1. 10 CFR Part 61 Low Level Waste Disposal Rulemaking Update
October 22, 2015
LLW Forum Meeting Chicago, IL
Ryan Whited
Senior Project Manager
LLW Branch
Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

2. Objective
Provide some brief background on NRC’s 10 CFR Part 61 Rulemaking
Summarize stakeholder comments received to date
Discuss the schedule and next steps for the NRC’s review

3. Why Are We Doing This Rulemaking?
Require LLW disposal licensees or license applicants to ensure that LLW streams that are significantly different from the LLW streams considered in the current 10 CFR Part 61 regulatory basis can be disposed of safely. 3

4. Rationale for Current Rulemaking
Large quantities of depleted uranium (especially from enrichment facilities)
LLW from Department of Energy operations
Waste forms/volumes
Blended LLW (greater quantities than previously expected)
New technologies might generate unexpected LLW waste streams 4

5. Major changes in the proposed rule (10 CFR Part 61)
1,000 year compliance period
Inadvertent Intruder analysis
Protective Assurance analysis
Long-lived LLW analysis for performance period beyond 10,000 years 5

6. Major changes in the proposed rule (10 CFR Part 61) (cont’d)
Safety Case/Defense in Depth
Updated technical analyses at closure
Site Specific Waste Acceptance Criteria 6

7. Commission Direction: SRM-SECY-13-0075 (2014)11

8. Comments Received
Use of current ICRP methodology and what that might imply. Others agreed with proposal to use latest ICRP methodology.
Compatibility B designation for major portions of the proposed rule.
Long term siting stability.
The intruder dose and related assumptions.
The phantom four (C-14, Tc-99, I-129, & H-3).
Second rulemaking on waste classification. 8

9. Comments Received (cont’d)
Applicability of new requirements to existing sites.
Reduce complexity by moving more information to the guidance document. Two-tiered approach would be simpler and better.
Supplemental environmental impact statement needed.
Transparency and availability of performance assessments.
Cost benefit analysis needed. 9

10. Next Steps Initial comment period ended on July 24, 2015
Comment period reopened to address extension requests received
Reopened comment period expired September 21, 2015
Final rule to be sent to Commission by May 2016
Staff will then develop recommendation to Commission on need for second rulemaking on revising waste classification tables 10

11. Questions? 11