Notice of Public Meeting and Request for Comment on Blending of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, 62606-62609 [E9-28507]
Download as PDF
62606
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices
NRC limit of 25 millirem per year for
areas released for unrestricted use, as
defined in 10 CFR 20.1402. Specifically,
SCE conducted characterization surveys
of the areas to be released, during which
it identified low concentrations of
radioactive cesium, cobalt, and sodium
in the sediments of the SONGS–1 CWS.
These concentrations result in a
calculated dose to the public of less
than 1 millirem per year (mrem/yr),
which is well below the NRC
unrestricted use limit of 25 mrem/yr.
The staff has prepared this EA in
support of the proposed license
amendment. The NRC has examined the
licensee’s proposed amendment request
and concluded that there are no
significant radiological environmental
impacts associated with this action, and
it will not result in significant nonradiological environmental impacts.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, NRC has
concluded that there are no significant
environmental impacts from the
proposed amendment, and that
preparation of an environmental impact
statement is not warranted.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action,
including the application for
amendment and supporting
documentation, are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this site,
you can access the NRC’s Agencywide
Document Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text
and image files of NRC’s public
documents. The ADAMS accession
numbers for the documents related to
this notice are: (1) The licensee’s
application, dated December 19, 2007,
ML080580468, (2) the EA,
ML093010071, and (3) the SER,
ML092670125. If you do not have access
to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff
at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
These documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at the NRC’s PDR, OF–21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day
of November 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:58 Nov 27, 2009
Jkt 220001
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Keith I. McConnell,
Deputy Director, Decommissioning and
Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate,
Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of Federal
and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs.
[FR Doc. E9–28509 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0495; Docket No. 50–005]
Penn State Breazeale Reactor; Notice
of Issuance of Renewed Facility
Operating License No. R–2
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has issued renewed
Facility Operating License No. R–2, held
by the Pennsylvania State University
(the licensee), which authorizes
continued operation of the Penn State
Breazeale Reactor (PSBR), located in
University Park, Centre County,
Pennsylvania. The PSBR is a pool-type,
light-water-moderated-and-cooled
research reactor licensed to operate at a
steady-state power level of 1 megawatt
thermal power and pulse mode
operation with a peak pulse power of
approximately 2,000 megawatts.
Renewed Facility Operating License No.
R–2 will expire at midnight 20 years
from its date of issuance.
The renewed license complies with
the standards and requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s rules
and regulations. The Commission has
made appropriate findings as required
by the Act and the Commission’s
regulations in Title 10, Chapter 1,
‘‘Nuclear Regulatory Commission,’’ of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), and sets forth those findings in
the renewed license. The agency
afforded an opportunity for hearing in
the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
published in the Federal Register on
June 8, 2009, at 74 FR 27188. The NRC
received no request for a hearing or
petition for leave to intervene following
the notice.
The NRC staff prepared a safety
evaluation report for the renewal of
Facility License No. R–2 and concluded,
based on that evaluation, that the
licensee can continue to operate the
facility without endangering the health
and safety of the public. The NRC staff
also prepared an Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for license renewal,
noticed in the Federal Register on
November 12, 2009, at 74 FR 58319, as
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
corrected on November 20, 2009, at 74
FR 60301, and concluded that renewal
of the license will not have a significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment.
For details with respect to the
application for renewal, see the
licensee’s letter dated December 6, 2005
(ADAMS Accession No. ML091250487),
as supplemented on October 31, 2008
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092650603),
and April 2 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML093030395), June 11 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML092030312),
September 1 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092580215), and October 21, 2009
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092990409).
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the NRC
Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. Persons who do not
have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at
1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or
send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
of November, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch
A, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–28511 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0520]
Notice of Public Meeting and Request
for Comment on Blending of Low-Level
Radioactive Waste
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and a
Request for Comment on Issues Related
to Blending of Low-Level Radioactive
Waste.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) plans to conduct a
public meeting on January 14, 2010, in
Rockville, MD, to solicit input on issues
associated with blending of low-level
radioactive waste (LLRW). Since the
closure of the LLRW disposal facility at
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices
Barnwell, South Carolina on June 30,
2008 to out-of-compact generators, the
issue of blending of LLRW has received
increased attention from stakeholders,
industry, and Agreement States,
especially blending that results in a
change in the classification of the waste,
as defined by the radionuclide
concentrations in 10 CFR part 61.55.
Blending, as defined here, refers to
mixing of LLRW of different
concentrations. It does not involve
mixing radioactive waste with nonradioactive waste, (i.e., dilution) and
concerns only disposal in a licensed
facility, not release of radioactivity to
the general environment.
Blending is not prohibited or
explicitly addressed in NRC regulations.
In addition, while NRC staff guidance
discourages blending in some
circumstances, it also recognizes that
some blending—including blending that
lowers the classification of a waste—
may be appropriate in others. However,
the closure of the Barnwell facility to
LLRW generators in 36 States means
that there is no disposal option for Class
B or C LLRW generated in these States;
LLRW generators have been storing
Class B and C LLRW onsite since the
closure of Barnwell. The lack of a
disposal pathway for Class B and C
LLRW from these generators has
increased interest in blending to reduce
the radioactivity concentrations of
wastes that might otherwise be
classified as B or C waste. A disposal
pathway exists for Class A waste, which
means that Class A waste does not have
to be stored at licensees’ sites. While
some blending of LLRW resulting in
reduced waste classification has
occurred in the past, the scale of
blending being considered since the
closure of Barnwell is potentially much
larger than current practice.
On October 8, 2009, NRC Chairman
Gregory B. Jaczko directed the staff to
prepare a vote paper for the Commission
to consider issues related to blending of
LLRW, including the following:
• Issues related to intentional changes
in waste classification due to blending,
including safety, security, and policy
considerations.
• Protection of the public, the
intruder, and the environment.
• Mathematical concentration
averaging and homogeneous physical
mixing.
• Practical considerations in
operating a waste treatment facility,
disposal facility, or other facilities,
including the appropriate point at
which waste should be classified.
• Recommendations for revisions, if
necessary, to existing regulations,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:58 Nov 27, 2009
Jkt 220001
requirements, guidance, or oversight
related to blending of LLW.
The staff is holding a public meeting
to obtain additional information on
these and other related issues.
Stakeholder views will be presented in
the vote paper that the staff prepares for
the Commission.
DATES: Members of the public may
provide feedback at the transcribed
public meeting or may submit written
comments on the issues discussed in
this notice. Comments on the issues and
questions presented in this notice and
discussed at the meeting should be
postmarked no later than January 29,
2010. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so. NRC plans to consider these
stakeholder views in the development of
a vote paper for the Commission’s
consideration. Written comments may
be sent to the address listed in the
ADDRESSES Section. Questions about
participation in the public workshops
should be directed to the facilitator at
the address listed in the ADDRESSES
Section. Members of the public
planning to attend the workshops are
invited to RSVP at least ten (10) days
prior to each workshop. Replies should
be directed to the points of contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
The public meeting will be held in
Rockville, Maryland on January 14,
2010, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at: The
Legacy Hotel & Meeting Centre, The
Georgetown Room, 1775 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852, 240–283–1116.
The final agenda for the public
meeting will be noticed no fewer than
ten (10) days prior to the meeting on the
NRC’s electronic public workshop
schedule at https://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/public-meetings/index.cfm.
Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for questions that
will be discussed at the meeting.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of the following methods.
Please include Docket ID NRC–2009–
0520 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the
Federal rulemaking Web site
Regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party
soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62607
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in
their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2009–0520. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher
301–492–3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Michael T. Lesar,
Chief, Rulemaking and Directives
Branch (RDB), Division of
Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, or by fax to RDB at (301) 492–
3446.
Questions regarding participation in
the public meeting should be submitted
to the facilitator, Francis Cameron, by
mail to Mail Stop O16–E15, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, by
telephone at 240–205–2091, or by e-mail
at fxcameo@gmail.com.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brooke Traynham, Office of Federal and
State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone 404–729–
3366; e-mail Brooke.Traynham@nrc.gov.
The public may examine and have
copies for a fee, publicly available
documents at the Public Document
Room, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available documents created or
received at NRC after November 1, 1999,
are available electronically at the NRC’s
Electronic Reading Room at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
From this site, the public can gain entry
into the NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and
image files of NRC’s public documents.
If you do not have access to ADAMS,
contact the Public Document Room at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Existing NRC guidance on blending of
LLRW is contained in the NRC’s 1995
‘‘Final Branch Technical Position on
Concentration Averaging and
Encapsulation’’ (CA BTP), Section 3.1
(ADAMS Accession No. ML033630732).
The staff has recently issued several
letters that describe NRC’s position on
blending of LLRW that should also be
useful to interested persons. These
include letters to EnergySolutions
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092170561),
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
62608
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices
On June 30, 2008, the Barnwell
disposal facility closed to most LLRW
generators in the U.S. Now, only
generators in the Atlantic Compact—the
States of South Carolina, Connecticut,
and New Jersey—are able to dispose of
their waste at that facility, and
generators in 36 States must store their
Class B/C waste onsite until a new
disposal option becomes available.1 In
the meantime, the EnergySolutions’
disposal facility in Clive, Utah, remains
available for Class A waste disposal by
these generators that lost access to the
Barnwell facility for their Class B/C
wastes.
To help mitigate the impact of
Barnwell’s closure, industry is exploring
the blending of LLRW that would
otherwise be Class B and C into a
homogeneous Class A mixture that
could be disposed of as Class A waste.
Such blending would eliminate the
need for indefinite onsite storage of
these wastes, while furthering the goal
of permanent waste disposal. Not all
LLRW can be blended into a
homogeneous mixture suitable for
disposal as Class A waste: irradiated
reactor components, reactor pressure
vessels, and other types of solid waste
are not amenable to blending. Other
reactor waste streams, particularly ion
exchange resins, which account for
about half of the volume of Class B and
C waste generated each year, can be
blended into a homogeneous mixture
with a relatively uniform concentration
of radioactivity, and some of these Class
B and C resins could be blended with
resins having radioactivity
concentrations well below the Class A
limits to produce a Class A final
mixture.
Blending, as the staff uses the term in
this context, is the mixing of LLRW
having different concentrations of
radionuclides to form a relatively
homogeneous mixture for disposal in a
licensed facility. The concentration of
the resulting mixture is total
radioactivity in the mixture divided by
its volume or weight.
Blending may be done for a variety of
reasons: (1) To consolidate wastes from
a number of different sources within a
plant for reasons of operational
efficiency; (2) to reduce radiation
exposures to workers; and (3) to lower
the waste classification of some of the
waste by averaging its concentration
over a larger volume. Because it is more
efficient to combine wastes in a single
tank in a facility, licensees may also mix
certain wastes such as ion exchange
resins that are removed from various
locations in their plants, rather than
characterize and classify individual
batches of resins. Blending may also be
performed to keep radiation exposures
to workers as low as reasonably
achievable, since the doses from a
mixture of two or more streams of
LLRW with different radiation levels
may result in a combined mixture that
has lower radiation levels. Waste
disposal may also be facilitated by
blending. For example, if two batches of
waste are blended together, they may
meet the waste acceptance criteria for a
specific disposal facility, but the higher
concentration batch by itself would not.
With respect to waste class reduction, it
may result from mixing for operational
reasons or efforts to reduce worker
exposures, or could be performed solely
for the purposes of reducing the
classification to enable prompt disposal,
rather than storage.
A particular topic of interest to some
stakeholders is blending that reduces
the classification of the waste. Waste
classification is one of the requirements
in NRC’s LLRW disposal regulations in
10 CFR part 61. 10 CFR part 61
establishes the procedures, criteria, and
terms and conditions for the issuance of
licenses for the disposal of LLRW. Four
performance objectives, including
protection of an inadvertent intruder
into the waste disposal site, define the
overall level of safety to be achieved by
disposal.2 Intruder protection is
provided in part by the waste
classification concentration limits in 10
CFR 61.55, which are designed to
1 Generators in the Northwest Compact (WA, ID,
MT, HI, AK, OR, WY, and UT) and Rocky Mountain
Compact (CO, NM, and NV) can dispose of their
LLRW at a commercial disposal facility in Hanford,
WA.
2 The others are protection of the general
population from releases of radioactivity; protection
of individuals during the operation of the facility
(as opposed to after the facility is closed), and
stability of the disposal site.
Studsvik (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092930251), and Waste Control
Specialists (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092920426). Multiple meetings are
being scheduled for the week of
December 14, 2009, to better understand
the positions of these three companies
on blending of LLRW. Additional
information on these meetings will be
posted on the NRC public web site in
the near future at https://www.nrc.gov/
public-involve/public-meetings/
index.cfm. The public is invited to
participate. Chairman Jaczko’s October
8, 2009, memorandum to the staff on
blending of LLRW can be found in
ADAMS (Accession No. ML093070605).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
I. Background
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:58 Nov 27, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ensure that an inadvertent intruder does
not receive an unsafe exposure to
radiation. Any blended LLRW must
meet the concentration limits in the
waste classification tables. If batches of
waste were not blended into a relatively
homogeneous final mixture, hot spots
above the concentration limits for a
particular waste class might expose an
inadvertent intruder to unacceptable
levels of radiation. Any blended waste
must also not affect a facility’s ability to
meet the other performance objectives
in 10 CFR part 61.
Waste classification is also addressed
in NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR part 20
specifying requirements for the
preparation of shipping papers for
LLRW. 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G,
Section III.A allows waste generators to
defer classifying waste until the time
that waste is ready for disposal and does
not require generators to classify waste
before it is shipped from a generator to
a processor. In practice, generators often
classify waste before it is shipped for
disposal, even though waste
classification need not occur until the
waste is ready for disposal. As noted
above, the 10 CFR 61.55 waste
classification tables are based on
protection of an inadvertent intruder
into waste at a disposal facility at some
future time after the disposal facility is
closed. The classification of the waste in
accordance with 10 CFR 61.55 is not
directly related to the safety of the waste
at intermediate points in its
management.
While recognizing that some blending
is unavoidable and even desirable for
efficiency or dose reduction purposes,
NRC has historically discouraged
blending to lower the waste
classification, while acknowledging that
it is appropriate in some circumstances.
The maxim ‘‘dilution is not the solution
to pollution’’ appears to have been a
factor in developing agency positions
that discourage, but do not prohibit, the
mixing of wastes. Dilution can increase
the amount of waste by mixing clean
and contaminated materials together,
and may enable the mixture to be
released to the general environment
where members of the public will be
exposed to the hazard, however small.
Blending, as defined in this FRN,
involves the mixing of higher and lower
concentrations of contaminated
materials, not clean materials, and
disposal in a licensed disposal site, not
release to the general environment.
Thus, the undesirable characteristics of
dilution are not present in this kind of
blending, while safety and efficiency
may be improved by selection of
appropriate criteria to be applied to
such blending. Some LLRW
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices
stakeholders have noted that there may
be potential adverse impacts from and
issues with blending, particularly large
scale blending. For example, blending
can be contrary to volume reduction
principles.3 Waste with Class B and C
concentrations of radionuclides is often
processed to reduce its volume. If this
waste were instead mixed with Class A
wastes, these reductions in volume
would not be achieved. Blending may
also be viewed by some as equivalent to
disposing of Class B or C waste in a
Class A disposal facility. The purpose of
the public meeting and NRC’s
solicitation of public comments is for
NRC to better understand these impacts
and issues.
NRC’s 1995 CA BTP recommends
limits on blending of LLRW by applying
a ‘‘factor of 10’’ rule, whereby the
concentrations of batches of LLRW to be
mixed must be within a factor of 10 of
the average concentration of the final
mixture. The safety benefit of the ‘‘factor
of 10’’ rule is unclear for final mixtures
that are homogeneous, since any
concentrated materials that go into a
mixture are blended down to lower
concentrations that are relatively
uniform over the volume of the material.
By placing limits on the amount of
mixing, however, the ‘‘factor of 10’’ rule
furthers the agency’s policy that
discourages mixing to reduce waste
classification. It should be noted that
some waste class reduction could occur
when waste is mixed in accordance
with the ‘‘factor of 10’’ rule, since some
of the waste classes of some
radionuclides differ by a ‘‘factor of 10.’’
The mixing constraint in the CA BTP
specifies that batches of greater than a
factor of 10 difference in concentration
can be mixed. The CA BTP also
includes in an appendix with staff
responses to public comments received
on an earlier draft of the CA BTP. The
appendix states that wastes should not
be intentionally mixed solely to lower
the waste classification. The staff
positions in the CA BTP itself do not
contain this guidance, however.
The CA BTP allows important
exceptions from the ‘‘factor of 10’’ rule
when operational efficiency or worker
dose reductions can be demonstrated,
and one of the current industry blending
proposals relies on these exceptions to
conduct expanded blending operations.
Although not explicitly stated, the CA
BTP positions appear to be based on a
combination of practical considerations
in the operation of a facility, whereby
3 NRC issued a ‘‘Policy Statement on Low-Level
Waste Volume Reduction’’ on July 16, 1981, which
encourages licensees to reduce the volume of waste
for disposal. See July 16, 1981, Federal Register
Notice, 46 FR 51100.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:58 Nov 27, 2009
Jkt 220001
wastes are routinely combined or mixed
for operational efficiency and ALARA
reasons, and NRC’s general position that
discourages mixing for the purposes of
reducing the waste class. These two
objectives are not fully compatible, but
the CA BTP attempts to provide
positions that balance them.
NRC guidance for other programs
similarly discourages blending, while
recognizing that it may be appropriate
in some circumstances. In a document
for the decommissioning program,
‘‘Consolidated Decommissioning
Guidance’’ (NUREG–1757, Volume 1,
Revision 2), NRC staff states that mixing
of soils to meet the waste acceptance
criteria of an offsite disposal facility
‘‘should not result in lowering the
classification of the waste.’’ As a
practical matter, contaminated soils
from sites undergoing decommissioning
are rarely Class B/C concentrations. At
the same time, the guidance allows for
blending to reduce the classification of
the waste from licensable material that
must be disposed of in a licensed
disposal facility to exempt material
suitable for disposal in landfills. This
decommissioning guidance also
recognizes that mixing of clean and
contaminated soils may be appropriate
under certain very limited
circumstances to meet the dose standard
in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E.
II. Questions Related to Blending of
LLRW
This section identifies questions
associated with blending of LLRW that
results in lower waste classification of
components of the mixture. These
questions are not meant to be a
complete or final list, but are intended
to initiate discussion. These questions
will help to focus the discussion at the
public meetings. All public feedback
will be used in developing options for
NRC consideration.
1. What safety and security
considerations are associated with
blending of LLRW, particularly large
scale blending that result in a change in
waste classification?
2. What are the practical
considerations in operating a facility
that bear on blending of LLRW?
3. What policy issues are raised by
blending of LLRW that lowers the waste
classification?
4. What are the potential blending
policies/positions that NRC could take
and the advantages and disadvantages of
each?
5. How should NRC implement a
position on blending of LLRW (i.e., by
rulemaking, guidance, policy statement
or other means)?
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62609
6. If a rule were to be promulgated,
what compatibility category should it
be; i.e., how strictly must Agreement
States follow any NRC rule?
7. NRC regulations only require waste
to be classified when it’s ready for
disposal. What advantages or
disadvantages might there be to
classifying it earlier?
8. If blended waste could not be
attributed to the original generator of the
waste, what issues does this raise that
NRC should address, if any?
9. What would be a risk-informed,
performance-based approach to
addressing blending?
10. Given that Agreement States are
not required to adopt NRC’s guidance
on blending, how are different States
addressing this issue? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of these
approaches?
11. NRC is budgeting resources to
initiate a long-term rulemaking to revise
the waste classification system. How
might alternative waste classification
systems be affected by blending?
12. What oversight might be needed to
ensure that blending is performed
appropriately?
13. What other issues should NRC
staff consider in developing options for
Commission consideration related to
blending?
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day
of November, 2009.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Acting Deputy Director, Environmental
Protection, and Performance Assessment
Directorate, Division of Waste Management,
and Environmental Protection, Office of
Federal and State Materials, and
Environmental Management Programs.
[FR Doc. E9–28507 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0517; Docket Nos. 50–250 and
50–251; License Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–
41]
Florida Power and Light Company;
Receipt of Request for Action Under 10
CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that by petition
dated January 11, 2009, Mr. Thomas
Saporito (petitioner) has requested that
the NRC take action with regard to
Florida Power & Light Company’s
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units
3 and 4. The petitioner requests that the
NRC take enforcement action against
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL)
by issuing a Notice of Violation and
Imposition of Civil Penalty in the
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 228 (Monday, November 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62606-62609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28507]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0520]
Notice of Public Meeting and Request for Comment on Blending of
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and a Request for Comment on Issues
Related to Blending of Low-Level Radioactive Waste.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to conduct
a public meeting on January 14, 2010, in Rockville, MD, to solicit
input on issues associated with blending of low-level radioactive waste
(LLRW). Since the closure of the LLRW disposal facility at
[[Page 62607]]
Barnwell, South Carolina on June 30, 2008 to out-of-compact generators,
the issue of blending of LLRW has received increased attention from
stakeholders, industry, and Agreement States, especially blending that
results in a change in the classification of the waste, as defined by
the radionuclide concentrations in 10 CFR part 61.55. Blending, as
defined here, refers to mixing of LLRW of different concentrations. It
does not involve mixing radioactive waste with non-radioactive waste,
(i.e., dilution) and concerns only disposal in a licensed facility, not
release of radioactivity to the general environment.
Blending is not prohibited or explicitly addressed in NRC
regulations. In addition, while NRC staff guidance discourages blending
in some circumstances, it also recognizes that some blending--including
blending that lowers the classification of a waste--may be appropriate
in others. However, the closure of the Barnwell facility to LLRW
generators in 36 States means that there is no disposal option for
Class B or C LLRW generated in these States; LLRW generators have been
storing Class B and C LLRW onsite since the closure of Barnwell. The
lack of a disposal pathway for Class B and C LLRW from these generators
has increased interest in blending to reduce the radioactivity
concentrations of wastes that might otherwise be classified as B or C
waste. A disposal pathway exists for Class A waste, which means that
Class A waste does not have to be stored at licensees' sites. While
some blending of LLRW resulting in reduced waste classification has
occurred in the past, the scale of blending being considered since the
closure of Barnwell is potentially much larger than current practice.
On October 8, 2009, NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko directed the
staff to prepare a vote paper for the Commission to consider issues
related to blending of LLRW, including the following:
Issues related to intentional changes in waste
classification due to blending, including safety, security, and policy
considerations.
Protection of the public, the intruder, and the
environment.
Mathematical concentration averaging and homogeneous
physical mixing.
Practical considerations in operating a waste treatment
facility, disposal facility, or other facilities, including the
appropriate point at which waste should be classified.
Recommendations for revisions, if necessary, to existing
regulations, requirements, guidance, or oversight related to blending
of LLW.
The staff is holding a public meeting to obtain additional
information on these and other related issues. Stakeholder views will
be presented in the vote paper that the staff prepares for the
Commission.
DATES: Members of the public may provide feedback at the transcribed
public meeting or may submit written comments on the issues discussed
in this notice. Comments on the issues and questions presented in this
notice and discussed at the meeting should be postmarked no later than
January 29, 2010. Comments received after this date will be considered
if it is practical to do so. NRC plans to consider these stakeholder
views in the development of a vote paper for the Commission's
consideration. Written comments may be sent to the address listed in
the ADDRESSES Section. Questions about participation in the public
workshops should be directed to the facilitator at the address listed
in the ADDRESSES Section. Members of the public planning to attend the
workshops are invited to RSVP at least ten (10) days prior to each
workshop. Replies should be directed to the points of contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
The public meeting will be held in Rockville, Maryland on January
14, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at: The Legacy Hotel & Meeting
Centre, The Georgetown Room, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852,
240-283-1116.
The final agenda for the public meeting will be noticed no fewer
than ten (10) days prior to the meeting on the NRC's electronic public
workshop schedule at https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
questions that will be discussed at the meeting.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2009-0520 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site
Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any
identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2009-0520. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking and
Directives Branch (RDB), Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to RDB at (301) 492-
3446.
Questions regarding participation in the public meeting should be
submitted to the facilitator, Francis Cameron, by mail to Mail Stop
O16-E15, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
by telephone at 240-205-2091, or by e-mail at fxcameo@gmail.com.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brooke Traynham, Office of Federal and
State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 404-729-
3366; e-mail Brooke.Traynham@nrc.gov.
The public may examine and have copies for a fee, publicly
available documents at the Public Document Room, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents
created or received at NRC after November 1, 1999, are available
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the public can gain
entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents.
If you do not have access to ADAMS, contact the Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Existing NRC guidance on blending of LLRW is contained in the NRC's
1995 ``Final Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and
Encapsulation'' (CA BTP), Section 3.1 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML033630732). The staff has recently issued several letters that
describe NRC's position on blending of LLRW that should also be useful
to interested persons. These include letters to EnergySolutions (ADAMS
Accession No. ML092170561),
[[Page 62608]]
Studsvik (ADAMS Accession No. ML092930251), and Waste Control
Specialists (ADAMS Accession No. ML092920426). Multiple meetings are
being scheduled for the week of December 14, 2009, to better understand
the positions of these three companies on blending of LLRW. Additional
information on these meetings will be posted on the NRC public web site
in the near future at https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. The public is invited to participate. Chairman
Jaczko's October 8, 2009, memorandum to the staff on blending of LLRW
can be found in ADAMS (Accession No. ML093070605).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 30, 2008, the Barnwell disposal facility closed to most
LLRW generators in the U.S. Now, only generators in the Atlantic
Compact--the States of South Carolina, Connecticut, and New Jersey--are
able to dispose of their waste at that facility, and generators in 36
States must store their Class B/C waste onsite until a new disposal
option becomes available.\1\ In the meantime, the EnergySolutions'
disposal facility in Clive, Utah, remains available for Class A waste
disposal by these generators that lost access to the Barnwell facility
for their Class B/C wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Generators in the Northwest Compact (WA, ID, MT, HI, AK, OR,
WY, and UT) and Rocky Mountain Compact (CO, NM, and NV) can dispose
of their LLRW at a commercial disposal facility in Hanford, WA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help mitigate the impact of Barnwell's closure, industry is
exploring the blending of LLRW that would otherwise be Class B and C
into a homogeneous Class A mixture that could be disposed of as Class A
waste. Such blending would eliminate the need for indefinite onsite
storage of these wastes, while furthering the goal of permanent waste
disposal. Not all LLRW can be blended into a homogeneous mixture
suitable for disposal as Class A waste: irradiated reactor components,
reactor pressure vessels, and other types of solid waste are not
amenable to blending. Other reactor waste streams, particularly ion
exchange resins, which account for about half of the volume of Class B
and C waste generated each year, can be blended into a homogeneous
mixture with a relatively uniform concentration of radioactivity, and
some of these Class B and C resins could be blended with resins having
radioactivity concentrations well below the Class A limits to produce a
Class A final mixture.
Blending, as the staff uses the term in this context, is the mixing
of LLRW having different concentrations of radionuclides to form a
relatively homogeneous mixture for disposal in a licensed facility. The
concentration of the resulting mixture is total radioactivity in the
mixture divided by its volume or weight.
Blending may be done for a variety of reasons: (1) To consolidate
wastes from a number of different sources within a plant for reasons of
operational efficiency; (2) to reduce radiation exposures to workers;
and (3) to lower the waste classification of some of the waste by
averaging its concentration over a larger volume. Because it is more
efficient to combine wastes in a single tank in a facility, licensees
may also mix certain wastes such as ion exchange resins that are
removed from various locations in their plants, rather than
characterize and classify individual batches of resins. Blending may
also be performed to keep radiation exposures to workers as low as
reasonably achievable, since the doses from a mixture of two or more
streams of LLRW with different radiation levels may result in a
combined mixture that has lower radiation levels. Waste disposal may
also be facilitated by blending. For example, if two batches of waste
are blended together, they may meet the waste acceptance criteria for a
specific disposal facility, but the higher concentration batch by
itself would not. With respect to waste class reduction, it may result
from mixing for operational reasons or efforts to reduce worker
exposures, or could be performed solely for the purposes of reducing
the classification to enable prompt disposal, rather than storage.
A particular topic of interest to some stakeholders is blending
that reduces the classification of the waste. Waste classification is
one of the requirements in NRC's LLRW disposal regulations in 10 CFR
part 61. 10 CFR part 61 establishes the procedures, criteria, and terms
and conditions for the issuance of licenses for the disposal of LLRW.
Four performance objectives, including protection of an inadvertent
intruder into the waste disposal site, define the overall level of
safety to be achieved by disposal.\2\ Intruder protection is provided
in part by the waste classification concentration limits in 10 CFR
61.55, which are designed to ensure that an inadvertent intruder does
not receive an unsafe exposure to radiation. Any blended LLRW must meet
the concentration limits in the waste classification tables. If batches
of waste were not blended into a relatively homogeneous final mixture,
hot spots above the concentration limits for a particular waste class
might expose an inadvertent intruder to unacceptable levels of
radiation. Any blended waste must also not affect a facility's ability
to meet the other performance objectives in 10 CFR part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The others are protection of the general population from
releases of radioactivity; protection of individuals during the
operation of the facility (as opposed to after the facility is
closed), and stability of the disposal site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste classification is also addressed in NRC's regulations in 10
CFR part 20 specifying requirements for the preparation of shipping
papers for LLRW. 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.A allows waste
generators to defer classifying waste until the time that waste is
ready for disposal and does not require generators to classify waste
before it is shipped from a generator to a processor. In practice,
generators often classify waste before it is shipped for disposal, even
though waste classification need not occur until the waste is ready for
disposal. As noted above, the 10 CFR 61.55 waste classification tables
are based on protection of an inadvertent intruder into waste at a
disposal facility at some future time after the disposal facility is
closed. The classification of the waste in accordance with 10 CFR 61.55
is not directly related to the safety of the waste at intermediate
points in its management.
While recognizing that some blending is unavoidable and even
desirable for efficiency or dose reduction purposes, NRC has
historically discouraged blending to lower the waste classification,
while acknowledging that it is appropriate in some circumstances. The
maxim ``dilution is not the solution to pollution'' appears to have
been a factor in developing agency positions that discourage, but do
not prohibit, the mixing of wastes. Dilution can increase the amount of
waste by mixing clean and contaminated materials together, and may
enable the mixture to be released to the general environment where
members of the public will be exposed to the hazard, however small.
Blending, as defined in this FRN, involves the mixing of higher and
lower concentrations of contaminated materials, not clean materials,
and disposal in a licensed disposal site, not release to the general
environment. Thus, the undesirable characteristics of dilution are not
present in this kind of blending, while safety and efficiency may be
improved by selection of appropriate criteria to be applied to such
blending. Some LLRW
[[Page 62609]]
stakeholders have noted that there may be potential adverse impacts
from and issues with blending, particularly large scale blending. For
example, blending can be contrary to volume reduction principles.\3\
Waste with Class B and C concentrations of radionuclides is often
processed to reduce its volume. If this waste were instead mixed with
Class A wastes, these reductions in volume would not be achieved.
Blending may also be viewed by some as equivalent to disposing of Class
B or C waste in a Class A disposal facility. The purpose of the public
meeting and NRC's solicitation of public comments is for NRC to better
understand these impacts and issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NRC issued a ``Policy Statement on Low-Level Waste Volume
Reduction'' on July 16, 1981, which encourages licensees to reduce
the volume of waste for disposal. See July 16, 1981, Federal
Register Notice, 46 FR 51100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 1995 CA BTP recommends limits on blending of LLRW by applying
a ``factor of 10'' rule, whereby the concentrations of batches of LLRW
to be mixed must be within a factor of 10 of the average concentration
of the final mixture. The safety benefit of the ``factor of 10'' rule
is unclear for final mixtures that are homogeneous, since any
concentrated materials that go into a mixture are blended down to lower
concentrations that are relatively uniform over the volume of the
material. By placing limits on the amount of mixing, however, the
``factor of 10'' rule furthers the agency's policy that discourages
mixing to reduce waste classification. It should be noted that some
waste class reduction could occur when waste is mixed in accordance
with the ``factor of 10'' rule, since some of the waste classes of some
radionuclides differ by a ``factor of 10.'' The mixing constraint in
the CA BTP specifies that batches of greater than a factor of 10
difference in concentration can be mixed. The CA BTP also includes in
an appendix with staff responses to public comments received on an
earlier draft of the CA BTP. The appendix states that wastes should not
be intentionally mixed solely to lower the waste classification. The
staff positions in the CA BTP itself do not contain this guidance,
however.
The CA BTP allows important exceptions from the ``factor of 10''
rule when operational efficiency or worker dose reductions can be
demonstrated, and one of the current industry blending proposals relies
on these exceptions to conduct expanded blending operations. Although
not explicitly stated, the CA BTP positions appear to be based on a
combination of practical considerations in the operation of a facility,
whereby wastes are routinely combined or mixed for operational
efficiency and ALARA reasons, and NRC's general position that
discourages mixing for the purposes of reducing the waste class. These
two objectives are not fully compatible, but the CA BTP attempts to
provide positions that balance them.
NRC guidance for other programs similarly discourages blending,
while recognizing that it may be appropriate in some circumstances. In
a document for the decommissioning program, ``Consolidated
Decommissioning Guidance'' (NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 2), NRC
staff states that mixing of soils to meet the waste acceptance criteria
of an offsite disposal facility ``should not result in lowering the
classification of the waste.'' As a practical matter, contaminated
soils from sites undergoing decommissioning are rarely Class B/C
concentrations. At the same time, the guidance allows for blending to
reduce the classification of the waste from licensable material that
must be disposed of in a licensed disposal facility to exempt material
suitable for disposal in landfills. This decommissioning guidance also
recognizes that mixing of clean and contaminated soils may be
appropriate under certain very limited circumstances to meet the dose
standard in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E.
II. Questions Related to Blending of LLRW
This section identifies questions associated with blending of LLRW
that results in lower waste classification of components of the
mixture. These questions are not meant to be a complete or final list,
but are intended to initiate discussion. These questions will help to
focus the discussion at the public meetings. All public feedback will
be used in developing options for NRC consideration.
1. What safety and security considerations are associated with
blending of LLRW, particularly large scale blending that result in a
change in waste classification?
2. What are the practical considerations in operating a facility
that bear on blending of LLRW?
3. What policy issues are raised by blending of LLRW that lowers
the waste classification?
4. What are the potential blending policies/positions that NRC
could take and the advantages and disadvantages of each?
5. How should NRC implement a position on blending of LLRW (i.e.,
by rulemaking, guidance, policy statement or other means)?
6. If a rule were to be promulgated, what compatibility category
should it be; i.e., how strictly must Agreement States follow any NRC
rule?
7. NRC regulations only require waste to be classified when it's
ready for disposal. What advantages or disadvantages might there be to
classifying it earlier?
8. If blended waste could not be attributed to the original
generator of the waste, what issues does this raise that NRC should
address, if any?
9. What would be a risk-informed, performance-based approach to
addressing blending?
10. Given that Agreement States are not required to adopt NRC's
guidance on blending, how are different States addressing this issue?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches?
11. NRC is budgeting resources to initiate a long-term rulemaking
to revise the waste classification system. How might alternative waste
classification systems be affected by blending?
12. What oversight might be needed to ensure that blending is
performed appropriately?
13. What other issues should NRC staff consider in developing
options for Commission consideration related to blending?
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day of November, 2009.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Acting Deputy Director, Environmental Protection, and Performance
Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management, and Environmental
Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials, and Environmental
Management Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-28507 Filed 11-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P