Staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that the vast majority of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste could be disposed of via a near-surface facility.
This is another step, if a small one, toward the federal government potentially sending thousands of cubic meters of the waste to a disposal facility in West Texas. The Department of Energy has indicated that is its preference as the agency in charge of disposal, and site operator Waste Control Specialists has made clear it would welcome the business.
Greater-Than-Class C waste, under existing federal regulations, must be interred in a geologic repository unless the NRC approves a specific application for another disposal site. The United States does not have a repository for this material and the NRC has never received a disposal request, meaning GTCC waste today remains stranded at various points of generation or interim storage around the country.
In a draft regulatory basis issued Wednesday, agency staff cited three options for addressing the matter: Leaving the current regulatory framework in place, under which the commission would rule on any direct requests for disposal of GTCC in a low-level radioactive waste site; developing new guidance, which would also sustain current regulations but might provide useful data and direction for a disposal application; and conducting a rulemaking that would establish regulations specifically for placing GTCC waste in a LLRW facility.
The draft regulatory basis does not recommend any specific option. Once the document is completed, and public input taken, staff would seek direction from the commission on which approach to pursue, an NRC spokesman said Wednesday.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission formally designates low-level radioactive waste as Class A, B, or C, with the latter possessing the highest concentration of radionuclides and presenting the greatest danger. Greater-Than-Class C is any low-level radioactive waste with radionuclide concentrations exceeding the limit for Class C material. It primarily covers activated metals, sealed sources, and other waste types generated in commercial and government nuclear operations. But GTCC can contain special nuclear material, such as enriched uranium or plutonium, that could be used in nuclear weapons.
The staff document issued this week was the result of a process that began in January 2015, when the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality queried the agency regarding its authority to license disposal of GTCC waste in the state. Texas is an agreement to the NRC, assuming much of its authority to license and regulate radioactive materials.
The commission at the time directed staff to prepare a regulatory basis addressing whether GTCC waste could be safely disposed of by means other than a deep geologic repository, and whether authority over disposal should remain with the federal agency.
Fifteen of 17 GTCC waste streams identified by the Energy Department could be suitable for near-surface disposal, NRC staff said – meaning leaving it within 30 meters of the Earth’s surface. That would encompass over 8,900 cubic meters of current and anticipated waste, including activated metal from commercial nuclear reactors, material from two systems for production of the medical isotope molybdenum-99, waste from production of plutonium-238, and exhumed material from the Energy Department’s West Valley Demonstration Project nuclear cleanup in upstate New York.
The only exceptions to the near-surface disposal suitability finding were sealed sources associated with neutron irradiators and certain remote-handled waste from decontamination operations at West Valley, a total of 2,340 cubic meters. The staff finding that those wastes “are not suitable for near-surface disposal is based on the long-term protection of the inadvertent intruder; potential for significant exposures due to operational accidents, and the potential for an increased need for physical security to prevent theft and diversion of” special nuclear material. Those two waste streams would have to go into a deep geologic repository or a land disposal site of “intermediate depth.”
Fourteen of the 15 waste streams that could be allowed for near-surface disposal could also be regulated by an agreement state, staff said. That would be based on certain assumptions, including that the amount of pre-disposal special nuclear material in GTCC waste could not generate critical mass and that the material would be buried at least 5 meters below ground and feature a 500-year intruder barrier. Texas or any other NRC agreement state would also have to adhere to applicable federal laws and directives of the NRC Agreement State program.
The only waste stream deemed suitable for near-surface disposal but not for agreement state oversight is waste from molybdenum-99 production via the Medical Isotope Production System developed and abandoned by Babcock & Wilcox. “This waste stream was deemed not suitable for Agreement State regulation because of the likelihood that its presence at a near-surface disposal facility would result in the facility exceeding the critical mass threshold” set in federal regulations on critical mass, staff wrote.
There are four licensed facilities in the United States for commercial disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Only Waste Control Specialists is known to be seeking the GTCC waste business at its Andrews County, Texas, property.
The Dallas-based company’s interest spurred the 2015 letter from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Waste Control Specialists was subsequently sold by holding company Valhi Inc. to private equity firm J.F. Lehman & Co. in January 2018, but its outlook on GTCC waste remains the same.
Management at the company did not respond to a query regarding the NRC staff report. There was also no immediate response from the office of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who in April demanded the state have a voice regarding disposal of GTCC waste within its borders.
The 1985 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act made the federal government responsible for disposal of GTCC waste. In 2016, the Energy Department said its preferred option would be its Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico and/or land disposal at generic commercial facilities. Existing law only allows WIPP to accept defense-related transuranic waste, which does not include GTCC waste. In an October 2018 environmental assessment, the agency specifically proposed disposal of GTCC waste and the similar GTCC-like waste at the Waste Control Specialists Federal Waste Facility.
The Energy Department would have to issue a record of decision to formalize that disposal approach, but as of Thursday reported no developments. Under the terms of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, it is to “await action by Congress” before issuing its final decision on GTCC waste options. That direction has not yet arrived.
Costs, Pluses and Minuses
The staff report lists estimated costs, along with advantages and disadvantages, to each of the three options laid out for the GTCC waste disposal regulatory process.
Making no change to current regulations offers lower use of resources, along with potentially lower costs and expedited implementation. On the downside, the NRC now has no set method for deciding on site-specific requests for GTCC waste disposal; that approach could also lack transparency and could increase costs if the NRC is juggling multiple applications.
For one licensing proceeding, a licensee would be expected to pay just over $1 million at the undiscounted rate, covering developing and submitting their application, attending hearings and public meeting, and revising operational procedures for GTCC waste disposal. The NRC would spend $766,000 to review the request, participate in licensing hearing and public meetings, issue the license, and ready inspection procedures. Agreement states, tribes, and the Energy Department would each pay less than $100,000 to participate in the licensing hearing and public meetings. The total per facility is projected at over $1.94 million at the undiscounted rate.
Simply issuing a guidance on GTCC waste disposal would offer potential applicants a clear understanding of the NRC’s requirements. It could also be faster and cheaper than a full rulemaking and limit potential waste of resources if no group ever files a request for GTCC waste disposal, staff said.
The overall cost per facility licensing for disposal licensees, agreement states, tribes, DOE, and the NRC would be slightly higher than the no-action option: just under $1.97 million at the undiscounted rate. But that would drop to just $336,000 if no site actually chooses to dispose of GTCC waste.
Rulemaking would be the most costly and extensive approach, but would increase regulatory stability for disposal of the waste type, staff said. It would also bolster transparency through a mandatory public notice and comment period and provide guidance to agreement states in establishing their own regulations. On the downside, it would dedicate significant NRC resources for a disposal approach that might draw limited interest.
The total cost per facility licensing under a full rulemaking is estimated at $3.2 million: $720,000 for a disposal licensee, $839,000 for an agreement state, $40,000 for a tribe, $52,000 for the Energy Department, and nearly $1.6 million for the NRC. But that total would also fall to $1.6 million if no facility goes ahead with near-surface disposal, with $1.4 million falling on the NRC for developing the actual rule.
The NRC expects to soon begin a 60-day comment period on the draft regulatory basis, which will be announced in the Federal Register. A public meeting is also scheduled for Aug. 27 in Austin, Texas, with details to be announced later.
