Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
9/18/2015
As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week winds down its public comment period for the proposed 10.CFR.61 rulemaking changes, a looming potential addition could delay the rulemaking by an additional three to four years, a NRC official said last week at the 2015 RadWaste Summit in Summerlin, Nev.
With the emergence of Waste Control Specialists’ desire to amend its license to accept Greater-Than-Class C radioactive waste at its Andrews, Texas, facility, many within the low-level waste industry fear the commission will add the waste stream to its current Part 61 rulemaking, further delaying the herculean update that began in 2009.
The NRC staff said in a SECY paper released at the end of July that for WCS to accept GTCC and GTCC-like waste, the commission would need to clarify its regulations in relation to the disposal of transuranic waste. The current definition of low-level waste does not identify TRU waste; therefore, the NRC would need to initiate a rulemaking “to develop a regulatory basis to determine whether TRU waste with concentrations greater than 100 nCi/gm can be disposed of using near-surface disposal,” according to the staff paper.
That would be accomplished by updating a portion of Part 61. Some now argue, particularly with GTCC disposal as a national need, that it would prove efficient and beneficial to tack on the TRU waste question to the ongoing Part 61 update
“I think the transuranic issue is crucial,” WCS Vice President of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Scott Kirk said in a question to Larry Camper, director of the NRC’s Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs. He added: “We know rulemaking can be long and arduous at times, so if the commissioners do address the option and say move forward with the transuranic rulemaking, do you think it would be possible to include that in the current proposed rulemaking that is going on at the moment? There seems to me that there would be some regulatory efficiencies to take that approach.”
Camper, in response, agreed that adding transuranic waste to the current rulemaking could be efficient, but he also acknowledged that after all this effort, it could be time to wrap up this iteration of the Part 61 update.
“The issue of whether or not the ongoing rulemaking should be modified to address that question, or for that matter, should address the question of a second rulemaking, is a very challenging question,” Camper said. “One might look at it from the standpoint of, you have an ongoing rulemaking, it would be more efficient to do it, while you do it. Another way to look at it is, well, I’ve put a tremendous amount of time and work into the ongoing rulemaking, and remember what really got that rulemaking going, was to ensure that there was a safe, adequate, disposal pathway for large quantities of depleted uranium.”
Ultimately, Camper said, the decision lies with the commission, but he cautioned that adding more work to the current rulemaking, in his estimation, “would add three to four years” to the process.
Others within the industry expressed a desire to come to conclude the current rulemaking before launching into a new series of issues.
“Concerning the part 61 rulemaking, it’s time to get that rulemaking completed,” EnergySolutions Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Dan Shrum said during a separate panel. “I realize WCS’ strong desire get [TRU waste] done. I would be right with them if I was in their shoes, but it’s also time to get Part 61 done. So, the regulatory uncertainty if that gets opened up again, that would be problematic.”
Kirk, himself, agreed on the sidelines of the RadWaste Summit that he would prefer the current process concludes before addressing TRU waste. But if the TRU waste question could be solved through a simple administrative addition, he argued, that could save time and effort by not having to reopen the process again.
The proposed revision of the Part 61 system is the latest iteration of the NRC’s Site Specific Assessment (SSA) rulemaking, begun in 2009 to address disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium.
The proposed Part 61 rulemaking contains all of the commission’s direction from last year regarding the three-tiered approach, which includes a time of compliance of 1,000 years, a protective assurance analysis from the end of compliance period through 10,000 years, and a qualitative analysis stretching beyond 10,000 years to evaluate long-term risks.
