An independent review board within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is likely to add to a chorus of stakeholder disagreement with the staff’s choice of 10,000 years as a period of performance in its draft 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking, after arguments over the technical merits of that time frame dominated a meeting held yesterday. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the draft Part 61 rulemaking—not yet in the final form that will be sent to the commission—and reiterated many concerns it voiced in prior meetings on the subject. Under the rule, low-level radioactive waste disposal sites would have to perform a site-specific analysis to prove their site was protective of public health and safety for 10,000 years. Sam Armijo, chairman of the ACRS, summed up the basic argument he’s made at multiple meetings on this draft regulation before: “Why 10,000 years, why is it necessary, what’s the safety benefit, and if you require these analyses how can you convince any reasonable person why these analyses have merit?” Armijo added: “This future analysis that has so many variables I find it very hard to believe. It may not be challenged in court but if it was I’m not sure it’d survive.”
David Esh, senior systems performance analyst with the NRC and one of the lead authors on the rule, said in shorter time periods like 1,000 years—which would align with Department of Energy regulations—regulators “aren’t able to distinguish good practices from bad or good facilities from bad.” He explained: “There are many things that can cause delay like engineered barriers or absorption of radionuclides… but a delay may be just that, not a reduction in risk but a delay.” Esh also voiced exasperation that so much focus was being placed on the compliance period of the rule, which introduces many other changes to the existing waste classification system. “I get a little frustrated by it, because we’ve been debating it for many years now, and it’s something that is not really quantitative and you can’t make it quantitative,” he said. “It’s a multi-faceted issue with many components and everyone has strong and different opinions. … There are a lot more important things in this regulation that are barely talked about that are much more important, but all the intention is put into this compliance period. Ultimately the performance period isn’t going to determine whether sites pass or fail under this regulation.”
The ACRS will write up its recommendations to the NRC commissioners based on the draft rule, and the commission will consider the rule later this summer. If they approve of the draft, it will then be published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register in fall or winter 2013 for public comment. The final rule is expected in late 2014.
