EnergySolutions’ Request for Exemption from R313-25-9(5)...R313-25-20. Protection of the General...

EnergySolutions’ Request for Exemption from R313-25-9(5)

Waste Management and Radiation Control

• P Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics Part II – Exemption Authority Part III – Depleted Uranium Overview Part IV – Concentrated Depleted Uranium Part V – R313-25-9 Promulgation

Presentation Outline

2


Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics

A. Agreement State Status B. How the NRC Regulates C. NRC Performance Objectives D. Performance Assessments E. Safety Evaluation Reports

3


Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics A: “Agreement State” Status

4

• Agreement State: A State that has signed an agreement with the NRC authorizing the State to regulate certain uses of radioactive materials within the State

• NRC and Utah Agreement - March 29, 1984 https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-1984-001001.pdf

• Amendment to Agreement - May 8, 1990 Added: land disposal of source, byproduct and special nuclear material received from other persons https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-1990-001021.pdf

https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-1984-001001.pdf





























…be coordinated and compatible. The State will use its best efforts to cooperate with the Commission and other agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory program of the State and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that the State’s program will continue to be compatible with the program of the Commission for the regulation of like materials. The State and the Commission will use their best efforts to keep each other informed of proposed changes in their respective rules and regulations and licensing, inspection and enforcement policies and criteria, and to obtain the comments and assistance of the other party thereon.

Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics A: “Agreement State” Status

5


Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics A. Agreement State Status

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) o Independent o Members appointed by the President o Policy, rulemaking, and technical guidance

• Waste Management and Radiation Control Board o Members appointed by the Governor o Policy and rulemaking

• Director of Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control o Appointed by the Executive Director o Program implementation, licensing actions o Compliance / Enforcement, including assessment of penalties

6


Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics B. How the NRC Regulates

Code of Federal Regulations – C.F.R. • Adopted via formal rulemaking • Utah required to be compatible with federal regulations

Commission Documents: SECY (Secretary to the Commission) • NRC staff-authored issues papers submitted to the Commission to inform

them about policy, rulemaking and adjudicatory matters, usually at the request of the Commission

• Possible Commission actions include: accept, amend, reject • May lead to formal rulemaking • Commission response may include a Staff Requirements Memorandum

(SRM)

NRC Adjudicatory Decisions and Federal Judicial Decisions • Interpretation of law and policy 7



NUREG - “US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations”

• Detailed, technical NRC publications dealing with licensing and regulation of civilian nuclear facilities and materials

• Information supporting regulatory decisions • Guidance for meeting NRC regulations • Results of task force investigations of specific topics or incidents • Results of research programs, resolution of generic safety

issues • Analyses of certain regulatory programs • Proceedings of conferences and workshops • Administrative information of interest to the staff, industry, public 8



Utah, as an Agreement State, is expected to follow federal regulations, Commission decisions, NUREGs, SECY papers, and related guidance in order to maintain program adequacy and compatibility • “best efforts”

9


Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics C. NRC Performance Objectives

For LLRW land disposal, 10 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart C sets the following performance objectives:

(1) protection of the general population from releases of

radioactivity; (2) protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion; (3) protection of individuals during operations; and (4) stability of the disposal site after closure.

CLI-05-20, 61 NRC 22, 31 (2005) https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2005-001161.pdf

For a license to be granted, NRC must conclude that there is reasonable assurance that the performance objectives will be met.

80 Fed. Reg. 16084 (March 26, 2015) https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2011-0012-0077

10














https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2011-0012-0077








Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics C. NRC Performance Objectives

Corresponding Utah Rules R313-25-20. Protection of the General Population from Releases of

Radioactivity R313-25-21. Protection of Individuals from Inadvertent Intrusion R313-25-22. Protection of Individuals During Operation R313-25-23. Stability of Disposal Site After Closure

11


Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics D. Performance Assessments

A performance assessment (PA) for a low-level radioactive waste site is a technical study that considers site-specific factors “to demonstrate whether a disposal facility has met its performance objectives.”

www.nrc.gov

12

http://www.nrc.gov/


Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics D. Performance Assessments

13

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0532/ML053250352.pdf



Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics E. Safety Evaluation Report (SER)

The Safety Evaluation Report (SER), prepared by the regulatory agency, documents the extent to which a performance assessment (PA) demonstrates that the performance objectives and other regulatory requirements will be met.

14


Part I – NRC Regulatory Basics

Questions on the following?

A. Agreement State Status B. How the NRC Regulates C. NRC Performance Objectives D. Performance Assessments E. Safety Evaluation Reports

15


Part II – Exemption Authority

16

A. NRC’s Exemption Authority B. Board’s Exemption Authority C. NRC Compatibility Reviews


Part II – Exemption Authority A: NRC’s Exemption Authority

10 C.F.R. § 61.6 and 10 C.F.R. § 40.14(a) (identical language): https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR&searchPath=Title+10%2FChapter+I%2FPart+40&oldPath=Title+10%2FChapter+I%2FPart+61&isCollapsed=true&selectedYearFrom=2018&ycord=1509

The Commission may, upon application by any interested person, or upon its own initiative, grant any exemption from the requirements of the regulations of this part as it determines is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest.

• Authorized by law • Not endanger life or property or the common defense and security • Otherwise in the public interest

17

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR&searchPath=Title+10/Chapter+I/Part+40&oldPath=Title+10/Chapter+I/Part+61&isCollapsed=true&selectedYearFrom=2018&ycord=1509

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR&searchPath=Title+10/Chapter+I/Part+40&oldPath=Title+10/Chapter+I/Part+61&isCollapsed=true&selectedYearFrom=2018&ycord=1509


Part II – Exemption Authority A. NRC’s Exemption Authority

The Commission has granted exemptions, but finds exemptions, although authorized, are considered “to be an ‘extraordinary’ equitable remedy to be used only ‘sparingly.’”

In affirming the denial of an exemption request under § 40.14(a), the Commission explained:

• Every NRC regulation has gone through the rulemaking process • NRC rules apply until an exemption requester has met the high burden placed

upon such requests • Equitable relief only when supported by compelling reasons • Exemptions are not intended to serve as a vehicle for challenging the

fundamental basis for the rule itself • Challenges to the rule itself are more appropriately lodged through a request for

rulemaking

In the Matter of Honeywell International, Inc., CLI-13-01, 77 NRC 1, 6 (January 9, 2013). https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2013/2013-01cli.pdf

18

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2013/2013-01cli.pdf








Part II – Exemption Authority B. Board’s Exemption Authority

R313-12-55(1): https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r313/r313-012.htm#T10

The Board may, upon application or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions or exceptions from the requirements of these rules as it determines are authorized by law and will not result in undue hazard to public health and safety or the environment.

• Authorized by law • Not result in undue hazard to public health and safety • Not result in undue hazard to the environment • Applicant bears the burden of proof

19

https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r313/r313-012.htm#T10


Part II – Exemption Authority C: Compatibility Reviews

• NRC discontinues its authority when it finds that a state is compatible with the federal program for the regulation of radioactive materials and is adequate to protect the public health and safety. (NRC and Utah Agreements: 1984, 1990, 2004)

• Compatibility audits of Utah’s programs are conducted by the NRC at a four-year interval through its IMPEP program.

• NRC’s focus is “adequacy” and the “compatibility” with the federal program. If Utah is deemed not compatible, the NRC’s remedy is to revoke the program.

20


Part II – Exemption Authority C: Compatibility Reviews

Periodic NRC Reviews (IMPEP) & Special Reviews (e.g., by petition) In re State of Utah, 41 NRC 43 (1995): https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-1995-001041.pdf

“…whether Utah's action in granting the exemption provided for adequate protection of the public health and safety.”

21




Part II – Exemption Authority

22

Questions on the following? A. NRC’s Exemption Authority B. Board’s Exemption Authority C. NRC Compatibility Reviews


Part III – Depleted Uranium Overview

23

A. U.S. Department of Energy B. Uranium Fuel Cycle C. What is Depleted Uranium? D. Early Regulation of LLRW & Depleted

Uranium


Part III – Depleted Uranium Overview A. U.S. Department of Energy

• Atomic Energy Act of 1954: "the fundamental U.S. law on both the civilian and the military uses of nuclear materials.“

• Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (1978) • U.S. Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act (1996) • AEA and related statutes are intended to support the nuclear

power industry • Congress made U.S. DOE legally responsible for many

radioactive wastes:

o High-level radioactive waste & Spent Nuclear Fuel o 11e.(2) (uranium recovery) waste, aka “byproduct material” o Depleted uranium from uranium enrichment

24



25



A. U.S. Department of Energy

26

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (1978)



27



28


Part III – Depleted Uranium Overview B. Uranium Fuel Cycle

29



30

Uranium is found naturally in the Earth’s crust. It is more concentrated in ore.



31

White Mesa Uranium Mill



32

In Situ Uranium Production (WY)



33

Yellow Cake 68 to 99% uranium oxide



34

Uranium-235 Enrichment



35


Part III – Depleted Uranium Overview C. What is Depleted Uranium?

Depleted uranium (DU) radioactive waste: • Consists mostly of the uranium (U) isotope U-238, a radioactive

heavy metal • Contains less U-235 than natural U (e.g., <0.300% vs. 0.711%) • DU is much more concentrated than U in natural ore

o DU oxide is approximately 86% uranium o DU metal is approximately 99% uranium o Uranium found in ore in the U.S. on average is less than 1% o Natural uranium is the ratio of U-234/235 to U-238 found in the

Earth’s crust

36

https://www.energy.gov/ne/fuel-cycle-technologies/uranium-management-and-policy/nuclear-fuel-facts-uranium


















Part III – Depleted Uranium Overview C. What is Depleted Uranium?

Depleted uranium (DU) radioactive waste: • As DU waste decays, it experiences, unlike conventional

LLRW, ingrowth which produces a series of daughter products

• Ingrowth of daughter products significantly increases total radioactivity over time

• Peak dose occurs at approximately 2 million years • U-238 in DU waste decays slowly; it takes 4.5 billion years

of decay (half-life) for DU’s radioactivity to be halved

37


Part III – Depleted Uranium Overview C. What Is Depleted Uranium?

38

Relative radioactivity of DU waste over 1,000,000+ years


Part III – Depleted Uranium Overview D. Early NRC Regulation of LLRW and DU

10 CFR PART 61 – Land Disposal of LLRW

• Final EIS on 10 CFR Part 61 – Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste (NUREG-0945) – November 1982 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0525/ML052590184.pdf



• Final Rule – December 27, 1982 (47 Fed. Reg. 57446) https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-1982-001001.pdf

• Proposed Rule - July 24, 1981 (46 Fed. Reg. 38081) https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-1981-001001.pdf

• Draft EIS on 10 CFR Part 61 – Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Waste (NUREG 0782) – September 1981 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0609/ML060930564.pdf




39







































D. Early NRC Regulation of LLRW and DU 10 CFR PART 61 – Land Disposal of LLRW • Final rule eliminated concentration limit -- Class A, B, or C waste < 0.05

Ci/cm3 for DU:

o Industry comments - may require all waste streams to be analyze for DU – projected high costs and difficulty demonstrating compliance

o Not justified – no significant quantities of DU available for commercial disposal – DU disposed at federally owned landfills

o Typical types of uranium waste – small amounts of DU mixed with other waste streams that would not present a sufficient hazard to warrant limitation on the concentration of DU

40


Part III – Depleted Uranium Overview D. Early Regulation of LLRW & DU

10 CFR PART 61 – LLRW Land Disposal

• Part 61 only accounts for diffuse quantities of DU that might be intermixed in the commercial LLRW streams anticipated in 1982:

o 17 Curies of U238 diffused in 1 million m3 of waste over a 20-year operating life

41



A. U.S. Department of Energy B. Uranium Fuel Cycle C. What is Depleted Uranium? D. Early Regulation of LLRW & Depleted Uranium


42


Part IV – Concentrated Depleted Uranium

43

A. Policy Changes Regarding Depleted Uranium

B. SECY-08-0147 C. NRC “Unique Waste” Rulemaking


Part IV – Concentrated Depleted Uranium A. Policy Changes

• U.S. Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act (1996)

• NRC licenses private enrichment facilities (i.e., Louisiana Energy Services (“LES” now “URENCO”), U.S. Enrichment Corporation)

• DOE policy change – may now consider commercial disposal for DOE DU

• Commercial waste landscape would now include significant quantities of concentrated depleted uranium

44



• Significant quantities of concentrated DU were not evaluated during the original technical analysis in the draft EIS for Part 61.

• The Commission acknowledged that: “…there may be a need to place additional restrictions at a specific site or deny such disposal based on unique site characteristics.”

CLI-05-20, 62 NRC 523, 536 (2005) https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2005-001161.pdf

• The Commission orders staff to evaluate whether to amend Part 61 to address significant quantities of concentrated DU

45




• Regardless of any amendment to Part 61, the Commission made clear, it expects the regulatory authority to “conduct any site-specific evaluations necessary to confirm that radiological dose limits and standards can be met.”

CLI-06-15, 63 NRC 687 (2006) https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2006/2006-15cli.pdf

• Utah must require a PA demonstrating compliance with the performance objectives

46



Part IV – Concentrated Depleted Uranium B. SECY-08-0147

SECY-08-0147: NRC staff’s response to the Commission’s order (CLI-05-20) to evaluate whether significant quantities of DU warrant amending Part 61 rules. https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2008-002401.pdf

Probabilistic technical analysis evaluated the near surface land disposal of significant quantities of concentrated depleted uranium oxide, concluding, in part: • Shallow disposal of small quantities of depleted uranium (1-10 metric

tons) could occur under the current Part 61 in arid climates • For significant quantities of concentrated depleted uranium, a site-

specific performance assessment be required to demonstrate that performance objectives will be met

• Period of performance is 10,000 years with a consideration of longer periods (e.g. peak dose for DU)

• This technical analysis was not meant to replace site-specific PA

47



SRM - The Commission authorized its staff to proceed to rulemaking to address the land disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium and develop a guidance document that outlines the parameters and assumptions to be used in the analysis. https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008302.pdf

• Noting, for disposal of significant quantities of DU, “there may be a need to place additional restrictions . . . at a specific site or deny such disposal . . .”

• Restrictions or denial would be determined by a site specific analysis that demonstrates whether the unique waste stream can be disposed in conformance with the performance objectives

March 18, 2009

Part IV – Concentrated Depleted Uranium B. SECY-08-0147

48




SRM - NRC expanded rulemaking to cover all “unique wastes”, including waste with any of the following characteristics:

• Large percentage of activity associated with very long-lived radionuclides

• Decay results in increasing hazard with time until after a million years

• Ingrowth of significant quantities of daughter products, such as radon, significantly higher than natural ores or mill tailings

Part IV – Concentrated Depleted Uranium C. NRC “Unique Waste” Rule

49



50



Unique Waste Rule Vetted for 9 Years – considered substantial input from stakeholders https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams.html#2015prgpc

Pre-rulemaking, NRC published for comment: • Preliminary Proposed Rule (May 2011) https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1111/ML111150205.pdf

• 2nd Preliminary Proposed Rule (December 2012) • Technical Analysis Supporting Definition of Period of Performance for Low-level Waste Disposal (May 3,

2011, 76 FR 24831) • 5 Public Workshops (2009, 2011, 2014) – Salt Lake, Phoenix, Dallas, Rockville

Proposed Rule (March 26, 2015) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/03/26/2015-06429/low-level-radioactive-waste-disposal Guidance for Conducting Technical Analyses for 10 CFR Part 61, NUREG-2175 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1505/ML15056A516.pdf

• 2,401 comment letters • 7 Public Comment Meetings – Phoenix, AZ, Rockville, MD, Austin, TX, online, Columbia, SC, Richland,

WA, and Salt Lake City • Draft Regulatory Analysis for Final Rule (August 2016)

Staff proposed FINAL RULE for Commission Review – SECY-16-0106 (October 16, 2016) https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1618/ML16188A290.html

• November 2016, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Material Subcommittee conclusions and recommendations to Commission – staff proposed final rule. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1631/ML16312A400.pdf

• September 2017, Commission directed substantive changes and republish for public comment https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1725/ML17251B147.pdf

• Draft Regulatory Analysis for Final Rule (82 Fed. Reg. 48283 (2017)) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/17/2017-22459/low-level-radioactive-waste-disposal

51

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams.html#2015prgpc


https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/03/26/2015-06429/low-level-radioactive-waste-disposal











https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1505/ML15056A516.pdf

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1618/ML16188A290.html

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1631/ML16312A400.pdf

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1725/ML17251B147.pdf














All Rulemaking iterations retained (2009-2017) • Require a site-specific performance assessment and an inadvertent

intruder assessment to demonstrate the disposal of the unique waste stream meets the performance standards

52



A. Policy Changes Regarding Depleted Uranium B. SECY-08-0147 C. NRC “Unique Waste” Rulemaking

Part IV – Concentrated Depleted Uranium

53


Part V – R313-25-9 Promulgation

54

A. Rulemaking History, Basis B. What Does Rule Require? C. Rule Is Not Arbitrary D. 1 Metric Ton Is Not Arbitrary


Part V – R313-25-9 Promulgation A. Rulemaking History, Basis

55

2009 Radiation Control Board:

Peter A. Jenkins, M.S., CHP, Chair Elizabeth Goryunova, M.S., Vice Chair Dane L. Finerfrock, Executive Secretary Scott Bird Patrick D. Cone Frank D. DeRosso, MSPH, CIH Christian K. Gardner Douglas S. Kimball, DMD Joseph K. Miner, M.D., MSPH Amanda Smith, DEQ Executive Director John W. Thomson, M.D. David A. Tripp, Ph.D. Colleen Johnson Edd Johnson



56

April 14, 2009 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008186.pdf

• Briefing regarding NRC to initiate rulemaking for the disposal

of significant quantities of depleted uranium in 10 CFR 61

• Board provided a copy of October 7, 2008 SECY-08-0147 https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008302.pdf





























57

May 12, 2009 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008187.pdf

HEAL Utah requested the Board impose a temporary moratorium on EnergySolutions accepting depleted uranium until the NRC completes its rulemaking regarding the disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium
















58

June 9, 2009 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008188.pdf

• EnergySolutions contended that a moratorium would violate the “Utah

stringency rule” (1987 HB57) • Board members acknowledge NRC’s view that DU volumes above 10

metric tons are considered a significant quantity
















59

July 14, 2009 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008189.pdf

• DRC provided a presentation -- “Technical aspects of depleted

uranium disposal” -- to help educate the Board about depleted uranium and what is included in a Performance Assessment

• Board discussed HEAL’s request for a temporary moratorium,

including whether a moratorium is more stringent • HEAL Utah provided a presentation regarding inadvertent intruder,

the return of Lake Bonneville and the effect the Lake would have on the Clive Disposal Site
















60

September 1621, 2009, EnergySolutions letter to Amanda Smith, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. In lieu of a moratorium on depleted uranium, EnergySolutions made the following commitments: 1. Dispose of the depleted uranium drums at the bottom of the disposal

embankment;

2. Perform an updated performance assessment for depleted uranium, in conformance with NRC requirements; and

3. Revise the design of the disposal embankment.

















61

September 1621, 2009, EnergySolutions Letter, cont.



62

September 22, 2009 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008192.pdf

• NRC DU rulemaking presentation (Larry Camper, David Esh, and

Duncan White) -- Mr. Camper said that the direction that had been provided to the NRC staff was to proceed with a rulemaking that would require a “Site Specific Performance Assessment” to be conducted whenever large quantities of depleted uranium are disposed

• NRC chose Salt Lake City to hold a depleted uranium workshop

because of the potential for significant quantities of depleted uranium to be disposed at the Clive site
















63

September 22, 2009 Board Meeting, cont.

• HEAL’s proposed moratorium discussed, including its need and urgency

• Board members agreed that there should be some type of rule for the disposal of depleted uranium, but the Board members differed in what the rule and conditions should be

• Motion made to reject the HEAL Utah proposal for a moratorium for DU. Amended motion made to adopt the September16, 2009 ES letter and that the commitments in the letter be added as a license condition to the ES license

o Motion passed and carried 8-Yes, 3-No, 1-Abstention

• Board’s intent was to assure that the disposal of the depleted uranium was accomplished with consideration for the environment and future generations of Utah citizens



64

September 23-24, 2009

NRC workshop on depleted uranium disposal at the University of Utah. https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams/workshop-2-summary.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams/workshop-2-transcripts-day1.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams/workshop-2-transcripts-day2.pdf

Workshop panel included: • NRC Staff • Dane Finerfrock (DRC Director) • HEAL Utah representative • EnergySolutions representatives • DOE Staff • Representatives from other Agreement States with LLRW programs

(i.e., Washington, South Carolina, and proposed Texas WCS Site)

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams/workshop-2-summary.pdf











https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams/workshop-2-transcripts-day1.pdf




























65

October 1, 2009 EnergySolutions Letter (Origin of Condition 35):



66

October 1, 2009, EnergySolutions Letter (Origin of Condition 35) https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-004452.pdf
















67

October 13, 2009 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008193.pdf

• Board modified the language in the proposed License Condition 35 and took action to adopt the amended license condition over EnergySolutions’ objections

• The basis for the 10,000 year timeframe was discussed in detail

• The basis for the one metric ton was discussed in detail (> 1 to 10 metric tons significant quantities)

• Chairman Peter Jenkins discussed that the State of Texas has a rule that requires a Performance Assessment for a time period for up to peak dose before acceptance of the waste
















68

November 10, 2009 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008194.pdf • Counsel for EnergySolutions raised a number of legal and procedural

objections as to the Board’s October meeting action regarding License Condition 35

• The Board rescinded the October 2009 action regarding Condition 35

• License Condition 35 was then left to the Director for further action • The Board decided to proceed with formal rulemaking regarding

depleted uranium and appointed a subcommittee to work with DRC staff to develop proposed rule language
















69

December 8, 2009 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2009-008195.pdf

• Preliminary draft proposed rule language was presented to the Board.

• Laura Lockhart (Assistant Attorney General) presented legal issues surrounding the rule on depleted uranium: 1) Regulatory and Factual Background; 2) Summary of Preliminary Bases for Actions; 3) Impacts of Rulemaking; 4) Additional Documentation; 5) Statement Regarding Utah Code Annotated §19-3-104; and 6) the Proposed Rule.

• Extensive additional discussions regarding the proposed rule language, including the 10,000-year quantitative modeling, as well as language to conform the rule to changes the NRC may make in connection with its rulemaking process

• Rule, as revised, authorized for public comment
















70

January 12, 2010 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2010-008146.pdf

Update: Amendment to EnergySolutions License – License Condition 35 (Board Information Item) • The Director initiated a license amendment to incorporate

Condition 35 verbatim as EnergySolutions requested in its October 1, 2009 letter

• 20 comments received from eight individuals

• Director preparing responses to comments
















71

February 9, 2010 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2010-008145.pdf

Update on the Proposed Depleted Uranium Rule (R313-25-8) • Extensive comments received

• The Board indicated that the Director should prepare draft

responses to comments for the Board to consider
















72

March 9, 2010 Board Meeting https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2010-008065.pdf

Update on Proposed License Condition 35, EnergySolutions, UT 2300249 • Effective March 2, 2010, EnergySolutions’ Radioactive Material

License amended to include License Condition 35 • Director preparing responses to comments
















73

April 13, 2010 Board Meeting Proposed Depleted uranium Rule, R3l3-25-8 [renumbered R313-25-9] https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2010-008066.pdf

• Approval: Findings and Opinion Regarding Adequacy of

Corresponding Federal Regulations • Laura Lockhart, Attorney General's Office, discussed the

proposed rule and response to comments received regarding the proposed amendments to Utah Administrative Code R313-25-8 addressing depleted uranium
















74

April 13, 2010 Board Meeting • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

recommended that three changes be made to the Board rule. Motion made by Patrick Cone to adopt the three changes suggested by the NRC as shown in Attachment 2 of the Board Packet.

• Motion Passed and Carried: 10-Yes, 1-Abstention • Effective Date of the Rule was set at June 1, 2010


Part V – R313-25-9 Promulgation B. What Does Rule Require?

75

(5)(a) Notwithstanding Subsection R313-25-9(1), any facility that proposes to land dispose of significant quantities of concentrated depleted uranium (more than one metric ton in total accumulation) after June 1, 2010, shall submit for the Director's review and approval a performance assessment that demonstrates that the performance standards specified in 10 CFR Part 61 and corresponding provisions of Utah rules will be met for the total quantities of concentrated depleted uranium and other wastes, including wastes already disposed of and the quantities of concentrated depleted uranium the facility now proposes to dispose. Any such performance assessment shall be revised as needed to reflect ongoing guidance and rulemaking from NRC. For purposes of this performance assessment, the compliance period shall be a minimum of 10,000 years. Additional simulations shall be performed for the period where peak dose occurs and the results shall be analyzed qualitatively. (b) No facility may dispose of significant quantities of concentrated depleted uranium prior to the approval by the Director of the performance assessment required in Subsection R313-25-9(5)(a). (c) For purposes of this Subsection R313-25-9(5) only, "concentrated depleted uranium" means waste with depleted uranium concentrations greater than 5 percent by weight.


• Utah Rules must be compatible with NRC. It is based on NRC’s laws, rules, and guidance

• The NRC has made clear irrespective of whether NRC changes its classification of DU, it expects that “the appropriate licensing authority to conduct any site-specific evaluations necessary to confirm that the radiological dose limits and standards can be met at the disposal facility, in light of the quantities of depleted uranium envisioned.” (CLI-06-15)

• The Commission also indicated that in making such a decision, the licensing authority is expected to “have considered both the characteristics of the waste and the site-specific features of the disposal site to assure that all radiological dose limits and safety regulations indeed can be met.”

Part V – R313-25-9 Promulgation C. Rule is Not Arbitrary

76


• NRC is not referring to volume relative to landfill volume. It’s referring to its previous work outlined in SECY 08-0147 https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/facilities/energysolutions/DRC-2008-002401.pdf

R313-25-9(5) 1 metric ton limit is based on NRC technical analysis (SECY-08-0147) that determined small quantities of DU – approximately 1 to 10 metric tons -- may be disposed at shallow depths and meet performance objectives

• NRC cautioned the SECY-08-0147 analysis cannot be used for licensing decisions because site-specific waste management decision or other variables strongly influence whether performance objective can be met

1 to 10 metric ton limit is consistent with Part 61, NUREG—0945, assessment allowing 17 curies of U238 in 1 million m3 over a 20-year operating life

Part V – R313-25-9 Promulgation D. 1 Metric Ton Limit is Not Arbitrary

77



Part V – R313-25-9 Promulgation D. 1 Metric Ton Is Not Arbitrary

78



A. Rulemaking History, Basis B. What Does Rule Require? C. Rule Is Not Arbitrary D. 1 Metric Ton Is Not Arbitrary

Part V – R313-25-9 Promulgation

79

EnergySolutions’ Request for Exemption from R313-25-9(5)...R313-25-20. Protection of the General...

Documents

Transcript of EnergySolutions’ Request for Exemption from R313-25-9(5)...R313-25-20. Protection of the General...