1 / 18

South Carolina Perspective on Part 61 Proposed Revisions

South Carolina Perspective on Part 61 Proposed Revisions. October 2015. Barnwell LLRW Disposal Facility. Started operating in 1971. Trench Areas. 120 acres capped. Site Buildings. 235 acres used for disposal and site buildings. Status of Barnwell Site. Atlantic Compact Operations only

ddina
Télécharger la présentation

South Carolina Perspective on Part 61 Proposed Revisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. South Carolina Perspective on Part 61 Proposed Revisions October 2015

  2. Barnwell LLRW Disposal Facility Started operating in 1971 Trench Areas 120 acres capped Site Buildings 235 acres used for disposal and site buildings

  3. Status of Barnwell Site • Atlantic Compact Operations only • Phase I closure activities are complete • 86% of site has been closed and final cap installed • Extensive documentation showing 16 performance objectives listed in the license have been met

  4. Status of Barnwell Site

  5. Topics • Applicability Issues • Stability Requirements • Regulatory and Backfit Analyses

  6. Applicability Issues • 61.1 Purpose and Scope • “Applicability of the requirements in this part to Commission licenses for waste disposal facilities in effect on the effective date of this rule will be determined on a case-by-case basis and implemented through terms and conditions of the license or by orders issued by the Commission.” • This language afforded regulators of licensed disposal facilities the flexibility to consider when, and if, each facility should comply with the new requirements based on practical, economical and technical considerations.

  7. Applicability Issues • 61.13 Technical Analyses (long-term analyses) • “Licensees with licenses for land disposal facilities in effect on the effective date of this subpart must submit these analyses at the next license renewal or within 5 years of the effective date of this Subpart, whichever comes first.” • The case-by-case decision-making afforded by § 61.1(a) is taken away in the proposed language of § 61.13

  8. Unclear whether § 61.1(a) or § 61.13 is overarching • Unclear whether the language in § 61.13 (and § 61.58) would automatically apply to facilities that have the potential for “grandfathering” under the case by case allowance provided in § 61.1 • The proposed rule language should be clarified to reflect that the case-by-case application afforded by § 61.1(a) also applies to the proposed rule

  9. Applicability of § 61.1(a) – NRC Interpretation • NRC takes the position that the language in § 61.1(a) was intended to apply to initial Part 61 requirements and not to subsequent revisions to Part 61 • That interpretation is not made clear by the current or proposed language • Justification for that interpretation should be provided • The proposed changes are the most significant since the initial promulgation and should provide flexibility • The proposed rule language should be clarified to reflect that the case-by-case application afforded by § 61.1(a) also applies to the proposed rule

  10. Applicability to Waste Already Disposed Initial Part 61 Promulgation • Although many Part 61 requirements were eventually applied to waste disposal facilities that had licenses in effect on the effective date of the original Part 61 rule, the requirements were typically only applied to future waste disposal operations. • No consideration of past disposals based on what would have been considered Class B or Class C waste • New stability and intruder protection requirements would have • Been Disruptive to overall disposal system • Resulted in increase in dose to workers and potentially general population • Created unnecessary technical and economic burden

  11. Applicability to Waste Already Disposed Concepts Section: Limiting Quantities and Concentrations • § 61.7(f)(2) states waste may not decay to acceptable limits within 100 years and safety is provided by • Limiting quantities • Limiting concentrations • These can only reasonably apply to future waste disposals

  12. Applicability to Waste Already DisposedConcepts Section: Depth of Disposal and Intruder Barriers • § 61.7(f)(3) states waste that will not decay to acceptable levels in 100 years “...must be stable and be disposed at a greater depth...” and “where site conditions prevent deeper disposal, intruder barriers such as concrete covers may be used.” • Some sites can not rely on deeper disposal initially – none can after disposal • Installation of intruder barriers for waste already disposed would have negative consequences • High integrity containers designed for stability have limits on overburden • Where final engineering caps have been installed, additional installation would be disruptive

  13. Applicability to Waste Already Disposed EPA Example #1 • 40 CFR 191, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes - Subpart B, Environmental Standards for Disposal” – September 19, 1985 • Does not apply to waste disposed of before November 18, 1985 As it was originally promulgated, 40 CFR 191 did not apply to wastes already disposed of. The various provisions of Subpart B were to be met through a combination of steps involving disposal system design and site selection and operational techniques. The agency believed that it was appropriate that subpart B apply only to disposal occurring after promulgation so that the full range of site selection and design controls could be taken into account in complying with this rule.

  14. Applicability to Waste Already Disposed EPA Example #2 • Grandfathering Explanation: “Amendments to the Corrective Action Management Unit Rule” • Flexibility offered by “grandfathering” when • “Good faith work has been done” • “… imposition of the new requirements would be an inefficient use of a facility’s and the agency’s cleanup resources” • Relevant when licensee and regulator may have already expended resources • in the development of a closure plan, etc. • performing and completing activities associated with closure of the disposal facility, such as final cap installation and the construction of site drainage features

  15. Stability Requirements in § 61.44 • Concepts Section § 61.7 refers to timeframes of 100, 300 and 500 years • 10,000 year stability requirement not realistic for near-surface disposal • Constantly changing surface environment • Class C waste can be buried up to 5 meters below the ground surface in accordance with § 61.52(a)(2)

  16. Regulatory Analysis • Regulatory Analysis is not adequate • Generic in nature • Does not include site specific considerations that could substantially increase costs • States will likely need to seek external technical expertise • Potential remediation costs • Actual costs far exceed cost estimates • No justification for estimates

  17. NRC should perform a Backfit Analysis • Significant cost to licensees and regulators • Proposed revisions represent most substantial since initial promulgation • Need to assess • whether will provide for a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety at sites that will and will not accept new unanticipated waste streams • Whether associated direct and indirect costs are justified by the benefits

  18. Susan Jenkins, Manager Infectious and Radioactive Waste Management Section 803-898-2631 jenkinse@dhec.sc.gov

More Related