License means a license issued under the regulations in part 61 of
this chapter. Licensee means the holder of such a license.
Long-lived radionuclide means a radionuclide where:
(1) More than 10 percent of the initial activity of the
radionuclide remains after 1,000 years;
(2) The peak activity from progeny occurs after 1,000 years; or
[[Page 40335]]
(3) More than 10 percent of the peak activity of the radionuclide
(including progeny) that occurs within 1,000 years remains after 1,000
years.
Model support is data and information that technically support the
development of the numerical models or assessments and provide
confidence in their results. Model support that involves multiple
sources and types of information is generally more robust and can
include laboratory or field tests, comparison to analogous systems,
natural analogs, formal independent peer review, and comparison to
monitoring data. Monitoring means the collection of field observations
and measurement data to evaluate the performance and characteristics of
the disposal site.
Near-surface disposal facility means a land disposal facility in
which radioactive waste is disposed generally within the upper 30
meters of the earth's surface. Near-surface disposal facilities are
designed or managed to inhibit contact with the waste and limit dose
exposure from the waste while the waste remains a radiological hazard.
Operational safety assessment is an assessment used to demonstrate
that exposures will be controlled to meet the requirements of 10 CFR
part 20, thereby meeting the performance objective for the protection
of individuals during operations set forth in Sec. 61.43 of this part.
An operational safety assessment is more detailed and comprehensive as
the level of hazard posed by the waste increases.
Performance assessment is an analysis used to demonstrate
compliance with Sec. 61.41(a) and (b) that identifies the features,
events, and processes that could affect the performance of the disposal
site; and estimates the potential dose as a result of releases caused
by all significant features, events, and processes including an
evaluation of the uncertainties.
Performance period is the timeframe after the compliance period
during which waste that contains significant quantities of long-lived
radionuclides remains a radiological hazard.
Performance period analyses are analyses used to demonstrate
compliance with Sec. Sec. 61.41(b) and 61.42(b) by providing
information, consistent with available data and current scientific
understanding, that demonstrates that releases of long-lived
radioactive waste from a disposal site are effectively managed during
the performance period.
Person means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership, firm,
association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group,
government agency other than the Commission or the Department of Energy
(except that the Department of Energy is considered a person within the
meaning of the regulations in this part to the extent that its
facilities and activities are subject to the licensing and related
regulatory authority of the Commission pursuant to law), any State or
any political subdivision of or any political entity within a State,
any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any
such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal
successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing.
Pyrophoric liquid means any liquid that ignites spontaneously in
dry or moist air at or below 130 [deg]F (54.5 [deg]C). A pyrophoric
solid is any solid material, other than one classed as an explosive,
which under normal conditions is liable to cause fires through
friction, retained heat from manufacturing or processing, or which can
be ignited readily and when ignited burns so vigorously and
persistently as to create a serious transportation, handling, or
disposal hazard. Included are spontaneously combustible and water-
reactive materials.
Safety case is a high-level evaluation of the information and
analyses that support the licensee's demonstration that the land
disposal facility will be constructed and operated safely. The safety
case, which is a component of the application, provides a summary of
the safety basis that the disposal site will be capable of isolating
waste and limiting releases to the environment; describes the strength
and reliability of the technical analyses; and includes consideration
of defense-in-depth protections and safety relevant aspects of the
site, the facility design, and the managerial, engineering, regulatory,
and institutional controls.
Significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides means an amount
(volume or mass) and concentration accepted for disposal after [30 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
that could, if released, result in the performance objectives of
subpart C of this part not being met. Site closure and stabilization
means those actions that are taken upon completion of operations that
prepare the disposal site for custodial care and that ensure, to the
extent practical, that the disposal site will remain stable and will
not need ongoing active maintenance.
Site stability assessment is an assessment used to demonstrate
compliance with Sec. 61.44 by providing reasonable assurance that
long-term stability of the disposal site can be ensured and that
maintenance following site closure will not be needed. Long-term
stability of the disposal site includes the ability of the site to
maintain structural stability from within the disposal units and to
maintain stability of the site. A site stability assessment is tailored
to the types of waste disposed and the facility design.
Specialized land disposal facility means a land disposal facility
that is designed to prevent an inadvertent intruder from disrupting or
contacting emplaced waste while it remains a radiological hazard. A
specialized land disposal facility is not a near-surface disposal
facility.
Stability means the capability of the disposal site (e.g.,
wasteform, disposal containers, and disposal units) to maintain its
shape and properties to an extent that will not prohibit the
demonstration that the disposal site will meet the performance
objectives in Sec. Sec. 61.41 and 61.42 of this part and will, to the
extent practical, eliminate the need for active maintenance after site
closure and for maintenance in any form after license termination.
State means any State, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
any territory or possession of the United States.
Surveillance means observation of the disposal site for purposes of
visual detection of need for maintenance, custodial care, evidence of
intrusion, and compliance with other license and regulatory
requirements.
Technical analyses means the analyses described in Sec. 61.13 and
includes the performance assessment, the intruder assessment, the
operational safety assessment, and the site stability assessment, in
addition to, under certain circumstances, the performance period
analyses, needed to demonstrate compliance with the performance
objectives of subpart C of this part.
Tribal Governing Body means a ``Tribal organization'' as that term
is defined by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).
Waste means those low-level radioactive wastes containing source,
special nuclear, or byproduct material that are acceptable for disposal
in a land disposal facility. For the purposes of this definition, low-
level radioactive waste means radioactive waste not classified as high-
level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material as
defined in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of the definition of Byproduct
material set forth in Sec. 20.1003 of this chapter. Low-level waste
also includes radioactive material resulting from the production of
[[Page 40336]]
medical isotopes that has been permanently removed from a reactor or
subcritical assembly for which there is no further use and the disposal
of which can meet the requirements of this part.
Waste acceptance criteria means the requirements developed through
technical analyses or other methods to ensure, in part, that waste
disposed in a facility will meet the established performance objectives
set forth in this part.
Sec. 61.3 [Amended]
0
7. In Sec. 61.3,
0
a. In paragraph (b), remove the phrase ``shall file'' and add in its
place the phrase ``must file''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), replace the word ``commencing'' with
``commencement of''.
0
8. Revise and republish Sec. 61.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.4 Communications.
Except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports
concerning the regulations in this part and applications filed under
them should be sent by mail addressed: ATTN: Document Control Desk;
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; by hand
delivery to the NRC's Offices at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland; or, where practical, by electronic submission, for example,
via Electronic Information Exchange, or digital media. Electronic
submissions must be made in a manner that enables the NRC to receive,
read, authenticate, distribute, and archive the submission, and process
and retrieve it a single page at a time. Detailed guidance on making
electronic submissions can be obtained by visiting the NRC's website at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html; by email to
[email protected]; or by writing the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. The guidance discusses, among other topics, the formats the
NRC can accept, the use of electronic signatures, and the treatment of
nonpublic information.
0
9. Remove and reserve Sec. 61.7.
Sec. 61.7 [Removed and Reserved]
0
10. In Sec. 61.8, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
* * * * *
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in
this part appear in Sec. Sec. 61.3, 61.6, 61.9, 61.10, 61.11, 61.12,
61.13, 61.14, 61.15, 61.16, 61.20, 61.22, 61.24, 61.26, 61.27, 61.28,
61.30, 61.31, 61.32, 61.41, 61.42, 61.53, 61.57, 61.58, 61.61, 61.62,
61.63, 61.72, and 61.80.
* * * * *
0
11. In Sec. 61.9:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(iii), (a)(3) and (f), remove the
phrase ``his or her employer'' and add in its place the phrase ``the
employer'';
0
b. In paragraph (d), remove the phrase ``him or her'' and add in its
place the phrase ``the employee'';
0
c. Revise paragraph (e) introductory text and (e)(1); and
0
d. In paragraph (e)(2), remove the phrase ``http://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/doc-collections/forms/'' and add in its place the phrase ``https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/forms/''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 61.9 Employee protection.
* * * * *
(e) To ensure compliance with employee notification requirements,
licensees and applicants shall adhere to the following provisions
regarding the posting and availability of NRC Form 3, ``Notice to
Employees,'' referenced in 10 CFR 19.11(c):
(1) Each licensee and each applicant for a license must prominently
post the revision of NRC Form 3. This form must be posted at locations
sufficient to permit employees protected by this section to observe a
copy on the way to or from their place of work. Premises must be posted
not later than 30 days after an application is docketed and remain
posted while the application is pending before the Commission, during
the term of the license, and for 30 days following license termination.
* * * * *
Sec. 61.9a [Amended]
0
12. Sec. 61.9a, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears and in
its place the word ``must''.
0
13. Revise Sec. 61.10 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.10 Content of application.
(a) An application to receive from others, possess and dispose of
wastes containing or contaminated with source, byproduct or special
nuclear material by land disposal must consist of general information,
specific technical information, technical analyses, institutional
information, and financial information as set forth in Sec. Sec. 61.11
through 61.16.
(b) An environmental report prepared in accordance with subpart A
of part 51 of this chapter must accompany the application.
(c) The application must include the safety case, which
demonstrates that the land disposal facility will be constructed and
operated safely, provides a summary of the safety basis that the
disposal site will meet the performance objectives in subpart C of this
part, and describes the defense-in-depth protections that enhance the
resiliency of the facility in complying with the performance objectives
specified at Sec. Sec. 61.41 and 61.43.
0
14. Revise and republish Sec. 61.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.12 Specific technical information.
The application must include the following specific technical
information to demonstrate that the performance objectives of subpart C
of this part and the applicable technical requirements of subpart D of
this part will be met:
(a) A description of the natural and demographic disposal site
characteristics as determined by disposal site selection and
characterization activities. The description must include geologic,
geotechnical, geochemical, geomorphological, hydrologic, meteorologic,
climatologic, and biotic features, events, and processes of the
disposal site and vicinity.
(b) A description of the design features of the land disposal
facility, including the disposal units. The description must include,
as appropriate, those design features related to surface cover runoff
and infiltration; evapotranspiration from the soil and vegetation
overlying the cover material; infiltration reaching the waste;
integrity of covers for disposal units; structural stability of
backfill, wastes, and covers; disposal site drainage; disposal site
closure and stabilization; long-term disposal site maintenance;
inadvertent intrusion; intruder barriers; occupational exposures;
disposal site monitoring; and adequacy of the size of the buffer zone
for monitoring and potential mitigative measures. For a specialized
land disposal facility, the description should also include a
discussion of structural stability.
(c) A description of the principal design criteria and their
relationship to the performance objectives of subpart C to this part.
(d) A description of the design basis natural events or phenomena
and their relationships to the principal design criteria. These
phenomena could include, among others, earthquakes, fires, and
exceptional rain events.
(e) A description of codes and standards that the applicant has
applied to the design and that will apply to
[[Page 40337]]
construction of the land disposal facility.
(f) A description of the proposed construction and operation of the
land disposal facility. At a minimum, the application must describe the
methods of construction of disposal units; the methods of waste
emplacement; the procedures for and areas of waste segregation; the
onsite traffic systems and drainage systems; the survey control
program; the methods and areas of waste storage; and the methods to
control surface water and groundwater access to the wastes. The
application must also describe the methods to be employed in the
handling and disposal of wastes containing chelating agents or other
non-radiological substances that might affect meeting the performance
objectives in subpart C of this part.
(g) A description of the disposal site closure plan, including
those design features which are intended to facilitate disposal site
closure and to eliminate the need for ongoing active maintenance.
(h) An identification of the known natural resources in the
vicinity of the disposal site, the exploitation of which could result
in inadvertent intrusion into the wastes after removal of active
institutional control.
(i) A description of the kind, amount, classification,
characteristics, and specifications of the waste proposed to be
received, possessed, and disposed at the land disposal facility,
including the proposed wasteform, disposal containers, the facility's
proposed waste acceptance criteria, and a description of the procedures
for waste acceptance.
(j) A description of the quality assurance program developed by the
applicant for: (1) the identification and selection of the disposal
site, including any natural features relied upon to enhance the
performance of the disposal site; (2) the development of technical
analyses; (3) the design and construction of the land disposal
facility; (4) the operation of the land disposal facility, including
the receipt, handling, and emplacement of waste; and (5) the site
closure of the land disposal facility.
(k) A description of the radiation safety program to ensure
compliance with the performance objective in Sec. 61.41 of this part,
including the control of radioactive effluents, and the occupational
and public radiation protection requirements of part 20 of this
chapter. The radiation safety program must address both routine
operations and accidents and include procedures for dosimetry and
preventing and controlling the radioactive contamination of personnel,
buildings, vehicles, and equipment.
(l) A description of the environmental monitoring program that
provides data for an evaluation of the disposal site performance
including potential health and environmental impacts and the plan for
taking corrective measures commensurate with detected radionuclide
migration.
(m) A description of the administrative procedures that the
applicant will apply to control activities at the land disposal
facility.
(n) A description of the facility electronic recordkeeping system
as required in Sec. 61.80.
0
15. Revise Sec. 61.13 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.13 Technical analyses.
This section describes the technical analyses that must be
submitted as part of any application under part 61. Licensees who meet
the criteria in Sec. 61.1(b)(1) need only comply with paragraph (f) of
this section. The specific technical information must include the
following analyses needed to demonstrate that the performance
objectives of subpart C of this part will be met:
(a) Performance assessment. A performance assessment that
demonstrates that the exposure to humans from radioactivity released
from the disposal site will meet the protection of the general
population performance objective set forth in Sec. 61.41(a) for the
duration of the compliance period. The performance assessment must:
(1) Identify the natural characteristics of the disposal site
(e.g., geomorphology, meteorology, hydrology, hydrogeology,
geochemistry, and biology); the characteristics of any engineered
barriers; and the interactions between the disposal site and any
engineered barrier's characteristics that might affect performance of
the disposal site. Identify radionuclide transport characteristics of
the waste (i.e., the ease with which radionuclides can escape
containment). A performance assessment must further identify and
examine the effects of the eventual degradation, deterioration, or
alteration of any engineered barriers (including the wasteform and
container) together with the disposal site characteristics to evaluate
the ability of the disposal site to limit waste releases and to provide
an estimate of the annual dose to a member of the public for comparison
with the appropriate subpart C performance objective.
(2) Consider features, events, and processes that might affect
demonstrating compliance with Sec. 61.41. The features, events, and
processes considered must represent a range of phenomena, including
those that may have beneficial effects, adverse effects, or both
beneficial and adverse effects on performance, and must consider the
specific technical information required in Sec. Sec. 61.12(a) through
(i). A technical basis for either the inclusion or exclusion of
specific features, events, or processes must be provided.
(3) Consider the probability of disruptive features, events, or
processes when estimating the consequences for comparison with the dose
limits set forth in Sec. 61.41(a).
(4) Provide model support for the models used in the performance
assessment.
(5) Evaluate contaminant transport pathways and processes in
environmental media (e.g., air, soil, groundwater, surface water)
including but not limited to advection, diffusion, plant uptake, and
exhumation by burrowing animals.
(6) Account for uncertainties and variability in the projected
performance of the disposal site and surrounding environment.
(7) Assume the receptor is either a resident farmer or resident
gardener based on reasonable foreseeable pursuits that are consistent
with the activities occurring at and around the receptor location or
provide justification for an alternative receptor scenario.
(8) Identify and differentiate between the roles performed by the
natural characteristics and the design features of the disposal site in
limiting radiological releases to the general population.
(b) Inadvertent intruder assessment. An inadvertent intruder
assessment demonstrates protection of an inadvertent intruder for the
duration of the compliance period. An inadvertent intruder assessment
demonstrates that any inadvertent intruder will not receive a dose that
exceeds the limits in the performance objective set forth in Sec.
61.42 (a) for the duration of the compliance period. The inadvertent
intruder assessment must also:
(1) Assume that an inadvertent intruder occupies the disposal site
and engages in agricultural and residential activities and other
reasonably foreseeable pursuits that are consistent with the activities
occurring in and around the site at the time of development of the
inadvertent intruder assessment.
(2) Account for uncertainties and variability in the projected
performance of the disposal site and surrounding environment.
(3) For near-surface disposal, identify barriers to inadvertent
intrusion that
[[Page 40338]]
inhibit contact with the waste or limit dose exposure from the waste
and provide a basis for their degree of effectiveness and the time
period over which barriers are effective.
(4) For disposal of waste in a specialized land disposal facility,
the inadvertent intruder assessment must also demonstrate that the
engineered barriers and natural features ensure that an inadvertent
intruder will not disrupt or contact emplaced waste during any part of
the compliance period in which the waste remains a radiological hazard.
(c) Operational safety assessment. An operational safety assessment
of the protection of individuals during operations. The assessment must
include analyses of expected exposures due to routine operations and
likely accidents during handling, storage, and disposal of waste. The
assessment must demonstrate that exposures will be controlled to meet
the requirements of part 20 of this chapter, thereby meeting the
performance objective set forth in Sec. 61.43. These analyses can be
qualitative and credit administrative controls and procedures.
Operational safety assessments involving Greater-Than-Class C waste
must also include quantitative analyses of expected exposures due to
unlikely accidents (including fire, handling events, and other credible
accidents), and the identification of safety features to prevent and
mitigate accidents.
(d) Site stability assessment. An assessment of the stability of
the disposal site and the need for ongoing active maintenance after
site closure. The assessment must demonstrate that long-term stability
of the disposal site can be ensured and that there will not be a need
for ongoing active maintenance following site closure, thereby meeting
the performance objective set forth in Sec. 61.44.
(1) For near surface waste disposal, the assessment must be based
upon analyses of active natural processes such as erosion, mass
wasting, slope failure, settlement of wastes and backfill, infiltration
through covers over disposal areas and adjacent soils, and surface
drainage of the disposal site.
(2) For waste disposal in a specialized land disposal facility, the
assessment must consider any applicable processes listed in
subparagraph (d)(1) and any additional processes relevant to the
specialized design, such as seismic activity, that occur with such
frequency and extent that they could significantly affect the ability
of the disposal site to meet the performance objectives of subpart C of
this part or preclude defensible modeling results due to large
uncertainties.
(e) Performance period analyses. Analyses of how the disposal site
limits the potential long-term radiological impacts during the
performance period. The performance period analyses must be consistent
with available data and current scientific understanding. The analyses
must identify and describe disposal site design features and natural
characteristics relied on to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
performance objectives set forth in Sec. Sec. 61.41(b) and 61.42(b).
In addition, the analyses must evaluate those processes likely to occur
during the performance period, including degradation, deterioration,
and alteration processes that affect performance.
(f) Technical analyses pursuant to criteria in Sec. 61.1(b). For
licensees who meet the criteria for the accommodation outlined in Sec.
61.1(b)(1), the specific technical information must include the
following analyses needed to demonstrate that the performance
objectives of subpart C of this part will be met:
(1) Pathways analyzed in demonstrating protection of the general
population from releases of radioactivity must include air, soil,
groundwater, surface water, plant uptake, and exhumation by burrowing
animals. The analyses must clearly identify and differentiate between
the roles performed by the natural disposal site characteristics and
design features in isolating and segregating the wastes. The analyses
must clearly demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that the
exposure to humans from the release of radioactivity will not exceed
the limits set forth in Sec. 61.41(c).
(2) Analyses of the protection of individuals from inadvertent
intrusion must include demonstration that there is reasonable assurance
the waste classification and segregation requirements will be met and
that adequate barriers to inadvertent intrusion will be provided.
(3) Analyses of the protection of individuals during operations
must include assessments of expected exposures due to routine
operations and likely accidents during handling, storage, and disposal
of waste. The analyses must provide reasonable assurance that exposures
will be controlled to meet the requirements of part 20 of this chapter.
(4) Analyses of the long-term stability of the disposal site and
the need for ongoing active maintenance after closure must be based
upon analyses of active natural processes such as erosion, mass
wasting, slope failure, settlement of wastes and backfill, infiltration
through covers over disposal areas and adjacent soils, and surface
drainage of the disposal site. The analyses must provide reasonable
assurance that there will not be a need for ongoing active maintenance
of the disposal site following closure.
0
16. Revise and republish Sec. 61.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.16 Other information.
Depending upon the nature of the wastes to be disposed of, and the
design and proposed operation of the land disposal facility, additional
information may be requested by the Commission including the following:
(a) Physical security measures, if appropriate. Any application to
receive and possess special nuclear material in quantities subject to
the requirements of part 73 of this chapter must demonstrate how the
physical security requirements of part 73 will be met. In determining
whether receipt and possession will be subject to the physical
protection requirements of part 73, the applicant is not required to
consider the quantity of special nuclear material that has been
disposed of.
(b) Safety information concerning criticality, if appropriate.
(1) Any application to receive and possess special nuclear material
in quantities that would be subject to the requirements of Sec. 70.24,
``Criticality accident requirements,'' of this chapter must demonstrate
how the requirements of that section will be met, unless the applicant
requests an exemption pursuant to Sec. 70.24(d) of this chapter. In
determining whether receipt and possession would be subject to the
requirements of Sec. 70.24 of this chapter, the applicant is not
required to consider the quantity of special nuclear material that has
been disposed or radioactive waste containing fissile material that
meets the exemption requirements specified in Sec. 71.15(c) of this
chapter.
(2) Any application to receive and possess special nuclear material
must describe proposed procedures for avoiding accidental criticality,
which address both storage of special nuclear material prior to
disposal and waste emplacement for disposal. The procedure is not
required to address radioactive waste containing fissile material that
meets the exemption requirements specified in Sec. 71.15(c) of this
chapter.
(3) Any application to dispose of Greater-Than-Class C radioactive
waste containing special nuclear material in quantities that exceed the
limits set forth in Sec. 70.24, ``Criticality accident requirements,''
of this chapter must identify the disposal unit and facility design
features that limit
[[Page 40339]]
reconcentration of fissile material following disposal to ensure that
the performance objectives of subpart C of this part will be met during
the compliance period.
Sec. 61.20 [Amended]
0
17. In Sec. 61.20, paragraph (b), remove the word ``shall'' and add in
its place the word ``must''.
Sec. 61.22 [Amended]
0
18. In Sec. 61.22, paragraph (b), remove the word ``shall'' and add in
its place the word ``must''.
0
19. Revise and republish Sec. 61.23 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.23 Standards for issuance of a license.
A license for the receipt, possession, and disposal of waste
containing or contaminated with source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material will be issued by the Commission upon finding that the
issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and
security and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and
safety of the public, and:
(a) The applicant is qualified by reason of training and experience
to carry out the disposal operations requested in a manner that
protects health and minimizes danger to life or property.
(b) The applicant's proposed disposal site, disposal site design,
waste acceptance criteria, land disposal facility operations (including
equipment, facilities, and procedures), disposal site closure, and
postclosure institutional controls are adequate to protect the public
health and safety because they provide reasonable assurance that the
general population will be protected from releases of radioactivity as
specified in the performance objective in Sec. 61.41.
(c) The applicant's proposed disposal site, disposal site design,
waste acceptance criteria, land disposal facility operations (including
equipment, facilities, and procedures), disposal site closure, and
postclosure institutional controls are adequate to protect the public
health and safety because they provide reasonable assurance that
inadvertent intruders are protected in accordance with the performance
objective in Sec. 61.42.
(d) The applicant's proposed waste acceptance criteria and land
disposal facility operations (including equipment, facilities, and
procedures) are adequate to protect the public health and safety
because they provide reasonable assurance that the standards for
radiation protection set out in part 20 of this chapter will be met.
(e) The applicant's proposed disposal site, disposal site design,
waste acceptance criteria, land disposal facility operations, disposal
site closure, and postclosure institutional controls are adequate to
protect the public health and safety because they provide reasonable
assurance that long-term stability of the disposed waste and the
disposal site will be achieved and will eliminate to the extent
practical the need for ongoing active maintenance of the disposal site
following closure.
(f) The application provides reasonable assurance that the
applicable technical requirements of subpart D of this part will be
met.
(g) The applicant's proposal for institutional control provides
reasonable assurance that institutional control will be provided for
the length of time found necessary to ensure the findings in paragraphs
(b) through (e) of this section and that the institutional control
meets the requirements of Sec. 61.59.
(h) The information on financial assurances meets the requirements
of subpart E of this part.
(i) The applicant's physical security information provides
reasonable assurance that the requirements of part 73 of this chapter
will be met, insofar as they are applicable to special nuclear material
to be possessed before disposal under the license.
(j) The applicant's criticality safety procedures are adequate to
protect the public health and safety and provide reasonable assurance
that the requirements of Sec. 70.24 of this chapter will be met,
insofar as they are applicable to special nuclear material to be
possessed before disposal under the license. For Greater-Than-Class C
radioactive waste containing special nuclear material in quantities
that exceed the limits set forth in Sec. 70.24, the applicant's
facility design must identify, as necessary, the disposal unit and
facility design considerations that limit reconcentration of fissile
material to prevent a potential criticality event following disposal.
(k) Any additional information submitted as requested by the
Commission pursuant to Sec. 61.16 is adequate.
(l) The requirements of subpart A of part 51 of this chapter have
been met.
(m) The applicant's safety case is adequate to support the
licensing decision.
(n) The Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards or his/
her designee, before commencement of construction of a land disposal
facility, on the basis of information filed and evaluations made
pursuant to subpart A of part 51 of this chapter, has concluded, after
weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits
against environmental costs and considering available alternatives,
that the action called for is the issuance of the proposed license,
with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental values.
Commencement of construction prior to this conclusion is undertaken by
the applicant at its own risk. Commencement of construction as defined
in section 61.2 may include non-construction activities if the activity
has a reasonable nexus to radiological safety and security.
0
20. In Sec. 61.24:
0
a. In paragraphs (b), (d), (f), and (k), remove the word ``shall''
wherever it appears and add in its place the word ``must'';
0
b. In paragraph (c), remove the phrase ``post closure'' and add in its
place the phrase ``postclosure'';
0
c. Revise paragraph (i);
0
d. In paragraph (j), remove the phrase ``of this part''; and
0
e. Add new paragraph (l).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 61.24 Conditions of licenses.
* * * * *
(i) Any licensee who receives and possesses special nuclear
material under this part in quantities that would be subject to the
requirements of Sec. 70.24 of this chapter must comply with the
requirements of that section. The licensee must consider the quantity
of special nuclear material as specified under Sec. 61.16(b) for
preventing criticality during storage of special nuclear material prior
to disposal and waste emplacement for disposal. For Greater-Than-Class
C radioactive waste containing special nuclear material in quantities
that exceed the limits set forth in Sec. 70.24 the licensee has, as
necessary, implemented design considerations that limit reconcentration
of fissile material as a means to prevent a potential criticality event
following disposal.
* * * * *
(l) The licensee must not operate the land disposal facility in a
manner that would be inconsistent with the technical analyses.
(1) The licensee must evaluate whether updates to the technical
analyses are warranted:
(i) if significant changes have occurred at the site; or
(ii) before receiving new waste streams not analyzed in the most
recent approved technical analyses.
(2) The evaluations specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this section
must be
[[Page 40340]]
retained as records in accordance with Sec. 61.80.
0
21. Revise and republish Sec. 61.25 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.25 Changes.
(a) Except as provided for in specific license conditions, the
licensee must not make changes in the land disposal facility or
procedures described in the license application. The license will
include conditions restricting subsequent changes to the facility and
the procedures authorized that are important to public health and
safety. These license restrictions will fall into three categories of
descending importance to public health and safety as follows:
(1) those features and procedures that may not be changed without:
(i) 60 days prior notice to the Commission, (ii) 30 days notice of
opportunity for a prior hearing, and (iii) prior Commission approval;
(2) those features and procedures that may not be changed without: (i)
60 days prior notice to the Commission, and (ii) prior Commission
approval; and (3) those features and procedures that may not be changed
without 60 days prior notice to the Commission. Features and procedures
falling in paragraph (a)(3) of this section may not be changed without
prior Commission approval if the Commission so orders, after having
received the required notice.
(b) Amendments authorizing waste acceptance criteria changes, site
closure, license transfer, or license termination will be included in
the license restriction described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(c) Changes to the technical analyses that do not involve waste
acceptance criteria changes will be included in the license restriction
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) The Commission must provide a copy of the notices of
opportunity for hearing provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to
State and local officials or tribal governing bodies specified in Sec.
2.104(c) of this chapter.
Sec. 61.26 [Amended]
0
22. In paragraph (a) remove the word ``shall'' and add in its place the
word ``must''.
Sec. 61.27 [Amended]
0
23. In paragraph (a) remove the word ``shall'' and add in its place the
word ``does''.
0
24. In Sec. 61.28:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a); and
0
b. In paragraph (c) remove the word ``shall'' and add in its place the
word ``will''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 61.28 Contents of application for closure.
(a) Prior to closure of the disposal site, or as otherwise directed
by the Commission, the licensee must submit an application to amend the
license for site closure. This site closure application must include a
final revision of the safety case, if applicable, and a final disposal
site closure plan, which updates and revises, as appropriate, the
disposal site closure plan that was submitted with the license
application in accordance with Sec. 61.12(g). The final disposal site
closure plan must include each of the following:
(1) Any additional geologic, hydrologic, or other disposal site
data pertinent to the long-term containment of emplaced radioactive
wastes obtained during the operational period.
(2) The results of tests, experiments, or any other analyses
relating to backfill of excavated areas, closure and sealing, waste
migration and interaction with emplacement media, or any other tests,
experiments, or analysis pertinent to the long-term containment of
emplaced waste within the disposal site.
(3) Any revisions to the technical analyses necessary to support
site closure; such revisions must consider the waste disposed during
operations and reflect significant changes to the human activities
occurring in and around the site.
(4) Any plan or proposed revision of a previously submitted plan
for:
(i) Decontamination and/or dismantlement of surface facilities;
(ii) Backfilling of excavated areas; or
(iii) Stabilization of the disposal site for postclosure care.
(5) The total volume and mass of waste that was disposed as well as
the total radioactivity in curies of each radionuclide that was
disposed.
0
25. In Sec. 61.29:
0
a. Revise the section heading; and
0
b. Revise and republish Sec. 61.29 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.29 Postclosure observation and maintenance.
Following completion of closure authorized in Sec. 61.28(c), the
licensee must observe, monitor, and carry out necessary maintenance and
repairs at the disposal site until the license is transferred by the
Commission in accordance with Sec. 61.30. Responsibility for the
disposal site must be maintained by the licensee for 5 years. A shorter
or longer time period for postclosure observation and maintenance may
be established and approved as part of the site closure plan, based on
site-specific conditions.
0
26. In Sec. 61.30:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text; and
0
b. In paragraph (a)(4) remove the phrase ``post closure'' and add in
its place the phrase ``postclosure''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 61.30 Transfer of license.
(a) Following closure and the period of postclosure observation and
maintenance, the licensee may apply for an amendment to transfer the
license to the disposal site owner. The license amendment request will
be approved and the license transferred if the Commission finds:
* * * * *
0
27. Sec. 61.32:
0
a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), remove the word ``shall'' and add in its
place the word ``must''; and
0
b. Revise paragraph (c).
The revisions reads as follows:
Sec. 61.32 Facility information and verification.
* * * * *
(c) Applicants and licensees specified in paragraph (a) of this
section must permit verification thereof by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and take other action as necessary to implement
the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement, as described in part 75 of this
chapter.
0
28. Revise and republish Sec. 61.41 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.41 Protection of the general population from releases of
radioactivity.
(a) Concentrations of radioactive material that may be released
from the disposal site to groundwater, surface water, air, soil,
plants, or animals, after the period of operations, must not result in
an annual total effective dose or total effective dose equivalent, as
applicable, exceeding the radiological dose criteria for unrestricted
use in 10 CFR 20.1402 to any member of the public within the compliance
period. Compliance with this paragraph must be demonstrated in the
performance assessment as required by Sec. 61.13(a). Licensees must
manage releases of radioactivity to the general environment consistent
with 10 CFR 20.1101(b).
(b) Releases of radioactivity from the disposal site must be
effectively managed during the performance period. Compliance with this
paragraph must be demonstrated through performance period analyses as
required by Sec. 61.13(e).
(c) For licensees who meet the criteria for the accommodation
outlined in
[[Page 40341]]
Sec. 61.1(b)(1) of this part and choose to comply with the
requirements in Sec. 61.1(b)(2) of this part, concentrations of
radioactive material which may be released to the general environment
in groundwater, surface water, air, soil, plants, or animals must not
result in an annual dose exceeding an equivalent of 25 millirems to the
whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other
organ of any member of the public, or 25 mrem TEDE, or TED, as
applicable.
0
29. Revise and republish Sec. 61.42 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion.
(a) Design, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility
must ensure protection of an inadvertent intruder into the disposal
site who occupies the site or contacts the waste at any time after
active institutional controls over the disposal site are removed.
(1) For near-surface disposal, the annual dose must not exceed 5
milliSieverts (500 millirems) to any inadvertent intruder within the
compliance period. Compliance with this paragraph must be demonstrated
through the inadvertent intruder assessment as required by Sec.
61.13(b).
(2) For waste disposal in a specialized land disposal facility, the
inadvertent intruder assessment must demonstrate that an inadvertent
intruder will not disrupt or contact emplaced waste during any part of
the compliance period in which the waste remains a radiological hazard.
The inadvertent intruder assessment must also demonstrate that the
annual dose to any inadvertent intruder within the compliance period
from any onsite releases (e.g., radon emanation, groundwater
contamination) will not exceed 5 milliSieverts (500 millirems).
Compliance with this paragraph must be demonstrated through the
inadvertent intruder assessment as required by Sec. 61.13(b).
(b) Exposures to an inadvertent intruder must be effectively
managed during the performance period. Compliance with this paragraph
must be demonstrated through the performance period analyses as
required by Sec. 61.13(e).
(c) For licensees who meet the criteria for the accommodation
outlined in Sec. 61.1(b)(1) of this part and choose to comply with the
requirements in Sec. 61.1(b)(2) of this part, design, operation, and
closure of the land disposal facility must ensure protection of any
individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal site and occupying
the site or contacting the waste at any time after active institutional
controls over the disposal site are removed.
0
30. Revise and republish Sec. 61.43 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.43 Protection of individuals during operations.
Operations at the land disposal facility must be conducted in
compliance with the standards for radiation protection set out in part
20 of this chapter, including Sec. 20.1101(b), except that the annual
dose to a member of the public from releases of radioactivity from the
land disposal facility must not exceed an annual total effective dose
or total effective dose equivalent, as applicable, of 0.25 milliSievert
(25 millirems). Compliance with this section must be demonstrated
through the operational safety assessment as required by Sec. 61.13(c)
or 61.13(f)(3), as applicable.
0
31. Revise and republish Sec. 61.44 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.44 Stability of the disposal site after closure.
The land disposal facility must be sited, designed, used, operated,
and closed to achieve long-term stability of the disposal site. During
the institutional control period, the licensee must eliminate to the
extent practical the need for ongoing active maintenance of the
disposal site following site closure so that only surveillance,
monitoring, or minor custodial care are required. Compliance with this
section must be demonstrated through the site stability assessment as
required by Sec. 61.13(d) or 61.13(f)(4), as applicable.
0
32. Revise and republish Sec. 61.50 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.50 Disposal site suitability requirements for land disposal.
The primary emphasis of disposal site suitability requirements is
to avoid sites with disruptive processes and events and to foster
favorable conditions that will provide reasonable assurance that the
performance objectives of subpart C of this part will be met, rather
than short-term benefits to site operation.
(a) Disposal site suitability for near-surface disposal. The
purpose of this section is to specify the minimum characteristics a
disposal site must possess to be acceptable for the disposal of waste
in the near surface. The disposal site must meet the following minimum
requirements:
(1) The disposal site must be capable of being characterized,
modeled, analyzed, and monitored to the extent that the long-term
performance objectives of subpart C of this part can be met.
(2) For at least 500 years following closure of the land disposal
facility, the disposal site cannot have any of the following
characteristics:
(i) Poor drainage, flooding or frequent ponding, located in a 100-
year flood plain, as defined in Executive Order 11988, ``Floodplain
Management'', or located in a wetland, as defined in Executive Order
11990, ``Protection of Wetlands.''
(ii) Uncontrolled runoff from upstream drainage areas, which could
erode or inundate disposal units.
(iii) A water table too close to the land surface. The unsaturated
zone must be thick enough so that waste is not disposed within a
saturated zone nor a zone of water table fluctuation, perennial or
otherwise.
(iv) Groundwater from below discharging to the land surface within
the disposal site at any time.
(3) If any of the characteristics in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv)
of this section are present after the first 500 years following closure
of the land disposal facility, the performance objectives of subpart C
of this part must still be met.
(4) The projected population growth and future developments in the
vicinity of the land disposal facility are not likely to affect the
ability of the land disposal facility to meet the performance
objectives of subpart C of this part or to preclude defensible modeling
due to large uncertainties.
(5) The land disposal facility must not be located in, or in the
immediate vicinity of, an area:
(i) having known natural resources which, if exploited, would
result in the failure of the disposal site to meet the performance
objectives of subpart C of this part;
(ii) where tectonic processes such as faulting, folding, seismic
activity, or vulcanism may occur with such frequency and extent to
significantly affect the ability of the disposal site to meet the
performance objectives of subpart C of this part, or to preclude
defensible modeling results due to large uncertainties;
(iii) where surface geologic processes such as mass wasting,
erosion, slumping, landslides, or weathering occur with such frequency
and extent to significantly affect the ability of the disposal site to
meet the performance objectives of subpart C of this part, or to
preclude defensible modeling results due to large uncertainties; and
(iv) where nearby facilities or activities could significantly
affect the ability of the disposal site to meet the performance
objectives of subpart C of
[[Page 40342]]
this part or significantly mask the environmental monitoring program.
(b) Disposal site suitability requirements for specialized land
disposal facilities. Specialized land disposal facility sites must meet
the suitability requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), and (a)(5);
and applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this
section.
(c) Disposal site suitability requirements pursuant to criteria in
Sec. 61.1(b). For licensees who meet the criteria for the
accommodation outlined in Sec. 61.1(b)(1), the disposal site
suitability requirements for near-surface disposal are as follows. The
purpose of this section is to specify the minimum characteristics a
disposal site must have to be acceptable for use as a near-surface
disposal facility. The primary emphasis in disposal site suitability is
given to isolation of wastes, a matter having long-term impacts, and to
disposal site features that ensure that the long-term performance
objectives of subpart C of this part are met, as opposed to short-term
convenience or benefits. Licensees who meet the criteria for the
accommodation outlined in Sec. 61.1(b)(1) of this part and choose to
comply with the requirements in Sec. 61.1(b)(2) of this part, must
meet the following site suitability requirements:
(1) The disposal site shall be capable of being characterized,
modeled, analyzed and monitored.
(2) Within the region or state where the facility is to be located,
a disposal site should be selected so that projected population growth
and future developments are not likely to affect the ability of the
disposal facility to meet the performance objectives of subpart C of
this part.
(3) Areas must be avoided having known natural resources which, if
exploited, would result in failure to meet the performance objectives
of subpart C of this part.
(4) The disposal site must be generally well drained and free of
areas of flooding or frequent ponding. Waste disposal shall not take
place in a 100-year flood plain, coastal high-hazard area or wetland,
as defined in Executive Order 11988, ``Floodplain Management
Guidelines.''
(5) Upstream drainage areas must be minimized to decrease the
amount of runoff which could erode or inundate waste disposal units.
(6) The disposal site must provide sufficient depth to the water
table that groundwater intrusion, perennial or otherwise, into the
waste will not occur. The Commission will consider an exception to this
requirement to allow disposal below the water table if it can be
conclusively shown that disposal site characteristics will result in
molecular diffusion being the predominant means of radionuclide
movement and the rate of movement will result in the performance
objectives of subpart C of this part being met. In no case will waste
disposal be permitted in the zone of fluctuation of the water table.
(7) The hydrogeologic unit used for disposal shall not discharge
groundwater to the surface within the disposal site.
(8) Areas must be avoided where tectonic processes such as
faulting, folding, seismic activity, or vulcanism may occur with such
frequency and extent to significantly affect the ability of the
disposal site to meet the performance objectives of subpart C of this
part, or may preclude defensible modeling and prediction of long-term
impacts.
(9) Areas must be avoided where surface geologic processes such as
mass wasting, erosion, slumping, landsliding, or weathering occur with
such frequency and extent to significantly affect the ability of the
disposal site to meet the performance objectives of subpart C of this
part, or may preclude defensible modeling and prediction of long-term
impacts.
(10) The disposal site must not be located where nearby facilities
or activities could adversely impact the ability of the site to meet
the performance objectives of subpart C of this part or significantly
mask the environmental monitoring program.
0
33. Revise and republish Sec. 61.51 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.51 Disposal site design for land disposal.
(a) Disposal site design for near-surface disposal.
(1) Site design features must be directed toward long-term
isolation of the waste and must avoid the need to continue active
maintenance after site closure.
(2) The disposal site design and operation must be compatible with
the disposal site closure and stabilization plan and lead to disposal
site closure that provides reasonable assurance that the performance
objectives of subpart C of this part will be met.
(3) The disposal site must be designed to complement and improve,
where appropriate, the ability of the disposal site's natural
characteristics to assure that the performance objectives of subpart C
of this part will be met.
(4) Covers must be designed, to the extent practical, to minimize
water infiltration, to direct percolating or surface water away from
the disposed waste, and to resist degradation by surface geologic
processes and biotic activity.
(5) Surface features must direct surface water drainage away from
disposal units at velocities and gradients which will not result in
erosion that will require ongoing active maintenance in the future.
(6) The disposal site must be designed, to the extent practical, to
minimize the contact of water with waste during storage, the contact of
standing water with waste during disposal, and the contact of
percolating or standing water with wastes after disposal.
(b) Disposal site design for specialized land disposal facilities.
(1) Site design and operation must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), and (6), as well as any applicable
requirements of paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this section.
(2) The disposal site design must include engineered and natural
barriers that will, in combination, prevent an inadvertent intruder
from disrupting or contacting emplaced waste during any part of the
compliance period in which the waste remains a radiological hazard.
Natural barriers could include significant depth to disposal or natural
features that would pose significant challenges to drilling.
0
34. Revise and republish Sec. 61.52 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.52 Land disposal facility operation and disposal site
closure.
(a) Near-surface disposal facility operation and disposal site
closure.
(1) Wastes designated as Class A pursuant to Sec. 61.55, must be
segregated from other wastes by placing the Class A waste in disposal
units that are sufficiently separated from disposal units containing
other waste classes such that any interaction between Class A wastes
and other wastes will not result in the failure to meet the performance
objectives in subpart C of this part. This segregation is not necessary
for Class A wastes if they meet the stability requirements in Sec.
61.56(b).
(2) Wastes designated as Class C pursuant to Sec. 61.55, must be
disposed of so that the top of the waste is a minimum of 5 meters below
the top surface of the cover or must be disposed of with intruder
barriers that are designed to protect against an inadvertent intrusion
for a least 500 years.
(3) Wastes designated as Greater-Than-Class C pursuant to Sec.
61.55 and with concentrations of alpha-emitting transuranic
radionuclides with half-
[[Page 40343]]
lives greater than 5 years that are equal to or less than 10,000
nanocuries per gram may be disposed in the near-surface provided that
the top of the waste is a minimum of 5 meters below the land surface
and must be disposed with intruder barriers that are designed to
protect against an inadvertent intrusion for at least 500 years.
(4) Wastes designated as Greater-Than-Class C pursuant to Sec.
61.55 and with concentrations of alpha-emitting transuranic
radionuclides with half-lives greater than 5 years that exceed 10,000
nanocuries per gram are not generally acceptable for near-surface
disposal but may be disposed in a specialized land disposal facility
pursuant to Sec. 61.52(b).
(5) All wastes meeting the criteria of paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section must be disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(6) through (18) of this section.
(6) Wastes must be emplaced in a manner that maintains the package
integrity during emplacement, minimizes the void spaces between
packages, and permits the void spaces to be filled.
(7) Void spaces between waste packages must be filled with earth or
other material to reduce future subsidence within the fill.
(8) Waste must be placed and covered in a manner that limits the
radiation dose rate at the surface of the cover to levels that at a
minimum will permit the licensee to comply with all provisions of
Sec. Sec. 20.1301 and 20.1302 of this chapter at the time the license
is transferred pursuant to Sec. 61.30 of this part.
(9) The boundaries and locations of each disposal unit (e.g.,
trenches) must be accurately located and mapped by means of a land
survey. Near-surface disposal units must be marked in such a way that
the boundaries of each unit can be easily defined. Three permanent
survey marker control points, referenced to United States Geological
Survey (USGS) or National Geodetic Survey (NGS) survey control
stations, must be established on the site to facilitate surveys. The
USGS or NGS control stations must provide horizontal and vertical
controls as checked against USGS or NGS record files.
(10) A buffer zone of land must be maintained between any buried
waste and the disposal site boundary and beneath the disposed waste.
The buffer zone must be of adequate dimensions to allow a licensee to
carry out environmental monitoring activities specified in Sec.
61.53(d) and take mitigative measures if needed.
(11) Closure and stabilization measures as set forth in the
approved site closure plan must be carried out as each disposal unit
(e.g., each trench) is filled and covered.
(12) Active waste disposal operations must not have an adverse
effect on completed closure and stabilization measures.
(13) Only wastes containing or contaminated with radioactive
materials may be disposed of at the disposal site.
(14) Waste accepted for disposal must meet that facility's waste
acceptance criteria.
(15) Waste must be disposed consistent with the description
provided in Sec. 61.12(f) of this part and the licensee must not
operate the land disposal facility in a manner that would be
inconsistent with the technical analyses.
(16) Significant quantities of uranium must be disposed so that the
top of the waste is a minimum of 5 meters below the land surface.
(17) Greater-Than-Class C waste must be disposed so as to not
produce thermal effects that would significantly degrade the
performance of the disposal site.
(18) Greater-Than-Class C waste must be disposed in a manner that
limits the potential for a criticality event during placement and
operations.
(b) Facility operation and disposal site closure for specialized
land disposal facilities.
(1) Facility operation and disposal site closure must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(6)-(9), and (a)(11)-(18) of this
section.
(2) A buffer zone of land must be maintained between any buried
waste and the disposal site boundary. The buffer zone must be of
adequate dimensions to allow a licensee to carry out environmental
monitoring activities specified in Sec. 61.53(d) and take mitigative
measures if needed. The licensee must maintain a buffer zone beneath
the disposed waste or demonstrate that such a buffer zone is not
required to carry out environmental monitoring activities specified in
Sec. 61.53(d).
(3) Wastes with radionuclide concentrations that exceed the values
in Table 3 of Sec. 61.55 must be disposed in accordance with Sec.
61.55(b)(2)(iii).
0
35. In Sec. 61.53:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (d); and
0
b. In paragraph (c) remove the word ``shall'' and add in its place the
word ``must''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 61.53 Environmental monitoring.
(a) At the time a license application is submitted, the applicant
must provide environmental data on the disposal site characteristics,
including information and data concerning the ecology, meteorology,
climate, hydrology, geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, and
seismology of the disposal site. For those characteristics that are
subject to seasonal variation, data must cover at least a 12-month
period.
(b) At the time a license application is submitted, the applicant
must have plans for taking corrective measures during the lifespan of
the facility if migration of radionuclides would indicate that the
performance objectives of subpart C may not be met.
* * * * *
(d) After the disposal site is closed, the licensee, in accordance
with Sec. 61.29 of this part, is responsible for post-operational
surveillance of the disposal site and must maintain a monitoring system
based on the operating history and the closure and stabilization of the
disposal site. The monitoring system must be capable of providing early
warning of releases of radionuclides from the disposal site before they
leave the site boundary.
0
36. Revise and republish Sec. 61.55 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.55 Waste classification.
Different classes of waste (A, B, C, and Greater-Than-Class C
(GTCC)) have been developed with corresponding requirements for each
class of waste. Class A waste is the least hazardous and GTCC waste is
the most hazardous. Classification of Class A, B, and C radioactive
waste is addressed in paragraph (a) of this section. Only waste with
radionuclide concentrations that exceed the Class C limit when
classified according to paragraph (a) must be classified according to
paragraph (b) of this section. Consistent with the requirements of 10
CFR part 20 appendix G (I) of this chapter, references to radionuclide
concentrations in this section mean their concentrations in the waste
when it is prepared for shipment for disposal.
(a) Classification of Class A, B, and C radioactive waste--
(1) Considerations.
(i) Class A and B limits in this section were based on the
assumption that access to the site would not occur during a 100 year
institutional control period after site closure. This permits the
disposal of Class A and Class B waste without special provisions for
intrusion protection, because these classes of waste contain types and
quantities of radionuclides that will
[[Page 40344]]
decay during the 100-year period and will present an acceptable hazard
to an intruder. Waste that will decay to levels which present an
acceptable hazard to an intruder after 100 years and before 500 years
is designated as Class C waste. This waste is disposed of at a greater
depth than the other classes of waste so that subsequent surface
activities by an intruder will not disturb the waste. Where site
conditions prevent deeper disposal, intruder barriers such as concrete
covers may be used. The effective life of these intruder barriers
should be 500 years. A maximum concentration of radionuclides is
specified for all Class C wastes so that, at the end of the 500-year
period, remaining radioactivity will be at a level that does not pose
an unacceptable hazard to an intruder or public health and safety.
(ii) Determination of the classification of Class A, B, and C
radioactive waste involves two considerations. First, consideration
must be given to the concentration of long-lived radionuclides (and
their shorter-lived precursors) whose potential hazard will persist
long after such precautions as institutional controls, improved
wasteform, and deeper disposal have ceased to be effective. These
precautions delay the time when long-lived radionuclides could cause
exposures. In addition, the magnitude of the potential dose is limited
by the concentration and availability of the radionuclide at the time
of exposure. Second, consideration must be given to the concentration
of shorter-lived radionuclides for which requirements on institutional
controls, wasteform, and disposal methods are effective.
(2) Classes of waste.
(i) Class A waste is usually segregated from other waste classes at
the disposal site. The physical form and characteristics of Class A
waste must meet the minimum requirements set forth in Sec. 61.56(a).
If Class A waste also meets the stability requirements set forth in
Sec. 61.56(b), it is not necessary to segregate the waste for
disposal. Class A waste that does not meet the stability requirements
of Sec. 61.56(b) must be segregated from other waste.
(ii) Class B waste must meet more rigorous requirements on
wasteform to ensure stability after disposal. The physical form and
characteristics of Class B waste must meet both the minimum and
stability requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 61.56(a) and (b). Class
B wasteforms or containers, to the extent practical, must be designed
to be stable (i.e., maintain gross physical properties and identity)
over 300 years.
(iii) Class C waste not only must meet more rigorous requirements
on wasteform to ensure stability but also requires additional measures
at the disposal facility to protect against inadvertent intrusion. The
physical form and characteristics of Class C waste must meet both the
minimum and stability requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 61.56(a) and
(b). Class C wasteforms or containers, to the extent practical, must be
designed to be stable (i.e., maintain gross physical properties and
identity) over 300 years.
(3) Classification determined by long-lived radionuclides. If
radioactive waste contains only radionuclides listed in Table 1,
classification is determined as follows:
(i) If the concentration does not exceed 0.1 times the value in
Table 1, the waste is Class A.
(ii) If the concentration exceeds 0.1 times the value in Table 1
but does not exceed the value in Table 1, the waste is Class C.
(iii) If the concentration exceeds the value in Table 1, the waste
must be classified under paragraph (b) of this section.
(iv) For wastes containing mixtures of radionuclides listed in
Table 1, the total concentration is determined by the sum of fractions
rule described in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration, curies
Radionuclide per cubic meter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-14........................................... 8
C-14 in activated metal........................ 80
Ni-59 in activated metal....................... 220
Nb-94 in activated metal....................... 0.2
Tc-99.......................................... 3
I-129.......................................... 0.08
Alpha emitting transuranic radionuclides with \1\ 100
half-life greater than 5 years................
Pu-241......................................... \1\ 3,500
Cm-242......................................... \1\ 20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Units are nanocuries per gram.
(4) Classification determined by short-lived radionuclides. If
radioactive waste does not contain any of the radionuclides listed in
Table 1, classification is determined based on the concentrations shown
in Table 2. However, as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section,
if radioactive waste does not contain any radionuclides listed in
either Table 1 or 2, it is Class A.
(i) If the concentration does not exceed the value in Column 1, the
waste is Class A.
(ii) If the concentration exceeds the value in Column 1, but does
not exceed the value in Column 2, the waste is Class B.
(iii) If the concentration exceeds the value in Column 2, but does
not exceed the value in Column 3, the waste is Class C.
(iv) If the concentration exceeds the value in Column 3, the waste
must be classified under paragraph (b) of this section.
(v) For wastes containing mixtures of the radionuclides listed in
Table 2, the total concentration is determined by the sum of fractions
rule described in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
[[Page 40345]]
Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration, curies per cubic meter
Radionuclide -----------------------------------------------
Col. 1 Col. 2 Col. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total of all radionuclides with less than 5-year half-life...... 700 (\1\) (\1\)
H-3............................................................. 40 (\1\) (\1\)
Co-60........................................................... 700 (\1\) (\1\)
Ni-63........................................................... 3.5 70 700
Ni-63 in activated metal........................................ 35 700 7,000
Sr-90........................................................... 0.04 150 7,000
Cs-137.......................................................... 1 44 4,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no limits established for these radionuclides in Class B or C wastes.
Practical considerations such as the effects of external radiation
and internal heat generation on transportation, handling, and disposal
will limit the concentrations for these wastes. These wastes are Class
B unless the concentrations of other radionuclides in Table 2 determine
the waste to be Class C or greater independent of these radionuclides.
(5) Classification determined by both long- and short-lived
radionuclides. If radioactive waste contains a mixture of
radionuclides, some of which are listed in Table 1, and some of which
are listed in Table 2, classification is determined as follows:
(i) If the concentration of a radionuclide listed in Table 1 does
not exceed 0.1 times the value listed in Table 1, the class is
determined by the concentration of radionuclides listed in Table 2.
(ii) If the concentration of a radionuclide listed in Table 1
exceeds 0.1 times the value listed in Table 1 but does not exceed the
value in Table 1, the waste is Class C, provided the concentration of
radionuclides listed in Table 2 does not exceed the value shown in
Column 3 of Table 2.
(iii) If the concentration of a radionuclide listed in Table 1
exceeds the value in Table 1 or the value provided in Column 3 of Table
2, the waste must be classified under paragraph (b) of this section.
(6) Classification of wastes with radionuclides other than those
listed in Tables 1 and 2. If radioactive waste does not contain any
radionuclides listed in either Table 1 or 2, it is Class A.
(7) The sum of the fractions rule for mixtures of radionuclides.
For determining classification for waste that contains a mixture of
radionuclides, it is necessary to determine the sum of fractions by
dividing each radionuclide's concentration by the appropriate limit and
adding the resulting values. The appropriate limits must all be taken
from the same column of the same table. The sum of the fractions for
the column must be less than 1.0 if the waste class is to be determined
by that column. Example: A waste contains Sr-90 in a concentration of
50 Ci/m\3\ and Cs-137 in a concentration of 22 Ci/m\3\. Since the
concentrations both exceed the values in Column 1, Table 2, they must
be compared to Column 2 values. For Sr-90 fraction 50/150 = 0.33; for
Cs-137 fraction, 22/44 = 0.5; the sum of the fractions = 0.83. Since
the sum is less than 1.0, the waste is Class B.
(8) Determination of concentrations in wastes. The concentration of
a radionuclide may be determined by indirect methods such as use of
scaling factors which relate the inferred concentration of one
radionuclide to another that is measured, or radionuclide material
accountability, if there is reasonable assurance that the indirect
methods can be correlated with actual measurements. The concentration
of a radionuclide may be averaged over the volume of the waste, or
weight of the waste if the units are expressed as nanocuries per gram.
(b) Classification of Greater-than-Class-C Waste.
(1) Considerations.
(i) Determination of the classification of waste under this
paragraph applies only if waste has first been determined to exceed
Class C limits under Sec. 61.55(a). That waste is then classified
based on the concentrations of groupings of radionuclides with half-
lives greater than 50 years as described in Sec. 61.55(b)(2). Waste
with radionuclide concentrations in excess of the Class C limits
codified at 42 U.S.C. 2021c(b)(1)(D) on a sum-of-fractions basis must
be disposed of in a site licensed by the Commission.
(ii) Greater-than-Class C waste has higher concentrations of
radionuclides than Class C waste and will require additional
protections and analyses. Greater-Than-Class C waste must meet the
requirements for Class C waste and the additional requirements set
forth in Sec. 61.56(c). Whereas protection of an inadvertent intruder
from the disposal of Class C waste will be provided by a sufficient
burial depth or an intruder barrier, protection of an inadvertent
intruder from Greater-Than-Class C waste will require both a sufficient
burial depth and one or more intruder barriers.
(iii) Greater-Than-Class C waste with concentrations of alpha-
emitting transuranic radionuclides with half-lives greater than 5 years
exceeding 10,000 nanocuries per gram is not generally acceptable for
near-surface disposal. Such waste may be disposed of in a specialized
land disposal facility as defined in this part. Such waste may be
disposed of in a near-surface disposal facility if a proposal for such
disposal in a site licensed pursuant to this part is approved by the
Commission.
(2) Classification determined by radionuclide concentrations.
(i) Waste that is Class A pursuant to Sec. 61.55(a)(6) because it
does not contain any of the radionuclides in Table 1 or Table 2 of
Sec. 61.55(a) is Class A waste irrespective of the comparison of the
radionuclide concentrations in the waste to the values in Table 3.
(ii) Waste with radionuclide concentrations that exceed the Class C
limits under Sec. 61.55(a) is Greater-Than-Class-C if the radionuclide
concentrations in the waste do not exceed any of the values in Table 3.
(iii) Waste that exceeds one or more of the values in Table 3 in
this section is not generally acceptable for land disposal unless
proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed
pursuant to this part are approved by the Commission.
(iv) The concentration of a radionuclide may be determined by
indirect methods as described in paragraph (a)(8) of this section.
[[Page 40346]]
Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radionuclide Concentration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of alpha emitting radionuclides 18.5 megabecquerel per gram
with half-life greater than 50 years. (500 microcuries per gram).
Sum of beta and photon emitting 1.85 x 10\5\ gigabecquerel per
radionuclides with half-life greater cubic meter (5,000 curies per
than 50 years. cubic meter).
Sum of beta and photon emitting 1.85 x 10\6\ gigabecquerel per
radionuclides with half-life greater cubic meter (50,000 curies per
than 50 years in activated metal. cubic meter).
Tc-99.................................. 1.85 x 10\4\ gigabecquerel per
cubic meter (500 curies per
cubic meter).
I-129.................................. 370 gigabecquerel per cubic
meter (10 curies per cubic
meter).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Commission Authorization. The Commission may, upon request or
on its own initiative, authorize other provisions for the
classification and characteristics of waste on a specific basis, if,
after evaluation of the specific characteristics of the waste, disposal
site, and method of disposal, it finds reasonable assurance of
compliance with the performance objectives in subpart C of this part.
0
37. In Sec. 61.56:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraph (a)(3), and
(b)(2);
0
b. In paragraph (a)(6), remove the word ``shall'' and add in its place
the word ``must'';
0
c. In paragraph (a)(8), remove the word ``practicable'' and add in its
place the word ``practical'';
0
d. In paragraph (b) introductory text, remove the word ``since'' and
add in its place the word ``because'';
0
e. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the terms ``waste form'' where it may
appear and add in its place the term ``wasteform''; and
0
f. Add new paragraph (c).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 61.56 Waste characteristics.
(a) The following requirements apply for all waste and are intended
to facilitate handling at the disposal site and provide protection of
health and safety of personnel at the disposal site.
* * * * *
(3) Solid waste containing liquid must contain as little free
standing and noncorrosive liquid as is reasonably achievable, but the
liquid must not exceed 1% of the volume.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions in Sec. 61.56(a) (2) and (3),
liquid wastes, or wastes containing liquid, must be converted into a
form that contains as little free standing and noncorrosive liquid as
is reasonably achievable, but the liquid must not exceed 1% of the
volume of the waste when the waste is in a disposal container designed
to ensure stability, or 0.5% of the volume of the waste for waste
processed to a stable form.
* * * * *
(c) The following additional requirements apply to land disposal of
Greater-Than-Class C waste.
(1) Waste must not generate heat in amounts that impact the release
of radioactive material from the disposal site or the long-term
stability of the disposal site.
(2) Waste must not contain quantities and concentrations of
fissionable radionuclides that could result in criticality.
(3) Waste must not emit radiation at levels that could lead to
degradation of the disposal environment conditions, such as through
radiolysis.
(4) Waste must be in a stable physical form that is not dispersible
(e.g., grout, activated metal).
0
38. Revise and republish Sec. 61.57 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.57 Labeling.
Each package of waste must be clearly labeled to indicate the waste
class in accordance with Sec. 61.55 when shipped for disposal in a
land disposal facility. Each package of waste also must be clearly
labeled to identify any additional information required by the land
disposal facility's criteria for waste acceptance developed in
accordance with Sec. 61.58.
0
39. Revise and republish Sec. 61.58 heading title and section to read
as follows:
Sec. 61.58 Waste acceptance.
(a) Waste acceptance criteria. Each licensee must implement waste
acceptance criteria approved by the Director, that provide reasonable
assurance of compliance with the performance objectives of subpart C of
this part. Waste acceptance criteria may be either generic or site
specific.
(1) Generic waste acceptance criteria. Licensees may implement the
generic waste acceptance criteria set forth in Sec. Sec. 61.55 and
61.56.
(2) Site-specific waste acceptance criteria. Licensees may
implement site-specific waste acceptance criteria that have been
approved by the Director. Site-specific waste acceptance criteria must
provide safety equivalent to the requirements in Sec. 61.56. Waste
with radionuclide concentrations in excess of the Class C limits
codified at 42 U.S.C. 2021c(b)(1)(D) on a sum-of-fractions basis is
Greater-Than-Class C waste and site-specific limits established under
this part cannot change that designation. Site-specific waste
acceptance criteria must specify the following:
(i) Allowable activities and concentrations of specific
radionuclides. The allowable activities and concentrations for each
specific radionuclide that the licensee intends to accept for disposal,
developed from the technical analyses.
(ii) Acceptable wasteform characteristics and waste container
specifications. The wasteform characteristics of the waste to be
accepted for disposal and the specifications for all waste containers
that will be deployed during operations at the facility.
(iii) Restrictions or prohibitions on waste, materials, or
containers that might affect the facility's ability to meet the
performance objectives in subpart C of this part.
(b) Waste characterization. Each licensee must implement methods
for characterizing the waste to be accepted for disposal that have been
approved by the Director. The methods must identify the
characterization parameters and acceptable uncertainty in the
characterization data. The following information is required to
characterize waste:
(1) Physical and chemical characteristics of the waste;
(2) Waste volume, including any stabilization or absorbent media;
(3) Weight of the container and contents;
(4) Radionuclide identities, activities, and concentrations;
(5) Characterization date;
(6) Generating source; and
(7) Any other information needed to characterize the waste to
demonstrate that the waste acceptance criteria set forth in Sec.
61.58(a) are met.
[[Page 40347]]
(c) Waste certification program. Each licensee must implement a
program approved by the Director to certify that waste, prior to
shipment to the land disposal facility, meets the waste acceptance
criteria developed for the facility in accordance with paragraph (a) of
this section. The certification program must:
(1) Provide procedures for designating authority to certify and
receive waste for disposal at the facility;
(2) Provide procedures for certifying that the waste to be received
at the facility meets the waste acceptance criteria;
(3) Specify documentation required for waste acceptance including
waste characterization, shipment information (including the information
described in appendix G to part 20 of this chapter), and certification;
(4) Identify records, reports, tests, and inspections that are
necessary to comply with the requirements in Sec. 61.80 of this part;
and
(5) Provide approaches for managing waste that has been certified
as meeting the waste acceptance criteria in a manner that maintains its
certification status.
(d) Licensing. The approved waste acceptance criteria will be
incorporated into the facility license.
(e) Annual Review. Each licensee must annually review the
implementation of the waste acceptance criteria, waste characterization
methods, and certification program. The review must be documented and
maintained in accordance with Sec. 61.80 of this part.
0
40. In Sec. 61.59, revise paragraph(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.59 Institutional requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Institutional control. The land owner or custodial agency must
carry out an institutional control program to physically control access
to the disposal site following transfer of control of the disposal site
from the disposal site operator. The institutional control program must
also include, but not be limited to, carrying out an environmental
monitoring program at the disposal site, periodic surveillance, minor
custodial care, and other requirements as determined by the Commission;
and administration of funds to cover the costs for these activities.
The period of institutional controls will be determined by the
Commission. For technical analyses, licensees should not take credit
for institutional controls for more than 100 years following transfer
of control of the disposal site to the owner.
Sec. 61.61 [Amended]
0
41. In Sec. 61.61, remove the word ``shall'' and add in its place the
word ``must''.
0
42. In Sec. 61.62:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (d);
0
b. In paragraph (f), remove the word ``shall'' and add in its place the
word ``must''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 61.62 Funding for disposal site closure and stabilization.
(a) The applicant must provide assurance that sufficient funds will
be available to carry out disposal site closure and stabilization,
including: (1) Decontamination or dismantlement of land disposal
facility structures; and (2) closure and stabilization of the disposal
site so that following transfer of the disposal site to the site owner,
the need for ongoing active maintenance is eliminated to the extent
practical and only minor custodial care, surveillance, and monitoring
are required. These assurances must be based on Commission-approved
cost estimates reflecting the Commission-approved plan for disposal
site closure and stabilization. The applicant's cost estimates must
take into account total capital costs that would be incurred if an
independent contractor were hired to perform the closure and
stabilization work.
* * * * *
(d) The amount of surety liability should change in accordance with
the predicted cost of future closure and stabilization. Factors
affecting closure and stabilization cost estimates include: inflation;
increases in the amount of disturbed land; changes in engineering
plans; closure and stabilization that has already been accomplished and
any other conditions affecting costs. This will yield a surety that is
at least sufficient at all times to cover the costs of closure of the
disposal units that are expected to be used before the next license
renewal.
* * * * *
Sec. 61.63 [Amended]
0
43. In Sec. 61.63, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it may appear
and add in its place the word ``must''.
Sec. 61.71 [Amended]
0
44. In Sec. 61.71, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it may appear
and add in its place the word ``must''.
Sec. 61.73 [Amended]
0
45. In Sec. 61.73:
0
a. Remove the word ``shall'' wherever it may appear and add in its
place the word ``must'';
0
b. Remove the word ``Tribal'' wherever it may appear and add in its
place the word ``tribal''; and
0
c. Remove the word ``Tribe'' wherever it may appear and add in its
place the word ``tribe''.
0
46. In Sec. 61.80:
0
a. Remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears and add in its place
the word ``must'';
0
b. In paragraph (e), remove the phrase ``the facility'' and add in its
place the phrase ``the land disposal facility'';
0
c. In paragraph (g), remove the phrase ``Inventory reports'' and add in
its place the word ``Reports'';
0
d. Add new paragraph (i) header text and paragraphs (i)(3), (m) and
(n); and
0
e. Revise paragraphs (i)(1) and (2), (l)(1) introductory text, and
(l)(1)(i).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and transfers.
* * * * *
(i) Licensees must comply with the following annual report
requirements:
(1) Each licensee authorized to dispose of waste materials received
from other persons under this part must submit annual reports to the
Director by an appropriate method listed in Sec. 61.4, with a copy to
the appropriate NRC Regional Office shown in appendix D to part 20 of
this chapter. Reports must be submitted by the end of the first
calendar quarter of each year for the preceding year.
(2) The reports must include--
(i) specification of the quantity of each of the principal
radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in airborne
effluents during the preceding year;
(ii) the results of the environmental monitoring program;
(iii) a summary of licensee disposal unit survey and maintenance
activities;
(iv) a summary of activities and quantities of radionuclides
disposed of;
(v) any instances in which observed site characteristics were
significantly different from those described in the application for a
license; and
(vi) any other information the Commission may require.
(3) If the quantities of radioactive materials released during the
reporting period, monitoring results, or maintenance performed are
significantly different from those expected in the materials previously
reviewed as part of the licensing action, the report must cover this
specifically.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) The manifest information that must be electronically stored
is--
[[Page 40348]]
(i) That information required in appendix G to part 20 of this
chapter, with the exception of shipper and carrier telephone numbers
and shipper and consignee certifications; and
* * * * *
(m) Each licensee must maintain waste acceptance records including:
(1) Records for waste acceptance including the waste acceptance
criteria, characterization methods, and certification program; and
(2) Audits and other reviews of program content and implementation.
The licensee must retain records of audits and other reviews for 3
years after the record is made.
(n) Each licensee must maintain records of evaluations on whether
updates to the technical analyses are warranted, pursuant to Sec.
61.24 (l)(1).
Sec. 61.81 [Amended]
0
47. In Sec. 61.81:
0
a. In paragraph (a) remove the word ``shall'' and add in its place the
word ``must''; and
0
b. Reserve paragraph (b).
Sec. 61.82 [Amended]
0
48. In Sec. 61.82, remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears and
add in its place the word ``must''.
0
49. In Sec. 61.84, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.84 Criminal penalties.
* * * * *
(b) The regulations in part 61 that are not issued under sections
161b, 161i, or 161o for the purposes of Section 223 are as follows:
Sec. Sec. 61.1, 61.2, 61.4, 61.5, 61.6, 61.8, 61.10, 61.11, 61.12,
61.13, 61.14, 61.15, 61.16, 61.20, 61.21, 61.22, 61.23, 61.26, 61.30,
61.31, 61.54, 61.55, 61.61, 61.63, 61.70, 61.71, 61.72, 61.73, 61.83,
and 61.84.
PART 73--PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS
0
50. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 53, 147, 149, 161,
161A, 170D, 170E, 170H, 170I, 223, 229, 234, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2073,
2167, 2169, 2201, 2201a, 2210d, 2210e, 2210h, 2210i, 2273, 2278a,
2282, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141
(42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Section 73.37(b)(2) also issued under Sec. 301, Public Law 96-
295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note).
0
51. In Sec. 73.67:
0
a. Add new paragraph (b) introductory text and (b)(1)(iv); and
0
b. Remove the phrase ``plutonium-238.'' and add in its place the phrase
``plutonium-238, or''.
Sec. 73.67 Licensee fixed site and in-transit requirements for the
physical protection of special nuclear material of moderate and low
strategic significance.
* * * * *
(b) Accommodations.
(1) * * *
(iv) Radioactive waste under 10 CFR part 61 containing special
nuclear material to be disposed in a land disposal facility which is
(a) in quantities of low strategic significance prior to disposal, (b)
not readily separable from the other radioactive waste material, and
(c) is in a concentration of special nuclear material that is no more
than 0.01% of the mass of the other waste material.
* * * * *
PART 150--EXEMPTIONS AND CONTINUED REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN
AGREEMENT STATES AND IN OFFSHORE WATERS UNDER SECTION 274
0
52. The authority citation for part 150 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 53, 81, 83, 84,
122, 161, 181, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201, 2231, 2273,
2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C.
5841); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141 (42 U.S.C.
10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Sections 150.3, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.31, 150.32 also issued
under Atomic Energy Act secs. 11e(2), 81, 83, 84 (42 U.S.C.
2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114).
Section 150.14 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 53 (42
U.S.C. 2073).
Section 150.15 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec.
135 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
Section 150.17a also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 122 (42
U.S.C. 2152).
Section 150.30 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 234 (42
U.S.C. 2282).
Sec. 150.11 [Amended]
0
53. In Sec. 150.11:
0
a. Remove the word ``shall'' wherever it appears and add in its place
the word ``must''; and
0
b. Remove the phrase ``which he'' and add in its place the phrase
``which the person''.
Sec. 150.14 Commission regulatory authority for physical protection.
0
54. In Sec. 150.14, remove the word ``shall'' and add in its place the
word ``must''.
0
55. In Sec. 150.15:
0
a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, remove the phrase ``agreement
States'' and add in its place the phrase ``Agreement States'';
0
b. Revise the last sentence in paragraph (a)(4); and
0
c. Revise and republish paragraphs (a)(7), (8), and (b).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 150.15 Persons not exempt.
(a) * * *
(4) * * * This subparagraph does not apply to the transfer, storage
or disposal of contaminated equipment or to waste incidental to
reprocessing that has been evaluated and approved as material to be
disposed at a near-surface land disposal facility.
* * * * *
(7) The storage of:
(i) Spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation
(ISFSI) licensed under part 72 of this chapter,
(ii) Spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored
retrievable storage installation (MRS) licensed under part 72 of this
chapter, or
(iii) Greater-Than-Class C waste, as defined in part 72 of this
chapter, in an ISFSI or an MRS licensed under part 72 of this chapter;
the Greater-Than-Class C waste must originate in, or be used by, a
facility licensed under part 50 or part 52 of this chapter.
(iv) Greater-Than-Class C waste, as defined in part 72 of this
chapter, that originates in, or is used by, a facility licensed under
part 50 or part 52 of this chapter and is licensed under part 30 and/or
part 70 of this chapter.
(8) The disposal of radioactive material exceeding Class C limits
(Greater-Than-Class C waste), as defined by section 61.55 of this
chapter, as in effect on January 26, 1983.
(9) The requirements for the protection of Safeguards information
in Sec. 73.21 of this chapter and the requirements in Sec. 73.22 or
Sec. 73.23 of this chapter, as applicable.
(b) Notwithstanding any exemptions provided in this part, the
Commission may require that the manufacturer, processor, or producer of
any equipment, device, commodity, or other product containing source,
byproduct, or special nuclear material not transfer possession or
control of such product except pursuant to a license or an exemption
from licensing issued by the Commission.
Dated: June 29, 2026.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jody Martin,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-13302 Filed 6-30-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P