DOE G 435.1-1 Chapter 2, High-Level Waste Requirements

Chapter II High-Level Waste Requirements IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE for use with DOE M 435.1-1 (This page intentionally left blank.) DOE G 435.1-1 II-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. A. Definition of High-Level Waste. High-level waste is the highly radioactive waste material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and other highly radioactive material that is determined, consistent with existing law, to require permanent isolation. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to provide the criteria for determining which DOE radioactive wastes are to be managed as high-level waste, and therefore, in accordance with DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter II, High-Level Waste Requirements, and Chapter I, General Requirements and Responsibilities. Discussion: As required in DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.1.C., Radioactive Waste Management, all radioactive wastes subject to DOE O 435.1 shall be managed as either high-level waste, transuranic waste, low-level waste, or mixed low-level waste. To assist in determining whether a particular waste stream is high-level waste, another waste type, or not addressed by DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, see the guidance that accompanies the requirement at Section I.1.C. For those waste streams that meet the definition of high-level waste cited above, the requirements of Chapter II of DOE M 435.1-1 shall be met. This definition is consistent with the definition provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended. It is slightly modified from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, definition and, as discussed below, allows DOE to make a determination of what is high-level waste based on existing law. The identification of high-level waste is considered relatively straightforward since it is primarily linked to the source from which it was derived, i.e., it is the highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. However, the definition does imply a concentration limit by including solid material derived from liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations. Background and knowledge of both the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, definition and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission definition, at 10 CFR Part 60, is needed to ensure that waste that is to be managed as high-level waste has been properly characterized to be high-level waste. High-level waste must be managed in accordance with Chapter II of DOE M 435.1-1. II-2 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Background. The following discussion is provided in terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, definition but is fully applicable to the definition at Section II.A of DOE M 435.1-1. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, provides for the disposal of high- level radioactive waste and establishes a program of research, development, and demonstration regarding the disposal of high-level radioactive waste. In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, the term high-level radioactive waste is defined as:

“(a) the highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (b) other highly radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation.” Thus the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended definition for high-level waste provides for the inclusion of both source-based material and concentration-based material as high-level waste. Note that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, does not mandate that materials regarded as high-level waste pursuant to this definition be disposed of in a geologic repository. Indeed, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, directs the Secretary of Energy to continue and accelerate a program of research, development, and investigation of alternative means and technologies for the permanent disposal of high-level waste. DOE has not been specifically authorized by Congress to construct or operate facilities for disposal by alternative means, and it is not clear whether additional authorization might be needed in order to dispose of high-level waste by means other than emplacement in a deep geologic repository (52 FR 5994). Also note that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, definition and the definition for high-level waste in DOE’s predecessor directive for radioactive waste management, DOE 5820.2A, are fundamentally the same. However, there is one exception. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, provides for an additional mechanism for determining a waste is high-level waste. This mechanism is to allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to determine, by rule, that a waste requires permanent isolation. The wording in Section II.A is slightly different than the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, to allow DOE to make a determination based upon existing law in Sections 202(3) and 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. The NRC has posited that, “radioactive wastes that have historically been referred to as high-level waste, i.e., reprocessing wastes, are initially both intensely radioactive and long-lived” (52 FR 5994). However, these wastes contain a wide variety of radionuclides with some (e.g., Sr-90, Cs- 137) having a relatively short half-life yet representing a large fraction of the radioactivity for the first few centuries after the wastes are produced. These nuclides produce significant amounts of DOE G 435.1-1 II-3 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements heat and radiation, both of which are of concern when managing such wastes. Other radionuclides, including C-14, Tc-99, I-129 and transuranic nuclides, have very long half-lives and thus constitute the longer-term hazard of the wastes. Some of these nuclides pose a hazard for sufficiently long periods of time that the term permanent isolation is used in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, to describe the type of disposal required to isolate them from the environment. Permanent isolation does not, however, equate to repository disposal, and can be conceivably attained by other means which comply with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 191. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission “considers that these two characteristics, intense radioactivity for a few centuries followed by a long-term hazard requiring permanent isolation, are key features which can be used to distinguish high-level wastes from other waste categories” (52 FR 5994).

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, identifies two sources of high-level waste. First, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, definition of high-level waste refers to wastes produced by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, which is essentially identical to the NRC’s definition at 10 CFR Part 60 [(1) Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted]. However, there is one difference. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, wording would classify solidified reprocessing waste as high-level waste only if such waste “contains fission products in sufficient concentrations.” This phrase implies that liquid reprocessing waste may be partitioned or otherwise treated so that some of the solidified products will contain substantially reduced concentrations of radionuclides and thus not be high-level waste, i.e., incidental waste. Second, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, authorizes the NRC to classify “other highly radioactive material” (other than reprocessing wastes) as high-level waste if that material “requires permanent isolation.” Both of these elements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, definition are discussed further below by providing summaries of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s attempt to revise the 10 CFR Part 60 definition of high-level waste. In February 1987, the NRC published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (52 FR 5992) announcing its intent to revise the definition of the term high-level radioactive waste that appears in 10 CFR Part 60, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories.” In the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission reviewed the previous statutory and regulatory uses of the term, the NRC’s current regulations related to waste classification and disposal, and the pertinent provision of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, with the purpose of considering a change to its own rules to conform to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, definition. In particular, the NRC proposed to define high-level waste in a manner that would apply the term high-level radioactive waste to materials in amounts and concentrations exceeding numerical values that would be stated explicitly in the form of a table. Thus, high-level waste would be characterized by the kind of hazard that could only be II-4 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements guarded against by disposal in a geologic repository or equivalent facility. Those wastes that could be disposed of safely in a facility less secure than a repository would continue to be classified as low-level radioactive waste rather than as high-level waste.

At issue was whether the Commission should specify numerically the concentrations of fission products which it considered sufficient to distinguish high-level waste from non-high-level waste or, define high-level waste so as to add the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, (clause (a)) wastes with those which have traditionally been regarded as high-level waste (52 FR 5994), i.e. by the waste’s source. In addition, the Commission raised the issue as to whether to consider a material highly radioactive if it contains concentrations of short-lived radionuclides in excess of the Class C limits of Table 2 of 10 CFR Part 61. The Commission stated that such concentrations are sufficient to produce significant radiation levels and to generate substantial amounts of heat and should be considered highly radioactive. Finally, the phrase permanent isolation was discussed and was believed to be much less subjective than is the term highly radioactive. The Commission suggested that the term clearly implies the degree of isolation afforded by a deep geologic repository, and a waste “requires permanent isolation” if it cannot be safely disposed of in a facility that is less secure than a repository. Furthermore, the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (52 FR 5995) states that the Commission could determine which wastes require permanent isolation by evaluating the disposal capabilities of alternative, less secure, disposal facilities. The Commission noted that such less secure facilities might make use of intermediate depth burial or various engineering measures, such as intruder barriers, to accommodate wastes with radionuclide concentrations unsuitable for disposal by shallow land burial. The Commission suggested that any such wastes which cannot be safely disposed of in such facilities could be deemed to require permanent isolation and, if also highly radioactive, could be classified as high-level wastes (52 FR 5995). In May 1988 (53 FR 17709-17711), the NRC published its Proposed Rule at 10 CFR Part 61, “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” and stated that the proposed amendments to this Rule obviated “the need for altering existing classifications of radioactive wastes as high-level or low-level.” In short, the NRC received nearly 100 comments on its February 1987 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and almost all agreed with the Commission on one point: the use of the term high-level radioactive waste as used in the clause (b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended definition, serves to identify those wastes which require the degree of isolation afforded by a deep geologic repository. However, comments differed widely regarding the specific wastes perceived to require that degree of isolation. Some comments advocated classification of all radioactive wastes, other than the most innocuous, as high-level waste while other comments preferred to reclassify, as low-level waste, large quantities of defense reprocessing waste long regarded as high-level waste. Conspicuously absent from the comments was any consensus regarding the means to be used by the Commission to distinguish high-level waste from non-high-level waste. For example, the concept of a numerical definition of high-level waste was criticized as an invitation to dilute or fractionate DOE G 435.1-1 II-5 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements

wastes solely to alter their classification. From this discussion the Commission determined it would be best to proceed quite differently from its objective suggestion as set forth in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; i.e., the NRC abandoned their attempt to provide a risk-based definition for high-level waste. Instead, the Commission continued to embrace the definition at 10 CFR Part 60. In summary, the Commission stated that the preferable construction of the statute was to conform to the traditional definition, i.e., to define high-level waste by its source, not by its concentrations of fission products, and thus equate Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, wastes with those wastes which have traditionally been regarded as high-level waste under Appendix F of 10 CFR Part 50 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA). The NRC stated that “NWPA (clause (a)) wastes have little significance for purposes of the NWPA since the Federal Government was already responsible for the disposal of all reprocessing waste at the time the statute was passed.” Thus “materials that are high-level waste for purposes of licensing-jurisdiction provisions of the ERA will also be regarded as high-level waste under the NWPA. This would include the primary reprocessing waste streams at DOE facilities, though not the incidental wastes produced in reprocessing” (53 FR 17709). Discussion. The above background information is intended to provide some background for the following discussion on determining what waste streams are, and are not, high-level waste. First, it is noted that the term reprocessing is not defined statutorily. However, reprocessing is considered by the Department to be those actions necessary to separate fissile elements (U-235, Pu-239, U-233, and Pu-241) and/or transuranium elements (e.g., Np, Pu, Am, Cm, Bk) from other materials (e.g., fission products, activated metals, cladding) contained in spent nuclear fuel for the purposes of recovering desired materials. Second, as discussed above, the concentration of fission products is not the primary consideration when making determinations using clause (a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. The source of the waste is the primary parameter for making high-level waste determinations, not the activity or concentration of fission products. However, inclusion of solid wastes derived from the waste of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing activities is also a consideration if the concentration of fission products is sufficient. Third, it is recognized that the NRC’s definition of high-level waste at 10 CFR 60.2, (which is consistent with the definition of high-level radioactive waste in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F), limits high-level waste to wastes that are the result of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, beginning with the separation/first cycle solvent extraction step, or equivalent. Specifically it states high- level radioactive waste is: “(1) irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted.” (10 CFR 60.2) With regard to part (1) of this definition, it is noted that requirements for DOE-managed spent nuclear fuel, as of the time of the preparation of this guidance, have not been added to DOE O

II-6 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements 435.1. Further, the hazards analysis performed to identify requirements for high-level waste did not address the functions associated with management of spent nuclear fuel. Thus the requirements contained in DOE M 435.1-1 do not apply to this DOE-managed spent nuclear fuel. DOE M 435.1-1 supports the implementation of part (2) of the 10 CFR Part 60 definition to mean that high-level wastes are wastes that are generated as a product of reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel downstream of, and including, the first step in a separations process, and the consistent waste streams from subsequent extraction cycles or steps. Separation processes include aqueous separation processes, e.g., the Redox and the Purex processes, and nonaqueous processes, e.g., pyrometallurgical and pyrochemical processes. Wastes that are produced upstream of these separations processes, from such processes as chemical or mechanical decladding, fuel dissolution, cladding separations, conditioning, or accountability measuring, are not high-level waste. Such wastes are considered processing wastes and should be managed in accordance with the appropriate Chapters of DOE M 435.1-1, as either transuranic, mixed low-level, or low-level waste. In addition, these wastes may be commingled with materials-in-process that require further processing to separate desired materials from wastes. The following example is offered to clarify this interpretation. Example: The spent nuclear fuel reprocessing operation at Site Z has been shut down for some time. In the haste of shutting down the operation a number of material streams and waste streams were left in the facility and are now being reviewed for disposition. The following table describes some of the streams, designation of the stream as high-level waste, or non-high-level waste, and the basis for the designation: Stream Designation Basis Fuel cladding hulls (leached, partially leached, and unleached) Non-high-level waste Hulls are generated upstream of (before) the first step of a separations process. They should be characterized to determine proper classification (e.g., LLW, MLLW, or TRU). PUREX process first-cycle raffinate stream, Pu purification raffinate stream High-level waste Both waste streams are generated by the first step, or subsequent steps, of a separations/decontamination process. DOE G 435.1-1 II-7 7-09-99 Stream Designation Basis Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Contaminated equipment/components: a) Fuel Shear b) Fuel Dissolver c) First cycle solvent extraction column a) Non-high- level waste b) Non-high- level waste c) High-level waste unless WIR Evaluation Process criteria are met. a) Waste contained/trapped in a fuel shear was generated upstream of first step of separations process. Fuel shear should be characterized to determine proper classification (e.g., LLW, MLLW or TRU). b) Same as a). c) Waste contained/trapped in column was generated during first step of separations process. May be managed as non-high-level waste if column meets the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation Process criteria. Electrometallurgical treatment products: a) Metal waste form (includes uranium, fission products, noble metals) b) Ceramic waste form (includes fission products, some actinides) a) High-level waste b) High-level waste a) & b) Both waste streams are generated by the first step, or subsequent step, of a separation/decontamination process.

As stated above, the Department recognizes that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, grants the NRC the authority, through the rulemaking process, to designate other highly radioactive materials as high-level waste under existing law. For DOE, such existing law would primarily be sections 202(3) and (4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Components and Equipment Contaminated with High-Level Waste. As discussed in detail in the guidance to Section II.B, Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, components and equipment contaminated with high-level waste are not considered high-level waste by the application of the high-level waste definition in Section II.A, or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, definition, provided they meet the conditions of either the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Citation or Evaluation Process. In defining high-level waste both definitions use the term “highly II-8 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements radioactive material” which is interpreted to mean waste material that is a result of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and any liquid waste or solid material derived from such liquid. There is no precedence nor basis for including high-level waste-contaminated components and/or equipment within the definition. In fact, the identification of items excluded from high-level waste by the Atomic Energy Commission and subsequently by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, includes not only radioactive (fuel) hulls and other irradiated and contaminated fuel structural hardware but also “ion exchange beds, sludges, and contaminated laboratory items, clothing, tools, and equipment” (52 FR 5993). Thus, inclusion of these items as candidates for the incidental waste process supports the DOE M 435.1-1 position that such contaminated items may not be high-level waste. If they are not, they are subject to management and disposal as another waste type, provided adequate protection is provided by their disposal as another waste type (e.g., low-level waste or transuranic waste). Spent Nuclear Fuel. Spent nuclear fuel is defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as “fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated by reprocessing.” Because this definition was developed with commercially-generated spent nuclear fuel in mind, it fails to differentiate between defense-related spent nuclear fuel (drivers) and target elements (materials irradiated to produce defense nuclear materials). For the purposes of managing high-level waste under DOE M 435.1-1, spent nuclear fuel includes spent driver elements and/or irradiated target elements that contain transuranium elements. Excluded from spent nuclear fuel are target elements, that after irradiation, contain no transuranium elements (e.g., those for the production of tritium) since such spent target elements contain neither fissile material nor long-life transuranic isotopes that require permanent isolation. Historically, such spent targets (reprocessed and unreprocessed) have been assayed, treated, and disposed of as low-level waste (Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0271, Construction and Operation of a Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site, DOE 1999). DOE M 435.1-1 supports the continuation of this practice.

In April 1992, the Secretary of Energy approved a recommendation to phase out reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at DOE’s Savannah River Site and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for the purpose of recovering highly enriched uranium for the weapons program (Secretary of Energy Decision Memo, dated April 28, 1992). In a similar action in December 1994 the Secretary of Energy approved a recommendation to prohibit the use of plutonium-239 and highly enriched uranium separated and/or stabilized during facility phaseout, shutdown, and cleanout activities for nuclear explosive purposes (Memorandum for the Secretary, approved December 20, 1994). From these actions it is evident that DOE no longer plans to reprocess spent nuclear fuel for the purposes of recovering fissile materials and significant quantities of additional high-level waste will not be generated in the future from these operations. However, it is recognized there may be limited reprocessing at some of the high-level waste sites for spent nuclear fuel that is considered “at risk materials.” Similarly, for cost effective reasons as well as others, most DOE high-level waste sites continually add radioactive liquid wastes (e.g., cooling, water, decontamination DOE G 435.1-1 II-9 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements solutions) that may, or may not be, high-level waste to their high-level waste storage systems. This practice effectively increases the volume of high-level waste to be managed, however, the net amount is usually minor due to the evaporation capabilities at the sites. Such co-mingling of high- level waste with other waste types should be performed considering the waste minimization objectives of DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.1.E.(20), Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention. Disposition of Surplus Weapons-Usable Plutonium. The Department has the authority to emplace surplus weapons-usable plutonium in immobilized high-level waste canisters and dispose of this waste form in the geologic repository constructed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, (NRC letter, C.J. Paperiello to L.H. Barrett, January 25, 1999). Thus this composite waste form (plutonium can in a high-level waste canister) is considered high-level waste and should be managed as such. Although the hazards analysis and requirements analysis prepared to support the development of the high-level waste chapter of DOE M 435.1-1 did not consider the inclusion of this waste form, its addition is not expected to change the requirements contained in the chapter. Non-Routine High-Level Waste. There is acknowledgment of a sub-category of high-level waste, "non-routine high-level waste," that includes secondary radioactive solid wastes that meet the source-based portion of the definition for high-level waste, but may not meet the current immobilized high-level waste specification for a standard waste form, as defined by the DOE/EM- 0093, Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (EM- WAPS). The current EM-WAPS document was written to allow acceptance of a standard waste form, borosilicate glass canistered waste, but does recognize the production of “nonconforming canistered high-level waste forms” from the high-level waste form producers. Examples are expected to include immobilized waste that is suspected of being contaminated by foreign materials and glass samples that were generated during production. Such waste forms may be nonconforming and thus, may require review/acceptance by the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. If accepted, they will be a nonstandard waste form. Such Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management acceptance is expected to include satisfying the requirements in the EM-WAPS and approval of a treatment and disposition plan.

Example: At Site X, non-conforming high-level waste has been generated as a result of high-level waste storage, pretreatment, and treatment activities. This waste includes: • glass chipped from high-level waste glass melters, • glass deposited on equipment • spilled high-level waste glass that was not captured in a canister, • glass samples/shards. The Site is currently managing these wastes as nonconforming high-level wastes since there are issues regarding contamination by foreign materials and the need to place II-10 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements these wastes in canisters. However, each canister is expected to meet the EM-WAPS specifications and be accepted by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management as non-standard canistered waste forms. If any do not meet the EM-WAPS specifications, they will be managed as non-conforming and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management acceptance, as nonstandard waste form, will be necessary by way of an Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management-approved action plan. The requirement for an action plan is included in the EM-WAPS, specifications 4, Quality Assurance. The high-level waste scraps identified in the above example are considered non-routine high-level waste forms. Currently both the Defense Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River and West Valley Demonstration Project vitrification processes have produced small amounts of this material and are storing it until a path forward can be determined. Waste Incidental to Reprocessing. Those waste streams that meet the requirements of the waste incidental to reprocessing processes, either by citation or by evaluation, are also excluded from the scope of high-level waste. DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.B describes the process for making such determinations and the accompanying guidance on this section provides further details on this subject. Interfaces Between the Office of Environmental Management and Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The guidance for high-level waste disposal (DOE G 435.1-1, Section II.S) provides information on the responsibilities and interfaces between the Offices of Environmental Management and Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Supplemental References: 1. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, Public Law 97-425, Section 2.(12), January 7, 1983. 2. Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 93-438, Section 202 (3) and (4). 3. AEC, 1969. “Siting of Commercial Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste Management Facilities; Statement of Proposed Policy, 10 CFR Part 50, ‘Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities’,” Federal Register, Vol. 34, No. 8712, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., June 3, 1969. 4. AEC, 1970. “Siting of Commercial Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste Management Facilities, 10 CFR Part 50, ‘Licensing of Production and Utilization DOE G 435.1-1 II-11 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Facilities’,” Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 17530-17533, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., November 14, 1970. 5. NRC, 1987. “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 10 CFR Part 60, ‘Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste,’” Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 5992, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, February 27, 1987. 6. NRC, 1988. “Proposed Rule; 10 CFR Part 61, Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 17709, May 18, 1988.

7. Claytor, 1992. R.A. Claytor, Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, to The Secretary of Energy, memorandum, A Decision on Phaseout of Reprocessing at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), U.S. Department of Energy, April 28, 1992. 8. Reis and Grumbly, 1994. V.H. Reis & T.P. Grumbly, Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs and Assistance Secretary for Environmental Management, memorandum, Action: Commitment to Prohibit the Use of Plutonium-239 and Highly Enriched Uranium Separated and/or Stabilized During Facility Phaseout, Shutdown, and Cleanout Activities for Nuclear Explosive Purposes, U.S. Department of Energy, December 20, 1994. 9. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Public Law 83-703, Title II, Section 11, (dd), August 30, 1954. 10. NRC. Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories, 10 CFR Part 60, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 11. Barrett, 1998. L.H. Barrett to C.J. Paperiello, letter, [no title], U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., December 10, 1998. 12. Paperiello, 1999. C.J. Paperiello to L.H. Barrett, letter, U.S. Department of Energy Plans for Disposal of Surplus Weapons Plutonium, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., January 25, 1999. 13. EPA. Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Waste and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes, 40 CFR Part 191, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. II-12 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements 14. DOE, 1996. Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (EM-WAPS), Revision 2, DOE/EM-0093, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., December 16, 1996. 15. DOE, 1999. Construction and Operation of a Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site, Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0271, U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, March 1999. 16. ERDA, 1977. Waste Management Operations, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina, Final Environmental Impact Statement, ERDA-1537, Energy Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C., September 1977. DOE G 435.1-1 II-13 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. B. Waste Incidental to Reprocessing. Waste resulting from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that is determined to be incidental to reprocessing is not high-level waste, and shall be managed under DOE’s regulatory authority in accordance with the requirements for transuranic waste or low-level waste, as appropriate. When determining whether spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant wastes shall be managed as another waste type or as high-level waste, either the citation or evaluation processes described below shall be used: (1) Citation. Waste incidental to reprocessing by citation includes spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant wastes that meet the description included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (34 FR 8712) for proposed Appendix D, 10 CFR Part 50, Paragraphs 6 and 7. These radioactive wastes are the result of reprocessing plant operations, such as, but not limited to: contaminated job wastes including laboratory items such as clothing, tools, and equipment.

(2) Evaluation. Determinations that any waste is incidental to reprocessing by the evaluation process shall be developed under good record-keeping practices, with an adequate quality assurance process, and shall be documented to support the determinations. Such wastes may include, but are not limited to, spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant wastes that: (a) Will be managed as low-level waste and meet the following criteria: 1. Have been processed, or will be processed, to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; and 2. Will be managed to meet safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C, Performance Objectives; and 3. Are to be managed, pursuant to DOE’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of this Manual, provided the waste will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level waste as set out in 10 CFR 61.55, Waste Classification; or will meet alternative II-14 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements requirements for waste classification and characterization as DOE may authorize. (b) Will be managed as transuranic waste and meet the following criteria: 1. Have been processed, or will be processed, to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; and 2. Will be incorporated in a solid physical form and meet alternative requirements for waste classification and characteristics, as DOE may authorize; and 3. Are managed pursuant to DOE’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of this Manual, as appropriate. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to ensure the implementation of a consistent and defensible process to make waste incidental to reprocessing determinations across the DOE complex. Implementation of the process will ensure DOE manages these waste streams within its regulatory authority for disposal. Discussion: Certain waste streams produced during the generation of high-level waste may be determined to be non-high-level waste through the waste incidental to reprocessing determination process. The processes for making such determinations are included as requirements in DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.B, and are described below. In conjunction with Section II.B is a requirement in Section I.2.F.(18), Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, which delineates the responsibilities of the Field Element Manager and the DOE Office of Environmental Management for making and reviewing such waste incidental to reprocessing determinations. The information and analysis necessary to support these determinations is included. Background. In the Statement of Proposed Policy (34 FR 8712) for Appendix D, 10 CFR Part 50, “Policy Relating to the Siting of Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste Management Facilities,” the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) noted that the term high-level waste, as used in the proposed Appendix D, did not include all wastes originating from (spent nuclear fuel) reprocessing plant operations (Paragraphs 6 and 7). Such wastes, later referred to as incidental wastes by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (52 FR 5993), included waste streams such DOE G 435.1-1 II-15 7-09-99

Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements as ion exchange beds, sludges, and contaminated laboratory items, clothing, tools, and equipment. Additionally, this category included radioactive hulls and other irradiated and contaminated fuel structural hardware. Although this language (Paragraphs 6 and 7) concerning incidental waste was deleted from the final Policy under Appendix F, pending additional study (35 FR 17530- 17533), the principle of incidental wastes has been continually supported by both the Department of Energy and the NRC , as well as their predecessors, even before the Proposed Rulemaking. In its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste at 10 CFR Part 60 (52 FR 5992-6001), the NRC introduced the term incidental wastes and stated that high-level waste does not include such waste streams. Additionally, the Commission stated (footnote 1, 52 FR 5993) that “incidental wastes generated in further treatment of HLW (e.g., decontaminated salt with residual activities on the order of 1,500 nCi/g Cs-137, 30 nCi/g Sr-90, 2 nCi/g Pu, as described in the Department of Energy’s FEIS on long- term management of defense HLW at the Savannah River Plant, DOE/EIS-0023, 1979) would also, under the same reasoning, be outside the proposed Appendix D definition,” if they met certain chemical concentrations. Additionally, in the NRC’s Proposed Rule for 10 CFR Part 61, for shallow-land disposal of radioactive waste, the Commission stated that the preferable construction of the statute “...is to conform to the traditional definition (for high-level waste). Under this approach, materials that are HLW for purposes of the licensing-jurisdiction provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 will also be regarded as high-level waste under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. This would include the primary reprocessing waste streams at DOE facilities, though not the incidental wastes produced in reprocessing” (53 FR 17709). More recently, in response to a petition regarding disposal of waste at the Hanford site, the NRC (States of Washington & Oregon: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 58 FR 12342-12347) commented that: “Assuming implementation of DOE’s plans as described above, the Commission concludes that any radioactive material from the double shell tanks that is deposited in the grout facility would not be high-level radioactive waste subject to NRC’s licensing jurisdiction. The responsibility for safely managing those wastes rest with the Department of Energy. The basis for the Commission’s conclusion is that the reprocessing wastes disposed of in the grout facility would be ‘incidental’ wastes because of DOE’s assurance that they: (1) have been processed (or will be further processed) to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; II-16 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements (2) will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C LLW as set out in 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) are to be managed, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, so that safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61 are satisfied." (58 FR 12345)

A similar characterization was made for the West Valley Demonstration Project in the Technical Evaluation Report prepared by the NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, dated November 1988, which concluded there is reasonable assurance that the cement solidification of the decontaminated supernatant (incidental waste) will meet the waste form stability requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 (NRC Technical Evaluation, 11/88). This is an implicit recognition by the NRC that the separated low-activity fraction of high-level waste need not be managed and disposed as high-level waste. The question of whether the NRC or DOE has the authority to make incidental waste determinations (using the evaluation process) was raised by NRC Commissioner Curtiss in December 1992 (SECY-92-391), as a precursor to the Commission’s action on the 1993 Denial of Petition for Rulemaking. In response, the NRC staff (memo for Commissioner Curtiss from J. M. Taylor, 1/14/93) stated that DOE has the responsibility to make an initial determination, and if DOE concludes that the action is not subject to NRC jurisdiction, then DOE can undertake the activity without involving the NRC in any manner. However, if DOE concludes that NRC jurisdiction is unclear (i.e., the waste may be high-level waste and therefore potentially subject to NRC licensing), then DOE has two options: (1) consult with the NRC and then make a decision based on the results of the consultation; or (2) proceed without communication with the NRC. The staff response then cites the proposed letter from Bernero (USNRC) to DOE (transmitted March 2, 1993) that the NRC would call upon DOE to provide relevant technical information that would enable the NRC to make its own determination, should that be appropriate. (Although this decision applied to the Hanford case only, DOE’s interpretation, based on discussions with NRC staff, is that it can be applied more broadly through DOE M 435.1-1.) These two memoranda are interpreted to mean that the NRC expects the DOE to consult with them for those waste streams that the DOE has some question of whether the waste stream is high-level waste. In addition, as discussed in the guidance to Section I.2.F.(18), the NRC has licensing authority over DOE facilities “authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by DOE and its predecessor agencies” (Sullivan, 1998). Determination Processes. Consistent with these concepts, Section II.B of DOE M 435.1-1 offers two distinct processes by which DOE can determine whether reprocessing wastes can be managed as low-level or transuranic waste under DOE’s Atomic Energy Act authorities: (1) by citation, and (2) by evaluation. DOE G 435.1-1 II-17 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements The citation process refers to those reprocessing waste items of the type that were discussed in the Statement of Proposed Policy for Appendix D, 10 CFR Part 50, as not being high-level waste. Although the exclusion of such items from the high-level waste definition was dropped from the final rule (Appendix F), the concept of incidental waste has been supported by DOE and the NRC. If a positive determination is made, the waste may require further characterization and/or acceptable (process) knowledge to determine its final waste classification and disposition, i.e., low-level or transuranic waste.

The evaluation process refers to those reprocessing wastes that have met, or will meet, the evaluation criteria cited above or other consistent protective criteria approved by the Department. Satisfying these criteria ensures the waste to be regulated and managed for disposal by the DOE according to the requirement for low-level or transuranic wastes, as appropriate. Finally, if the requirements of neither of these processes can be met, the reprocessing waste is to be managed as high-level waste and its disposal must be in accordance with 10 CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR Part 191. The distinction between the two processes is important because it is clear from background events that citation process waste streams were so identified because of the ease of determining up front that they do not pose the long-term hazards associated with high-level waste. Evaluation process wastes, on the other hand, generally require a case-by-case evaluation and determination. Consistent with this understanding, the responsibility for citation interpretations rests solely with the DOE Field Element Manager, although consultation with the Office of Environmental Management is encouraged. However, the Office of Environmental Management consultation is required for waste that has been determined to be incidental through the evaluation process. In addition, it is recommended that consultation with the NRC staff be considered for evaluation process determinations, although this is not required. Roles and responsibilities are further explained in the guidance to Section I.2.F.(18) of the General Requirements to DOE M 435.1-1. Several meetings were held between staff personnel from the NRC and DOE to discuss the acceptability of this dual determination approach. NRC staff agreed with this approach, but recommended that sufficient guidance be developed for the implementation of both processes. This guidance document is provided, in part, to meet the NRC staff recommendation. The NRC staff also confirmed that it supports the position that DOE has authority to make incidental waste determinations that involve waste streams that are incidental by use of the citation process. For waste streams that are considered to be incidental by the evaluation process, and may be subject to NRC licensing if contained in a facility authorized by Congress for the express purpose of long- term storage, the staff suggested that communications with the NRC be maintained. This suggestion is consistent with the staff position discussed above and the letter from R. Bernero, USNRC, to J. Lytle, DOE-EM, dated March 2, 1993 and is provided in DOE M 435.1-1 by recommending consultation with the NRC staff on evaluation determinations. Such II-18 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements communication needs to: a) document the results of the analyses supporting DOE’s conclusions; b) be adequate for review; c) be developed with good record-keeping; and d) be conducted under an adequate quality assurance process. Guidance for DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(18),Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, provides additional information on these elements and the roles and responsibilities of the Field Element Manager, the DOE Headquarters , and the NRC.

The NRC staff also indicated that if they are requested to consult on such reviews that they would prefer to review evaluation process waste stream candidates on a macro basis, in lieu of reviewing individual waste streams or waste items. This is interpreted to mean that the NRC staff would prefer to review an analysis for a group of high-level waste streams that have similar characteristics or will require similar processing to meet the evaluation criteria, in lieu of individual waste streams or waste items. Such grouping of waste streams is expected to make the most efficient use of the NRC staff’s resources and to avoid its involvement in each evaluation process determination for each candidate waste stream or item within the DOE complex. The Office of Environmental Management also prefers to see such grouping be submitted for consultation and coordination. Further discussion on this subject is provided below under the evaluation process. DOE M 435.1-1 is not intended to create, or support the creation, of a new waste type titled incidental waste. Waste incidental to reprocessing refers to a process for identifying waste streams that would otherwise be considered high-level waste due to their sources of generation or concentration, but can be managed in accordance with the DOE requirements for transuranic or low-level waste, if the requirements for waste incidental to reprocessing are met. Additionally, it is not the Department’s intent to use the waste incidental to reprocessing process to circumvent high-level waste disposal standards by not disposing of high-level waste in the NRC-licensed geologic repository. The goal of the waste incidental to reprocessing determination process is to safely manage and dispose of a limited number of reprocessing waste streams that do not warrant geologic repository disposal because of their lack of long-term threats to the environment and man. Moreover, meeting the evaluation process requirements are difficult and resource intensive and therefore, the DOE high-level waste sites are encouraged to manage high- level waste in a manner that will permit treatment and disposal in a geologic repository. Therefore, non-standard high-level wastes, discussed in the guidance for Section II.A, may be one of the primary waste streams targeted for application of the waste incidental to reprocessing determination process. To assist in making waste incidental to reprocessing determinations, Figure 1, “Decision Tree for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Determinations,” has been included in this guidance. This figure is a simple decision tree that provides some examples of reprocessing wastes and reprocessing waste streams that are interpreted to be included within each determination process, however, these examples are not considered all inclusive. It is expected that interpretations and DOE G 435.1-1 II-19 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements determinations by the DOE sites, in conjunction with DOE Headquarters, may revise this list. Updates to this guidance will reflect such determinations and interpretations.

Application of the citation and evaluation processes is for two primary purposes: to support the determination to manage specific waste streams as non-high-level waste, i.e., as low-level or transuranic wastes; and to support closure activities of deactivated high-level waste facilities/sites. Table 1, “Citation and Evaluation Process Results,” is provided to illustrate the six (positive) possible results that can result from applying the citation and evaluation process requirements to a waste stream. A negative result to applying both the citation and evaluation processes is possible with the result being that the waste stream is managed as high-level waste. The check symbols under the columns Low-Level Waste, Transuranic Waste, and Facility/Site Closure denote the Section II.B requirements that must be met in order for the waste stream to be managed as indicated by the column heading. Table 1. Citation and Evaluation Process Results (NA = not applicable) Requirement(s) Section Low-Level Waste Transuranic Waste Facility/Site Closure II.B.(1) Citation Process U U NA II.B.(2)(a)(1), (2), & (3) Evaluation Process U NA U II.B.(2)(b)(1), (2), & (3) Evaluation Process NA U U Following is a discussion on each of the determination processes, citation and evaluation. Included, where appropriate, is additional guidance/discussion on the analysis and documentation necessary for reprocessing waste streams to be managed as low-level waste or transuranic waste. Additional information on deactivated high-level waste facility/closure process is provided by the guidance to DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.U, Site Closure. Citation Process. The citation process refers to those reprocessing waste items of the type that were discussed in the Statement of Proposed Policy for Appendix D, 10 CFR Part 50, as not being high-level waste (34 FR 8712). Figure 1 includes examples of wastes that have been interpreted to be included within the citation process. Included are: • contaminated job wastes, a general category of wastes that are generated during high-level waste transfer, pretreatment, treatment, storage and disposal activities. II-20 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Included is protective clothing, personal protective equipment (PPEs), work tools, ventilation filter media, and other job-related materials necessary to complete high- level waste management activities; • sample media (e.g., sampling vials, crucibles, other hardware); • decontamination media and decontamination solutions (e.g., swabs, other decon work-related materials); and • laboratory clothing, tools, and equipment. Interpreted to be excluded from the citation process are the following: • ion exchange beds; • sludges; • fuel cladding hulls and fuel structural hardware; • process filter media; and • contaminated components and equipment.

This list excludes three items: ion exchange beds, sludges, and fuel cladding hulls that were included in the Appendix D proposed language. The first two of these have been excluded from the citation process examples because of the potential long-term hazards their disposal may pose. However, they may be candidates for the evaluation process. The third example that has been excluded is fuel cladding hulls and fuel structure hardware. As explained in the guidance for Section II.A, wastes from processes preceding the first step in a separations process are not considered high-level waste and therefore are not subject to the waste incidental to reprocessing process. Fuel structural hardware and fuel cladding hulls are generated prior to the first cycle solvent extraction process, or equivalent, and are therefore not considered high-level waste. Also excluded from the examples of citation waste is high-level waste contaminated components and equipment. As discussed in the guidance to Section II.A, review of available supporting documentation has concluded that although contaminated components and equipment are not high-level waste, they can, and often do, retain significant amounts of residual waste even after extensive decontamination efforts. Therefore, it is considered inappropriate for such components and equipment to qualify under the citation process. However, they are considered candidates for the evaluation determination process described below. The following examples of process filter media and ventilation filter media are provided to clarify the use of the term in the citation process examples above: Examples: (1) At Site X, the high-level waste pretreatment process uses a filtration process to filter precipitated Cs-137 from the tank solution. Disposal of the failed (process) filter media from this process as transuranic, low-level, or mixed low-level, using the citation process, is considered inappropriate. However, the filter is a candidate for disposal as low-level or transuranic waste using the evaluation process. (2) The DOE G 435.1-1 II-21 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements high-level waste storage tanks at this site include a HEPA filtration system. Disposal of the HEPA filters from this system as low-level or transuranic waste, using the citation process, is considered appropriate. (3) The same site has an effluent treatment facility (ETF) that treats overheads (evaporator distillate) from a high-level waste evaporator. Since these overheads are not considered to be high-level waste (there is no carryover of high-level waste to the waste stream) disposition of these failed filters does not need to be subjected to the waste incidental to reprocessing processes. They are managed as low- level or transuranic waste, as appropriate. As indicated in Table 1, meeting the requirement in Section II.B.(1) can result in the waste being managed as low-level waste or transuranic waste. The responsibility of interpreting the Appendix D proposed language and using the citation process is within the DOE’s authority. As delineated in DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(18), the authority to implement the citation process and make these interpretations rests with the DOE Program Office responsible for the management of the waste. In the case of high-level waste this responsibility has been assigned to the Field Element Manager at the DOE Field Office or Operations Office. Consultation and coordination with the DOE Office of Environmental Management for the citation process is encouraged to support consistent interpretations across the DOE complex, but is not required.

Evaluation Process. As shown in Figure 1, waste streams resulting from the reprocessing of high- level waste that not interpreted to be included within the citation process may be assessed for compliance with the evaluation process requirements. Examples of wastes streams that are anticipated to be candidates for the application of the evaluation process include: • residual radioactive tank wastes whose removal is not considered to be technically and economically practical; • contaminated storage, pretreatment, and treatment equipment (e.g., tank mixer/pumps, waste slurry processing tanks); • thermocouple trees; • vitrification melter components; • failed vitrification melters; • process filter media; • other process equipment that contains some amounts of waste in the form of slurry, salt or glass. The examples provided above are anticipated to meet the three evaluation process criteria; however, note that the list provided above is not all inclusive. Other reprocessing waste streams may be candidates for the evaluation process. However, any wastes that are determined to meet these criteria must be supported by the necessary information and analysis as described in the guidance for DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(18). While the DOE Office of Environmental Management consultation and coordination is required by the requirement in Section I.2.F.(18), II-22 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements consultation with the NRC staff related to compliance with the evaluation requirements is also strongly encouraged. The NRC staff has participated in regulatory compliance reviews using these criteria in the past and has a level of expertise that is expected to complement the DOE Office of Environmental Management’s review. DOE maintains that contaminated equipment, components, etc., whose disposal can be demonstrated to not jeopardize the health and safety of the public, workers, and the environment can be managed as non-high-level waste. These waste streams could be managed as low-level waste, transuranic waste, or residual waste, which is part of a deactivated high-level waste closure action and meets the performance objectives of a low-level or transuranic waste disposal facility, provided the waste fits the requirements of the citation or evaluation process as delineated in Table 1. Guidance for each of the processes follows. II. B.(2) Evaluation. Determinations that any waste is incidental to reprocessing by the evaluation process shall be developed under good record-keeping practices, with an adequate quality assurance process, and shall be documented to support the determinations. Such wastes may include, but are not limited to, spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant wastes that: (a) Will be managed as low-level waste and meet the following criteria: 1. Have been processed, or will be processed, to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; and Although key radionuclides are not defined by the NRC in either the Denial of Petition for Rulemaking or the letter from R. Bernero to J. Lytle, dated March 2, 1993, it is generally understood that key radionuclides applies to those radionuclides that are controlled by concentration limits in 10 CFR 61.55. Specifically these are: long-lived radionuclides, C-14, Ni- 59, Nb-94, Tc-99, I-129, Pu-241, Cm-242, and alpha emitting transuranic nuclides with half-lives greater than five years and; short-lived radionuclides, H-3, Co-60, Ni-63, Sr-90, and Cs-137. In addition, key radionuclides are those that are important to satisfying the performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C. Analysis to date at DOE sites indicates other isotopes important to satisfying these performance objectives include Se-79, Sn-126, and Np-237.

Processing to remove the key radionuclides to the extent technically practical could be a chemical treatment process or a physical removal process. The examination of such processes should include a range of alternatives; from processes that have been demonstrated by plant-scale experience to be practical to those that have been demonstrated to be impractical due to their DOE G 435.1-1 II-23 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements technological immaturity, uncertainty, or risk. Selection of the chosen “technically practical process” must be evaluated to a sufficient degree through a formal, documented assessment of such factors as technical risk, incompatible physical or chemical requirements with the waste, and potential impacts to the public, the worker and the environment. The economically practical part of this requirement is determined by the development of total life- cycle costs for an alternative, or unit costs, e.g., cost per curie removed. Some subjectivity will be present in determining whether these costs are economically practical; however in general, the goal should be to determine a relationship between costs and removal of the key radionuclides and identify the point in this relationship at which removal costs increase significantly and thus become impractical. An economic assessment may not be considered necessary if a technology option is not first considered to be technically practical. Example 1: To satisfy this criterion, Site X identified the available separation technologies for each of the main radionuclides of interest in the waste stream (Cs-137, Sr-90, transuranics, Tc-99, Se-79, Sn-126, C-14, I-129, H-3, and uranium), and individually, as well as collectively, evaluated each to determine the status of the technology and radionuclide removal efficiencies. A number of technologies were identified and evaluated, including some for which tests on actual waste had been conducted. The separation processes that were determined to be technically practical, due to their technical maturity and full-scale demonstrated applications, were then examined for economic practicability based on unit removal costs and process life-cycle costs. An initial evaluation determined that two separation technologies were deemed to be technically and economically practical and were selected for implementation for the removal of the key radionuclides identified. A report documenting the assessment of each of the technologies for technical practicality and economic practicality was issued by the site program manager. Since this was the first use of the Evaluation Process for this waste stream, or a similar waste stream, the site employed the consultation services of the NRC. Following their evaluation, the assessment, confirming that the requirement at II.B.(2)(a)1. had been met, along with the analysis that supports the position that the waste meets the other Evaluation requirements at II.B.(2)(a)2. and II.B.(2)(a)3., was forwarded to the DOE Headquarters for coordination and consultation, as required by Section I.2.F.(18). Example 2: The Site X facility and waste are the same as above except the economic evaluation determined that none of the separation technologies were deemed to be economically practical for removal of one of the radionuclides from a waste stream, due to excessively high unit costs ($/Ci removed) and life-cycle costs, when compared to direct disposal of the radionuclide as low-level waste. A report documenting this and the assessment of each of the technologies for technical practicality and economic practicality was issued by the site program manager. The waste stream that contained

II-24 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements the radionuclide in question was analyzed for acceptance at a low-level waste disposal facility and it was concluded that the final waste form, incorporating the radionuclide, would meet the requirements at both II.B.(2)(a)2. (safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C), and II.B.(2)(a)3. (solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable limits for Class C, 10 CFR 61.55). Therefore, the waste stream was deemed acceptable for disposal as low-level waste. II. B.(2)(a) Will be managed as low-level waste and meet the following criteria: 2. Will be managed to meet safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C, Performance Objectives; and Low-level waste requirements. When the waste stream is to be managed in accordance with low- level waste requirements, an assessment needs to be prepared that provides reasonable expectation that low-level waste performance objectives will be met. This assessment is consistent with the requirements for a performance assessment, as defined in DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.P.(2). The Chapter IV performance objectives (Section IV.P.(1)) are considered comparable to those at 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C. In some cases the requirement to prepare a performance assessment may be met in part, or totally, by the waste acceptance and waste certification programs established by Chapter IV of DOE M 435.1-1. As discussed in the guidance for Section IV.G, Waste Acceptance, performance assessment data are used to establish waste acceptance criteria. Additionally, a primary element of a performance assessment is analysis that demonstrates compliance with the performance objectives in DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.P.(1). Therefore, if a waste form is certified as meeting a low-level waste disposal facility’s waste acceptance criteria the waste form may meet the performance objectives in Section IV.P.(1) as well, provided performance assessment imposed limits, e.g., quantity of material, are also met. Documentation providing sufficient data to support this conclusion is submitted for coordination with the DOE Office of Environmental Management, as required by the requirement in Section I.2.F.(18). Example: Site Y has a number of contaminated mixer/pumps that have been removed from a high-level waste storage tank and are considered waste. Following decontamination activities, characterization data show that the mixer/pumps can meet the waste acceptance criteria for an on-site low-level waste disposal facility. Documentation supporting this conclusion, and consistent with the requirements in Section IV.J, Waste Certification, is prepared. Additionally, documentation is prepared that concludes that meeting the disposal site’s waste acceptance criteria meets the disposal facility’s performance objectives which have been shown previously to be comparable to those in DOE G 435.1-1 II-25 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements the NRC’s 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C, Performance Objectives. Therefore Site Y concludes that the requirement at II.B.(2)(a)2. has been met and a stand-alone performance assessment for this waste stream is not necessary. The set of documentation supporting this conclusion is submitted to the DOE Office of Environmental Management for consultation and coordination as required by the requirement in Section I.2.F.(18).

Often the location and design of a low-level waste disposal facility are not finalized at the time such an assessment is needed. In such cases, a preliminary or interim performance assessment should be prepared, and submitted to the Office of Environmental Management for coordination. Preparation and approval of a preliminary, or interim, as well as a final performance assessment to support the meeting of this requirement, need to meet the requirements at DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.E.(1), Disposal. Example: To meet requirement II.B.(2)(a)2., Site X prepared an interim performance assessment, in accordance with the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.P.(2), for a waste stream that meets the other two applicable evaluation process requirements. The performance assessment was considered interim because it was prepared before the selection of a disposal facility site and design were finalized and before the final low- level waste form was selected. The site forwarded a copy of the interim performance assessment and a draft authorization letter to the DOE Office of Environmental Management for coordination. The DOE Office of Environmental Management’s review concluded that although the interim performance assessment was limited in information it did indicate that the performance objectives would be met. This finding was conditional on the review of subsequent performance assessments and other stipulations described in a site authorization letter. Although only an interim performance assessment, the review and concurrence requirements at DOE M 435.1-1 Section I.2.E.(1) for a performance assessment were applied. In the case of facility/site closure with the residual waste characterized as low-level waste, the requirement to conduct a performance assessment to meet the criterion in Section II.B.(2)(a)2. should be coordinated with similar requirements in Section II.U, Site Closure, to avoid redundant analysis. II. B.(2)(a) Will be managed as low-level waste and meet the following criteria: 3. Are to be managed, pursuant to DOE’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of this Manual, provided the waste will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level waste as set out in 10 II-26 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements CFR 61.55, Waste Classification; or will meet alternative requirements for waste classification and characterization as DOE may authorize. 10 CFR 61.55 Concentration Limits. To meet this criterion, DOE needs to demonstrate that the final waste form will not exceed the limits for Class C waste, as defined in 10 CFR 61.55. These calculations should compare, by major radionuclide, the expected concentration after the proposed treatment process with the limits as provided at 10 CFR 61.55. . Example: To meet this criterion, Site X calculated an estimated total vitrified waste volume in conjunction with the projected radionuclide activities. From these calculations, the vitrified waste form is expected to meet the limits for 10 CFR 61.55 Class C, or less. This information was provided to the DOE Office of Environmental Management for coordination.

Dilution of a waste stream to meet the concentration limits established in 10 CFR 61.55 is not permitted by the Department. While it is recognized that in the course of stabilizing a waste stream some changes in waste concentration may occur, actions to dilute a waste stream to meet the above concentration limits are prohibited. The NRC’s Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging, dated January 17, 1995 (NRC, 1995), that supports the regulation at 10 CFR 61.55(a)(8), may be useful in making determinations. The Branch Technical Position states that, “the concentration of a radionuclide (in waste) may be averaged over the volume of the waste, or weight of the waste if the units (on the values tabulated in the concentration tables) are expressed as nanocuries per gram.” This Branch Technical Position provides specific guidance to waste generators on the interpretation of the requirements in 10 CFR 61.55 as it applies to a variety of different types and forms of low-level waste. Consistent with the discussion above for the requirement in Section II.B.(2)(a)2., certification that a waste form meets a low-level waste disposal facility’s waste acceptance criteria may in part, or totally, meet this requirement since, in general, waste that meets the definition of low-level waste, as defined in Section IV.A, meets the concentration limits for Class C low-level waste, as set forth in 10 CFR 61.55. However, there are exceptions as discussed in the guidance for IV.A. For example, a waste form with a concentration of Cm-244 exceeding 100 nCi per gram meets the definition of low-level waste, per Chapter IV of DOE M 435.1-1 (Cm-244 is an alpha-emitting transuranic nuclide with a half-life of 18.1 years and is therefore not relevant to whether the waste is transuranic waste) however, it does not meet the concentration limits in Table 1 of 10 CFR 61.55 (Cm-244 has a half-life greater than 5 years and the concentration limit is 100 nCi per gram). Thus careful attention needs to be paid to ensure that the concentration limits set forth in 10 CFR 61.55 are not exceeded. DOE G 435.1-1 II-27 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Alternative Requirements. If the limits contained at 10 CFR 61.55 for Class C low-level waste cannot be met, the DOE Field Element may request that the DOE Office of Environmental Management review and accept other provisions for the classification of the waste on a specific basis. This provision is similar to the requirement at 10 CFR 61.58, Alternative Requirements for Waste Classification and Characteristics. Analysis submitted to the DOE Office of Environmental Management must provide reasonable expectation that after evaluation of the specific characteristics of the waste, disposal site, and method of disposal, compliance with the low-level waste performance objectives can be achieved.

Example: Following consultation with the NRC, Site X requested the DOE Office of Environmental Management to review and accept an alternative to the Class C limits of 10 CFR 61.55 for the closure of a number of former high-level waste storage tanks. The provided analysis noted that the NRC method for deriving the Class C concentration limits in 10 CFR Part 61 is based on direct contact with the disposed waste by an inadvertent intruder scenario and that the overall standard for determining Class C concentrations limits is an annual dose equivalent to an inadvertent intruder of 500 mrem from all pathways. In the documentation provided to the DOE Office of Environmental Management the case was made that the intruder scenarios for the Class C determination are inappropriate because the residual waste in the tank will be immobilized and located at least 10 meters below the ground surface, and the tank system will be filled with a stable medium. A site-specific intruder analysis for a hypothetical closed tank system was provided to the DOE Office of Environmental Management for their review. The analysis concluded that the postulated site intruder would receive a dose well below the limit of 500 mrem per year and demonstrated that the tank closures will comply with the performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61. II.B.(2)(b) Will be managed as transuranic waste and meet the following criteria: 1. Have been processed, or will be processed, to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical; and This is the same requirement as II.B.(2)(a)1., and the process for meeting this requirement is the same. Therefore, the guidance for Section II.B.(2)(a)1. applies to this requirement. II.B.(2)(b) Will be managed as transuranic waste and meet the following criteria: 2. Will be incorporated in a solid physical form and meet alternative requirements for waste classification and characteristics, as DOE may authorize; and II-28 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements As discussed in the guidance above for Section II.B.(2)(a)3., Alternative Requirements, if the limits contained at 10 CFR 61.55 for Class C low-level waste cannot be met, the DOE Field Element may request that the DOE Office of Environmental Management review and accept other provisions for classification of the waste, on a specific basis. This provision is similar to the requirements at 10 CFR 61.58, Alternative Requirements for Waste Classification and Characteristics, which states: “The Commission may, upon request or on its own initiative, authorize other provisions for the classification and characteristics of waste on a specific basis, if, after evaluation, of the specific characteristics of the waste, disposal site, and method of disposal, it finds reasonable assurance of compliance with the performance objectives [P.O.] in Subpart C of this part.” In those cases where application of the alternative waste classification criteria results in the waste being characterized as transuranic waste, and disposal will be in a facility other than WIPP (e.g., onsite as part of a deactivated high-level waste closure activity or at another DOE transuranic waste disposal site), characterization/classification provisions may be proposed by a Field Element. In such cases, DOE Headquarters shall be consulted and an analysis submitted for review that provides reasonable assurance that after evaluation of the: (1) specific characteristics of the waste, (2) disposal site characteristics, and (3) method of disposal, compliance with applicable performance objectives can be achieved.

II.B.(2)(b) Will be managed as transuranic waste and meet the following criteria: 3. Are managed pursuant to DOE’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of this Manual, as appropriate. In those cases where the waste stream will be managed as transuranic waste and disposal will be in a facility other than the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) (e.g., onsite or at another DOE transuranic waste disposal site), the Department is currently responsible for determining compliance with 40 CFR Part 191 and ensuring the transuranic waste is disposed of safely. As explained in the guidance to Section III.P., Disposal, sites other than WIPP are regulated by the implementing agency, in this case, DOE. As discussed in the General Requirements Chapter of this DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(15), Disposal, the Field Element Manager is responsible for reviewing and submitting a performance assessment to DOE Headquarters. The DOE Headquarters Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management will establish a process similar to that used for low-level waste disposal facilities for reviewing and approving performance assessments. Additional details on the criteria for reviewing and approving 40 CFR Part 191 performance assessments is included in the guidance to Section III.P. Since performance DOE G 435.1-1 II-29 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements assessment is defined, and the requirements for compliance and what must be included in a performance assessment for a transuranic waste disposal facility are discussed in 40 CFR Part 191, this section of the guidance and the transuranic waste chapter only contain reference to the 40 CFR Part 191 standards, with no additional minimum requirements for disposal. As discussed in the guidance to Chapter III of DOE M 435.1-1, the Department plans to dispose defense transuranic waste at WIPP. Therefore, evaluations of treatment and disposal options for those streams must be taken into account. As discussed above, the high-level waste sites are encouraged to group similar waste streams, that are to be subjected to the evaluation process, to support the process of coordinating with the DOE Office of Environmental Management and site review and approval. Such grouping is expected to expedite the decision process and make the most efficient use of limited resources in the DOE Office of Environmental Management. Following are two examples of grouping: Example 1: At Site Y, the high-level waste treatment (vitrification) activities are nearing completion and plans for dispositioning the equipment contaminated with reprocessing wastes within the pretreatment and treatment processes are being formulated. Analysis indicates that decontamination activities can be held to a minimum if a number of contaminated pretreatment and treatment components (mixer/pumps, slurry transfer lines, slurry tanks, melter, process filter media) can be disposed as transuranic waste by way of the evaluation process. In lieu of submitting individual analysis for each of contaminated components, Site Y consults with the DOE Office of Environmental Management and the NRC staff on the methodology they propose for meeting the three appropriate evaluation requirements. Following such consultation, Site Y approves a methodology for meeting each of the three evaluation criteria for a group of these components.

Example 2: At Site Z, closure analysis activities are underway for a number of high-level waste tanks. In reviewing the processes for removing the final amounts of high-level waste from the tanks, it is concluded that the evaluation process requirements can be met even if some small quantities of residual waste are allowed to remain in the tanks. In lieu preparing an analysis for each tank, the site submits a methodology for meeting each of the evaluation requirements for a group of the tanks. The methodology is submitted to the DOE Office of Environmental Management for coordination and acceptance of this methodology for the group of tanks is gained from the site program office. The closure activities proceed for the group of tanks. Facility Closure. Application of the evaluation process for deactivated high-level waste facility/site closures is to ensure that any residual waste or residual contaminated components are disposed appropriately. As indicated in Table 1, the requirements in Section II.B.(2)(a) 1., 2., and II-30 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements 3., or the requirements in Section II.B.(2)(b) 1., 2., and 3., must be met in order to manage the waste as non-high-level waste and allow the residual waste or residual contaminated components to be managed as low-level waste, or transuranic waste, as part of a deactivated high-level waste closure action. Closure actions for deactivated high-level waste facilities are distinguished from disposal of wastes incidental to reprocessing by the fact that closure actions normally involve facilities that are not total dismantled and remain in their operational location. However, because the residual material is part of a closure activity and will remain following closure, the disposal requirements in Section IV.P. and III.P. for low-level and transuranic wastes, respectively, are the appropriate requirements to satisfy Sections II.B.(2)(a)2. and II.B.(2)(b)3. The requirements for closure of these facilities and sites (groups of facilities) are in Section II.U, Site Closure. The Field Element Manager is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the evaluation process are met. DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(18), Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, defines the responsibilities and roles of the Field Element Manager, the Office of Environmental Management, and the consultation role that NRC staff may take in implementing the evaluation process. Refer to the guidance for this section for additional information. Mixed Waste. DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.C., Management of Specific Wastes, imposes the requirement that all high-level waste is to be considered mixed waste, unless demonstrated otherwise. This requirement applies to waste incidental to reprocessing determined wastes as well. Waste that is determined to be incidental to reprocessing by the application of the waste incidental to reprocessing determination processes should be considered mixed, unless demonstrated otherwise. Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by documented citation and evaluation processes that are implemented in a defensible manner and ensure that the Department is not exceeding its regulatory authority. DOE G 435.1-1 II-31 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II-32 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Supplemental References:

1. AEC, 1969. “Proposed Rule Making Statement of Proposed Policy; Siting of Commercial Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste Management Facilities, 10 CFR Part 50, ‘Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,’” Federal Register, Vol. 34, No. 8712, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., June 3, 1969. 2. AEC, 1970. “Siting of Commercial Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste Management Facilities, 10 CFR Part 50, ‘Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,’” Federal Register, Vol 35, No. 17532, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., November 14, 1970. 3. Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Public Law 93-438, Section 202 (3) and (4). 4. DOE, 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Long-Term Management of Defense High-Level Radioactive Wastes, DOE/EIS-0023, Savannah River Plant, November, 1979. 5. NRC, 1987. “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 10 CFR Part 60, ‘Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste,’” Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 5992, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., February 27, 1987. 6. Curtiss, 1992. NRC Commissioner J.R. Curtiss to J.M.Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, memorandum, SECY-92-391: Denial of PRM-60-4-Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Classification of Radioactive Waste at Hanford, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., December 29, 1992. 7. Taylor, 1993. J.M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations to Commissioner Curtiss, memorandum, Staff Response to Concerns Raised by Commissioner James R. Curtiss on Denial of PRM-60-4-Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Classification of Radioactive Waste at Hanford, January 14, 1993. 8. NRC, 1993. “Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 10 CFR Part 60, ‘States of Washington and Oregon: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking’,” Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 12342, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1993. 9. Bernero, 1993. R. Bernero, USNRC, to J. Lytle, DOE-EM, letter, Hanford Waste Tank Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 2, 1993. DOE G 435.1-1 II-33 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements 10. Paperiello, 1997. C. Paperiello, USNRC, to J. Kinser, DOE-RL, letter, Classification of Hanford Low-Activity Tank Waste Fraction, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., June 9, 1997. 11. DOE, 1998. Life-Cycle Asset Management, DOE O 430.1A, U.S. Department of Energy, October 14, 1998. 12. DOE, 1997. Deactivation Implementation Guide, Draft DOE G 430.1-3, U.S. Department of Energy, October 1, 1997. 13. DOE, 1997. Decommissioning Implementation Guide, Draft DOE G 430.1-4, U.S. Department of Energy, October 1, 1997. 14. NRC, 1988. Cement Solidification of Decontaminated Supernatant Waste for West Valley Project, Technical Evaluation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, November 1988. 15. EPA. Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Waste and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes, 40 CFR Part 191, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 16. NRC, 1995. Issuance of Final Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation, Revision in Part to Waste Classification Technical Position, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., January 17, 1995.

17. Sullivan, 1998. M.A. Sullivan, DOE, to J.T. Greeves, USNRC, letter, Natural Resources Defense Council Petition to Exercise Licensing Authority over Savannah River Site High- Level Waste Tanks, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 30, 1998. 18. NRC, 1993. “Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation: Denial of Petition to Require License Application,” Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 64783, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., December 9, 1993. 19. NRDC Inc. v. Administrator, Energy Research and Development Administration, 606 F. 2d 126, (D.C. Cir. 1979), affirming in part, remanding in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, 451 F. Supp. 1245 (D.D.C. 1978), denying motion in part, granting motion in part, 5 NRC 550 (1977) (Commission Decision). 20. NRC, 1994. “F. Robert Cook: Denial of Petition to Require License Application from DOE with Respect to High-Level Waste,” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 10439, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1994. II-34 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. C. Management of Specific Wastes. The following provide for management of specific wastes as high-level waste in accordance with the requirements in this Chapter: (1) Mixed High-Level Waste. Unless demonstrated otherwise, all high-level waste shall be considered mixed waste and is subject to the requirements of both the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and this Manual. (2) TSCA-Regulated Waste. High-level waste containing polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, or other such regulated toxic components shall be managed in accordance with requirements derived from the Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended and DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and this Manual. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to ensure that all high-level waste is managed as mixed waste, unless demonstrated otherwise, and thus meets the requirements of both the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and that high-level waste that contains TSCA-regulated toxic components be managed in accordance with the requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The RCRA and TSCA (if applicable) statutes are to be met in addition to the requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1. Discussion: DOE M 435.1-1 contains requirements for managing the radioactive character of high-level waste. Guidance for implementing those requirements is included elsewhere in this document. In developing DOE M 435.1-1 requirements, a safety and hazards analysis and an evaluation of the requirements necessary to control the identified hazards were performed. It was concluded that sufficient external regulations, promulgated pursuant to RCRA and TSCA, exist for controlling the non-radiological hazard. RCRA Regulations. The reprocessing of Department of Energy spent nuclear fuel produces high- level waste that usually exhibits characteristics that render the high-level waste subject to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as well as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. DOE G 435.1-1 II-35 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements

Considering high-level waste to be a mixed waste is consistent with Department of Energy past practice. The previous Radioactive Waste Management Order, DOE 5820.2A (see page I - 1), specified that high-level waste was to be considered mixed waste unless demonstrated to the contrary. The DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) has clearly stated that only spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste that is not regulated as hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C is planned to be disposed in the monitored geologic repository licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. Prior to acceptance for disposal, generators and custodians must determine and document that the waste is not regulated as a hazardous waste and is not prohibited from land disposal. Therefore, DOE must develop appropriate data to ensure State and/or EPA regulators that the applicable requirements have been addressed. The processes that produce high-level waste from spent fuel usually involve the use of hazardous chemicals, so it is reasonable to assume that high-level waste is a mixed waste unless it is demonstrated to be otherwise. The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel usually includes dissolution in acid followed by solvent extraction which is then often neutralized by addition of sodium hydroxide. The solvent is usually stripped from the component being extracted from the spent fuel. The solvent is recycled rather than disposed of as high-level waste. Furthermore, the fuel matrix and cladding are typically a source of hazardous metals. Thus, high-level waste typically exhibits the characteristics of corrosivity (pH < 2 or pH >12.5 (after neutralization)) and toxicity (because of the presence of one or more toxic metals). Wastes exhibiting hazardous characteristics (see 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C) must be treated for these characteristics prior to disposal. High-level wastes generated from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel exhibiting the characteristics of corrosivity (D002) and toxicity for metals (D004 – D011 corresponding to arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, scandium, and silver) may be treated through vitrification in accordance with the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards specified in 40 CFR 268.40. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that vitrification (HLVIT) is the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) for treating high-level wastes that exhibit these characteristics. However, if additional characteristic waste codes become applicable to the high-level waste, e.g., D018: benzene, the treated high-level waste may need to meet the Universal Treatment Standards (40 CFR 268.48) for any underlying hazardous constituents (UHCs). A treatability variance (40 CFR 268.44) and/or determination of equivalent treatment (40 CFR 268.42(b)) may be necessary to fully comply with the LDR standards if a DOE site elects to use a technology other than vitrification, the BDAT, of if it is impractical to comply with all the standards applicable to individual waste codes. High-level waste treated by vitrification but containing listed hazardous wastes (either from the reprocessing activities or from subsequent commingling of listed hazardous waste in high-level II-36 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements

waste storage tanks) will remain subject to RCRA, unless a delisting request is also approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Office of Environmental Management "Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms" requires that the producer of the high-level waste perform the appropriate tests and procedures to determine whether the waste is a hazardous waste (see Specification 1.5). That specification also requires that high-level waste producers petition the Environmental Protection Agency to delist the waste if any RCRA listed components are found in immobilized high-level waste. Currently, high-level waste at some sites has been determined to contain listed wastes and high-level waste at other sites has been determined not to contain listed wastes. Example: In the previous example, the resulting high-level wastes were mixed with various listed hazardous wastes for which a petition for delisting has not been approved. Even after the high-level waste is treated by vitrification, it may not be disposed in the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management-managed monitored, geologic repository because the high-level waste continues to be considered a mixed waste until the Environmental Protection Agency approves a petition for delisting of the hazardous waste components. The RCRA requirements described above may be imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency or by states that have been granted these RCRA authorities by the Environmental Protection Agency. The authorized states are permitted to promulgate hazardous waste requirements that are more stringent than the federal requirements, as well as specifying the treatment permitting approach. Any state-level hazardous waste requirements will need to be reviewed on a state-by-state basis. In summary, the operations performed in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel often produce high-level waste that exhibits hazardous characteristics. DOE practice is to assume that high-level waste is a mixed waste unless demonstrated otherwise. This approach provides a conservative basis for developing effective plans for high-level waste management including the capabilities for dealing with hazardous components and characteristics. PCB, Asbestos, and Other TSCA Wastes. High-level wastes contaminated with PCBs do not meet the definition of mixed waste, however, the situation is similar to RCRA in that there are external regulations promulgated under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act that need to be complied with in addition to the requirements of DOE O 435.1 and the Manual. Waste managers responsible for managing PCB-containing products should consult the EPA requirements at 40 CFR Part 761. The regulations impose requirements for the destruction, storage awaiting destruction, and disposal of PCBs. Like mixed wastes, there are currently no provisions to accommodate PCBs (exceeding 50 ppm) at a geologic repository. Review of the EPA handbook, “Vitrification Technologies for Treatment of Hazardous and Radioactive Waste,” (EPA/625/R-92-002) finds that the combination of the vitrification process and off-gas removal DOE G 435.1-1 II-37 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements

are capable of eliminating 99.99%, or better, of the organic constituents, including TSCA-regulated organics, in a waste stream. Therefore, vitrification, the BDAT for high-level waste exhibiting RCRA characteristics of corrosivity and toxicity for metals, is expected to meet the treatment requirements for PCBs and other TSCA-regulated toxic components, for those high-level waste streams that are determined to contain these components. At the time of the preparation of this guidance, no DOE high-level waste site had declared the presence of TSCA-regulated toxic components in their high-level streams. Planning for management of high- level wastes that include a component which is regulated under TSCA should be addressed in the Complex-Wide High-Level Waste Management Program and the appropriate Site-Wide Waste Management Programs (DOE M 435.1, Sections I.2.B.(1) and I.2.F.(1)). The DOE M 435.1-1 requirements imposed on the radioactive component of RCRA or TSCA waste should not create a duplication of management activities that can be satisfied by compliance with a RCRA or TSCA requirement. Also, documentation required by RCRA or TSCA regulations which provides the same or similar information as required by DOE M 435.1-1 should be used to satisfy the DOE M 435.1-1 requirement. Supplemental References: 1. DOE, 1996. Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (EM-WAPS), Revision 2, DOE/EM-0093, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., December 16, 1996. 2. EPA. Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes, 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 3. EPA. Lists of Hazardous Wastes, 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 4. EPA. Applicability of Treatment Standards, 40 CFR 268.40, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 5. EPA. Treatment Standards Expressed as Specified Technologies, 40 CFR 268.42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 6. EPA. Universal Treatment Standards, 40 CFR 268.48, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 7. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions, 40 CFR Part 761, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. II-38 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. D. Complex-Wide High-Level Waste Management Program. A complex-wide program and plan shall be developed as described under Responsibilities, 2.B and 2.D, in Chapter I of this Manual. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to ensure that development, documentation, and implementation of a complex-wide high-level waste management program. The complex-wide program and plan establishes the framework within which individual site programs operate. Discussion: The Department’s management of high-level waste occurs at four sites that generate, store and treat waste, as well as at a to-be-determined disposal site which is to serve as the nation’s central repository for high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. A complex-wide program and plan are seen as necessary to establish the overall mission for the Department’s management of high-level waste and to provide a framework within which the individual site programs operate. The Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1, General Requirements (Section I.2.B) assigns the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management’s the responsibility for developing and maintaining complex-wide, waste-type programs. The Manual General Requirements (Section I.2.D) also assigns the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management the responsibility for developing and implementing complex-wide, waste-type program plans. The complex-wide high-level waste management program and plan should be developed following the guidance provided for General Requirements, Sections I.2.B and I.2.D.

Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by the presence of a Complex-Wide High- Level Waste Management Program which includes the appropriate interfaces, technical information data inputs, and other elements described in Chapter I of this Manual. Supplemental References: 1. Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended, October 11, 1976. 2. EPA, 1992. Vitrification Technologies for Treatment of Hazardous and Radioactive Waste, EPA Handbook, EPA/625/R-92/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., May 1992. DOE G 435.1-1 II-39 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. E. Site-Wide High-Level Waste Management Program. In addition to the items in Chapter I of this Manual, documentation of the Site- Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program shall include a description of the High-Level Waste Systems Engineering Management Program to support decision-making related to nuclear safety, including high-level waste requirements analysis, functional analysis and allocation, identification of alternatives, and alternative selection and system control. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to establish a structured and documented approach to evaluating alternatives as the preferred method for reaching informed decisions on any issue potentially affecting safety of high-level waste management safety systems, structures, components and processes. Such decisions include selecting the solutions for storage and treatment of high-level waste, through the design and fabrication of the hardware and the development of software required (if any) to process the waste. Discussion: In addition to the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program requirements in DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(1), this additional requirement applies specifically to the management of high-level waste. The following guidance addresses that additional requirement only. Guidance on the implementation of the General Requirements can be found in DOE G 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(1). A systems engineering management program consists of requirements analysis, functional analysis/allocation, synthesis (developing alternatives), and systems analysis (evaluation of alternatives) and control. These elements of the process should be used progressively throughout the life cycle of the program to achieve objectives and to re-define requirements, designs and solutions for problems that may arise during program execution. A systems engineering management program should invoke a graded approach consistent with the importance to safety systems, structures, and components. Each of these elements is explained in detail in the interim standard for Systems Engineering (EIA/IS 632). This Interim Standard is also referenced in the Implementation Guide to DOE O 420.1. A brief overview of the systems engineering elements extracted from the standard is presented below: (1) Requirements Analysis: An analysis of the needs, objectives, and requirements in the context of the mission, operations, environment, and the mandatory characteristics of the system should be performed to determine the functional and performance requirements for each primary system function. II-40 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements

An example of a functional requirement is to separate the high-level waste into a low activity stream and a high activity stream to minimize the waste required for disposal in the high-level waste repository. An example of a performance requirement is the percent of the total radionuclide source term that must be concentrated in the high activity stream (e.g. 98%) in order to qualify the low activity waste for non-repository disposal. In other words, the functional requirements tell what must be done and the performance requirements tell how well the function must be performed. (1.1) Functional requirements identified in the requirements analysis should be used as the top-level functions for the functional analysis. Identification of requirements should include the degree of certainty in their estimate, their degree of criticality to mission success and their relationship to other requirements. (1.2) Requirements should be validated to establish traceability, both upwards and downwards, so that each lower level requirement can be demonstrated to be derived from a higher level requirement. (2) Functional Analysis/Allocation: A functional hierarchy should be defined and integrated down to the lowest level needed to support synthesis of solutions for people, products, and processes and management of risks. More than one logical set of functional and performance requirements could be developed to meet the high-level waste mission objectives. (2.1) Functional requirements should be analyzed to determine the subsidiary functions required to accomplish the parent requirement. For example, if the parent function is to separate the waste streams, subsidiary functions may be wash the sludge and perform ion exchange. When time is critical to the performance or sequencing of a function, a time-line analysis should be performed. Functional requirements need to be logically sequenced with input, output and interface requirements clearly defined and traceable. (2.2) Functional allocation should be performed to establish a performance requirement for each functional requirement. If all lower level functions are performed to meet their performance requirement, the performance requirement of the highest level function should also be satisfied. Continuing the examples above, if sludge washing and ion exchange are the only two subsidiary functions contained under the parent function “separate the waste DOE G 435.1-1 II-41 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements streams,” then their performance requirements together must produce a high activity waste stream that contains 98% of the waste. (2.3) Verification of functional and performance requirements should be accomplished by traceability. (3) Synthesis (develop alternative ways to meet the mission/objectives): Solutions for each logical set of functional and performance requirements should be defined and designed. This synthesis should be performed interactively with functional analysis/allocation to define a complete set of potential solutions. In the examples above, one logical solution may be to allocate the 98% concentration to only 2 subsidiary functions, while an alternative solution would include three (or more) subsidiary functions in order to remove additional radionuclide species. (3.1) The output of the synthesis should describe the complete system, including interfaces within the system and to external systems.

(3.2) Care should be exercised to verify that the process and product design requirements, and their implementation, satisfies the overall system requirement. (4) Systems Analysis and Control: Systems analyses, trade-off studies and other analytical tools should be utilized to select preferred alternatives. Decisions should be documented, together with supporting material. Implementation of the selected alternative should be coupled with control mechanisms, such as risk management, configuration management, data management, and performance-based progress measurements, to assess status, identify potential problems and to formulate alternative solutions for timely management consideration. The systems engineering management program documentation should include an approved Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP), Systems Engineering Master Schedule (SEMS) and a Systems Engineering Detailed Schedule (SEDS). The content of the SEMP, SEMS, and the SEDS are explained in EIA/IS-632. Outputs of the application of the systems engineering process ( inputs to decision making) should be documented in an integrated decision data base that organizes the data used and generated. The documentation should provide the audit trail of the systems engineering process outputs, decisions and results, as well as traceability of the process. Traceability as used here is slightly different from traceability used in the functional and performance analysis. Here the mission, objectives, the environment under which the mission must be executed and mandatory overall system performance is also included. Should any of these parameters change during the course of II-42 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements the project, this traceability will assist the decision manager to understand how the changes may impact on the decisions previously made. Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by a systems engineering management program based on EIA/IS-632, Systems Engineering, coupled with the identification of accountable individuals and their authorities. The implementation guide to DOE O 420.1 references EIA/IS-632 as an acceptable standard for systems engineering. Supplemental References: 1. EIA, 1994. Electronic Institutes Association, Systems Engineering, EIA/IS-632, Washington, D.C., December 1994. (Standards Proposal No. 3537-A has been issued which proposes to upgrade and revise EIA/IS-632. When the proposed upgrade and revision is approved, the standard will be published as ANSI/EIA-632, and EIA-IS-632 will be CANCELED.) 2. DOE, 1995. Facility Safety, DOE O 420.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 13, 1995. 3. DOE, 1995. Implementation Guide for Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Criteria and Explosive Safety Criteria, (Implementation guide for DOE 420.1), DOE G 420.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 1995. DOE G 435.1-1 II-43 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. F. Radioactive Waste Management Basis. High-level waste facilities, operations and activities shall have a radioactive waste management basis consisting of physical and administrative controls to ensure the protection of workers, the public, and the environment. The following specific waste management controls shall be part of the radioactive waste management basis: (1) Generators. The waste certification program.

(2) Pretreatment and Treatment Facilities. The waste acceptance requirements and the waste certification program. (3) Storage Facilities. The waste acceptance requirements and the waste certification program. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to ensure that the hazards associated with high-level waste management facilities, operations, and activities have been identified, their potential impacts analyzed, and appropriate controls documented, implemented and maintained for the protection of workers, the public, and the environment. Discussion: As described in the guidance on Section I.2.F.(2), DOE M 435.1-1 requires the radioactive waste management basis to provide for development and documentation of measures to ensure the safe and efficient management of radioactive waste. The measures include processes, procedures, equipment specifications, instrument specifications, and other items that are intended to reduce the likelihood of, or the consequences from, a problem that could arise from managing high-level waste. Requiring an approved radioactive waste management basis for the initiation of new, or continuation of existing, radioactive waste management activities should prevent the operation of facilities for which safe design, configuration, and operation have not been demonstrated. The required elements of the radioactive waste management basis vary with the type of waste management operation or facility and the types of hazards associated with the operation or facility. The radioactive waste management basis documentation listed above for each of the three types of high-level waste management facilities, operations, and activities included in the scope of DOE O 435.1 are not complete lists of those items which should be included in a radioactive waste management basis. Several processes, procedures, and documents that are required by other directives and requirements describe radioactive waste management measures that should be considered part of the radioactive waste management basis. II-44 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements The guidance at Section I.2.F.(2) discusses this aspect of the radioactive waste management basis in detail. Example: At Site X a facility was designed and built for dry storage of vitrified high- level waste encapsulated in welded stainless steel canisters. Prior to transferring any high-level waste to the facility, the Field Element Manager reviewed and approved the documentation that was prepared and collected for the purpose of establishing the Radioactive Waste Management Basis. The documentation included two items required by DOE M 435.1-1— the waste acceptance requirements and the waste certification program. These two items are designed to ensure that the high-level waste transferred to the facility is appropriate and that the high-level waste transferred from the facility meets the waste acceptance requirements for the receiving facility. Additional documentation that established the Radioactive Waste Management Basis was prepared in response to requirements other than DOE M 435.1-1 and consisted of the facility-specific procedures implementing the Site X radiological control program, health and safety plan, training program, quality assurance program, and record-keeping plan.

Also, as discussed in the Section I.2.F.(2) guidance, if a high-level waste management facility operates under an approved Authorization Basis, it may not need any additional controls to demonstrate that it has a radioactive waste management basis. In this case, the Authorization Basis documentation should be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether it sufficiently covers the requirements needed for a radioactive waste management basis. The Field Element Manager has the responsibility to ensure the high-level waste management facilities under his or her authority have a radioactive waste management basis. Example: The Liquid Radioactive Waste Handling Facilities at Site A (which include the Tank Farms, the In-Tank Precipitation Process, and the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator) are used for management of highly radioactive and hazardous materials. They are Category 2 nuclear facilities which renders them subject to a wide range of DOE nuclear safety requirements. A review of the Authorization Basis documentation revealed that the Authorization Basis includes the following documents and the associated programs: C Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) C Technical Justification for Continued Operation/Basis for Interim Operation/Design Basis Accident Analysis Report C Operational Safety Requirements/Technical Safety Requirements C Technical Standards C SAR Update Request Packages DOE G 435.1-1 II-45 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements C Other Documents Identified by DOE-SR and WSRC as Authorization Basis Documents (Safety Evaluations, Exemptions, Unreviewed Safety Questions Evaluation) C DOE Safety Evaluation Reports C Listing of Documents that are to be Configuration Managed but are not Authorization Basis Documents Included within these documents are what the site considers to be the complete set of operational requirements relied upon by the site to ensure that the public, workers, and the environment are protected from the hazards associated with the management of the radioactive waste handled in the facilities. For example, the establishment of limits of fissionable material and chemical constituents that can be transferred to the waste tanks by the generators is included in the SARs. These limits are essentially equivalent to the limits that must be set for the waste acceptance requirements in this chapter (see Section II. J). A radioactive waste management basis statement is prepared that concludes the radioactive waste management basis is covered in the Authorization Basis documents. For a facility that generates high-level waste, the radioactive waste management basis is to include the program for certifying that waste meets the waste acceptance requirements of the facility(ies) to which the waste will be sent. The waste certification program should be reviewed against the applicable requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 and approved in accordance with the manual before becoming part of the radioactive waste management basis. As discussed in guidance on Section I.2.F.(2), several other processes and procedures are also part of the complete radioactive waste management basis at a generating facility. Example: A spent nuclear fuel reprocessing canyon generates high-level waste. The radioactive waste management basis includes the waste certification procedures, the safety and health plan, the training program, and the waste transfer procedure in addition to the Authorization Basis. These elements are documented in a facility-specific radioactive waste management basis statement covering the canyon, its operations, and its activities.

Facilities that store or treat high-level waste must have approved waste acceptance requirements (Section II. J of DOE M 435.1-1) prior to the issuance of a radioactive waste management basis. The waste acceptance requirements will usually suffice as the documentation of the radiological, physical, and chemical limitations on waste that can be safely received at the facility, provided they are developed correctly considering the hazards of the waste to be managed, and are kept up to date. A facility that stores or treats waste is expected to have a waste certification program. Waste from these facilities will have to be certified as meeting the waste acceptance requirements of the facility to which it will be transported, and the facilities have the potential for generating radioactive waste (e.g., secondary processing streams from treatment, monitoring and sampling, II-46 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements radioactive release cleanup). Consequently, storage and treatment facilities should also have an approved waste certification program as part of their radioactive waste management basis. Example: A storage facility that stores vitrified mixed high-level waste has approved waste acceptance requirements and a waste certification process to verify that the waste meets the Office of Environmental Management Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (EM-WAPS). The radioactive waste management basis statement references the waste certification process and the waste acceptance requirement documentation, which in turn invokes the EM-WAPS. The basis statement also cites the RCRA permit issued for storage of mixed high-level waste. Requirements that apply to disposal of high-level waste have been developed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and will be applied to the disposal facilities, operations, and activities of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Other facilities for high-level waste management must be covered by an approved radioactive waste management basis. At the end of the useful life of non-disposal facilities, most or all of the high-level waste will be removed in preparation for closure. (In this discussion the word “all” is enclosed in quotes to suggest removal of radioactive material to the extent that the facility can be released for unlimited use.) If all of the high-level waste is removed, then the facility need no longer be considered a radioactive waste facility and an approved radioactive waste management basis is no longer needed. In other cases residual high-level waste will be in the facility being closed, and the facility will be subject to an approved radioactive waste management basis. However, if the residual waste in the facility is determined to be incidental to reprocessing, then the waste is managed as low-level waste or transuranic waste, as appropriate. Under those conditions, either (1) the facility would be subject to an approved radioactive waste management basis appropriate for the category of the remaining radioactive waste as long as the waste remains in the facility or (2) the activities and operations leading to release of the facility for unlimited use would be performed under a radioactive waste management basis appropriate for the radioactive waste.

As part of the radioactive waste management basis, site personnel should implement a system or process for tracking the waste inventory at a storage, pretreatment or treatment facility. Tracking the waste inventory is a means of ensuring that radionuclide limits established in accordance with a safety analysis will not be exceeded. In addition, a system or process for accurately tracking waste received at a facility can facilitate providing information to the complex-wide waste management data system (see guidance for Section I.2.D.(2)). Compliance with these requirements is demonstrated by a documented radioactive waste management basis statement signed by the Field Element manager or a designee (see I.1.A, Delegation of Authority) for each high-level waste management facility, operation, or activity. Using a graded approach, it may be possible to include multiple activities under a single radioactive waste management basis, but it should be possible to objectively identify which DOE G 435.1-1 II-47 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements activities are covered. Further, the radioactive waste management basis statement should include or reference the measures that are established on a facility-specific basis to address the unique waste management requirements and circumstances for each facility, operation, and/or activity. Supplemental References: 1. DOE, 1996. Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (EM-WAPS), Revision 2, DOE/EM-0093, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., December 16, 1996. 2. NRC. Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories, 10 CFR Part 60, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. II-48 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. G. Quality Assurance Program. The following requirements are in addition to those in Chapter I of this Manual. (1) Product Quality. The requirements of DOE/RW-0333P, Quality Assurance Requirements and Description, shall apply to those high-level waste items and activities important to waste acceptance/product quality. (2) Audits and Assessments. The evaluation and assessment requirements of DOE/RW-0333P, Quality Assurance Requirements and Description, and associated implementing procedures shall be met for high-level waste acceptance and product quality activities, in addition to the assessment requirements of other DOE directives and requirements identified in Chapter I of this Manual. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to ensure that those items and activities important to waste acceptance/product quality are identified and controlled by a quality assurance program that implements the requirements of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management’s Quality Assurance Program, as defined in DOE/RW-0333P, including the audit and assessment requirements. Discussion: In addition to the quality assurance requirements contained in Section I. 1.E.(12), Quality Assurance Program, of DOE M 435.1-1, General Requirements, the final high-level waste form must meet the quality assurance requirements published by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management . These quality assurance requirements are imposed on the waste form Producers by Specification 4., “Quality Assurance Specification,” of the Waste Acceptance Produce Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms, DOE/EM-0093 (EM-WAPS). The OCRWM requirements are contained in the “Quality Assurance Requirements and Description for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (QARD),” (DOE/RW- 0333P) which is the principal quality assurance document for the OCRWM Program.

The QARD establishes the minimum elements of the quality assurance program and identifies the program commitments necessary for the development and implementation of such a Quality assurance program. As stated in the Introduction to the QARD, the QARD applies to the following high-level waste activities: acceptance; transport and; high-level waste form development through qualification, production, and acceptance. DOE G 435.1-1 II-49 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements The current revision of the QARD is organized into sections, supplements, appendices, and a glossary. The 18 Sections contain requirements that are common to all OCRWM Program activities including high-level waste activities such as high-level waste form development. The five Supplements contain requirements for specialized activities, e.g, software, sample control, field survey and the three Appendices contain requirements that are specific to the high-level waste form production, storage and transportation, and the Mined Geologic Disposal System. Waste form producers may, but are not required by OCRWM, develop specific quality assurance procedures that comply with the requirements of the QARD, or they may modify existing procedures, as necessary, to meet the QARD requirements. If the latter approach is taken, a crosswalk to demonstrate how the QARD requirements are met by the site quality assurance procedures should be generated. Product Quality. Important to the subrequirement (1) is the concept that the QARD requirements apply only to those high-level waste items and activities that have been designated as important to waste acceptance/product quality. While a list of these items and activities is not included in either the EM-WAPS or the QARD, their identification is essential for identifying the bounds of applicability of the QARD. These items and activities are broadly defined as those which affect the ability of the waste Producers to produce a canistered waste form that meets the EM-WAPS requirements. Both of the existing vitrification facilities, DWPF and WVDP, have developed a methodology for identifying such items and activities for their respective site and have maintained a list of these items. Refer to these for further details on the approach taken at each site (references included below). Audits and Assessments. Subrequirement (2) requires that in addition to the audits and assessments that are required under Section I.1.E., Requirements of Other Regulations and DOE Directives, or Section I.2.F.(10), Evaluations, Section 18.0 of the QARD, Audits, establishes specific requirements for performing internal and external Quality assurance audits to verify compliance with, and to determine the effectiveness of, the Quality assurance program. Refer to Section 18 for the specific requirements. In addition, numerous other assessment requirements are contained throughout the QARD that must be met for those items and activities that are applicable to the QARD requirements. Included are: • Section 2.2.6 Surveillances • Section 2.2.7 Management Assessments • Section 2.2.8 Readiness Reviews • Section 2.2.9 Peer Reviews Responsibilities for conducting audits are identified in several documents. A Memorandum of Agreement between the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and the Office of Waste Management specifies quality assurance responsibilities between these two organizations II-50 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99

Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements (see reference) while letters between the high-level waste sites and the Office of Waste Management assign audit responsibilities between these organizations. Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by documented evidence that the requirements of the QARD have been met for those items and activities that are determined to be waste product quality affecting; and the QARD audit, readiness reviews, and assessment requirements have been met. Supplemental References: 1. DOE, 1997. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Quality Assurance Requirements and Description for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Revision 8, DOE/RW-0333P, U.S. Department of Energy, November 13, 1997. 2. DOE, 1996. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Office of Waste Management and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for Coordination of Quality Assurance Activities Associated with High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, U.S. Department of Energy, May 23, 1996. 3. DOE, 1996. Waste Acceptance Product Specification for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms, Revision 2, DOE/EM-0093, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1996. 4. DOE, 1997. WVDP Waste Acceptance Manual, Revision 7, WVDP-200, U.S. Department of Energy, April 22, 1997. 5. DOE, 1996. DWPF Waste Acceptance Reference Manual, Revision 4, WSRC-IM-93-45, U.S. Department of Energy, February 1996. DOE G 435.1-1 II-51 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. H. Contingency Actions. The following requirements are in addition to those in Chapter I of this Manual. (1) Contingency Storage. For off-normal or emergency situations involving high-level waste storage or treatment, spare capacity with adequate capabilities shall be maintained to receive the largest volume of waste contained in any one storage vessel, pretreatment facility, or treatment facility. Tanks or other facilities that are designated for high-level waste contingency storage shall be maintained in an operational condition when waste is present and shall meet all the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and this Manual. (2) Transfer Equipment. Pipelines and auxiliary facilities necessary for the transfer of waste to contingency storage shall be maintained in an operational condition when waste is present and shall meet the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and this Manual. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to mitigate the impacts on the public, workers, and environment in the event that a leak develops in a vessel storing high-level waste or in a facility processing high-level waste. The mitigation is provided by ensuring spare waste storage capacity is a required part of a site’s emergency management program. To meet this objective, there needs to be both capacity to handle the largest volume of any single storage vessel or liquid waste in process, and the capability to transfer the waste. Discussion: This requirement shall be implemented through and included in site emergency management programs that are required by DOE O 151.1, Comprehensive Emergency Management System. The directive DOE O 151.1 is referenced in DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter I and is considered necessary for the safe management of radioactive waste. The Comprehensive Emergency Management System requires the development of a complex-wide system for preparing for and managing emergencies. At the site level, personnel are to establish an Operational Emergency Base Program that provides the framework for responding to events involving, among other impacts, health and safety, and the environment. The program requires a qualitative hazards survey to identify the emergency conditions, describe the potential impacts, and summarize the planning and preparedness requirements that apply.

II-52 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements During the development of the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, a waste management hazard and safety analysis identified the loss of confinement of a storage tank or waste processing facility containing radioactive wastes as a hazard requiring mitigation. In addition to requiring facility designs to maintain waste confinement (see DOE M 435.1, Section II.P.(2)(b)), the ability to respond to leaks or other off-normal conditions if they occur was also considered necessary. Consequently, the requirements to have adequate spare capacity and the ability to transfer waste to the spare capacity were established. This requirement is applicable to storage and processing of both liquid high-level waste and solid high- level waste (e.g., calcine). Operating procedures are to be developed and utilized for transfer of high-level waste to contingency storage. The procedures need to address maximum operational capacities and limits for components of the operational system (e.g., spare storage capacity available in vessels). The procedures are to define and address all possible emergency transfer scenarios needed to comply with this requirement. Contingency Storage. Contingency storage is to be provided for both high-level waste storage and for high-level waste pretreatment and treatment facilities. In the case of storage vessels, adequate volumetric capacity must be available to receive the largest volume of waste stored in any single vessel. In the case of pretreatment or treatment facilities, adequate capacity must be available to allow in-process wastes in the facility to be moved as necessary to storage or holding tanks in the event of emergency or off-normal conditions. These storage or holding tanks may be other process vessels within the facility. The requirement also requires that tanks, or other facilities, that are designated for high-level waste contingency storage be maintained in an operational condition when waste is present and that they meet all the requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1. The operational requirement is to ensure that all the elements required for safe operation of a functional high-level waste storage tank that contains waste also are applied to a contingency storage tank. This is intended to include the implementation of an approved authorization basis, or radioactive waste management basis, as well as the implementation of operating procedures by trained and qualified personnel. Development and implementation of these operational elements need to be planned and completed prior to the designation of a tank or other facility as contingency storage since the need for contingency storage may be urgent. The requirement that contingency storage facilities meet all of the Order and Manual requirements is recognized as demanding, and may be difficult for some DOE sites to meet. However, the requirement is considered necessary due to the hazardous nature of high-level waste and the potential consequences of loss of confinement of a tank’s contents. Of particular importance to contingency storage units is complying with the requirements in Section II.Q, Storage, which provides for a structural integrity program. As discussed in the guidance to Section II.Q, a DOE G 435.1-1 II-53 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements

structural integrity program ensures structural strength and leak-tightness of all tanks designed for use as high-level waste storage. The requirement in DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.H.(1) does not preclude the designation of existing single-shell tanks (i.e., do not meet the secondary confinement (design) requirements of DOE M 435.1 Section II.P.(2)(b)) present at some DOE sites, from being designated contingency storage facilities. Existing single-shell tanks that can meet all the requirements of DOE M 435.1- 1, Chapter II, without having to undergo significant modifications, may be candidates for designation as contingency storage units. As explained in the guidance to DOE M 435.1-1 Section II.P.(2)(b) the secondary confinement requirements apply to new, and modifications to existing, tanks. The requirement that must be met for single-shell tanks is the structural integrity program (DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.Q.(2)) which includes elements such as verifying leak- tightness and structural strength, identifying corrosion modes, and ultimately identifying the tank’s safe operating envelope. Spare capacity may be provided by a single vessel or by the combined available volume in multiple vessels. In cases where radiation protection considerations allow, spare capacity could be provided by portable vessels, tankers, e.g., rail-tank cars, or tank trucks if they meet the other requirements of DOE M 435.1-1. Due to the potential for airborne radioactive material, impoundments or bermed areas open to the air generally are not be used for spare storage capacity. Example: Liquid high-level waste is stored in six underground storage tanks with a design capacity of 250,000 gallons each. The waste in the tanks has the same chemical and radiological characteristics. One tank contains 200,000 gallons and each of the others contain about 100,000 gallons. Capabilities exist to retrieve waste and transfer it among the six tanks. This system meets the requirement because the largest volume of 200,000 gallons can be distributed between any two of the other tanks. Spare capacity may be shared by different waste types, however mixing radioactive wastes of different types needs to be evaluated and is generally not acceptable. Example 1: A tank farm has tanks containing high-level waste which has been determined not to be a mixed waste or high-level waste or has other tanks that are contaminated with listed hazardous wastes. A spare empty tank is maintained and available for emergency transfers of either waste. Example 2: A tank farm contains both liquid high-level waste and liquid transuranic waste in separate tanks. If the spare capacity were provided by excess capacity in tanks that contain high-level waste, use of the capacity for transuranic waste would be undesirable. Transferring transuranic waste into a tank containing high-level waste, II-54 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements would result in a mixture that would no longer be eligible for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which, by law, cannot dispose of high-level waste. Therefore, waste managers need to identify different spare capacity to accommodate the two different waste types.

In addition to the spare storage capacity discussed above, other measures may also need to be implemented. An obvious action is to immediately stop the flow of any materials into the tank system or tank annulus (if applicable), and inspect the system to determine the cause of the leak. If the leak site is determined to be above the tank bottom, transferring tank contents until it is at a level below the leak site would satisfy the requirement. Additionally, some tank systems include a partial secondary liner in the form of a drain pan or a leak sump. In general the volume capacity of these structures is limited; however, the viability of recirculating leaked contents from these structures to the primary tank or vessel as an initial mitigation measure may be assessed. Such re- circulation may preclude the release of a leaking tank’s contents to the soil, while contingency transfer and storage systems are being prepared to remove the contents from a leaking tank or vessel. Transfer Equipment. The ability to perform the transfer is just as important as having the capacity. Equipment necessary to transfer each vessel or treatment facility volume of high-level waste in the event of a leak or other off-normal condition is to be identified and documented. Example: Calcined radioactive waste is stored in six underground bins with a capacity of 10,000 cubic feet each. The waste in all of the bins is similar, and each bin contains 3,000 cubic feet of calcined high-level waste. Although there are transfer lines to any of the bins from a central diversion box, the bins were constructed without the capability to retrieve the waste. This situation does not comply with the requirement at II.H.(2). Although there is adequate capacity, the ability to transfer the waste does not exist. An exemption would be required. In addition, mechanisms must be in place to ensure the equipment identified as necessary to transfer the contents of each tank can be made available quickly. One approach is to inspect and/or test the identified equipment and components, as part of a routine waste management maintenance program (see DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.1.E.(9)). If the cost of procuring and maintaining such items is economically impractical, an acceptable alternative would be to have agreements with vendors to procure the necessary equipment and have it shipped to the site within a specified period of time. Under this approach the use of other mitigative measures to reduce impacts to the environment from a leaking tank or vessel may be necessary. Such mitigative measures might include re-circulation of leaked contents from sumps or pans to the primary tank, as discussed above, or the initiation of emergency remediation actions in accordance with facility emergency plans. DOE G 435.1-1 II-55 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements The capability to perform an emergency transfer of high-level waste is to be maintained at all times. Procedures need to be prepared and operations personnel qualified in the operation of equipment and those procedures necessary for the transfer of high-level waste to contingency storage facilities. Example: A large shielding block is in place over a diversion box that needs to be accessed during an emergency transfer of high-level waste. The block must be moved by a crane. Therefore, a suitable crane must be on-site or an agreement with a vendor that such a crane can be delivered within a specified time period, is in place. Additionally, operators qualified to operate valves within the diversion box must be available when needed.

Many DOE sites have agreements in place with their State and/or EPA regulators that may overlap, or conflict, with the requirements in this section. Obviously such agreements must be honored and the intent of these requirements is not to interfere with them. Thus, some interpretation of these requirements will be necessary to ensure that spare waste storage capacity is available and that the necessary transfer equipment is available on a real time basis, i.e., at the earliest practicable time. Compliance with these requirements is demonstrated if adequate spare capacity and transfer equipment exist for emergency transfers of all high-level waste. This includes maintaining high- level waste contingency storage facilities and transfer equipment/facilities in an operational condition when waste is present. Supplemental References: 1. DOE, 1995. Comprehensive Emergency Management System, DOE O 151.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 25, 1995. II-56 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. I. Corrective Actions. The following requirements are in addition to those in Chapter I of this Manual. (1) Order Compliance. Corrective actions shall be implemented whenever necessary to ensure the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and this Manual are met. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to ensure that actions will be taken to preclude, minimize, or mitigate hazards whenever a situation arises at a high-level waste management facility that could threaten worker or public safety, or the environment. Discussions: DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.G, states that all personnel have a responsibility to identify conditions that require corrective actions to achieve compliance with the Order and Manual requirements or to address health and safety conditions that pose an imminent or possible danger. The Manual states that this responsibility includes considering shutdown or curtailment of facilities and activities, if warranted by the seriousness of the circumstances. This requirement ensures that this responsibility is implemented for all high-level waste management facilities and activities. DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(20), requires the Field Element Manager to ensure that a process exists for proposing, reviewing, approving, and implementing corrective actions when necessary to ensure that the requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 are met, and to address conditions that are not protective of the public, workers, or the environment. Corrective actions are activities which, when implemented, will correct a noncompliant or hazardous condition. These activities can include improvements to documentation (e.g., procedures, plans, authorization basis documents), training and qualification programs or procedures, physical and process design changes, changes to operating conditions, or a combination of these activities. Corrective Action System. A corrective action system exists for addressing noncompliant or hazardous conditions for high-level waste management facilities, operations and activities. Corrective actions in response to quality assurance program assessments are addressed in the Implementation Guide for Use with Independent and Management Assessment Requirements of 10 CFR 830.120 and DOE O 414.1, Quality Assurance. The corrective action system provides for documenting noncompliant or hazardous conditions, identifying the organizations or individuals responsible for developing and implementing corrective actions, providing corrective action status, and tracking progress through final implementation of the actions. The corrective

DOE G 435.1-1 II-57 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements action system is instituted as a fundamental part of the systematic evaluation of radioactive waste activities that is implemented by the site-wide radioactive waste management program (see guidance for Section I.2.F.(1)). A problem requiring corrective action could range from a minor deviation from a procedure, to a situation that poses an immediate threat to health and safety from an uncontrolled release of large quantities of radioactive material. For situations where a problem could pose an immediate risk to a worker, member of the public, or damage to the environment, immediate shutdown of the process or facility may be appropriate as the first step in addressing the problem. (see guidance for Section II. I.(2)). Example: An employee of the Site K high-level waste vitrification facility noticed that the procedure for taking a high-level waste slurry sample was not being followed correctly by a waste technician. Such action could allow a release of high-level waste slurry into the facility’s operating corridor from the sampling station. The employee alerted the sampling shift manager who in turn alerted the facility operations manager. The facility corrective action system resulted in a corrective action plan that identified the sampling station manager as the responsible individual for assuring proper training of operations personnel on implementing sampling procedures. A reminder memo was sent to the affected staff and a follow-up review was scheduled for 45 days after the occurrence. If a facility or activity can be allowed to operate while a noncompliant or hazardous condition exists, the allowance and any associated limitations must be defined as part of the facility or activity’s radioactive waste management basis and/or authorization basis documentation, identified as a configuration controlled item in a configuration management plan or included in a revision or modification to an operating procedure or similar controlled documentation. If a noncompliance impacts safety associated with use of a procedure, system, or facility, the corrective action system must provide for preventing the use (e.g., locking out) of the affected procedure, system, or facility. Example: In the example above, slurry sampling activities were curtailed so that no slurry sampling was allowed. Due to the potential for a release of high-level waste slurry into the operating corridor of the facility and significant personnel contamination, waste sampling activities were curtailed until operator training was completed. Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated if a corrective action system addresses noncompliant or hazardous situations involving high-level waste management facilities in a systematic fashion, and allows identification of problems by all personnel. II-58 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Supplemental References: 1. DOE, 1996. Implementation Guide for Use with Independent and Management Assessment Requirements of 10 CFR 830.120 and DOE O 414.1 Quality Assurance, DOE G 414.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, Washington, D.C., August 1996. II. I.(2) Operations Curtailment. Operations shall be curtailed or facilities shut down for failure to establish, maintain, or operate consistent with an approved radioactive waste management basis. Objective:

The objective of this requirement is to limit the operation of waste management activities and facilities as necessary to avoid creation of near- or long-term safety or environmental hazards. Discussion: DOE M 435.1-1 requires that a radioactive waste management basis be established for each radioactive waste management activity or facility. The radioactive waste management basis is to include those additional constraints specific to waste management activities (e.g., requirements of the Manual) that are determined to be necessary for safety and environmental protection. Field Element Managers are responsible for ensuring a radioactive waste management basis is developed, reviewed, approved, and maintained for each DOE radioactive waste management facility, operation, or activity. (DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(2)). The guidance for that requirement should be consulted for additional details on the development, review, and approval of a radioactive waste management basis. Also, additional discussion concerning the radioactive waste management basis for high-level waste generator, pretreatment, treatment, and storage facilities is discussed under guidance for the requirement at Section II. F. As part of his or her responsibilities for maintaining the radioactive waste management basis for high-level waste management facilities, operations, and activities under his/her authority, the Field Element Manager evaluates the compliance of the facilities, operations, and activities with the constraints and controls documented in the radioactive waste management basis by ensuring that routine assessments are conducted. If the Field Element Manager determines, either through routine assessment or by virtue of an occurrence or off-normal event, that a facility, operation, or activity is not operating in compliance with an approved radioactive waste management basis, the operation must be curtailed or shut down. The action taken is commensurate with the hazards associated with the noncompliance and with the continued operation of the facility. DOE G 435.1-1 II-59 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements This requirement is to be implemented in a graded manner. Actions to be taken are based on assessments of adherence to radioactive waste management bases, and can range from shutdown of an operation or facility to placing limits or constraints on what activities can be performed or how the activities are to be performed. Shutdown of a facility involves stopping all operations in the facility except surveillance or monitoring activities necessary to maintain the facility in a safe standby condition. Shutdown is considered appropriate when there is either a potential imminent threat to safety or environmental protection that cannot be mitigated, or a blatant failure to establish or comply with a radioactive waste management basis. Alternatively, there may be cases where the facility, operation, or activity assessment determines that the radioactive waste management basis is not current or has been violated but there is no imminent threat to public, worker, or environmental protection. In such a case, the Field Element Manager may decide that shutdown of the facility is not necessary. It may be sufficient to impose certain limits until the radioactive waste management basis is made current. The limits imposed may prohibit the generation, receipt, or processing of certain waste streams, or may involve constraints on the processes that may be performed.

Example: Site Z conducts biennial assessments of high-level waste Evaporator Y for compliance with its radioactive waste management basis. The 1996 biennial assessment found two non-compliance findings and five observations. The corrective action system implemented at Site Z requires the non-compliance findings to be entered and formally responded to with corrective action plans, but not the observations. The non- compliances were in document control and operations training, so evaporator operations were not curtailed in any way while both the document control and training procedures were revised. The facility was assessed again in 1997 to determine if the corrections were in place, which was an accelerated assessment schedule from the normal biennial assessments. The action taken in response to the failure to establish a radioactive waste management basis is to be clearly documented in a formal communication (e.g., letter, memorandum). Such communication needs to identify the reason for the shutdown or curtailment, and identify what is necessary to initiate restart. Generally, development of a corrective action that is implemented through the corrective action system, as discussed in the preceding section, would be appropriate for responding to a shutdown or curtailment of activities at a high-level waste management facility. In concert with Core Requirement #6 of the Integrated Safety Management System, “Feedback and Improvement,” the Field Element Manager should use the audits and assessments to identify opportunities for improvement in the implementation of an activity or facility’s radioactive waste management basis. Identified improvement actions should be shared with like organizations and tracked by management to determine whether they are yielding the anticipated improvements. II-60 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Communicating the results of assessment upward in the DOE and contractor organization will allow the findings to reach the management level with the authority necessary to effect improvements. Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by a documented system of routine assessments to determine whether waste management activities and facilities are operating in accordance with an approved radioactive waste management basis that provides for graded limitations that can be placed on activities and operations that do not have, or are operating outside of, an approved radioactive waste management basis, including shutdown of the facility. Supplemental References: 1. DOE, 1996. Safety Management System Policy, DOE P 450.4, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 15, 1996. 2. DOE, 1997. Line Environment, Safety and Health Oversight, DOE P 450.5, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1997. 3. DOE, 1997. Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities Policy, DOE P 411.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1997. 4. DOE, 1997. Manual of Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities, DOE M 411.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 8, 1997. 5. DOE, 1999. Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 98-1, Department of Energy Plan to Address and Resolve Safety Issues Identified by Internal Independent Oversight, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March 10, 1999. DOE G 435.1-1 II-61 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements

II. J. Waste Acceptance. The following requirements are in addition to those in Chapter I of this Manual. (1) Technical and Administrative. Waste acceptance requirements for all high- level waste storage, pretreatment, or treatment facilities, operations, and activities shall specify, at a minimum, the following: (a) Allowable activities and/or concentrations of specific radionuclides; (b) Acceptable waste form that ensures the chemical and physical stability of the waste under conditions that might be encountered during transfer, storage, pretreatment, or treatment; (c) The basis, procedures, and levels of authority required for granting exceptions to the waste acceptance requirements shall be contained in each facility’s waste acceptance documentation. Each exception request shall be documented, including its disposition as approved or not approved; and (d) Pretreatment, treatment, storage, packaging, and other operations shall be designed and implemented in a manner that will ultimately comply with DOE/EM-0093, Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms, or DOE/RW-0351P, Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document, for non-vitrified immobilized high-level waste. Objective: The objectives of the waste acceptance requirements are to ensure that: high-level waste which is to be received at a facility contains only the radionuclides that the facility can safely manage, and only in concentrations and/or total activities which are compatible with the work to be undertaken in the facility; no high-level waste management activity jeopardizes compliance with waste disposal specifications, including DOE/EM-0093, Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (EM-WAPS), or DOE/RW-0351P, Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document (WASRD), for non-vitrified immobilized high-level waste; and formal procedures exist and a decision process is clear concerning the granting of exceptions to waste acceptance requirements. II-62 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Discussion: As discussed in the guidance to DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(6), the waste acceptance requirements establish the conditions for waste that facilities can safely receive. Therefore, the acceptance requirements for high-level waste storage, pretreatment, or treatment facilities, operations and activities include all requirements that high-level waste must meet to be acceptable for receipt, and for the subsequent storage, pretreatment, or treatment that it will undergo. In conducting the analyses for development of the DOE M 435.1-1 requirements, minimum acceptance requirements that must be specified in waste acceptance documentation for storage, pretreatment, and treatment facilities that must be specified in the waste acceptance documentation for these types of high-level waste management facilities in order for high-level waste to be safely handled were identified. Guidance on subrequirement (a) is provided below under Radionuclide Content or Concentration. Guidance on subrequirement (b) is provided under Waste Form. Guidance on subrequirement (c) is provided under Exceptions. Guidance on subrequirement (d) is provided under Waste Acceptance Product Specifications.

Development of Waste Acceptance Requirements. A facility receiving high-level waste for storage, pretreatment, or treatment is required to document the waste acceptance requirements for the facility. These requirements have their foundation in facility design capabilities such as volume, handling, weight, allowable contents, and radiological limits (i.e., criticality, radiation, contamination). Other requirements may include any number of regulations promulgated by the EPA, NRC, DOT, the host state, and DOE itself. The designer and operator of the facility receiving waste are likely to be most knowledgeable of the requirements and limitations of the facility and, therefore, are in the best position to establish the waste acceptance requirements or criteria that must be met for waste sent to the facility. DOE is planning to dispose high-level waste in a geologic repository consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. This plan was outlined in Secretary Hodel’s letter to President Reagan (DOE, 2/6/85), in which the Secretary recommended that “the Department proceed with plans and actions to dispose of defense waste in a commercial repository.” President Reagan’s finding, in accordance with Section 8 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (Presidential memo, 4/30/85), was that he found no basis to do otherwise and the Department has since implemented plans to dispose high-level waste in a geologic repository consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. The DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has issued the WASRD that describes the functions to be performed and the technical requirements for a Waste Acceptance System for accepting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste into the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System. From this document, the Office of Environmental DOE G 435.1-1 II-63 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Management has developed and implemented the EM-WAPS. Additional information on this document is discussed below under Waste Acceptance Product Specifications. Personnel responsible for high-level waste storage, pretreatment, or treatment facilities are to consider the EM-WAPS in developing waste acceptance criteria. Criteria to be considered include limiting the concentrations of species that may inhibit the formation of glass, organic compounds, and RCRA-listed hazardous wastes. The waste acceptance requirements and documentation for a facility receiving waste for storage, pretreatment, or treatment are prepared using a graded approach commensurate with the hazards associated with the management of the waste in the facility and the complexity of the activities to be conducted in the facility and upon the waste. The waste acceptance requirements document for a facility which receives large quantities of high-level waste, or high-level waste with highly variable contents, or both, may need to address many hazards and consequently may be more detailed. By contrast, an immobilized high-level waste storage facility that stores only EM-WAPS compliant waste may only need a minimal set of requirements.

The EM-WAPS, legislation, regulations, safety analysis reports, technical safety requirements, criticality analyses, and other appropriate safety or authorization basis documents are used to establish the waste acceptance criteria for facilities receiving high-level waste for storage, pretreatment, or treatment. These documents and analyses provide the basis for radioactivity (concentration and inventory) limits, allowable chemical content, waste form and/or packaging stability requirements, and other necessary waste canister or waste form requirements to ensure that the facilities design bases, performance, and operating bases are not compromised. Radionuclide Content or Concentration. Radiological limits for storage, pretreatment, and treatment facilities may be derived from a number of technical as well as administrative sources. In developing limits for radionuclide concentrations, personnel need to consider storage and treatment facility limitations, the EM-WAPS, safety analysis reports, and criticality analyses. At many high-level waste management sites, the storage and treatment facilities require the control of certain constituents or concentrations of species to ensure safe storage, pretreatment and treatment of the waste. Such limits, for example, support corrosion protection, prevent the accumulation of flammable or explosive species, limit the radionuclide content, or meet regulatory limits. Storage, pretreatment, and treatment facilities need to include appropriate waste acceptance requirements that protect their authorization or radioactive waste management basis. The current EM-WAPS for vitrified waste forms contains a number of specifications to be considered during the development of the waste acceptance requirements for high-level waste pretreatment and treatment facilities. These include Specification 1.5, “Hazardous Waste,” which precludes the inclusion of RCRA-listed components in the final high-level waste form, and II-64 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Specification 3.5, “Chemical Compatibility,” which requires that the waste producer ensure that the final waste form is compatible with the canister material. The safety analysis report or authorization basis for a high-level waste management facility may identify specific radionuclides that warrant special attention from a worker safety standpoint or an offsite release standpoint due to an upset or accident condition. Example: At Site Z the safety analysis for the high-level waste tank farm has established a limit on the concentration of Cs-137 in Type V Tanks to < 0.6Ci/gal. This limit is set for these tanks because they do not have secondary confinement. The limit ensures that the risk of the Cs-137 reaching the environment is comparable to the accepted risk associated with the waste in a double confinement tank. Any criticality analyses conducted in accordance with the Criticality Safety Program in conformance with DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.1.E.(4), may also result in limitations on acceptance of fissile radionuclides. These limitations should be included in the waste acceptance requirements, as appropriate.

Waste Form. Waste acceptance requirements specify that wastes received at the facility are in a physically/chemically stable form. Waste acceptance requirements for a high-level waste pretreatment or treatment facility need to specify the physical and chemical precautions and conditions under which untreated waste can be received at the facility so that facility safety and effective operations will not be compromised. Any physical or chemical stabilization of waste prior to transfer to a facility receiving waste for storage, pretreatment, or treatment needs to be done according to a systematic process that includes consideration of bench-scale testing and verification that the process is producing satisfactory results. The waste acceptance requirements need to specify waste streams, classes, or categories of waste requiring application of specific physical or chemical stabilization methods, as determined by the results of safety analyses. Acceptable waste streams or waste forms are specified by the waste acceptance requirements. The waste acceptance requirements also need to identify any of the following specific technical requirements that must be included to ensure that waste received at any storage, pretreatment, or treatment facility is consistent with the operating/authorization basis of the facility: C allowable heat generation rates; C any specific radionuclides or chemical or hazardous materials that are prohibited from acceptance at the facility. This may include pyrophoric materials, explosives, or materials that might cause violent reactions during storage, pretreatment, or treatment; and DOE G 435.1-1 II-65 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements C any specific requirements associated with acceptance of high-level waste needing out-of-the-ordinary attention for receipt, storage, pretreatment, or treatment. Exceptions. Waste acceptance requirements are established to ensure that facilities can safely manage the waste received for storage, treatment, or disposal. Waste acceptance requirements need to be documented, contain clear and precise criteria specifying the radionuclide limits in the form of contents or concentrations that can be accepted, the limitations and prohibitions on waste streams received, and the limits, prohibitions, or instructions concerning any other technical information to assure that the waste is compatible with the safety basis of the facility, and which will result in acceptable waste at subsequent steps in managing the high-level waste. Thus, exceptions or deviations to waste acceptance criteria must not be routine and must be carefully reviewed and documented. The procedures for granting exceptions need to clearly state the entire process for requesting an exception, describe acceptable bases for granting exceptions, and identify any additional information that is needed to supplement the documentation normally provided for waste transfers. The approval process is clearly stated, including identification of the officials who have the authority to approve the exception. Example: At Site Y, the transfer of a high-level waste solution that is non-compliant with one or more of the receiving facility-specific waste acceptance requirements may be requested, and allowed, because analysis concludes that blending of the transferred waste with the existing tank inventory will result in the blended tank waste being compliant with the receiving tank’s waste acceptance requirements. The Site Y procedure includes an administrative process that requires a technical basis for the proposed exception and requires the appropriate reviews, approvals and documentation.

Waste Acceptance Product Specifications. This subrequirement is intended to ensure that any high-level waste management activities such as storage, pretreatment, treatment, packaging, and any other operations shall be conducted in a manner that will facilitate the acceptance of the final immobilized high-level waste form by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The current EM-WAPS include are the technical specifications that waste form producers are required to meet in order to ensure acceptance of their vitrified high-level waste into the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System. The Office of Environmental Management (EM) and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management have agreed the Office of Environmental Management is to provide the final waste form specifications to the waste form producers and the Office of Environmental Management will ensure that the EM-WAPS is consistent with the technical baselines as defined in the WASRD. The EM-WAPS governs all elements of the final, canistered, waste form which includes the borosilicate waste glass, the stainless steel canister, and the sealed canistered waste form. II-66 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements As waste form requirements for immobilized high-level waste were developed, the Department and its operating contractors selected borosilicate glass as a reference waste form. Several high- level waste sites subsequently identified a vitrified waste form for their sites, and two high-level waste vitrification facilities are currently operating to produce canisters of borosilicate waste- glass. The EM-WAPS was written to such borosilicate glass specifications. Recently, however, several new high-level waste streams have been identified. One such high-level waste stream is the proposed insertion of small immobilized surplus plutonium containers within a standard high- level waste canister. Molten vitrified high-level waste is then poured around these plutonium cans yielding a matrix immobilized waste form. This composite high-level waste stream is considered high-level waste and can be disposed as such. Another proposed high-level waste stream results from immobilizing the waste resulting from reprocessing certain spent nuclear fuels using an electro-metallurgical process. In this case a non-vitrified waste form will result. In both these cases a product that adheres to all the existing requirements of DOE/EM-0093, Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms, is not possible. The exact waste form specifications that these two proposed waste forms must meet are unknown at this time; however, they will be incorporated in DOE/RW-0351P, Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document. That document is therefore cited for those unique immobilized high-level waste forms that cannot meet the requirements of DOE/EM-0093, Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (EM-WAPS). The waste acceptance process requires demonstration of compliance with the EM-WAPS via four different documents, each prepared by the waste producers, reviewed and accepted by the Office of Environmental Management, and provided to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. These four documents are: the Waste Form Compliance Plan (WCP); the Waste Form Qualification Report (WQR); production records and; the storage and shipping records. The producers included in Revision 2 of the EM-WAPS are Savannah River Site, the West Valley Demonstration Project, and Hanford. Decisions on a final waste form at the Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory have not progressed to the point that it has been included in the current EM-WAPS.

The EM-WAPS provides detailed specifications that must be met by the producers in order for the final waste form to be acceptable to the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System for disposal. Amplification on these specifications is considered beyond the scope of this guidance. Reference is made to existing Waste Compliance Plans for Defense Waste Processing Facility and the West Valley Demonstration Project, both of which provide a detailed description of the methods by which they comply with each specifications. Following are the titles of each of the summaries specification within the EM-WAPS: • Waste Form Specifications; • Canister Specifications; • Canistered Waste Form Specifications; DOE G 435.1-1 II-67 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements • Quality Assurance Specification; and • Documentation and Other Requirements. Example: At Site Z, a vitrification operation’s analysis concluded the potential for a significant savings in plant operating labor costs if the welding of canisters could be delayed until the vitrification melter operations were shut down for maintenance, which was normally every 30 days. Thus the proposal was to stage unwelded canisters in the facility, for as long as 30 days, until melter operations personnel were free to make the closure welds. However, review of the facility’s Waste Compliance Plan, Waste Qualification Reports, and the EM-WAPS determined that there was a risk that organic contaminants may enter the open canisters that would be held for welding. Such contamination would violate the EM-WAPS, Specification 3.4, Organic Materials Specification, and the plan was rejected. Compliance with these requirements is demonstrated by waste acceptance requirements that are well documented and contain clear and precise criteria specifying: allowable activities and concentrations; acceptance forms; a clear description of the process for obtaining an exception to the acceptance criteria; and operations shall be implemented in a manner that does not jeopardize the final waste form’s ability to meet the EM-WAPS. Supplemental References: 1. DOE, 1999, Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document, Revision 3, DOE/RW- 0351P, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., April 1999. 2. DOE, 1996. Waste Acceptance Product Specification for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms, Revision 2, DOE/EM-0093, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1996. 3. DOE, 1994. DWPF Waste Form Compliance Plan, Revision 4, WSRC-IM-91-116-0, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1994. 4. DOE, 1997. Waste Form Compliance Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project High-Level Waste Form, Revision 12, WVDP-185, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1997. 5. DOE, 1985. An Evaluation of Commercial Repository Capacity for the Disposal of Defense High-Level Waste, DOE/DP/0020/1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., June 1985. II-68 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements 6. Hodel, 1985. Secretary Hodel to President Reagan, memorandum, Use of Commercial Repository for Disposal of Defense High-Level Nuclear Waste, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 6, 1985. 7. Reagan, 1985. President Reagan to Secretary Herrington, memorandum, Disposal of Defense Waste in a Commercial Repository, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1985.

II. J.(2) Evaluation and Acceptance. The receiving facility shall evaluate waste for acceptance, including confirmation that the technical and administrative requirements have been met. A process for the disposition of non-conforming wastes shall be established. Objective: The objective of this requirement is to establish a process by which a facility receiving high-level waste for storage, pretreatment, or treatment determines that the waste being transferred is acceptable in accordance with the waste acceptance requirements and for that process to specifically address the management of waste that does not conform with all of the requirements when it is received at the facility. Discussion: This requirement makes it the responsibility of officials at a facility to which waste is transferred to confirm that waste is in compliance with the established waste acceptance requirements, and also to provide a mechanism by which the officials confirm that waste can be accepted and safely managed at the facility. Evaluation and Acceptance. The methodology for implementing the evaluation and acceptance of high-level waste needs to be flexible and defined on a facility-specific basis. The complete process and procedures, including the responsibilities of the generating facility, need to be clearly documented so that both the generator and the facility receiving the waste understand the process that will be used. As with the implementation of other parts of the DOE M 435.1-1, this requirement is implemented using the graded approach. Facilities receiving high-level waste from many generators may need to implement more detailed waste evaluation and acceptance processes than a facility receiving waste from a few generators. The evaluation and confirmation process consists of one or more of the following approaches that can contribute to high confidence that the waste presented meets the waste acceptance requirements of the facility receiving waste for storage, pretreatment, or treatment: DOE G 435.1-1 II-69 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements C Testing, sampling, and analysis of the contents of a representative sample of waste packages as they are received at the facility; C Testing and analysis of a number of samples taken by the generator facility; C Detailed review of sampling and analysis data generated by the sending facility or an independent laboratory employed by the generating facility; C Audit, surveillance, or observation of the sender’s waste characterization activities and processes and waste certification programs. Testing, sampling, and analysis of the contents of a representative sample of waste is complicated by the fact that additional risk is posed because of the process required to take and analyze a liquid sample. Therefore, consideration is given to the additional risk and potential worker dose when deciding which approach is appropriate. Likewise, analysis of the samples taken by the generator may involve additional risk, and also may be expensive to implement. If this method is employed, samples which are representative, either statistically or correlated with generator profiles, need to be obtained for analysis. This sampling includes samples from the generators sending the greatest amount of waste to the facility for storage, pretreatment, or treatment; or samples containing the critical radionuclides as identified in the waste acceptance requirements.

The use of detailed reviews of the sampling and analysis data gathered by others needs to include an evaluation of the methodologies used for collecting the sample, maintaining the integrity of the sample and data (e.g., through a chain of custody), and performing chemical analyses and radioanalyses. As above, the samples collected need to be representative of the waste, either statistically or with a bias towards large generators or generators of significant radionuclides (i.e., those that are most limiting for the storage, pretreatment, or treatment). The use of assessments, audits, or reviews to verify compliance of the waste generators’ certification programs with acceptance requirements are conducted on a regular schedule. The documentation of the verification process includes review of the organization and authorities; frequency of assessments; methods to be employed; the information that will be documented as a result; and the qualifications of personnel. Example: At Site K, DOE and contractor management teams for the high-level waste program conduct a quarterly management assessment of waste generators’ waste certification programs to ensure their programs are compliant with the current tank farm waste acceptance requirements. This assessment program is in addition to the receiving facility’s (high-level waste tank farm) monthly audit program that reviews high-level waste generator sampling, transfer, packaging, and laboratory analysis procedures, and training requirements. II-70 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Non-Conforming High-Level Waste. Facilities receiving waste for storage, pretreatment, or treatment must have a documented process to be used in the event a non-conforming waste is received. Facility procedures need to discuss how non-conforming waste will be segregated from acceptable waste, the process for notifying the sender of the non-conformance, and the acceptable methods for dispositioning the non-conforming waste. The process includes prior notice to the waste sender of the actions to be taken by the facility receiving the waste and the sender’s obligations, particularly regarding the cost of the actions, to support the disposition of the non-conforming waste. Example: At Site X, a batch of supernate is transferred from a reprocessing canyon to a high-level waste storage tank, after which it is determined that the transferred batch is non-compliant with the receiving tank due to its low concentration of corrosion inhibitors (nitrites). Upon receipt and discovery of the non-compliance, an analysis indicates that even after blending of the transferred waste with the nitrite-rich waste in the tank, the blended waste is non-compliant with the waste acceptance requirements of the receiving tank. This condition will require the addition of sodium nitrite to the receiving tank to correct the molar concentration of the supernate. The cost for the addition of sodium nitrite is charged to the reprocessing canyon management.

Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by the waste acceptance requirements for a high-level waste management facility, including a process for evaluation and acceptance of incoming waste, to ensure that the acceptance criteria of the facility receiving the waste are met. The process includes one of, or a combination of: (1) testing, sampling, and analysis of representative samples of incoming waste; (2) testing, sampling, and analysis of samples of waste taken at the generator facility; (3) evaluation of testing, sampling, and analysis of data provided by the generator; or (4) audits, reviews, surveillances, or observations of generator waste certification programs and characterization activities. Additionally, waste acceptance requirements for storage, pretreatment, or treatment facilities need to have documented procedures if waste that does not conform to the waste acceptance criteria is received at a facility. Supplemental References: 1. DOE, 1999, Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document, Revision 3, DOE/RW- 0351P, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., April 1999. 2. DOE, 1996. Waste Acceptance Product Specification for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms, Revision 2, DOE/EM-0093, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1996. 3. DOE, 1994. DWPF Waste Form Compliance Plan, Revision 4, WSRC-IM-91-116-0, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1994. DOE G 435.1-1 II-71 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements 4. DOE, 1997. Waste Form Compliance Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project High-Level Waste Form, Revision 12, WVDP-185, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1997. II-72 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements II. K. Waste Generation Planning. The following requirements are in addition to those in Chapter I of this Manual. (1) Life-Cycle Planning. Prior to waste generation, planning shall be performed to address the entire life cycle for all high-level waste streams. (2) Waste With No Identified Path to Disposal. High-level waste streams with no identified path to disposal shall be generated only in accordance with approved conditions which, at a minimum, shall address: (a) Programmatic need to generate the waste; (b) Characteristics and issues preventing the disposal of the waste; (c) Safe storage of the waste until disposal can be achieved; and (d) Activities and plans for achieving final disposal of the waste (compliance with DOE/EM-0093, Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms). Objective: The objective of this requirement is to provide for the disposal of all high-level waste that is generated by ensuring that: the specific waste management facilities necessary for safe management of the waste from the time it is generated up to and including its disposal are identified prior to the generation of a new high-level waste stream; plans are developed for resolving issues that prevent disposal, and for safe, long-term storage for high-level waste with no path to disposal; and sites are discouraged from generating high-level waste that does not have an identified path to disposal. Discussion:

For purposes of this requirement, the term disposal has essentially the same meaning as compliance with the DOE/EM-0093, Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (EM-WAPS). The EM-WAPS was prepared by the Office of Environmental Management (EM) to document the applicable specifications for producing a high- level waste form acceptable to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for disposal. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, charges the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management with responsibility for management and disposal of high-level waste. The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has prepared DOE/RW-0351P, Waste DOE G 435.1-1 II-73 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Acceptance System Requirements Document (WASRD), which includes the waste acceptance requirements on which the EM-WAPS is based. The linkages described among these applicable documents and organizations are consistent with the related requirement of this Manual (Section II.S., Disposal) that high-level waste be disposed of “…in accordance with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended.” In the guidance for this requirement, the term disposal is, therefore, interchangeable with compliance with the EM-WAPS. Life-cycle planning. Planning, prior to generating high-level waste, is intended to address high-level waste streams that have not yet been generated. High-level waste streams that are first generated after issuance of the Order are subjected to this requirement. Waste that has already been and continues to be generated is addressed in the site-wide program requirements (see Section I.2.F.(1)). Waste generator planning is closely linked to characterization, certification, and transfer requirements (see Sections II.L, II.M, and II.N) which comprise the waste generator requirements program described in DOE M 435.1-1 (see Chapter I, Section I.2.F.(7)). Example 1: A batch of spent fuel stored at Site X is deteriorating and reprocessing is necessary to reduce risk. The reprocessing will begin two years after issuance of DOE O 435.1 in an existing reprocessing canyon. The spent fuel is different from that previously reprocessed in the canyon, and necessary process changes will produce a waste stream unlike those previously produced. Therefore, the waste generation planning requirements of DOE O 435.1 must be applied. Example 2: A reprocessing canyon that was operating when DOE O 435.1 went into effect continued to operate. Neither the spent fuel input nor the process chemistry or equipment was changed. In this case, the high-level waste generator planning requirements would not apply. The continued reprocessing would be addressed by the site-wide planning requirements (see Sections I.2.F.(1) and II.E). Planning needs to address the life-cycle of high-level waste from generation through compliance with the EM-WAPS, including the interim steps of high-level waste management. This can be accomplished by preparing a high-level waste stream life cycle description and reviewing it with managers of the facility(ies) that are expected to manage the high-level waste. The high-level waste stream life cycle description is a sequential description of each step in high-level waste treatment, storage, and transfer to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. It provides sufficient information to determine what treatment and storage capabilities are needed so that their availability can be determined. The high-level waste generator needs to confirm with operators of each management facility to be used that based on the current knowledge of the high-level waste stream characteristics and planned facility capacity the high-level waste stream can be managed by the facility.

II-74 DOE G 435.1-1 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements Example: The new Site X waste stream described in the first example above will be subjected to chemical dissolution and separations. The high-level waste resulting from the process will be solidified. At various stages in this series of operations, temporary or long-term storage will likely be required waste generation planning will include preparation of a high-level waste stream life cycle description consisting of identification and explanation of each of these steps and explanation of the interfaces between the steps. The generator of the waste holds discussions with operators of facilities that may be able to manage the waste and incorporates relevant information on waste management needs and the availability of facilities to meet those needs in written plans. A measure to determine whether a high-level waste stream has an identified path to compliance with the EM-WAPS is the availability of the necessary facilities and operations. A planned facility is considered to be available if it has been authorized (e.g., a line item in a Congressional appropriation or equivalent approval for design and construction). For purposes of planning for compliance with the EM-WAPS by a high-level waste stream, a facility or capabilities that are part of a program or strategic plan, but have not been authorized, are not considered available. If a planned or available facility is canceled, the generator site will need to revise the planning for the life cycle of the high-level waste. An alternate path to compliance with the EM-WAPS needs to be identified and documented, or approval to generate the high-level waste needs to be obtained from the cognizant Field Element Manager as required in DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(19), and plans need to be made for ultimate compliance with the EM-WAPS. The generator is responsible for ensuring that high-level waste is not generated unless there is due consideration of ultimate compliance with the EM-WAPS. However, it is not the objective of this requirement to prohibit, under all conditions, the generation of high-level waste that does not have an identified, achievable path to compliance with the EM-WAPS. In meeting the DOE O 435.1 planning requirement, it is appropriate for high-level waste management organizations to provide assistance to the generator in determining the high-level waste management path, particularly in cases where the high-level waste management organization may utilize offsite storage facilities for post-immobilization storage. Once the waste is determined to comply with the EM-WAPS, storage conditions are maintained to ensure continued compliance with the EM-WAPS. Waste streams that do not satisfy the EM-WAPS. There are instances where programmatic needs may necessitate the generation of high-level waste without an identified path to compliance with the EM-WAPS. In these instances, the Field Element Manager must ensure development of a process for identifying generation of high-level waste with no path to compliance with the EM- WAPS and approving the conditions under which such high-level waste can be generated (DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(19)). This process is intended to heighten the awareness of high-level waste generators that a long-term commitment is made with the generation of such a high-level waste. The long-term commitment arises from the potential for prolonged storage of

DOE G 435.1-1 II-75 7-09-99 Chapter II -High-Level Waste Requirements this high-level waste and from the work necessary to resolve issues that prevent compliance with the EM-WAPS. Under the current DOE high-level waste management configuration, there is a process for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management acceptance of high-level waste that complies with the EM-WAPS. As noted above, the EM-WAPS is based on requirements such as those in the WASRD. In addition, there are facilities for pretreatment, treatment, and storage of some high-level waste that will be needed prior to compliance with the EM-WAPS. The conditions for generating a high-level waste without an identified path to compliance with the EM-WAPS include various evaluations and considerations that involve both the high-level waste generator and high-level waste management organizations. The decision to proceed with the activity generating the high-level waste needs to consider the following: (a) The need to generate the high-level waste. There needs to be a clear identification of the programmatic mission being served that results in the generation of high- level waste with no identified path to compliance with the EM-WAPS. Alternate means of accomplishing the mission without generating the high-level waste need to also be discussed. (b) High-level waste characteristics which prevent compliance with the EM-WAPS. The reasons that a high-level waste cannot comply with the EM-WAPS need to be identified to support development of plans for ultimately achieving compliance with the EM-WAPS. These may be technical or programmatic reasons. For example, high-level waste needs to be vitrified in a borosilicate glass matrix (Specification 1.1) in order to comply with the EM-WAPS. If an appropriate vitrification facility is not available, the lack of such a facility would be identified as a reason the high-level waste does not have a path to compliance with the EM- WAPS. Similarly, if a high-level waste is categorized as mixed high-level waste because of the presence of a listed hazardous waste and approval for delisting has not been granted by EPA, that would be cited as a reason for no path forward to compliance with the EM-WAPS (Specification 1.5). (c) Adequate containment capabilities and facilities for the expected duration of the storage period.