Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
7/24/2015
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff recommended this week that the commission enable Texas to license and regulate the disposal of Greater Than Class C (GTCC) waste, while the NRC staff would add another wrinkle to the 10.CFR.Part 61 update by adding TRU waste disposal to the rulemaking. The recommendation came in the form of a SECY paper dated July 22 that the commission requested to summarize the history of GTCC regulation and requirements. Waste Control Specialists last year petitioned the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to allow for the near-surface disposal of the waste stream at its West Texas facility. Currently, WCS is only licensed to accept Class A, B, and C levels of waste.
According to NRC staff, this option for addressing GTCC disposal enables a broader template for future GTCC licensing procedures while maintaining the federal statute. “[This recommendation] with rulemaking offers the benefit of providing a broadly applicable regulatory solution for any future disposal questions concerning TRU and GTCC waste, as the standards promulgated through a rulemaking would be codified, rather than limited to just the more narrowly tailored set of site-specific criteria developed for WCS,” the SECY paper said. The staff also noted that due to TCEQ’s familiarity with the site, having licensed the facility, Texas could achieve a greater licensing efficiency than the NRC.
The DOE Office of Environmental Management has sought for years to identify a disposal site for GTCC-type waste. In 2011, DOE issued a draft environmental impact statement, which estimated the total national inventory of GTCC waste at approximately 1,100 cubic meters, with an additional 175 cubic meters expected to be generated annually from DOE and commercial activities over the next 60 years. The draft EIS evaluated a number of sites under consideration for GTCC disposal, including Hanford in Washington state; the Idaho National Laboratory; the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico; the Nevada National Security Site; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; and a “generic” commercial disposal site. DOE officials have said the department hopes to issue the finalized EIS by the end of 2015.
TRU Waste Part 61 Addition Could Extend Delays
The difficult part of this recommendation, NRC staff noted, comes in the form of an additional subsection to the Part 61 rulemaking. 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 public comment period for the proposed rule ended this week, but the addition of TRU waste could delay the update further.
The staff, though, said clarity of TRU waste disposal would help ensure the timely and safe disposition of Department of Energy GTCC waste. “Because the current definition of LLRW in 10 CFR § 61.2 specifically excludes TRU waste, this rulemaking would provide a generically applicable disposal criteria for TRU waste,” the SECY paper said. “As a part of the rulemaking, NRC staff would develop a regulatory basis to determine whether TRU waste with concentrations greater than 100 nCi/gm can be disposed of using near-surface disposal.” As noted in the SECY, at a minimum, only 13 percent of the total volume of GTCC waste is not contaminated with TRU nuclides greater than 100 nCi/gm, according to DOE.
The SECY paper also outlines the option of staying the course on GTCC disposal. In this case, WCS would not be able to take the waste, as geologic disposal would be the preferred method of disposal. “The Commission could decline to extend the 10 CFR Part 61 licensing scheme to allow near-surface disposal of GTCC and TRU waste without further development of a safety and security regulatory framework,” the paper says. “This option maintains the Commission policy preference for the disposal of GTCC waste in a geologic repository. The GTCC and TRU waste streams can continue to be safely stored until geologic disposal is developed for these wastes.” The staff noted, though, that this option would delay any decisions regarding disposal of GTCC and TRU waste until a geologic repository is developed or an alternative justified.
