2

Describing the Universe of Low-Level Waste

John Applegate, the planning committee chair and executive vice president for University Academic Affairs of Indiana University, welcomed the workshop attendees and provided short introductory remarks prior to initiating the panel presentations and discussions. His remarks are summarized below.

The workshop’s objective was to identify approaches that might facilitate the disposition of challenging low-level waste (LLW) streams. These proceedings define “challenging LLW streams” as LLW streams that have potentially non-optimal or unclear disposition pathways due to their origin or content and incompatibility with existing standards, orders, or regulations. These approaches could possibly be used by the Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), U.S. states, and others to find safe and acceptable disposition pathways for challenging LLW streams.

Two critiques of the current U.S. LLW regulatory system have significance for this workshop: The first is that the U.S. LLW category is broad and provides limited guidance for dispositioning unusual or unanticipated LLW waste streams. The second is that standards, orders, and regulations tied to the management and disposition of LLW are not sufficiently tied to risk.

With respect to the first critique, the LLW category is defined by exclusion.¹ LLW is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or

___________________

¹ See Chapter 1 for a discussion on the statutory definition of LLW. Also, Appendix D, Box D-1 provides a more detailed definition.

uranium or thorium mill tailings and waste (also referred to as “11.e (2) byproduct material”²). Consequently, the LLW category covers a wide and very heterogeneous range of waste streams and, also, disposal requirements.

The fundamental problem with a broad LLW category is the lack of specific guidance for unanticipated LLW streams. Waste generators want to be able to plan for waste disposition; they need to know where their waste will go for disposal, how it needs to be processed and managed to make it acceptable for disposal, how to get it to where it is going to be disposed of, and how much it will cost. The waste recipients (i.e., the operators of disposal facilities and their stakeholders) also need to plan for acceptance of the waste; they want to know what the regulatory requirements are for acceptance; and they want to be able to reassure their stakeholders about the safety of waste disposition. One solution to the problem of unanticipated waste streams is to create new waste classifications that include them. Another option is to use case-by-case exceptions that are based on specific and known criteria and that can be applied in a consistent and predictable way.

With respect to the second critique, that LLW disposition regulations are not consistently tied to the risk, National Academies reports have consistently recommended that disposal of LLW focus on risk as opposed to waste origins.³ These reports have urged greater attention to risk and a closer relationship between risk and regulatory requirements in the management of radioactive waste.

The report Improving the Regulation and Management of Low Activity Radioactive Waste (National Research Council, 2006b) concludes that a risk-informed approach provides the best option for improving the regulation and management of low-activity waste.⁴ However, the current LLW regulatory system in the United States is based primarily on waste origins rather than risk. The report found that certain categories of low-activity waste have not received consistent regulatory management, and that current regulations for low-activity waste are not based on a systematic consideration of risk. The report acknowledged that changes to the regulatory structure would likely take many years, require coordination among many federal and state agencies, be highly individualized, and would need many assessments of individual situations. The report recommended adopt-

___________________

² “[B]yproduct material…as defined in Sec. 11.e (2)” is provided in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended. See “Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended by Public Law 114-92, Enacted November 25, 2015,” accessed March 1, 2017, https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Atomic%20Energy%20Act%20Of%201954.pdf.

³ See National Research Council 1997, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, and 2011a.

⁴ The term “low-activity waste” in these proceedings refers to waste having very low radioactivity. This is different from DOE’s use of “low-activity waste,” which refers to a component of tank waste that is not highly radioactive.

ing a tiered approach, identifying a set of changes that could be implemented in order of increasing complexity, resources, and time, to make progress toward converting the current regulatory system into one that is risk-informed.⁵

The objective of LLW regulations is to protect human health and the environment, so consideration of risk is likely to be an important focus of the discussions in the present workshop. Human health effects of radiation are one important aspect of risk. Other factors that contribute to risk include fate and transport of contaminants, site geology, institutional controls, and the longevity of engineered barriers of disposal facilities.

Mr. Applegate asked the participants to balance the two aforementioned critiques against the following. First, the regulatory system reflects the problems it was originally created to solve. As the problems are better understood and/or change over time, the regulations must be adjusted accordingly, resulting in increased regulatory complexity. Challenging LLW streams are examples of such changing problems. New challenging LLW streams can be treated as exceptions to existing regulations and addressed in a case-by-case manner, or regulations can be modified to address them. In any case, the decision-making process is time-consuming, not standardized or predictable, and inconsistent across regulatory agencies, states, or even within individual agencies. Nor do these approaches leverage experience from previous cases.

Second, despite its complexity, the United States has a system for regulating the disposal of LLW that works well in the great majority of cases as demonstrated by the large volumes and variety of LLW streams that have been efficiently and successfully disposed of. However, the challenging LLW streams are not trivial—by volume and/or hazard—and many of these waste streams attract controversy when decisions are made regarding storage, transportation, and disposal. Therefore, one of the goals of the workshop is to examine the methods for addressing such waste in a rational, consistent, and coherent way.

Mr. Applegate ended his introductory remarks with a charge to the workshop attendees. We should ask ourselves questions such as the following: Should there be new classifications for these challenging waste streams? Should we develop criteria for a “below regulatory concern” LLW waste classification? Do we need new regulatory classifications and/or subcategories for LLW? Should those classifications or categories be differentiated from each other by source, risk, and/or inherent characteristics? We should consider how to balance flexibility and individual tailoring of a

___________________

⁵ Specifically, Recommendation 2 in the report suggests “a four-tiered approach: (1) changes to specific facility licenses or permits and individual licensee decisions; (2) regulatory guidance to advise on specific practices; (3) regulation changes; or if necessary, (4) legislative changes” (National Research Council, 2006b, p. 7).

particular waste stream against predictability and consistency of the regulatory system.

2.1 THE SCOPE OF THE LLW CHALLENGE

The first session of the workshop consisted of two panels.

• The first panel focused on categories and characteristics of LLW; it was moderated by Nina Rosenberg, a member of the workshop planning committee and program director at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
• The second panel focused on the regulations, standards, orders, and guidance that have been developed for LLW; it was moderated by Larry Camper, also a member of the workshop planning committee and recently retired from the USNRC.

The moderators opened each panel with brief presentations of background information, which are summarized below. Invited panelists then presented more detailed information on specific topics. A discussion was held after each panel.

The comments from the moderators, panelists, and other workshop participants are their own. They do not necessarily represent official views of their employers, governments, or other organizations that may be mentioned in their presentations and discussions.

2.2 CLASSIFICATION, CATEGORIES, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF LLW

Dr. Rosenberg moderated the session on the classification, categories, and characteristics of LLW. Her remarks are below. She reminded the participants that, in the United States, LLW is defined “by exclusion.” Civilian (usually commercial) LLW is regulated by the USNRC based on specific activity concentrations of radionuclides deposited in a waste matrix and intended for final disposition: Classes A, B, C, and Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC), with Class A requiring the lowest and GTCC requiring the greatest levels of protection (see Tables D-1 and D-2). Near-surface disposal is appropriate for Class A, B, and C wastes but is not appropriate for GTCC wastes.⁶ There are currently four commercial sites for LLW disposal using near-surface disposal methods in the United States; they are located in Utah, Texas, South Carolina, and Washington. These facilities are constructed to

___________________

⁶ The disposal of GTCC is a federal responsibility.

meet generic performance objectives defined by USNRC regulations and have defined waste acceptance criteria.

Government-owned LLW⁷ is regulated by DOE. It is DOE policy to dispose of these wastes if possible at the sites where they were generated or are stored. There are currently four DOE sites that dispose of their own wastes: Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and Los Alamos National Laboratory (Area G) in New Mexico. Two additional DOE sites dispose of offsite LLW in addition to their own wastes: US Ecology, Inc., LLW Disposal Facility at the Hanford Site, Washington, and the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS, previously named the Nevada Test Site). DOE relies on waste acceptance criteria derived from site-specific performance assessments to manage and dispose of LLW at all of its facilities. These DOE facilities use a variety of near-surface disposal methods with engineered structures and surface barriers, depending on site characteristics and waste acceptance criteria.

Both the DOE and commercial sites listed above are located in different climate zones, varying from very wet and humid (South Carolina and Tennessee) to very dry and arid (New Mexico, Nevada, Idaho, Texas, Utah, and eastern Washington). Further information about these sites can be found in Appendix D.

International schemes for managing LLW differ from U.S. approaches in some important ways. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) bases its guidance⁸ on radioactive waste classification on disposal considerations in six categories from exempt, very short-lived waste, VLLW, LLW, intermediate-level waste, and high-level waste.

Three panelists having different backgrounds and with different perspectives were invited to discuss LLW types. They were specifically asked to address the following two questions:

• What are the greatest challenges that you have observed in the management of LLW?
• What key technical criteria and/or waste characteristics are most important to consider in the management and disposal of these wastes?

Miklos (Mike) Garamszeghy, design authority and manager of technology assessment and planning for the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), provided a Canadian perspective; Lisa Edwards,

___________________

⁷ This has previously been referred to as “defense LLW.”

⁸ The IAEA provides guidance on the regulation—but does not regulate—the nuclear wastes of its member states.

senior program manager for Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),⁹ provided perspectives from the commercial nuclear industry (as waste generators); and Daniel (Dan) Shrum, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at EnergySolutions, provided perspectives from the U.S. commercial disposal industry.¹⁰

LLW Challenges—The Canadian Context

Mr. Garamszeghy began his presentation by describing the main difference between the U.S. and Canadian approaches to the management of LLW: in Canada, waste owners are responsible for managing their own waste, from generation to disposal. There is no national organization that looks after waste disposal, but there is a national regulator. Similarly, there are no commercial entities whose sole focus is waste disposal.

Prior to 2008, the Canadian radioactive waste classification scheme was similar to that for the United States—defining LLW by exclusion and using the following waste categories: nuclear fuel waste (used fuel), uranium mining and milling waste, and LLW (everything else). The current classification scheme, established in 2008, follows the IAEA’s General Safety Guide GSG-1 (IAEA, 2009a) for establishing waste categories: exempt, VLLW, LLW, intermediate-level waste, and high-level waste. The Canadian scheme does not establish numerical boundaries between the different waste classes; the values of the boundaries are determined and justified by the waste owners. This classification scheme provides consistency in terms of the IAEA terminology, but the actual distinction between different waste classes is less clear.

Unlike the U.S. approach, the system in Canada allows clearance of waste through the exempt category. Waste can be exempted in two ways: A generic regulation allows waste to be cleared if its activity is below a very conservative limit based on IAEA’s Safety Guide RS-G1.7 (IAEA, 2004). Alternatively, for wastes having slightly higher activities, waste owners may perform case-by-case analysis for the higher limit.

Canada’s VLLW and LLW are currently generated from a number of sources, similar to waste generation in the United States. Waste characteristics vary widely based on waste source. Intermediate-level waste, for example, is generated by day-to-day operations at nuclear power plants (NPPs); refurbishment and decommissioning of power reactors; and isotope production.

Mr. Garamszeghy provided the following list of questions that are typically considered by waste owners in Canada when making decisions on the disposition of their radioactive waste:

___________________

⁹ EPRI is a nonprofit research entity supported by the electricity industry.

¹⁰ The biographies for the speakers and panelists can be found in Appendix E.

• What type of waste needs disposal?
• Who owns the waste?
• How much waste is there?
• Where is the waste located?
• What are the community preferences?
• What are the total system costs for managing the wastes?
• What other hazards are associated with the waste?
• How is the waste currently packaged and stored?
• How well is the waste characterized?

Mr. Garamszeghy noted that Canada does not currently have any licensed and operational disposal facilities for low- and intermediate-level waste or spent fuel. However, a number of facilities are in various stages of licensing or construction. In Canada, the NWMO has the mandate for the long-term management, including disposal, of spent fuel. There is no national entity for disposal of low- and intermediate-level waste, as mentioned at the start of his presentation. All of the waste is stored by the waste owners in facilities of various designs (i.e., above and below ground) and locations. Figure 2-1 is a map that shows the locations of some of these facilities. Note that these facilities are distributed throughout Canada.

Overview of Commercial Power Plant Wastes

Ms. Edwards’ presentation focused on LLW produced by U.S. NPPs. Two types of wastes are produced, dry active and wet waste. Dry active waste consists predominantly of papers, plastic, and cloth, for example the protective clothing worn in facilities. It can also include tools, wiring, and metals that are not compactable. Wet waste is principally made up of resin, charcoal, and filters. Wet wastes are generated during NPP operations, primarily during the cleanup of water systems. Boiling water reactors also produce irradiated hardware LLW streams; however, this waste stream is not included in this discussion because it represents a small fraction of waste.

Figure 2-2a shows the volume of waste types (i.e., dry active and wet wastes) generated by U.S. NPPs between 2003 and 2007; and Figure 2-2b shows the volume of resin wastes generated during this same time period grouped by USNRC waste class (i.e., Class A, B, or C). It is clear that the vast majority (almost 90 percent) of the waste generated is dry active waste or Class A waste. Class B waste is 13 percent, and Class C is 1 percent of the total (Figure 2-2b).

At the time these data were collected, filters made up almost the entire volume of Class C waste, and resins made up the majority of Class B waste. However, once NPPs implement the new concentration averaging requirements from the updated USNRC Branch Technical Position on Concentra-

tion Averaging and Encapsulation,¹¹ it is likely that Class C waste will become virtually nonexistent outside of irradiated hardware. Ms. Edwards suggested that the combined Class B and C slice of the pie (Fig. 2-2b) may approach zero once concentration averaging is implemented.

Recent data from an EPRI database, RadBench,¹² show the trends in the generation of dry active and wet wastes from NPPs. There has been a steady reduction in dry active waste (at a rate of approximately 10,000 pounds per year) beginning in 2008. For wet wastes, there was a slight reduction between 2007 and 2011 followed by a near-equivalent increase. The reduction may have occurred for two reasons: (1) the LLW disposal site at Barnwell, South Carolina, stopped accepting LLW from all states except those within its compact,¹³ and (2) an EPRI report (Edwards, 2010) released near this time highlighted techniques and practices for reducing the volume of Class B and greater operational waste (which is primarily wet waste). The volume of wet waste began to increase in 2011 when the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) facility in Texas was licensed and began accepting LLW.

LLW management and disposition do not affect the generation of electricity and are not a NPP’s primary business. The managers of NPPs make disposal decisions based on the most economical and safe alternatives. The cheapest option that meets safety (and other) disposal requirements is nearly always selected. A rough analogy is the choice that a member of the public makes on who picks up his/her household garbage. The individuals responsible for the packaging and management of radioactive waste are internally motivated; other plant workers may not understand the potential impact of waste management mistakes. Those individuals who are involved in waste management consider themselves to be the environmental guardians of the plant, making sure the NPPs do not encounter problems over the waste management and disposition decisions.

Ms. Edwards noted the lack of a “very low-level waste” category in the U.S. regulatory system but its inclusion in the classification systems of other countries such as Canada. VLLW is defined differently throughout the world, but it is generally characterized as having a very small percentage of the activity defined by other waste class limits and a very low radiation hazard.

___________________

¹¹ For more details on concentration averaging, see “Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation,” last updated October 26, 2016, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/llw-btp.html.

¹² RadBench is used by NPPs around the world to self-report the volumes of waste that they generate, prior to conditioning and disposal. The disposal volumes may be smaller. See “EPRI Product Abstract: WasteLogic RadBench Web Application (RadBench) v3.0.2,” accessed March 1, 2017, http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002003994.

¹³ See Appendix D for a brief explanation of the U.S. state compact system.

A strong argument can be made that U.S. regulatory requirements for wastes classified as very low-level (or very low-activity) in other countries are overly burdensome and costly (see Figure 2-3) (EPRI, 2012). Very low-activity waste makes up approximately 80 percent of the volume of waste that is generated during NPP decommissioning; the cost of decommissioning is passed along to the public.

There are regulatory pathways for reducing the costs of disposing of this very low-activity waste, even though a VLLW category does not exist in the United States. For example, an exemption under the USNRC’s Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR 20.2002 (referred to as the “20.2002 exemption”)¹⁴ allows for specific waste streams to be approved for disposal

___________________

¹⁴ A brief explanation of the exemption is provided on the USNRC’s website: “10 CFR 20.2002 is available for use by licensees for wastes that typically are a small fraction of the

at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal sites instead of LLW-licensed facilities. The 20.2002 exemption process is not transparent and it is cumbersome (see Chapter 3 and 4 for more discussions on this). Exemptions are granted on a case-by-case basis and implemented differently from state to state.¹⁵

In Ms. Edward’s opinion, the 20.2002 exemption process and case-by-case approvals are subject to political whims, so that they might be affected by the release of a newspaper article or by an election. Adding a classification and set of requirements for the lowest activity of Class A would be more transparent and beneficial.

Figure 2-3 illustrates the potential economic impact of defining a new VLLW classification. The blue solid line represents the total expected LLW to be generated at U.S. NPPs through the year 2056, including generation of very low-activity waste. As current NPPs begin decommissioning, the volume of LLW waste generated will increase. The green solid line excludes the very low-activity portion of the waste that could potentially be diverted to RCRA facilities instead of LLW disposal facilities. The cost of disposing of this waste in RCRA facilities is significantly lower—EPRI estimates the total savings would be in the $6 billion range—than disposing of the waste in a LLW facility. The cost savings is the difference between dotted blue and green lines in the figure.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Mr. Shrum began his prepared remarks by commenting on the previous presentation. He agreed that the question raised by Ms. Edwards of how to best address the disposal of the expected large quantity of very low-activity waste from NPP decommissioning (see Figure 2-3) should be answered sooner than later, and also that the United States should have a more uniform standard for addressing very low-activity radioactive waste (see Chapter 3 for more discussion on VLLW and exempt or clearance waste).

Mr. Shrum noted that EnergySolutions (his employer) operates two

___________________

Class A limits contained in Part 61, and for which the extensive controls in Part 61 are not needed to ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment. Thus, 10 CFR 20.2002 provides an alternative, safe, risk-informed disposal method for these materials, which are frequently called ‘low-activity waste.’ Although these materials could be disposed of in a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility, if a licensee chose to do so, disposal at another type of facility under 10 CFR 20.2002 may significantly reduce transportation distances (often on the order of one to two thousand miles), provide for more disposal options, and lower disposal costs, while still providing for protection of public health and safety and the environment. . . .” (See “Low-Level Waste Disposal Under 10 CFR 20.2002,” accessed April 9, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/10cfr20-2002-info.html.)

¹⁵ The commercial LLW facilities are regulated by individual Agreement States (see Appendix D), which results in differences between the licensing requirements that they impose.

of the four commercial LLW disposal facilities in the United States: one in Clive, Utah, and another in Barnwell, South Carolina.

The LLW waste classification system in the United States (i.e., Class A, B, C, and GTCC) is based on activity and hazard.¹⁶ The USNRC provides criteria for near-surface disposal of LLW:

• The external exposure to a member of the public resulting from release of the waste shall not exceed 25 millirem/year (mrem), effective dose equivalent (10 CFR Part 61.41); ¹⁷ and
• the dose to a person who inadvertently intrudes into the disposal site after loss of institutional control (100 years) shall not exceed a one-time commitment of 500 mrem or an annual dose of 100 mrem for the first 1,000 years after emplacement (10 CFR Part 61.42).

For Class A waste, the hazard is minimal after 100 years; for Class B waste, the hazard timeframe increases to 300 years; and for Class C waste, it is 500 years. Because of its higher hazard, Class C waste must be buried at least 5 meters below the surface and have an engineered barrier.¹⁸

EnergySolutions has received a wide variety of LLW streams at its disposal facilities including paper, rags, plastic, glassware, syringes, protective clothing, cardboard, packaging material, spent pharmaceuticals, water-treatment residues, contaminated ion exchange resins, filters, tools, irradiated metals from nuclear power plants, and animal carcasses. The animal carcasses have to be incinerated because the facilities cannot directly dispose of organic materials.

Mr. Shrum stated that the main challenge of LLW disposal in the United States is not technical. The main challenge is political. Prior to the enactment of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA),¹⁹

___________________

¹⁶ See the USNRC classifications at “Part 61.55 Waste classification,” accessed April 9, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part061/part061-0055.html.

¹⁷ Note that 10 CFR Part 61.42 does not list dose limits for an inadvertent intruder. However, the concentrations of radionuclides established in Part 61 Tables 1 and 2 assumed a (maximum) dose of 5 millisievert/year (500 mrem/year). For more information see “Technical Basis for Proposed Rule to Amend 10 CFR Part 61 to Specify Requirements for the Disposal of Unique Waste Streams, including Large Quantities of Depleted Urainum (FSME-10-XXXX),” accessed April 9, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1110/ML111040419.pdf. Note that the average annual exposure for a member of the public in the United States is 620 mrem/yr, including medical procedures (see “NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States,” accessed March 27, 2017, available for purchase at http://ncrponline.org/publications/reports/ncrp-report-160/).

¹⁸ Mr. Shrum noted here that transuranic (TRU) waste is an exception and can be considered LLW in some instances (see LLW definition and notes in Box D-1). During the discussion session, a participant asked for further clarification on Mr. Shrum’s statement about TRU waste.

¹⁹ See Box D-2 in Appendix D for a description of the LLRWPA, its amendment in 1985, and other laws related to LLW regulation.

there were three operating disposal facilities in the United States: Beatty, Nevada; Barnwell, South Carolina; and Hanford, Washington. The governors of these states testified to Congress that they should not bear the burden of LLW disposal for the whole nation. Congress agreed and established the LLRWPA.

The purpose of the LLRWPA was to distribute LLW disposal obligations across the United States by establishing a state compact system²⁰—assuming that regional disposal would be the safest and most efficient and equitable means for managing LLW. The United States now has four operating disposal facilities for commercial LLW (see Figure 2-4 and Table D-1 in Appendix D):

• EnergySolutions LLW Disposal Facility, Barnwell, South Carolina, accepts Class A, B, and C waste;

___________________

²⁰ See Appendix D for further descriptions of Agreement States and the state compact system. Table D-1 lists the state compacts that are associated with each commercial LLW facility.

• EnergySolutions LLW Disposal Facility, Clive, Utah, accepts Class A and 11.e (2) waste;²¹
• WCS, Texas, accepts Class A, B, and C and 11.e (2) waste; and
• US Ecology, Inc., LLW Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Washington, accepts Class A, B, and C waste.

Since the LLRWPA was enacted, the EnergySolutions LLW Disposal Facility in Clive and WCS in Texas have opened. Clive accepts Class A waste from all 50 states. Both WCS, Texas and the EnergySolutions, Clive facilities can accept DOE waste.

Mr. Shrum noted that when the LLRWPA was enacted, there was no analysis to determine whether there was enough LLW generation to support multiple state compact disposal facilities. Currently, all states have access to some disposal capacity, and waste does not have to be transported very far, which keeps transport risk low—Mr. Shrum stated that the transportation of LLW has a great safety record and is one of the safest aspects of the LLW disposal system.

2.3 DISCUSSION: CLASSIFICATION, CATEGORIES, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF LLW

The content of the discussion sessions is grouped by topic in these proceedings and may not appear in the same order as they occurred during the workshop. The main topics are highlighted in bold headings.

Very Low-Level and Clearance Waste in the United States

Several participants asked questions about the criteria for VLLW and clearance (or exempt) waste, referring to presentations by Mr. Garamszeghy and Ms. Edwards and comments by Mr. Shrum.

Participants asked for more details related to the cost savings of using a VLLW category for decommissioning. Specifically, Francis X. “Chip” Cameron, currently with CameronGray LLC and an ex-USNRC assistant general counsel, asked for an estimated cost difference to send the expected volume of very low-activity waste to a Class A versus RCRA site for the San Onofre NPP decommissioning. Ms. Edwards recalled the cost savings between disposals at a Class A versus a RCRA facility to be approximately a factor of 10. However, she also noted that waste disposal does not make up the majority of decommissioning costs. The main cost for decommissioning is labor (personnel). Gérald Ouzounian, international director at

___________________

²¹ The Atomic Energy Act, Section 11.e, defines byproduct material “11.e (2)” refers to the tailings or waste produced by the processing of ore to extract uranium or thorium. See Box D-1 in Appendix D for more information.

ANDRA,²² added that, in France, VLLW has been disposed of in a facility separate from LLW since 2003. The cost savings for disposal is between a factor of 15 and 18. Dr. Ouzounian also noted that the French are moving toward optimization of the full system costs as opposed to the separate costs for dismantling and disposing of the waste.

Scott Kirk, director of regulatory affairs for BWXT, asked Ms. Edwards whether the $6 billion in projected cost savings shown in Figure 2-3 represented the total number of plants that are planned for decommissioning over the timeframe represented in the figure. How was this cost savings calculated?

Ms. Edwards explained that the exact shape and height of the solid blue and green lines in Figure 2-3 could change if there are changes in the assumed scheduling of future NPP shutdowns. However, the area under each of the curves (i.e., the total volume of LLW generated from reactor decommissioning) will be more or less the same regardless of when the reactors are decommissioned. EPRI assumed that the cost of disposing of decommissioning wastes will be the same regardless of the exact timing of decommissioning. In summary, the cost estimate shown in Figure 2-3 represents the total number of reactors that are expected to be decommissioned over the timeframe represented in the figure.

Mr. Camper asked what criteria should be specified in a regulation that would replace the case-by-case exemption process described by Ms. Edwards for VLLW. Ms. Edwards responded by referencing two publicly available EPRI reports, as noted in her presentation. The report, A Generic Technical Basis for Implementing a Very Low Level Waste Category for Disposal of Low Activity Radioactive Wastes (EPRI, 2013), analyzed how the VLLW category is applied outside of and within the United States. A comparison between U.S. RCRA disposal facilities and VLLW disposal facilities that exist in France and Spain concluded that the sites compare favorably in terms of protectiveness.

Another EPRI report, Basis for National and International Low Activity and Very Low Level Waste Disposal Classifications (EPRI, 2012), proposed a definition for VLLW based on dose and isotopic limits from existing definitions of VLLW in countries in which that waste stream is recognized. The report also considered the characteristics of the waste in which the 20.2002 exemption process was used. Additionally, doses for intruder and other scenarios were developed to postulate criteria and limits. The resulting criteria are more conservative than what is used in other countries. Ms. Edwards noted that the reports were written to provide information to “start a conversation” about this new waste category.

Mr. Shrum noted that very low-activity waste disposal is one of

___________________

²² ANDRA is the French acronym for National Radioactive Waste Management Agency.

EnergySolutions’ top priorities. USNRC 10 CFR Part 61 addresses the disposal of LLW. In addition, there is a new ~500-page guidance document for 10 CFR Part 61. Mr. Shrum asked that a guidance document be created to add clarity to the reference of a “few millirem” in the 20.2002 exemption. This detail is important to the waste disposal industry because more very low-activity waste is disposed of under exemption than is disposed of at LLW facilities. Whether intentional or not, the current reality is that regulation of very low-activity waste is occurring through exemption. Additional guidance would help to clarify criteria, for example the “few millirem” reference above, for the industry and practitioners.

Mr. Camper recalled that several years ago, the USNRC’s Office of General Counsel asked the USNRC staff to identify a basis for using a “few millirem” for a lower threshold. It was determined then that the USNRC staff was at liberty to use a higher number, but first it needed to alert the Commission. Mr. Camper agreed that it would be good to embody this criterion within regulation.

Both the USNRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have spent considerable time and effort considering VLLW, as noted by several participants.²³ Mr. Camper asked John Greeves, USNRC retired, to provide further background on the USNRC’s work on the clearance of very low-activity waste. Mr. Greeves noted that there is no lower threshold for LLW classification in the United States. The IAEA document, Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance Safety Guide (referenced previously by Mr. Garamszeghy) has a clearance definition that the USNRC staff (including Mr. Greeves and others at the time) had supported but the USNRC never adopted. France has done an outstanding job of resolving this problem and provides an excellent case study on how to manage and dispose of VLLW. The USNRC staff completed an environmental impact statement (EIS) in 2005 to evaluate approaches for managing certain types of VLLW, but no action was taken. Mr. Greeves noted that the federal government and Congress have not focused on addressing this issue.

Mr. Camper recalled that the USNRC and EPA conferred in 2003 as EPA prepared an Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANPR) on very low-activity waste. Mr. Camper asked Mr. Daniel Schultheisz, EPA, Office of Radiation, whether EPA considered developing criteria for VLLW at the time of the ANPR and, if so, how it aligned with what EPRI proposed in the generic technical basis report (EPRI, 2013). Mr. Schultheisz explained that EPA has been looking at the issue of VLLW for quite some time. The ANPR referenced above was released in 2003 and was, in fact, an iteration

___________________

²³ While not discussed during the workshop, it is worth noting that DOE utilizes a similar option (called the “authorized limits process”) for waste with low concentrations of radioactivity through disposal at on-site Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) cells.

of previous work. EPA had originally considered a VLLW disposal option when it considered ways to make it easier for generators to dispose of mixed waste at RCRA facilities. This was broadened in the early 2000s to include working with the USNRC staff—Mr. Greeves in particular offered his staff to provide assistance.

EPA’s approach is conceptually similar to what is proposed in the EPRI report (EPRI, 2013). The approach in the rulemakings before the ANPR was to establish specific concentration limits on radionuclides based on certain exposure scenarios. The limits were calibrated to particular dose levels and could be adjusted, allowing states the flexibility to implement as they saw appropriate. The states would not be required to adopt the dose levels.

The EPA received many public comments after the ANPR was released. However, at the same time, EPA staff were significantly distracted by the Yucca Mountain rulemakings. Mr. Schultheisz recalled that there was not significant support within the EPA at the time for a rulemaking on VLLW. Mr. Schultheisz noted that the EPA has continued to perform some modeling of different exposure scenarios—perhaps similar to what EPRI has done. The results are in a draft report, which has not yet been released.

The EPA is considering the application of the VLLW concept to wastes created by a radiological incident, such as a dirty bomb, or a nuclear accident such as occurred at Fukushima and Chernobyl. The EPA is establishing a planning process whereby clearance or VLLW designations could be implemented (see later discussion of this waste type in Chapter 3).

Kevin Crowley, director of the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board at the National Academies, asked Mr. Garamszeghy whether the Canadian public had accepted the idea of clearance waste and whether there has been a difference in the ease or cost of disposing of this waste. Mr. Garamszeghy responded that in terms of public acceptance, certain members of the public are ideologically opposed. Regardless, clearance of the waste is allowed under regulation. He also noted that allowing for cleared waste has reduced the volumes of radioactive waste that have to be managed. All major nuclear waste producers, such as NPPs and research facilities, have implemented a “likely clean” program. The program is based on the separate collection and monitoring of waste, which, for operational reasons such as the location in the plant of its generation, is considered “likely clean.” Those wastes are bulk collected and monitored. They can then be released for conventional recycle or disposal, depending on the waste type. In a number of cases, this resulted in a reduction of more than 50 percent in the amount of waste that has to be treated as radioactive waste.

The “likely clean” program has been in practice for more than 15 years and is very cost-effective. Most of the waste that gets diverted in this fashion is nonradioactive. The release criterion is basically background activity.

Background activity is a very conservative limit, so the waste is essentially clean.

New Rules in Averaging and Reduction in Class B and C Wastes

Ms. Edwards was asked by Diane D’Arrigo, the radioactive waste project director of the Nuclear Information and Research Service, whether her estimate or projection of future volumes of Class B and C wastes being reduced to zero was because of new calculations, physical mixing, or both. Ms. Edwards responded that she suspects that volumes of Class B and C wastes will approach zero due to the updated method for concentration averaging. Not all LLW containers or packages contain homogenous mixtures of waste. Some waste packages have “hot spots”²⁴ created by waste components that cannot be evenly distributed throughout the package such as filters or irradiated metals. In this case, a calculation determines the allowable activity level for these components of the waste. The term “concentration averaging” refers to this calculation.

The 1995 USNRC guidance on concentration averaging was intended to limit the concentrations of specific radionuclides within a given waste package as compared to the average activity of that package.²⁵ Updated guidance released in 2015 allows the concentration of the hot spot to be compared to the waste classification limit instead of the average concentration of the package.²⁶

Ms. Edwards further explained that the important quantity for waste disposal is the total activity that goes into a single package. If a package meets the averaging constraints described above, then the higher activity from the hot spot is averaged with the other constituents over the total volume. This is the reason for Ms. Edwards’ prediction that nearly all Class B and C waste from the utilities will be packaged as Class A waste in the future.

___________________

²⁴ The USNRC defines a hot spot as (USNRC, 2015b, p. 11) “a portion of the overall waste volume whose radionuclide concentrations are above the class limit for the entire container [or package].”

²⁵ See 10 CFR Part 61.55, Table 2 for the list of radionuclides and their concentration limits. For the text of the 1995 guidance, see “Issuance of Final Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation, Revisions in Part to Waste Classification Technical Position,” accessed April 9, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0336/ML033630732.pdf.

²⁶ For the new “factor of 10” rule: the concentration of each radionuclide of concern in each item [or waste package] should be less than 10 times the classification limit for that radionuclide.

Waste Classification of LLW Containing TRU Nuclides

Dr. Crowley asked Mr. Shrum to clarify a comment made during his presentation on how TRU waste might be considered LLW. Mr. Shrum responded that, by definition, TRU waste is not LLW; nevertheless, 10 CFR 61.55 allows for near-surface disposal for waste containing TRU nuclides based on its characteristics. Dr. Crowley suggested that disposal of TRU as LLW might not be a problem because it is apparently allowed by regulation.

Mr. Camper noted two concerns with disposal of TRU as LLW: The first is that TRU waste is not included in the definition of LLW in 10 CFR Part 61 so it is disconnected from the LLRWPA Amendment. The second and larger concern is that Table 1 in 10 CFR 61.55 states that the Class C limit allows up to 100 nanocuries per gram (nCi/g) for waste containing TRU nuclides but it does not explicitly define waste containing more than 100 nCi/g of TRU nuclides.²⁷ The problem is that some of the waste defined in the final EIS for GTCC²⁸ waste is non-defense TRU waste for which there is no disposal pathway at present. This is the problem that the Commission directed USNRC staff to address via rulemaking.

Legacy (Historic) Wastes

Jennifer Heimberg, rapporteur and National Academies staff, asked the panel how legacy wastes are handled in Canadian and U.S. regulations and whether they are disposed of at commercial LLW facilities. Mr. Garamszeghy noted that the legacy wastes can be a challenge to address. In Canada, these wastes are the result of a number of activities (research, mining, industrial) dating back to the early 1940s. Many legacy waste streams are not well characterized in terms of radionuclide content, physical forms, or volumes. They have been stored or disposed of in facili-

___________________

²⁷ The following documents provide history and further background on the TRU waste problem (USNRC, 2015a and 2015c): “SECY-15-0094: Historical and Current Issues Related to the Disposal of Greater-than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” accessed March 28, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15162A807.pdf and “SECY-15-0094, Enclosure 3: Statutory Language and Regulatory History of Commercial Transuranic Waste Disposal,” March 28, 2017, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15162A828.pdf.

²⁸ See “DOE: Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste Environmental Impact Statement (GTCC EIS) Documents,” accessed March 1, 2017, http://www.gtcceis.anl.gov/documents/index.cfm#final.

ties that do not meet modern standards. Consequently, there are uncertainties in the characteristics, quantities, and locations of these wastes. The Canadian federal government is ultimately responsible for managing these wastes; the government has a number of programs in place to characterize and manage them. For example, Mr. Garamszeghy recalled from his presentation that there were ~2.1 million cubic meters of VLLW in Canada.²⁹ This is largely historic waste from contaminated soil, decommissioning of legacy facilities, and similar activities. There is a proposal by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a contractor that operates the government’s nuclear facility near Chalk River, Ontario, to develop near-surface disposal facility at that site for disposal of Canada’s legacy wastes. Most of Canada’s legacy waste resides at that site.

Mr. Shrum responded that EnergySolutions receives legacy waste, mostly from DOE. This waste is often referred to as “look what we found” waste because of its unpredictable characteristics. Mr. Shrum noted that DOE has a different waste classification scheme than the one used by the USNRC. If DOE legacy waste is identified and planned for disposal at a commercial facility, DOE will typically use waste processors or brokers to first characterize the waste, confirm that it meets the facility’s waste acceptance criteria, and that the waste meets the requirements in 10 CFR Part 61.55.

2.4 REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, ORDERS, AND GUIDANCE CRITERIA

Mr. Camper began the session by providing an overview of the U.S. LLW regulatory process. His remarks are summarized below. The regulatory process has a proven track record and has been shown to adequately protect health and safety. However, the process is complicated (a “regulatory mosaic”), may be difficult to understand or explain, and lacks exact alignment with other international regulatory frameworks. There is room for improvement.

A number of key pieces of legislation directly impact the management and disposal of LLW. These are identified and briefly described in Box 2-1 and in Appendix D.

Mr. Camper identified the key regulators of radioactive waste within the United States and stressed the key role that Agreement States play in regulating the four commercial LLW disposal facilities. The EPA develops standards applicable to LLW disposal. The USNRC has regulatory oversight of commercial radioactive waste in the United States under the

___________________

²⁹ This estimate uses the IAEA GSG-1 classification of VLLW; however, the waste is currently termed “LLW” by the waste owners.

Atomic Energy Act. The DOE is self-regulating for the wastes it generates and stores. Mr. Camper noted that the Department of Transportation also has regulations for transporting LLW, but these regulations are enforced by the USNRC.

DOE regulates its radioactive wastes through two orders:³⁰

• Order 458.1—Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, and
• Order 435.1—Radioactive Waste Management.

The key USNRC regulations are the following:

• 10 CFR Part 20—Standards for Protection against Radiation
• 10 CFR Part 61—Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste
• 10 CFR Part 62—Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities

10 CFR Part 62 was created when there was no access to disposal for Class B and C wastes for 36 states. This provision has not been used to date.

Mr. Camper listed other entities that influence the regulatory process, including the Compact Commissions for the states, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD),³¹ International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP),³² Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, Inc.,³³ National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP),³⁴ and

___________________

³⁰ DOE Orders are described as a type of Directive: “Orders establish management objectives and requirements and assign responsibilities for DOE Federal employees consistent with policy and regulations. Requirements must be unique to DOE and must avoid duplicating information from other directives or any existing legal source.” These orders and DOE policies provide for site-specific performance assessments and site-specific waste acceptance criteria to establish an envelope of acceptable LLW forms and packages between waste generators and waste disposal sites. See: “DOE: DIRECTIVES HELP,” accessed March 1, 2017, https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-help.

³¹ The mission of CRCPD is “to promote consistency in addressing and resolving radiation protection issues, to encourage high standards of quality in radiation protection programs, and to provide leadership in radiation safety and education.” For more information, see “An Introduction to CRCPD,” accessed March 1, 2017, http://www.crcpd.org/page/About.

³² According to its website, “. . . the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) helps to prevent cancer and other diseases and effects associated with exposure to ionising radiation, and to protect the environment.” For more information, see “About ICRP,” accessed April 9, 2017, http://www.icrp.org/.

³³ The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, Inc. is focused on helping the states and interstate compacts implement the requirements of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (see Box 2-1). For more information, see “About Us,” accessed April 9, 2017, http://llwforum.org/about/.

³⁴ For more information, see “National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: About,” (accessed April 9, 2017) http://ncrponline.org/about/.

Organization of Agreement States (OAS).³⁵ The ICRP and NCRP develop protection criteria that may be used in various statutes and/or guidance. The OAS assists the Agreement States and coordinates actions with the USNRC.

Mr. Camper provided further background on the Agreement States program. The program was established by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended. Section 274b of the Act allows the USNRC to relinquish portions of its regulatory authority to an Agreement State.³⁶ The state governor and the chairman of the USNRC must sign an agreement recognizing “the State shall have authority to regulate the materials covered by the agreement for the protection of the public health and safety from radiation hazards” (AEA, Section 274b). The USNRC conducts an integrated management performance evaluation program through inspections and licensing to regularly confirm that the Agreement States’ programs are sufficient and compatible with federal regulations.

The states’ role in LLW management and disposal have evolved in response to the LLRWPA (see Box 2-1) in three important aspects: first, each state must dispose of LLW generated within its borders, either individually or through compacts. Second, states may assume regulatory authority as discussed above. Third, states have the authority to regulate naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM). Regulatory authority for these materials was not specified in the AEC.

Mr. Camper noted that the United States is fortunate to have four LLW disposal facilities; many countries have not yet determined a long-term solution to storage and disposal of LLW. The fact that the IAEA has safety standards, disposal requirements, and a general safety guide was mentioned by Mr. Camper; these are discussed in further detail later in these proceedings.

Mr. Camper noted that the U.S. regulatory process for LLW relies on an integrated safety system approach, which has proven effective in protecting human health and the environment but is technically complex. The approach involves many considerations such as site selection, site design, facility closure, post-closure stabilization, and institutional controls.

Finally, Mr. Camper noted that these are interesting times for regulation of LLW in the United States. U.S. regulators are addressing complex waste streams that were not included in the original analyses in 1982 for 10 CFR Part 61, including some waste streams identified for discussion in this workshop such as depleted uranium (DU), GTCC, and commercial TRU wastes. USNRC staff have been asked by the Commission to consider

___________________

³⁵ The purpose of the OAS is to “provide a mechanism for these Agreement States to work with each other and with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ([US]NRC) on regulatory issues associated with their respective agreements.” For more information, see “About OAS,” accessed April 9, 2017, http://www.agreementstates.org/page/about-oas.

³⁶ Note: Kentucky became the first Agreement State in 1962.

changes to regulations for some of these wastes. There will likely continue to be great stakeholder interest in these regulatory changes.

In introducing the session, Mr. Camper explained that the three invited speakers were asked to address the following questions in their presentations:

• What are the health, environmental safety, and security bases that led to the generally applicable standards and regulations in your line of work?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the respective approaches?

Andrew Orrell, section head of waste management and environmental safety, IAEA, provided an international regulatory perspective; Thomas Magette, managing director of PricewaterhouseCoopers, provided an industry perspective; and Mark Yeager, environmental health manager for South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), provided perspectives from an Agreement State regulator.

LLW Management and the IAEA, Regulations, Standards, Orders, and Guidance

Mr. Orrell addressed the following topics in his presentation: IAEA statute (authority), IAEA safety standards, supporting guidance, and the Joint Convention. The statute that created the IAEA specifically authorizes it to develop and promote the application of safety standards for the benefit of its member states. These standards are intended to be an expression of international consensus about what constitutes a high-level of safety.³⁷ However, the IAEA is not a regulator, so its safety standards are not legally binding. They are used in different ways in different countries because the regulation and enforcement of safety is the sole responsibility of each IAEA member state.

The IAEA has produced more than 200 documents related to safety standards that cover nuclear technologies and the full nuclear fuel cycle. The wheel diagram in Figure 2-5 shows all of the current safety standards.³⁸ The overarching safety fundamentals are the highest in the hierarchy (a single document at the center of the wheel in blue), followed by the safety requirements (seven documents in red) and the more detailed safety guides (more numerous documents shown in green).

___________________

³⁷ The IAEA currently has 168 member states. The statute governing its operation can be found at: “The Statute of the IAEA,” accessed April 9, 2017, https://www.iaea.org/about/statute.

³⁸ For a list of all of the safety standards shown in Figure 1-5, see: “Safety Standards applicable to all facilities and activities,” accessed April 9, 2017, http://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/documents/general.asp.

The safety fundamentals lay out the fundamental safety objective: to protect people and the environment from the potential harm of radioactivity.³⁹ “People” refers to both the worker and the public.

The safety fundamentals lay out 10 safety principles of protection and safety and provide the basis for the underlying safety requirements:

1. Responsibility for safety
2. Role of government
3. Leadership and management for safety
4. Justification of facilities and activities
5. Optimization of protection
6. Limitation of risks to individuals
7. Protection of present and future generations
8. Prevention of accidents
9. Emergency preparedness and response
10. Protective actions to reduce existing or unregulated radiation risks

These principles are constructed to use “must” statements and are at least notionally binding on member states.

Safety requirements elaborate on the fundamental safety objective and the 10 safety principles. Key safety requirement documents include one each for predisposal and disposal of radioactive waste.⁴⁰ The guides are meant to be concise and indicate “what,” “by whom,” and “when” actions should be taken and “why” the requirement exists. The safety requirements are constructed to use “shall” statements and are also at least notionally binding on member states.

At the bottom of the hierarchy in Figure 2-5 are the safety guides—captured in general and specific guides that provide recommendations on “how” to comply with the upper-tier requirements. The guides cite present international good practices and increasingly reflect best practices. The safety guides are constructed to use “should” statements.

Mr. Orrell’s presentation included examples of a number of safety guides relevant to radioactive waste management, predisposal, storage, and disposal. He highlighted a few guides of particular relevance to the workshop: the classification of waste, management systems for predisposal and disposal frameworks, guidance on constructing a safety case and safety

___________________

³⁹ See “The IAEA Safety Standard: Fundamental Safety Principles, No. SF-1,” accessed April 9, 2017, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1273_web.pdf.

⁴⁰ “Predisposal” is a term used to describe the (IAEA, 2009b, p. 1) “management of radioactive waste from its generation up to disposal, including processing (pretreatment, treatment, and conditioning), storage and transport.” For the general safety requirement guide on predisposal of radioactive waste (GSR Part 5), see (IAEA, 2009b). For the specific safety requirement guide for disposal of radioactive waste, see (IAEA, 2011).

assessment (which are crucial to the demonstration of safety of the radioactive waste management), and several specific guides on predisposal and disposal in near-surface and deep-geologic settings.

In addition to the official safety standard series, the IAEA also publishes a large number of supporting documents; these documents elaborate on best practices and/or good international practices for implementing radioactive waste management and also capture the results of technical meetings, conference proceedings, and workshops. All publications are developed by representatives of member states to benefit from their breadth and depth of available expertise.

Mr. Orrell noted that the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management⁴¹ is a legal instrument to the 75 contracting parties that obligates each to implement the principles contained in the IAEA safety standards.⁴² The Joint Convention went into force in 2001. Many of the technical obligations in the Joint Convention have strong parallels to the subjects covered in the safety standard series.

Mr. Orrell also noted that the IAEA safety standards represent six decades of experience and expertise, and they provide international consensus on what is needed to achieve a high level of safety. He noted that there is a common commitment to the protection of people and the environment regardless of the scale of a member state’s activities. He presented a photograph of a VLLW disposal cell for a small European country with a very small nuclear footprint (Figure 2-6). This one cell has a capacity for 30,000 cubic meters of VLLW. The cleanup from the Fukushima Daiichi accident has generated more than 10 million cubic meters of contaminated soils to date—which would fill roughly 400 of the disposal cells in the small European country.

Complications in the Process of Creating and Revising Regulations

Mr. Magette noted, as have others, that the USNRC is in the midst of updating 10 CFR Part 61. He reviewed the complications of revising and creating regulations to account for challenging LLW streams such as DU and TRU. The update, originally proposed as a “tweak” 8 years ago, was needed to account for the large quantities of DU waste expected to be sent to commercial disposal facilities. Mr. Magette suggested that the level of

___________________

⁴¹ For more information, see “IAEA: Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management,” accessed March 1, 2017, http://www-ns.iaea.org/conventions/waste-jointconvention.asp.

⁴² The number of parties and signatories was last updated on March 3, 2017; see “Joint Convention status,” accessed April 27, 2017, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/jointconv_status.pdf.

effort required to modify the regulations thus far has been disproportionate to the risk posed by DU waste.

He identified several reasons for his opinion. The first is that Agreement States have been given the authority to regulate LLW. If one were to redesign a system to regulate LLW with our current understanding of the variety and volumes of LLW streams, it is hard to imagine a system that would allow individual states to regulate LLW because there is no distinction in health and safety benefit as one crosses state lines. Mr. Magette explained that the transition of authority from the USNRC to the states was not as clear as suggested previously by Mr. Camper. For example, updating the compatibility category tables,⁴³ which help to define how states may

___________________

⁴³ Compatibility category tables define how states may interpret USNRC regulations—these should not be confused with the tables used to classify wastes as Class A, B, C or GTCC.

interpret USNRC regulations, has further complicated the recent update process.

Several of the USNRC Commissioners recently and informally asked Mr. Magette if he thought a uniform regulatory regime would be a disincentive for states to develop disposal sites. He responded that it would have little impact because the debates about the development of such facilities are rarely focused on regulations. He also noted that changes to regulations are not a high-priority issue for most of the states because there are only four that host such facilities. Finally, disposal facilities are sited and developed by private entities, not by states and compacts.

Mr. Magette argued that it is necessary to adjust the LLW regulatory system to the situation in which we find ourselves. A small change to the regulations was proposed 8 years ago to address the increasing quantities of DU. The effort expanded to consider the revision of the classification tables in 10 CFR Part 61.55 for DU, GTCC, and TRU—a much more difficult effort than making a small change to the tables to account for DU only. One might reasonably ask whether the process has become overly complicated relative to the risks or hazards posed by the disposal of these materials. The LLW disposal system works today, but it is not clear whether the updates will improve it.

Mr. Magette highlighted several specific waste streams for which the existing regulatory system has become overly complicated. The radioactive emissions from DU increase slowly over time due to a build-up of daughter products—reaching a maximum value in approximately 1 million years. This growth in emissions necessitated a review of the length of the current compliance period for disposal of DU. The USNRC staff proposed to the Commission a two-tiered compliance process: a compliance period of 1,000 years or 10,000 years, depending on whether a facility accepts long-lived waste. However, this proposed change would double the compliance period from 500 years for Class C waste and increase it by a factor of 10 for Class A waste. Mr. Magette pointed out that there is no good technical basis to support this increased regulatory compliance period for non-long-lived waste.

The other complication is the period of institutional control following the closure of the LLW disposal facility. The public debate with USNRC staff focused on institutional controls and whether it was reasonable to maintain such control beyond 100 years. Mr. Magette suggested that the discussion should have focused on acknowledging that the risk diminishes over time; an increased period of institutional control resulted in much lower risk at the end.

Agreement State Programs

Mr. Yeager reviewed the Agreement State programs, addressing the two questions posed at the start of this session. He noted that Texas, Utah, Washington, and South Carolina regulate the four commercial LLW disposal facilities in the United States. These are Agreement States, and each works within similar regulatory structures.

In general, the Agreement States adopt the requirements in these regulations in their state regulations. For example, South Carolina’s radiation protection standards for LLW waste disposal are compatible with the USNRC’s 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection against Radiation. South Carolina’s radiation protection requirements are set forth in Regulation 61-63, Title A, Part III (State of South Carolina, 2014). The regulations apply to the public, workers, and vendors who provide services at the sites, and they establish occupational dose limits, surveys and monitoring, precautionary procedures, and required records and reports.

The conditions and operational procedures that commercial LLW licensees implement to comply with state and federal regulations are incorporated within their respective radioactive material licenses. In South Carolina, DHEC conducts radiological surveys and the physical inspection of the Barnwell Disposal Facility (BDF) biannually to document that license conditions and corresponding procedures are compliant. The BDF’s LLW receipt and disposal operations are inspected weekly, as needed. Weekly inspections are conducted of general site, active disposal trench conditions, and enhanced trench cap conditions resulting from preliminary site closure activities. The review of submittals for new disposal trench construction and on-site inspection of this activity is also conducted by department technical staff.

Mr. Yeager pointed to 10 CFR 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, which are implemented in South Carolina’s Regulation 61-63, Part VII. As was previously mentioned, Part 61 has recently been revised. As a result, the sited Agreement States will need a guidance document to help implement the changes—hopefully to be released with the updated Part 61. Mr. Yeager agreed with previous comments about the need to account for the costs of the changes. DHEC has not yet determined how the implementation of the changes to Part 61 will affect its program.

The final rule for Part 61 includes the following change (highlighted in the previous presentation by Mr. Magette): the existing technical analysis for protection to the general public will either have a 1,000-year or a 10,000-year compliance period, depending on the quantities of long-lived radionuclides that are planned for disposal or have already been disposed of. The technical analysis should include a new safety case analysis to identify defense in-depth protections and to describe the capabilities of the

disposal system. Therefore, the Agreement States will have to provide a new technical analysis for the protection of inadvertent intruders that includes the revised compliance period and corresponding dose limit. In addition, the Agreement States will have to perform a post-10,000-year performance year analysis. This will add a new requirement to update the technical analysis at the time of site closure.

The USNRC Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation (BTP) has been an essential tool in assessing proper waste classification, packaging, and disposal trench selection. The recent update of the BTP has affected the volume of LLW received at the BDF by allowing the blending down of Class B and Class C to higher concentrations of Class A. It is also important to mention that each commercial LLW disposal facility has established Waste Acceptance Criteria which both allows and restricts certain waste forms. Examples include radium, DU, and mixed waste.

One of the questions posed to the presenters was related to physical security. Mr. Yeager noted that South Carolina regulations follow the USNRC’s 10 CFR Part 37, the Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material. The licensee and DHEC determined that some shipments of Class B and C waste, such as irradiated hardware, require security during staging for disposal at the EnergySolutions BDF site. As a result, DHEC worked with a licensee to implement this protection so that it met the Part 37 requirements. Mr. Yeager concluded that EnergySolutions performed well in this respect.

Finally, with regard to regulations related to transportation, South Carolina implements and enforces the provisions of 49 CFR Part 173, Subpart I for Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials, and also the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 20. All incoming LLW shipments are all inspected to assure that communication requirements and the conveyance meets physical and radiological regulatory standards; the shipment manifest and waste description are reviewed to ensure compliance with waste acceptance criteria; and the packaging is adequate.

With regard to packaging, Mr. Yeager noted that DHEC has been delegated authority to conduct engineering reviews of proposed High-Integrity Containers utilized to assure adequate LLW containment (primarily for the disposal of dewatered ion-exchange resin) for a minimum of a 300-year disposal lifetime. Upon conclusion of construction and mandated testing, DHEC is authorized to issue Certificates of Compliance.

Mr. Yeager noted that one strength of the Agreement States is the opportunity for collaboration during periodic reviews conducted through the USNRC’s Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP). Each IMPEP team includes an Agreement State member. The oversight by another regulatory program is usually beneficial for both Agreement State programs.

An important challenge faced by Agreement State programs is providing technical assistance to other regulatory programs that find themselves with issues involving the disposition of various solid wastes containing or contaminated with radioactive constituents. Examples of these wastes include, but are not limited to, discrete radium sources (mostly of military origin), radium residuals resulting from water or mineral processing, and tritium resulting from improper disposal of generally licensed devices in solid waste landfills. South Carolina is the home of multiple military installations. As a result, DHEC receives many calls from scrap metal dealers that have come across discrete sources of radium and some byproduct material from improperly disposed of licensed sources. Most dealers are small businesses and do not have the financial resources to properly dispose of these disused or orphan sources. Some sources containing byproduct material can be traced back to the licensee. Fortunately, programs such as DOE’s Source Collection and Threat Reduction (SCATR) Program allow for disposal of these sources at minimal or no cost to the generator.

Radium in drinking water and the residuals from ion exchange and filter media present additional disposal challenges. Water providers who are not accustomed or experienced under a regulatory regime have difficulty dealing with the required physical protections for their workers. Also, the water providers are not accustomed to the extreme expense of disposing of radium-contaminated filter media. DHEC has issued Reg. 61-63, Part IX, Licensing of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), to assist in the regulatory oversight of this activity and the resulting radiological wastes.

Finally, it was noted that tritium, due to its elemental form, is an insidious environmental contaminant common in all LLW disposal sites and some solid waste landfills. One area of concern with LLW shallow-land burial at the BDF and other disposal facilities, including some solid waste facilities, is the presence of tritium in off-site environmental monitoring wells. One way the facility operator manages this issue is to restrict access by potential receptors at the release point. At the BDF, construction of enhanced trench cap covers has been very successful in mitigating the percolation of precipitation and the resulting transport of tritium through groundwater off-site.

2.5 DISCUSSION: REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, ORDERS, AND GUIDANCE CRITERIA

Several topics (highlighted in bold) were brought up during the Session 1b discussion. Questions, answers, and general comments pertaining to a specific topic are grouped below. As for the Session 1a discussion overview, this overview does not follow the chronological order of the discussion.

Likelihood of Significant Changes to the U.S. Regulatory System

The panelists were asked about the likelihod of large-scale changes to the U.S. regulatory framework for LLW. All three panelists agreed that large-scale changes were very unlikely. Mr. Magette noted that such changes were “extraordinarily unlikely,” and he cited another example of the USNRC’s approach to tweaking its regulations to address an evolving problem: the decommissioning rule for NPPs. The USNRC is considering the application of regulations originally written to ensure worker and public health and safety during NPP operations to their decommissioning. He also recalled the failed effort to develop regulations for material below regulatory concern (i.e., exempt or cleared material) originally requested by Congress in the LLRWPA as amended in 1985.

Mr. Orrell provided perspectives both as an IAEA employee and a U.S. citizen. He agrees that the LLW regulatory framework is “not very likely” to change substantially, certainly not in his lifetime. However, he noted that he has seen, both in the U.S. and other nations’ regulatory systems, regulatory creep over time. Regulations get more complicated with time as regulators adjust their regulations to address evolving problems, typically by adding to instead of removing standards. Eventually, the regulations become unwieldy, prompting a revolution instead of an evolution to change them. Whether the U.S. nuclear regulatory framework will undergo a revolution is difficult to predict, but other industries such as banking and airlines have gone through punctuated efforts to revise, wholesale, their regulatory frameworks.

Mr. Yeager added another example from his time as chairperson of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management of the CRCPD. Mr. Yeager described an overly optimistic but failed attempt, at his first meeting as the chair, to obtain consensus on a uniform approach by the states and federal agencies. But he also cited a successful multi-agency effort that created a unified approach to radiological characterization as a reason to be hopeful for a similar effort in LLW management. The EPA’s Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)⁴⁴ was a collaborative effort by the EPA, USNRC, DOE, and the Department of Defense.

Another is for LLW disposal organizations responsible for regulatory oversight to consider oversight for each other. For example, the four commercial LLW disposal facilities in the United States are currently regulated by Agreement States. Each respective regulatory program is subject to peri-

___________________

⁴⁴Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) “provides detailed guidance on how to demonstrate that a site is in compliance with a radiation dose- or risk-based regulation.” More information can be found at: “EPA: Radiation Protection: Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM),” https://www.epa.gov/radiation/multi-agency-radiation-survey-and-site-investigation-manual-marssim, accessed March 1, 2017.

odic review by the USNRC to assure compatibility with applicable federal regulations. The IMPEP inspection team is comprised of USNRC inspectors and an Agreement State inspector. DOE, as a self-regulating agency, might benefit from an assessment of its LLW disposal regime by other regulatory entities.

Consensus on a unified approach to LLW disposal across Agreement States and federal jurisdictions is also needed, noted Mr. Yeager. Such a consensus could encourage buy-in from stakeholders and the public and possibly reduce disposal costs. Currently, there are several federal and state regulatory regimes; it can sometimes be frustrating for a LLW (or LLW of very low activity) generator to move from one to another. In South Carolina, for example, the EnergySolutions’ BDF is a commercial LLW site regulated by the South Carolina DHEC; RCRA facilities in the state that contain mixed waste are regulated by the EPA; Savannah River is regulated by DOE; but the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Plant at Savannah River is regulated by the both the USNRC and DOE.

Mr. Magette further commented that site-specific regulations are based in part on performance assessments because each site is different. This makes uniform regulations across Agreement States more difficult to develop.

Containment Approach to Addressing the Isolation Period

Ms. Edwards noted that although a substantial revision of current U.S. LLW regulations is unlikely, workshop attendees might consider approaches that extend beyond regulatory changes. In the spirit of the workshop, Ms. Edwards presented such an approach and asked for participants’ perspectives.

From a strictly technical viewpoint, LLW poses a hazard with a finite lifetime. It is a fairly straightforward calculation to determine the lifetime of the hazard of the LLW inventory of any disposal site. Ms. Edwards suggested that if society is willing to impose institutional controls for the duration of the LLW hazard, there would be no need to consider exposure to the waste after that period (i.e., intrusion scenarios)—similar to Mr. Magette’s comments that an increased institutional control period resulted in lower risk at the end.

The development of intrusion scenarios leads to disagreements that are difficult to resolve, primarily because one must hypothesize about the characteristics of intruder scenario, for example when and how the intrusion occurs and the characteristics of intruder exposures. There are differing viewpoints on what intruder scenarios are “reasonable” to consider; for example, how should one estimate the behavior of an intruder who lives 10,000 years in the future, and how does one determine whether the intru-

sion would have significant health effects given likely future medical advances? It is difficult to defend a dose analysis for an intruder scenario given these future uncertainties. If LLW is isolated for the duration of its hazard, there would be no reason to consider intruder scenarios. Ms. Edwards acknowledged that there may be cases where longer-term institutional controls are not workable and suggested that a different set of regulations could be developed for those cases.

Mr. Orrell offered a technical perspective based on his experiences in performing and managing many of the safety and performance assessments for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and Yucca Mountain. In these analyses, it was assumed that all repositories, near-surface or otherwise, fail when there is an intrusion. Intrusion scenarios are informative in and of themselves to understand the consequences of such failures. Other countries use the results of intrusion scenarios to inform their regulatory processes. In Mr. Orrell’s opinion, the intruder scenario serves as a pass/fail element of the U.S. regulatory system rather than as an information-input to the system.

Mr. Orrell agreed that, unless there is a reasonable argument for increasing the characterization of risk or adding to public confidence, extending the isolation period may not make a lot of difference. Mr. Orrell noted it would be straightforward to recalculate an isolation period from 500 to 1,000 years. In practice, however, the uncertainty of the result would need to be reduced by an order of magnitude (or two) to significantly improve the characterization of risk for increasing the isolation period from 500 to 1,000 years.

Mr. Orrell also stressed the importance of the terminology being used in Ms. Edwards’ question. For example, WIPP has a containment standard, whereas other repositories have dose standards. There is an assumption that most repositories will have a release over some (long) time period, so a containment standard may drive one to particular disposition solutions that may not always be readily available or achievable.

“Regulatory Morass”

Paul Black, chief executive officer of Neptune and Company, Inc., provided a summary of his thoughts from the session. He recalled Mr. Camper’s characterization of the complex framework as a “regulatory mosaic” and suggested another term which he believes is more accurate: a “regulatory morass.” Dr. Black highlighted several examples to support this opinion including containment requirements, the compliance period for DU, and overly complicated LLW regulations (Black et al., 2014). His concern is that the complexity and associated costs with disposal of LLW has an upstream effect on the nuclear industry.

He noted that there remains some question on the appropriate regulation for small amounts of DOE TRU waste that may be present in the disposal sites at NNSS and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). There is a question of whether the EPA’s containment requirements of 40 CFR 191 (Subpart B Section 191.13) apply or whether other regulations would be more appropriate. Dr. Black explained that 40 CFR 191 was written for deep geologic repositories which allows a small amount of the inventory to escape while still meeting regulatory requirements. Dr. Black argued that containment regulations are ill-suited for the level of risk posed by DOE’s TRU waste in this example. The EPA and DOE have not yet determined which regulations apply, so no decision can be made.

Another example is the compliance period for DU, discussed earlier. The performance assessments must meet a peak dose—or peak activity—requirement. Peak activity for DU is 2.1 million years. Compare this to the disposal of uranium mill tailings for which the compliance period is shorter due to the use of different approaches for inadvertent intrusion. Mill tailings waste emits significant radiation from radon, but it will take 100,000 years or more for radon to build up in DU. Additionally, oil and gas producers may dispose of NORM and TENORM waste outside of the radioactive waste regulatory regime.⁴⁵

Long compliance periods and other requirements add to the cost of radioactive waste disposal, which in turn can impact nuclear energy generation and nuclear medicine use. Dr. Black judges that overly conservative radioactive waste regulations are having a severe impact on the nuclear industry.

___________________

⁴⁵National Research Council (2006b) also cites this example.

This page intentionally left blank.