Washington's Perspective on NRC's Proposed LLRW Disposal Rule - Safety Case and Compliance Period Analysis

1. Washington’s perspective on the NRC’s Proposed Rule for Disposal LLRW (10CFR61) October 22, 2015 Earl Fordham, Deputy Director, Office of Radiation Protection

3. Basic format of changes to Part 61 We agree with the idea that Part 61 be left “as is” as much as possible. • Put new requirements in a new Part • IAEA’s Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste equivalent? • If a new Part is not viable, then place the substantive changes in a new section within Part 61 (e.g., 61.60)

4. Timeframes & Dose Limits • Compliance Period – 1000 years • 25 mrem/year • Performance Assurance Period – 10,000 years • Intruder limit: 500 mrem/year + ALARA • What was mankind doing 10,000 years ago? Future? • Performance Period – beyond 10,000 years

5. Need to Redo Our Performance Assessment Before Site Closure? Probably will, even though: • No plans to take significant quantities of LL alpha emitters • Inventory limits on 8 critical (e.g., U-234, U-238, Pu) isotopes • Agree with proposed 10CFR61.13(e) wording that requires additional PA if planning to take DU. • But we need to expand our PA.

6. Need to Redo Our Performance Assessment atSite Closure? Yes, current PA will be 50+ years old (and new PA would be about 40 years old): • Update site radionuclide inventory (estimate is high), • Update equation values such as Kd’s • Potential exposure scenarios for Hanford at 2063 • With large uncertainties, relevant scenario selection is critical. Is rural residential proper everywhere?

7. Is the site stable for a period of 10,000 years? • Catastrophic event analysis reveals no impact. Even 50% breach of Grand Coulee dam. PMF also has no impact on Central Plateau (FEIS, WDOH 2004). • For the foreseeable events in Washington, we believe the 10,000 year compliance period is sufficient for analysis, but uncertainties are large. • With Compliance Period reduced to 1,000 years to limit uncertainty, site stability should also be reduced to match. • Washington’s LLRW disposal site is located within a region of Hanford containing several disposal sites and most likely will never be released for public use.

8. Defense-in-Depth • Potential impact in Washington • Retrofitting an existing site could be difficult • Hanford site has several robust independent barriers • Depth to groundwater • Waste stabilization • Class C depth requirements • Future site use is limited due to federal operations • Inventory limits in license (from FEIS analysis)

9. Safety Case • Collection of arguments and evidence showing a facility can be safely sited, designed, constructed, commissioned, operated and shutdown/closed in a safe manner. • Key component is the analytical safety (performance) assessment • NRC SC = Performance Assessment + Defense-in-Depth • Exact form of SC = state specific laws and regulations • Between licensing and site environmental reviews (e.g., NEPA or SEPA), critical components of SC will be addressed. • Site-specific PA (safety assessment) is needed.

10. Site-specific WAC • We support allowing states to develop their own waste acceptance criteria. No two sites are the same. • No impact on state of Washington. We will continue to use tables in 61.55 (long-lived & short-lived)

11. Other Issues • We agree with the NRC on using the most up-to-date ICRP recommendations. • Changing regulatory environment and the impact on the development of new sites • Compatibility • Ok with 3 timeframes. • Ok with dose limits.

13. Questions? • Earl Fordham • 509-946-0234 • Earl.Fordham@doh.wa.gov • Website: http://www.doh.wa.gov