Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position, 10165-10168 [2015-03913]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
Rockville, Maryland February 19, 2015.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
Agenda: Updates on NSF wide ACI
activities.
Dated: February 19, 2015.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Acting, Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–03903 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
[FR Doc. 2015–03869 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. IA–14–025–EA; ASLBP No. 14–
932–02–EA–BD01]
[Docket No. 50–271–LA–2; ASLBP No. 15–
937–02–LA–BD01]
James Chaisson; Notice of Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board
Reconstitution
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC
and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;
Establishment of Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.313(c) and
2.321(b), the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board in the above-captioned
James Chaisson enforcement action
proceeding is hereby reconstituted as
follows: Administrative Judge G. Paul
Bollwerk, III (who was serving as a
Licensing Board member in this
proceeding) is appointed to serve as
Chairman; and Administrative Judge
Michael M. Gibson (who was serving as
Chairman in this proceeding) is
appointed to serve as a Licensing Board
member.
All correspondence, documents, and
other materials shall continue to be filed
in accordance with the NRC E-Filing
rule. See 10 CFR 2.302 et seq.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Pursuant to delegation by the
Commission, see 37 FR 28,710 (Dec. 29,
1972), and the Commission’s
regulations, see, e.g., 10 CFR 2.104,
2.105, 2.300, 2.309, 2.313, 2.318, 2.321,
notice is hereby given that an Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is
being established to preside over the
following proceeding: Entergy Nuclear
Vermont Yankee, LLC, And Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Station).
This proceeding involves an
application by Entergy Nuclear Vermont
Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. for a license
amendment for the Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, which is located
in Vernon, Vermont. In response to a
notice filed in the Federal Register, see
79 FR 73,106 (Dec. 9, 2014), a hearing
request was filed via the Electronic
Information Exchange on February 9,
2015 by the State of Vermont through
the Vermont Department of Public
Service.
The Board is comprised of the
following administrative judges:
Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman, Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
Dr. Michael F. Kennedy, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
All correspondence, documents, and
other materials shall be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.
See 10 .FR 2.302.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
Issued at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day
of February 2015.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 2015–03899 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2011–0022]
Concentration Averaging and
Encapsulation Branch Technical
Position
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Branch technical position;
issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 1
of the Branch Technical Position on
Concentration Averaging and
Encapsulation (CA BTP). This guidance
provides acceptable methods that can be
used to perform concentration averaging
of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) for
the purpose of determining its waste
class for disposal.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10165
The Branch Technical Position
referenced in this document is available
on February 25, 2015.
DATES:
Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2011–0022 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2011–0022. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced. The revised
Branch Technical Position on
Concentration Averaging and
Encapsulation consists of two volumes.
Volume 1 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12254B065) contains the staff
technical positions on averaging and
certain other information. Volume 2
(ADAMS Accession No. ML12326A611)
contains staff responses to stakeholder
comments on the May 2012 draft
(ADAMS Accession No. ML121170418)
and the technical bases for the staff
positions.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maurice Heath, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–3137; email: Maurice.Heath@
nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
10166
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
I. Introduction
The NRC is issuing Revision 1 of the
CA BTP. This revision provides updated
guidance on the interpretation of
§ 61.55(a)(8) of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
‘‘Determination of concentrations in
wastes,’’ as it applies to the
classification (as Class A, B, or C waste)
of a variety of different types and forms
of LLW. Paragraph 61.55(a)(8) states that
radionuclide concentrations can be
averaged over the volume of the waste
or its weight if the units are expressed
as nanocuries per gram. The average
radionuclide concentrations are
compared with the waste classification
tables in 10 CFR 61.55 to determine the
class of the waste. The waste class
determines the minimum safety
measures to be applied in order to
provide reasonable assurance of safe
disposal of the waste.
The previous version of the CA BTP,
published in 1995 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML033630732), was issued before
the NRC adopted its risk-informed and
performance-based regulatory policy.
The revised CA BTP has been informed
by that policy. The revised CA BTP also
contains new guidance related to
blending of LLW, as directed by the
Commission in its Staff Requirements
Memorandum for SECY–10–0043,
‘‘Blending of Low-Level Radioactive
Waste,’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML102861764).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Background
To provide protection for individuals
who inadvertently intrude into a waste
disposal facility, radioactive waste
proposed for near-surface disposal must
be classified based on its hazard to the
intruder. The NRC’s regulation,
‘‘Licensing Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste,’’ 10 CFR
part 61, establishes a waste
classification system based on the
concentration of specific radionuclides
contained in the waste. This system is
one of the key components in ensuring
protection of an inadvertent intruder. In
determining these concentrations, the
regulation states, in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(8),
that radionuclide concentrations can be
averaged over the volume of the waste
or its weight if the units are expressed
as nanocuries per gram.
Although 10 CFR part 61
acknowledges that concentration
averaging for the purposes of classifying
waste for disposal is acceptable, it does
not specify limitations on the
implementation of concentration
averaging. The staff published a
technical position on radioactive waste
classification, initially developed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
May 1983 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML033630755), that provided guidance
on concentration averaging. This 1983
technical position describes overall
procedures acceptable to NRC staff
which could be used by licensees to
determine the presence and
concentrations of the radionuclides
listed in 10 CFR 61.55, and thereby
classify waste for near-surface disposal.
Section C.3 of the 1983 technical
position provided guidance on
averaging of radionuclide
concentrations for the purpose of
classifying the waste.
In 1995, the NRC staff updated a
portion of the 1983 technical position,
publishing as a separate document the
‘‘Branch Technical Position on
Concentration Averaging and
Encapsulation,’’ (60 FR 4451, January
23, 1995). The 1995 CA BTP
significantly expanded and further
defined Section C.3 of the 1983
technical position dealing with
concentration averaging, specifying a
number of constraints on concentration
averaging.
The current update to the CA BTP is
necessary due to the significant number
of changes in the LLW program since
the CA BTP was published in 1995.
First, the Commission reviewed the
1995 CA BTP’s position on blending of
LLW in 2010 and directed the staff to
revise it to be more risk-informed and
performance-based. The 1995 version
constrained the concentration of certain
waste types put into a mixture (e.g., ion
exchange resins) to within a factor of 10
of the average concentration of the final
mixture. The Commission directed the
staff to replace this position and to
implement a risk-informed,
performance-based approach for LLW
blending that made the hazard (i.e., the
radioactivity concentration) of the final
mixture the primary consideration for
averaging constraints. Second, the NRC
adopted a risk-informed, performancebased regulatory approach for its
programs in the late 1990’s, after the
1995 CA BTP was published. The
revised CA BTP more fully reflects that
approach, not just for the blending
position, but for other topics as well.
One example is for concentration
averaging of sealed radioactive sources.
The 1995 CA BTP significantly
constrained disposal of sealed sources.
Many sources have no disposal path
because of the constraints recommended
in the 1995 BTP. Licensees must store
sealed sources for potentially long
periods of time if there is no disposal
option, and the sources are subject to
loss or abandonment. The staff has reexamined the 1995 assumptions
underlying the radioactivity constraints
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on their disposal. The CA BTP’s revised
positions are based on different, but
conservative assumptions and will
allow for the safe disposal of more
sealed sources than the 1995 CA BTP.
The revised position will enhance
national security by ensuring that the
safest and most secure method for
managing sealed sources (i.e.,
permanent disposal in a licensed
facility) is available to licensees.
III. Overview of Public Comments
Revision 1 of the CA BTP has been
developed after consideration of public
comments on three drafts. The first draft
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103430088)
was noticed in the Federal Register on
January 26, 2011 (76 FR 4739). The
second draft (ADAMS Accession No.
ML112061191) was made available to
the public in September 2011, in
advance of a public workshop held in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, on October
20, 2011. The third draft (ADAMS
Accession No. ML121170418) was
noticed in the Federal Register for
public comment on June 11, 2012, (77
FR 34411). Information about obtaining
these documents is available in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
Fifteen organizations representing a
variety of interests submitted comments
on the drafts. They included Federal
and State agencies and organizations, a
nuclear power plant research
organization, disposal and waste
processing facility licensees, industry
professional organizations, an advocacy
group, and a waste services company.
These comments have been considered
by the NRC staff in developing this
revision to the CA BTP. An overview of
the changes to the 1995 CA BTP is
presented below. Detailed responses to
each of the public comments are
available in Vol. 2 of the revised CA
BTP and in the drafts referenced above.
IV. Overview of Revisions
The major changes to the 1995 CA
BTP are summarized below. Appendix
B of Volume 1 of the revised CA BTP
has a more complete list of changes. The
staff responses to individual public
comments are contained in Section 3 of
Volume 2 of the CA BTP. Finally, a
summary of the changes to the May
2012 version published for public
comment is available in ADAMS
Accession No. ML14157A227.
Increase in cesium-137 sealed source
activity limits. In the revised CA BTP,
the staff has increased the limits for
disposal of cesium-137 (Cs-137) sealed
sources, using an improved technical
basis and a reasonably foreseeable but
conservative intruder scenario. Cesium137 is used in sealed sources for
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
research, medical, and industrial
purposes. The recommended constraint
on the size of these sources for disposal
has been increased from 1.1 TBq (30 Ci)
to 4.8 TBq (130 Ci), based on new, more
risk-informed analysis. The revised CA
BTP also specifies a process that
licensees should use to request review
by Agreement State regulators of
proposed disposals of larger activity
sources.
Demonstration of adequate mixing in
blended LLW. The revised CA BTP also
addresses the Commission direction to
‘‘develop a clear standard for
determining homogeneity’’ of blended
waste. The 1995 CA BTP constrained
the concentrations of inputs to a
mixture of blended waste and therefore
did not need to address the
homogeneity of the final mixture. It
included a ‘‘Factor of 10’’ concentration
limit on waste blending which limited
blending of waste streams with
radionuclide concentrations to within a
factor of 10 of the average
concentrations in the blended product.
The revised CA BTP specifies certain
thresholds on radionuclide
concentrations of waste streams that are
blended together. Above these
thresholds, licensees should
demonstrate waste is adequately
blended. Considerations for this
demonstration are also discussed. The
thresholds for demonstrating adequate
blending and the guidance on
demonstrating waste is adequately
blended are based on a probabilistic
dose assessment. This revision is riskinformed because of the method used to
establish the threshold for the
homogeneity demonstration. It is also
performance-based because the position
no longer constrains concentrations of
inputs to a blending process but instead
specifies criteria that the output (i.e.,
blended waste) must meet to protect an
inadvertent intruder from potential hot
spots in the waste.
Alternative Approaches. Another
revision to the CA BTP is the addition
of specific guidance for licensees to use
in proposing site- or waste-specific
averaging approaches, rather than the
generic approaches specified in the
body of the CA BTP. This revision is
consistent with NRC’s performancebased regulatory policy because it
facilitates the use of other averaging
approaches to meet the 10 CFR part 61
performance objective of protecting an
inadvertent intruder. The 1995 CA BTP
stated that alternative approaches for
averaging should be approved under
NRC’s regulation in 10 CFR 61.58. By
referencing a provision in the
regulations that applies to alternatives
to the requirements in 10 CFR part 61
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
(and not NRC staff guidance like the CA
BTP), performance-based approaches to
intruder protection were in effect
discouraged. In addition, not all
regulatory authorities in Agreement
States that license disposal sites have
this provision in their regulations, and
so the regulatory mechanism for
obtaining approval of alternatives was
not available to all licensees. That is,
some regulators could not authorize
deviations from the 1995 CA BTP under
that provision, even though site-specific
features may have justified other
averaging approaches. The revised CA
BTP acknowledges that site-specific and
other approaches may be used, and
deviations from staff guidance in the CA
BTP do not need the 10 CFR 61.58
approval that was previously specified.
Instead, the regulatory authority may
approve another approach in the same
manner used for deviations from other
NRC guidance.
Risk-informed treatment of cartridge
filters. In the 1995 CA BTP, cartridge
filters, a waste type generated during the
operation of nuclear power plants, were
defined as discrete objects subject to
certain averaging constraints on each
filter. Each filter had to be radiologically
characterized and fit within the
specified averaging constraints of the
1995 CA BTP. While that default
position remains in place, the revised
CA BTP also allows for the treatment of
such filters as blendable waste, with a
documented justification.
Characterizing the overall blendable
waste mixture and classifying the
mixture based on its total radioactivity,
rather than individual items, is
permitted for many other waste types in
the revised CA BTP. This more riskinformed position is justified because in
practice many filters do not present a
gamma hazard to an intruder, based on
their actual radionuclide
concentrations.
Risk-informed averaging of other
discrete waste items. The 1995 CA BTP
constrained the averaging of discrete
items with its Factors of 1.5 (which
applied to primary gamma emitters) and
10 (which applied to other
radionuclides). The factors applied to
the average radionuclide concentrations
in a mixture of certain discrete items,
such as activated metals, such that the
radionuclide concentrations in all items
in a mixture had to be within those
factors for the average of the mixture.
These factors ensure uniformity of
radionuclide concentrations in mixtures
of items, but such mixtures could be
uniformly low in concentration and
risk. Thus, there is no relationship
between the 1995 CA BTP position and
acceptable risk (or dose). The revised
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10167
CA BTP ties the averaging factors to the
class limit for radionuclide
concentrations (not the average of the
mixture), which has a relationship to
risk because the class limits are based
on a dose of 5 mSv/yr (500 mrem/yr)
exposure to an inadvertent intruder. The
staff also revised the Factor of 1.5 to 2,
since the uncertainty associated with
intruder protection does not justify the
precision implied by the first factor.
In developing the revised CA BTP, the
staff identified one issue that may need
further clarification. One of the
categories of discrete wastes that are
subject to special concentration
averaging constraints is ‘‘contaminated
materials.’’ The 1995 CA BTP defines
contaminated materials as components
or metals on which radioactivity resides
on or near the surface in a fixed or
removable condition. To demonstrate
compliance with these averaging
constraints, the radiological
characteristics and volumes of
individual items are typically
determined. However, items with
surface contamination may also be
categorized as radioactive trash which is
not subject to any special averaging
constraints. Items in radioactive trash
do not need to be individually
characterized. Instead, a container of
radioactive trash can be surveyed to
determine its overall radioactivity and
its classification determined by dividing
the overall activity by the waste volume.
Neither the 1995 CA BTP nor draft
revisions published for public comment
provided guidance for categorizing
items as either contaminated materials
or radioactive trash. In addition, the
staff received no comments from
stakeholders on this issue. The staff will
consider whether additional guidance,
such as a Regulatory Issue Summary
(RIS), is warranted for distinguishing
contaminated materials from radioactive
trash. The staff may also formally clarify
or supplement other positions in the CA
BTP at a later time, as necessary.
V. Congressional Review Act
This CA BTP is a rule as defined in
the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801–9808). However, the Office of
Management and Budget has not found
it to be a major rule as defined in the
Congressional Review Act.
VI. Implementation
The revised CA BTP describes and
makes available to NRC and Agreement
State licensees, Agreement States, and
the public, methods that the NRC
believes are acceptable for
implementing specific parts of the
Commission’s regulations. The positions
in this document are not intended as a
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
10168
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
substitute for regulations, and
compliance with them is not required.
Agreement States may use this
information in establishing waste
acceptance criteria for their licensees
who are operating waste disposal sites.
Applicants and licensees may use the
information in the revised CA BTP
when developing applications for initial
licenses, amendments to licenses, or
requests for NRC regulatory approval.
Licensees may use the information in
the revised CA BTP for actions (i.e., in
determining average radionuclide
concentrations in waste) that do not
require prior NRC review and approval.
Licensees may also use the information
in the revised CA BTP to assist in
attempting to resolve regulatory or
inspection issues. Agreement States and
current licensees may continue to use
the previous guidance for complying
with the concentration averaging
provision in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(8) (i.e., the
January 23, 1995, ‘‘Final Branch
Technical Position on Concentration
Averaging and Encapsulation’’). Current
licensees may also voluntarily use
positions in this revised CA BTP.
In addition to the guidance in the
revised CA BTP, licensees that ship
waste for disposal in a 10 CFR part 61
or Agreement State equivalent facility
should ensure that the waste meets the
concentration averaging provisions in
the land disposal facility license. Where
there are conflicts with this guidance,
the land disposal facility license
conditions issued by the regulatory
authority (i.e., the Agreement State)
must be met.
VII. Backfitting
The revised CA BTP revision
describes a voluntary method that the
NRC staff considers acceptable for
complying with the regulation in 10
CFR 61.55(a)(8), regarding averaging of
radionuclide concentrations for the
purpose of determining waste
classification. Compliance with the
revised CA BTP is not an NRC
requirement, and licensees and
applicants may choose this or another
method to achieve compliance with this
provision in the 10 CFR part 61. In
particular, current licensees may
continue to use the averaging positions
in the 1995 CA BTP. The revised CA
BTP does not require a backfit analysis,
as described in 10 CFR 50.109(c),
because (1) it does not impose a new or
amended provision in the NRC’s rules,
(2) does not present a regulatory staff
position that interprets the NRC’s rules
in a manner that is either new or
different from a previous staff position;
and (3) does not require the
modification of, or addition to, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
systems, structures, components, or
design of a facility, or the procedures or
organizations required to design,
construct, or operate a facility.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day
of January, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Larry W. Camper,
Director, Division of Decommissioning,
Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2015–03913 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. MC2015–32 and CP2015–42;
Order No. 2360]
New Postal Product
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing a
recent Postal Service filing concerning
an addition of Priority Mail Contract
112 to the competitive product list. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: February 26,
2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Notice of Commission Action
III. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642
and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal
Service filed a formal request and
associated supporting information to
add Priority Mail Contract 112 to the
competitive product list.1
The Postal Service
contemporaneously filed a redacted
1 Request of the United States Postal Service to
Add Priority Mail Contract 112 to Competitive
Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of
Unredacted Governors’ Decision, Contract, and
Supporting Data, February 18, 2015 (Request).
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
contract related to the proposed new
product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and
39 CFR 3015.5. Id. Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal
Service filed a copy of the contract, a
copy of the Governors’ Decision
authorizing the product, proposed
changes to the Mail Classification
Schedule, a Statement of Supporting
Justification, a certification of
compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and
an application for non-public treatment
of certain materials. It also filed
supporting financial workpapers.
II. Notice of Commission Action
The Commission establishes Docket
Nos. MC2015–32 and CP2015–42 to
consider the Request pertaining to the
proposed Priority Mail Contract 112
product and the related contract,
respectively.
The Commission invites comments on
whether the Postal Service’s filings in
the captioned dockets are consistent
with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632,
3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39
CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are
due no later than February 26, 2015.
The public portions of these filings can
be accessed via the Commission’s Web
site (https://www.prc.gov).
The Commission appoints Kenneth R.
Moeller to serve as Public
Representative in these dockets.
III. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
Nos. MC2015–32 and CP2015–42 to
consider the matters raised in each
docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth
R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an
officer of the Commission to represent
the interests of the general public in
these proceedings (Public
Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than
February 26, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Ruth Ann Abrams,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–03828 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. MC2015–33 and CP2015–43;
Order No. 2361]
New Postal Product
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10165-10168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03913]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0022]
Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical
Position
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Branch technical position; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing
Revision 1 of the Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging
and Encapsulation (CA BTP). This guidance provides acceptable methods
that can be used to perform concentration averaging of low-level
radioactive waste (LLW) for the purpose of determining its waste class
for disposal.
DATES: The Branch Technical Position referenced in this document is
available on February 25, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0022 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may access publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0022. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a
document is referenced. The revised Branch Technical Position on
Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation consists of two volumes.
Volume 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12254B065) contains the staff technical
positions on averaging and certain other information. Volume 2 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12326A611) contains staff responses to stakeholder
comments on the May 2012 draft (ADAMS Accession No. ML121170418) and
the technical bases for the staff positions.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maurice Heath, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3137; email:
Maurice.Heath@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 10166]]
I. Introduction
The NRC is issuing Revision 1 of the CA BTP. This revision provides
updated guidance on the interpretation of Sec. 61.55(a)(8) of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Determination of
concentrations in wastes,'' as it applies to the classification (as
Class A, B, or C waste) of a variety of different types and forms of
LLW. Paragraph 61.55(a)(8) states that radionuclide concentrations can
be averaged over the volume of the waste or its weight if the units are
expressed as nanocuries per gram. The average radionuclide
concentrations are compared with the waste classification tables in 10
CFR 61.55 to determine the class of the waste. The waste class
determines the minimum safety measures to be applied in order to
provide reasonable assurance of safe disposal of the waste.
The previous version of the CA BTP, published in 1995 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML033630732), was issued before the NRC adopted its risk-
informed and performance-based regulatory policy. The revised CA BTP
has been informed by that policy. The revised CA BTP also contains new
guidance related to blending of LLW, as directed by the Commission in
its Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-10-0043, ``Blending of Low-
Level Radioactive Waste,'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML102861764).
II. Background
To provide protection for individuals who inadvertently intrude
into a waste disposal facility, radioactive waste proposed for near-
surface disposal must be classified based on its hazard to the
intruder. The NRC's regulation, ``Licensing Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste,'' 10 CFR part 61, establishes a waste
classification system based on the concentration of specific
radionuclides contained in the waste. This system is one of the key
components in ensuring protection of an inadvertent intruder. In
determining these concentrations, the regulation states, in 10 CFR
61.55(a)(8), that radionuclide concentrations can be averaged over the
volume of the waste or its weight if the units are expressed as
nanocuries per gram.
Although 10 CFR part 61 acknowledges that concentration averaging
for the purposes of classifying waste for disposal is acceptable, it
does not specify limitations on the implementation of concentration
averaging. The staff published a technical position on radioactive
waste classification, initially developed in May 1983 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML033630755), that provided guidance on concentration averaging.
This 1983 technical position describes overall procedures acceptable to
NRC staff which could be used by licensees to determine the presence
and concentrations of the radionuclides listed in 10 CFR 61.55, and
thereby classify waste for near-surface disposal. Section C.3 of the
1983 technical position provided guidance on averaging of radionuclide
concentrations for the purpose of classifying the waste.
In 1995, the NRC staff updated a portion of the 1983 technical
position, publishing as a separate document the ``Branch Technical
Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation,'' (60 FR 4451,
January 23, 1995). The 1995 CA BTP significantly expanded and further
defined Section C.3 of the 1983 technical position dealing with
concentration averaging, specifying a number of constraints on
concentration averaging.
The current update to the CA BTP is necessary due to the
significant number of changes in the LLW program since the CA BTP was
published in 1995. First, the Commission reviewed the 1995 CA BTP's
position on blending of LLW in 2010 and directed the staff to revise it
to be more risk-informed and performance-based. The 1995 version
constrained the concentration of certain waste types put into a mixture
(e.g., ion exchange resins) to within a factor of 10 of the average
concentration of the final mixture. The Commission directed the staff
to replace this position and to implement a risk-informed, performance-
based approach for LLW blending that made the hazard (i.e., the
radioactivity concentration) of the final mixture the primary
consideration for averaging constraints. Second, the NRC adopted a
risk-informed, performance-based regulatory approach for its programs
in the late 1990's, after the 1995 CA BTP was published. The revised CA
BTP more fully reflects that approach, not just for the blending
position, but for other topics as well. One example is for
concentration averaging of sealed radioactive sources. The 1995 CA BTP
significantly constrained disposal of sealed sources. Many sources have
no disposal path because of the constraints recommended in the 1995
BTP. Licensees must store sealed sources for potentially long periods
of time if there is no disposal option, and the sources are subject to
loss or abandonment. The staff has re-examined the 1995 assumptions
underlying the radioactivity constraints on their disposal. The CA
BTP's revised positions are based on different, but conservative
assumptions and will allow for the safe disposal of more sealed sources
than the 1995 CA BTP. The revised position will enhance national
security by ensuring that the safest and most secure method for
managing sealed sources (i.e., permanent disposal in a licensed
facility) is available to licensees.
III. Overview of Public Comments
Revision 1 of the CA BTP has been developed after consideration of
public comments on three drafts. The first draft (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103430088) was noticed in the Federal Register on January 26, 2011
(76 FR 4739). The second draft (ADAMS Accession No. ML112061191) was
made available to the public in September 2011, in advance of a public
workshop held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on October 20, 2011. The
third draft (ADAMS Accession No. ML121170418) was noticed in the
Federal Register for public comment on June 11, 2012, (77 FR 34411).
Information about obtaining these documents is available in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
Fifteen organizations representing a variety of interests submitted
comments on the drafts. They included Federal and State agencies and
organizations, a nuclear power plant research organization, disposal
and waste processing facility licensees, industry professional
organizations, an advocacy group, and a waste services company. These
comments have been considered by the NRC staff in developing this
revision to the CA BTP. An overview of the changes to the 1995 CA BTP
is presented below. Detailed responses to each of the public comments
are available in Vol. 2 of the revised CA BTP and in the drafts
referenced above.
IV. Overview of Revisions
The major changes to the 1995 CA BTP are summarized below. Appendix
B of Volume 1 of the revised CA BTP has a more complete list of
changes. The staff responses to individual public comments are
contained in Section 3 of Volume 2 of the CA BTP. Finally, a summary of
the changes to the May 2012 version published for public comment is
available in ADAMS Accession No. ML14157A227.
Increase in cesium-137 sealed source activity limits. In the
revised CA BTP, the staff has increased the limits for disposal of
cesium-137 (Cs-137) sealed sources, using an improved technical basis
and a reasonably foreseeable but conservative intruder scenario.
Cesium-137 is used in sealed sources for
[[Page 10167]]
research, medical, and industrial purposes. The recommended constraint
on the size of these sources for disposal has been increased from 1.1
TBq (30 Ci) to 4.8 TBq (130 Ci), based on new, more risk-informed
analysis. The revised CA BTP also specifies a process that licensees
should use to request review by Agreement State regulators of proposed
disposals of larger activity sources.
Demonstration of adequate mixing in blended LLW. The revised CA BTP
also addresses the Commission direction to ``develop a clear standard
for determining homogeneity'' of blended waste. The 1995 CA BTP
constrained the concentrations of inputs to a mixture of blended waste
and therefore did not need to address the homogeneity of the final
mixture. It included a ``Factor of 10'' concentration limit on waste
blending which limited blending of waste streams with radionuclide
concentrations to within a factor of 10 of the average concentrations
in the blended product. The revised CA BTP specifies certain thresholds
on radionuclide concentrations of waste streams that are blended
together. Above these thresholds, licensees should demonstrate waste is
adequately blended. Considerations for this demonstration are also
discussed. The thresholds for demonstrating adequate blending and the
guidance on demonstrating waste is adequately blended are based on a
probabilistic dose assessment. This revision is risk-informed because
of the method used to establish the threshold for the homogeneity
demonstration. It is also performance-based because the position no
longer constrains concentrations of inputs to a blending process but
instead specifies criteria that the output (i.e., blended waste) must
meet to protect an inadvertent intruder from potential hot spots in the
waste.
Alternative Approaches. Another revision to the CA BTP is the
addition of specific guidance for licensees to use in proposing site-
or waste-specific averaging approaches, rather than the generic
approaches specified in the body of the CA BTP. This revision is
consistent with NRC's performance-based regulatory policy because it
facilitates the use of other averaging approaches to meet the 10 CFR
part 61 performance objective of protecting an inadvertent intruder.
The 1995 CA BTP stated that alternative approaches for averaging should
be approved under NRC's regulation in 10 CFR 61.58. By referencing a
provision in the regulations that applies to alternatives to the
requirements in 10 CFR part 61 (and not NRC staff guidance like the CA
BTP), performance-based approaches to intruder protection were in
effect discouraged. In addition, not all regulatory authorities in
Agreement States that license disposal sites have this provision in
their regulations, and so the regulatory mechanism for obtaining
approval of alternatives was not available to all licensees. That is,
some regulators could not authorize deviations from the 1995 CA BTP
under that provision, even though site-specific features may have
justified other averaging approaches. The revised CA BTP acknowledges
that site-specific and other approaches may be used, and deviations
from staff guidance in the CA BTP do not need the 10 CFR 61.58 approval
that was previously specified. Instead, the regulatory authority may
approve another approach in the same manner used for deviations from
other NRC guidance.
Risk-informed treatment of cartridge filters. In the 1995 CA BTP,
cartridge filters, a waste type generated during the operation of
nuclear power plants, were defined as discrete objects subject to
certain averaging constraints on each filter. Each filter had to be
radiologically characterized and fit within the specified averaging
constraints of the 1995 CA BTP. While that default position remains in
place, the revised CA BTP also allows for the treatment of such filters
as blendable waste, with a documented justification. Characterizing the
overall blendable waste mixture and classifying the mixture based on
its total radioactivity, rather than individual items, is permitted for
many other waste types in the revised CA BTP. This more risk-informed
position is justified because in practice many filters do not present a
gamma hazard to an intruder, based on their actual radionuclide
concentrations.
Risk-informed averaging of other discrete waste items. The 1995 CA
BTP constrained the averaging of discrete items with its Factors of 1.5
(which applied to primary gamma emitters) and 10 (which applied to
other radionuclides). The factors applied to the average radionuclide
concentrations in a mixture of certain discrete items, such as
activated metals, such that the radionuclide concentrations in all
items in a mixture had to be within those factors for the average of
the mixture. These factors ensure uniformity of radionuclide
concentrations in mixtures of items, but such mixtures could be
uniformly low in concentration and risk. Thus, there is no relationship
between the 1995 CA BTP position and acceptable risk (or dose). The
revised CA BTP ties the averaging factors to the class limit for
radionuclide concentrations (not the average of the mixture), which has
a relationship to risk because the class limits are based on a dose of
5 mSv/yr (500 mrem/yr) exposure to an inadvertent intruder. The staff
also revised the Factor of 1.5 to 2, since the uncertainty associated
with intruder protection does not justify the precision implied by the
first factor.
In developing the revised CA BTP, the staff identified one issue
that may need further clarification. One of the categories of discrete
wastes that are subject to special concentration averaging constraints
is ``contaminated materials.'' The 1995 CA BTP defines contaminated
materials as components or metals on which radioactivity resides on or
near the surface in a fixed or removable condition. To demonstrate
compliance with these averaging constraints, the radiological
characteristics and volumes of individual items are typically
determined. However, items with surface contamination may also be
categorized as radioactive trash which is not subject to any special
averaging constraints. Items in radioactive trash do not need to be
individually characterized. Instead, a container of radioactive trash
can be surveyed to determine its overall radioactivity and its
classification determined by dividing the overall activity by the waste
volume. Neither the 1995 CA BTP nor draft revisions published for
public comment provided guidance for categorizing items as either
contaminated materials or radioactive trash. In addition, the staff
received no comments from stakeholders on this issue. The staff will
consider whether additional guidance, such as a Regulatory Issue
Summary (RIS), is warranted for distinguishing contaminated materials
from radioactive trash. The staff may also formally clarify or
supplement other positions in the CA BTP at a later time, as necessary.
V. Congressional Review Act
This CA BTP is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801-9808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not
found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
VI. Implementation
The revised CA BTP describes and makes available to NRC and
Agreement State licensees, Agreement States, and the public, methods
that the NRC believes are acceptable for implementing specific parts of
the Commission's regulations. The positions in this document are not
intended as a
[[Page 10168]]
substitute for regulations, and compliance with them is not required.
Agreement States may use this information in establishing waste
acceptance criteria for their licensees who are operating waste
disposal sites. Applicants and licensees may use the information in the
revised CA BTP when developing applications for initial licenses,
amendments to licenses, or requests for NRC regulatory approval.
Licensees may use the information in the revised CA BTP for actions
(i.e., in determining average radionuclide concentrations in waste)
that do not require prior NRC review and approval. Licensees may also
use the information in the revised CA BTP to assist in attempting to
resolve regulatory or inspection issues. Agreement States and current
licensees may continue to use the previous guidance for complying with
the concentration averaging provision in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(8) (i.e., the
January 23, 1995, ``Final Branch Technical Position on Concentration
Averaging and Encapsulation''). Current licensees may also voluntarily
use positions in this revised CA BTP.
In addition to the guidance in the revised CA BTP, licensees that
ship waste for disposal in a 10 CFR part 61 or Agreement State
equivalent facility should ensure that the waste meets the
concentration averaging provisions in the land disposal facility
license. Where there are conflicts with this guidance, the land
disposal facility license conditions issued by the regulatory authority
(i.e., the Agreement State) must be met.
VII. Backfitting
The revised CA BTP revision describes a voluntary method that the
NRC staff considers acceptable for complying with the regulation in 10
CFR 61.55(a)(8), regarding averaging of radionuclide concentrations for
the purpose of determining waste classification. Compliance with the
revised CA BTP is not an NRC requirement, and licensees and applicants
may choose this or another method to achieve compliance with this
provision in the 10 CFR part 61. In particular, current licensees may
continue to use the averaging positions in the 1995 CA BTP. The revised
CA BTP does not require a backfit analysis, as described in 10 CFR
50.109(c), because (1) it does not impose a new or amended provision in
the NRC's rules, (2) does not present a regulatory staff position that
interprets the NRC's rules in a manner that is either new or different
from a previous staff position; and (3) does not require the
modification of, or addition to, the systems, structures, components,
or design of a facility, or the procedures or organizations required to
design, construct, or operate a facility.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of January, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Larry W. Camper,
Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste
Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2015-03913 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P