Administration
Water Pollution Control
Facsimile 687-5856

Mining Regulations and Reclamation
Facsimile 684-5259

Air Quality
Water Quality Planning
Facsimile 687-6396

E. Frank Di Sanza, Director
Waste Management Division
Department of Energy
P. O. Box 98518
Las Vegas, NV 89193-0851

RE: Position Paper on "Operational Limits for Near Surface Disposal of Low- Level Radioactive Waste at the Nevada Test Site"

Dear Mr. Di Sanza:

     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Federal Facilities staff (NDEP), has reviewed the above referenced document and is providing the following general and specific comments.

General Comments:

     The Department of Energy's Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) has developed the referenced position paper to address placing certain limits governing the disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW), including DOE wastes considered equivalent to commercial Greater-Than-Class C waste, at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). As discussed in the paper, DOE/NV is proposing to implement the following decision:

1) To continue the prohibition of disposal of DOE equivalent to Greater-Than-Class C waste (GTCC) until DOE/HQ sets a national policy;

2) To develop operational waste concentration limits for the NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria that will be applied to individual waste packages; and

3) To require that waste generators perform concentration averaging over the volume of waste in an individual package using Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidance.

     As DOE officials are aware, the State of Nevada has long sought a national policy decision concerning the disposition of LLW defined as, or equivalent to GTCC. Specifically, we have repeatedly suggested that DOE should use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to assess programmatic issues associated with the management and disposition of both commercial GTCC waste and equivalent defense LLW.

     In September 1998, in a letter from Liebendorfer (NDEP) to Letourneau (DOE/HQ), it was stated that by "exclusively relying on DOE's Performance Assessment Process (PA) and the NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria for disposal of DOE defense waste deemed equivalent to GTCC waste, the DOE undercuts the public disclosure process and the evaluation of alternative disposition options required by NEPA for these waste types." The letter went on to state that this is not an appropriate action and that DOE should use the NEPA process to programmatically assess disposition options for LLW streams considered unsuitable for shallow land burial. Given these considerations, NDEP remains firmly opposed to any action that would allow DOE disposal site operators authority to set waste concentration limits strictly based on the results of a site specific PA. (We note that while this is not the proposed decision in the referenced paper, it is cited as an option.)

Additional Background:

     The existing PA process is, by design, limited in scope and provides little opportunity to address substantive stakeholder input for decisions that have long-term consequences for human health and the natural environment. The PA produces specific technical "outputs" to address site specific issues for a given LLW disposal site. Consequently, the process was never envisioned to support a decision basis for assessing programmatic issues subject to mandatory public disclosure requirements.

     DOE officials have acknowledged in numerous public forums in conjunction with discussions related to the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), that defense special case waste, classified as equivalent to GTCC, was not addressed in the PEIS. Accordingly, DOE officials have acknowledged that a separate NEPA "programmatic" document would be required to address bounding issues concerning disposition alternatives for these waste types.

     Consequently, and without regard to the environmental setting at NTS, the PA process should not be used to support a major federal decision which allows DOE to accept defense LLW for disposal at NTS, where those wastes are considered equivalent to GTCC waste. This is an action that must be addressed through the NEPA process with its intended public involvement and disclosure provisions. Additionally, until the NTS has completed a composite analysis PA in compliance with the recommendations of the Defense Nuclear Safety Board [94-2], any determinations about the acceptability of NTS disposal sites would be premature and not supportable.

     Considering these issues, NDEP strongly supports decision (1) which specifies that DOE/NV will continue to prohibit the disposal of defense LLW considered equivalent to GTCC waste at the NTS. We acknowledge this situation could change in a case where NTS was determined to be acceptable for these actions through a policy decision per the National Environmental Policy Act.

     In reference to the issues concerning the development of operation waste concentration limits that will be applied to individual waste packages, NDEP concurs that DOE/NV should develop a technical paper to address relevant multiplication factors. NDEP also supports the approach for averaging the concentration of radionuclides over the volume of waste in an individual package, as long as the Greater-Than-Class-C criteria, when applied to either an individual waste package or to a discrete item within a package, is not exceeded. However, under no circumstances would NDEP support the current DOE policy that grants acceptance for disposal of waste streams and waste packages based on the average concentration of waste placed in a disposal cell. This approach is unacceptable since it presents undue long-term risk.

Specific Comments:

NDEP has identified the following specific technical issues within the paper which need to be addressed.

1) Page 7, Paragraph 1, Line 12: "...The DOE Order also adopts a 100 mrem/yr dose limit compared to a 500 mrem/yr used by NRC in 1981..." The current (as of 5/21/91) NRC dose limit recommendation is 100 mrem/yr TEDE (10 CFR 20.1301). It is misleading to assert that DOE is much more stringent than the NRC.

2) Page 7, Paragraph 1, Last line: "...and specifies the use of more current internal dose conversion factors than those used by NRC..." According to DOE Order 5400.5 (2/8/90), page 4, paragraph Y, EPA Publication EPA-520/1-88-020, Federal Guidance Report No. 11, "Limiting Values of Radionuclides Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion", is the preferred source of DCFs for use by Federal agencies. Therefore, if the implication here is that DOE Order 5820.2A specifies using other than the FGR-11 DCFs, there is an inconsistency.

3) Page 10, Paragraph 2, Line 3: "...The PA-derived maximum average concentration limit should be converted into an operational limit by multiplying by a factor that accounts for dilution with lower activity concentration waste..." NDEP is requesting clarification of the multiplying factor. How will it be determined? It appears that DOE is proposing a method that could potentially allow a Greater-Than-Class-C waste to be averaged into a waste package. Under any circumstances, NDEP does not agree with accepting a waste that exceeds Greater-Than-Class-C criteria when applied to either an individual waste package or to a discrete item within a package. NDEP would also like the definition of what DOE considers a "waste package".

     If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at (775) 687- 4670 extension 3039.

Sincerely,

Paul Liebendorfer

Paul J. Liebendorfer, P.E.
Bureau of Federal Facilities

PJL/KKB/MM/JBW/