Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
3/14/2014
Members of a panel made of up of government and industry officials recommended a gap analysis of the current regulatory framework for low-level radioactive waste during a Nuclear Regulatory Commission public meeting held last week to discuss the NRC’s strategic assessment of the low-level radioactive waste regulatory program. The point resonated especially with the discussion of Greater-than-Class-C waste, an issue lacking a clear direction forward. “Considering a much longer horizon, one of the things that I see as lacking is a defined gap analysis of the current framework against both current low-level waste disposal needs and future low-level waste disposal needs,” said Ralph Andersen, senior director of radiation safety and environmental protection at the Nuclear Energy Institute. “You know, where is the framework lacking and where is the framework inefficient or inconsistent?”
The point of a gap analysis amplified when the panel considered the 10.CFR.61 rule update underway at the NRC and its ramifications on site-specific waste acceptance criteria, especially for GTCC waste. “In a world where waste classification tables don’t exist … Greater-than-Class C ceases to exist if there’s not a Class C definition,” Associate Deputy Assistant Energy Secretary for Waste Management Christine Gelles said. She later added, “If you go to site-specific performance assessment in Part 61 … notwithstanding the question about what happens to the waste classification tables, you do not need to promulgate specific regulations for the disposal of GTCC low-level waste if a site-specific PA would demonstrate it could be accepted.”
Some on the panel argued that the classification table as it exists now is antiquated. “I’ve been intrigued over the years, dating back to when the concept of Greater-than-Class C was invented of how the terms that are used had become irrelevant,” Andersen said. “The quantitative definition of Greater-than-Class-C is embodied in legislation. To quote one of our colleagues from earlier, it doesn’t reflect the state of the art and doesn’t really reflect our current understanding of adequate protection of health and safety, which is the NRC’s primary mission. Over time that quantitative definition has moved away from a direct relationship to our understanding of protection of health and safety, and let me say, I think it’s thoroughly protective, it’s just it may be protected by orders of magnitude now in some cases,” he said.
Who Would License a GGTC Facility?
While the concept of ‘Greater-than-Class-C’ waste may seem irrelevant in the face of site-specific analysis, there are legal hurdles that would need to be addressed before disposal of such waste could move forward in current facilities. “When we talk about the GTCC issue, there are two camps of logic that you got to think about,” NRC Director of the Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection Larry Camper said. “One is the legal policy question, and I mentioned earlier that we want to meet with DOE soon about this. But based on our discussions with the Office of General Counsel, it’s pretty clear that our view is that that’s an assigned federal responsibility as specifically articulated in Low-Level Waste Policy Act of ’85 as amended,” he said. “However, having said that, that it is also very clear to the Commission that when it created 61.55(a)(2)(iv) it recognized a number of things — nonexclusive federal ownership of a site, the role of the Agreement States, something other than deep geologic disposal. So what we got to do is work our way through that legal policy question.” Camper added that a number of state and federal laws would have to be amended if the classification tables were eliminated, a task much larger than what the NRC is considering.
Scott Kirk, vice president of Licensing, Corporate Compliance, and RSO at Waste Control Specialists, attended the public meeting and said that Camper’s statement was an important revelation. “What I heard that was important was that the NRC agreed that the Greater-Than-Class C-like waste sort of fell outside the envelope of the LLWPA, meaning the NRC is not responsible for licensing that facility, nor are they responsible for developing technical standards for it,” Kirk said. “As Larry Camper mentioned, an Agreement State could authorize, if they choose to, disposal of GTCC-like materials, if their rules allowed them to.” WCS is looking at the framework that may be able to allow GTCC-like waste to go to the federal waste disposal facility that DOE will ultimately be responsible for under the Low Level Waste Policy Act, Kirk said.
William Dornsife of WCS echoed the confusion over who would be responsible for the licensing of a GTCC facility. “Well, I think the most immediate issue of GTCC is proper interpretation of federal law licensed by NRC,” Dornsife said. “What does it mean in terms of Agreement States? I mean typically when the words are ‘licensed under the authority of the NRC,’ that includes Agreement States because that’s a transferred authority. So I think that’s the most immediate thing because that will help DOE clear up the issues involved that are in the final impact statement and also help the state regulators to understand where they are,” he said.
From DOE’s perspective, the development of licensing criteria would be premature until after the completion an environmental impact statement now under development and Congress directs a path forward. “Until such time that we complete the EIS, provide a report to Congress, and receive their direction on how to proceed, I think proceeding with developing a single set of licensing criteria is premature,” Gelles said.
How to Keep the Public Informed?
While some members of the panel were ready to do away with generic tables for low-level waste, some postured about the consequences it would have in interacting with the public. “If this is a paradigm shift or moving away from a more traditional view of the framework from low-level waste, I think that it’s appropriate to also pause right now at the opportunity to look at how you want to engage the public in outreach and education about this kind of a shift as well, because some of the issues that are raised here about — perhaps [GGTC] is suitable to near-surface disposal is one that will take some opportunity for education,” said Rusty Lundberg, director of Utah’s Division of Radiation Control. “I’m not saying that that’s supportive but I’m just saying that I think a component of this is that with a significant shift like this, you have to also add in the idea of engaging the public enough to inform them.”
