ML18059B053

Final Rept Evaluation of Four Licensed & Operating Nuclear Power Plant Sites in Michigan for Co-Location of Low-Level Radwaste Isolation Facility.

ML18059B053
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	05/24/1988
From:	ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML18059B052	List: ML18059B053
References
NUDOCS 9406140037
Download: ML18059B053 (128)

Text

,-"' - . -**-~ ----- ------ --*-***-~-..--****-*-

Palisades Plant Docket No. 50-255 FILE: 703-0 l FINAL REPORT

..J An Evaluation of the Four

. Licensed_. ~.d. Op~ra.ting -~uclear Pow~r Plant Sites. in Michigan for Co*Locatiqn of a * *** -

Low-Level 'lll Radioactive Waste Isolation Facility

.. . I' May24, 1988

. _;~~:_~~-* ..'* ~

-~

. */.'. ,*~-"'

. : ~- .... ,;: .

PREPARED FOR:

MICHIGAN-LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASI:E AUTHORITY DEPARI'l\.iENT OF MANAGEMENI' AND BUDGET P.O. BOX 30026 HOLLISTER BUILDING LANSING, MI 48909 PREPARED BY:

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 2000 HOGBACK ROAD SUITE 2 I ANN ARBOR. MICffiGAN 48105

~----------------------------------------- ~~

Table of contents

• * *Executive Summary

• llllG ES-l Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Information 1-:l 1.2 Statement of the Problem 1-2 1.3 Scope of Work 1-2 Section 2

• General Information 2.1. ,. ....... General PlantJnformation *.~"*"""'* .,. .. , . 2-1 Section 3 Siting Crit~

3.1 Criteria 3-1

. 3.2 Objectives 3-44 Section 4 Conclusions 4-1 Section 5 Bibliography .5-1

. Appendices Appendix A Worksheets AppendixB Michigan Department of Natural Resources

. Correspondence *

• Appendix C .Draft Siting Criteria (February 15, 1988)

• List of FiltJlreS Figure 2-1 General LOcation Map of the Four Licensed Nuclear Power Plants **2-1 List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary Table of Michigan Criteria ES-2 Table ES-2 Summary Table of Federal Criteria ES-2 Table ES-3 Summary Table of Michigan & Federal Objectives ES-2

'//

... (l

. EXECUTIVE SUM:MARY l

.The "Low Level Radioactive Waste Authority Act." Act 204. Public Acts (PA) of 1987. established the Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority.

The primary function of the Authority is to safely manage low-level radioactive waste within. the state of Michigan and to ensure the safety of .

Michigan's citizens and the protection of its environment..

Among its many other responsibilities. the Authority is charged :with the duty of reporting to the governor anci th~_ state. legislature- o:p. *the feasibility and .

desirability-0f"co4o-ca:tton""'-of*a:.iow~Ievel .. radioactlve waste disposal site at or adjacent to one of Michigan's licensed and operating nuclear power plants.

To facilitate its evaluation. the Authority chose to use the draft* siting

.objectives and criteria found in the February 15. 198.8. Draft Siting .Criteria report. The 9 objectives and 31 criteria are the result of recommendations from individuals appointed by the Authority to serve on the Siting Criteria Advisory Committee (SCAC). The objectives and criteria were drafted to ensure the public health and safety and the protection of the state's environment.

To aid in the detenlunation of the suitability of the power plant sites and the adjacent areas for the location of this type of disposal facility, the* Authority

• also .consulted the federal *performance objectives and technical criteria established in the .Code. of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 10 Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste." The 4 specific objectives are found in Subpart C (Sections 61.40-61.44)

• "P.erformance Objectives," while the .-10 criteria are found in Subpart D (Section 61.50) '.'Technical Requirements for Land Disposal Facilities~"

l Using the Draft *Siting Obj~ctives an.d Criteria* of February 15, 1.988 ~d the .* I federal , performance standards and criteria. Environmental Resources

.Management. Inc. (ERM) evaluated the four existing .nuclear power *plant sites for their potential as a low-level radioactive waste disposal site. .

The four power plants are located on shoreline property along the Great Lakes. The Consumers -Power Company* owns and operates two of* the facilities, the Big Rock Point facility near Charlevoix in northern Michigan and the Palisades plant north of Benton Harbor/St. Joseph. Another *facility located to the south of the Benton Harbor/St. Joseph area is the D. C. Cook facility which is owned and operated by the Indiana and Michigan Power Company. The fourth facility is the Enrico Fermi II facility. This facility is own~d and operated by the Detroit Edison Company and is located south of

• Detroit near Monroe. Michigan.

ES-1

Information on the four sites was reviewed at the Radiological Health Division of the Michigan Department of Public Health. Final Safety Analysis Reports.

Safety Evaluation Reports. and Final Environmental Statements among other documents were made available to ERM to aid in the evaluation *process. In addition. individuals at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources provided information particular to each site.

Some of the criteria developed by the Authority are exclusionary, meaning that any disposal site-* must meet or exceed the criterion for it to be considered acceptable. The remainder are favorability criteria. meaning that a site meeting or exceeding the requirements would be given a preference.

When evaluating the sites for a favorability criterion. a system was used to

• rankthe sites*tefa.tive**ta*:*one*.aiiother. ori.:.a:scale .of.1.:;:: best to 4 :;: : worst... F.or-.

some of the criteria. adequate information was

• not available to allow any

• determiilation.

• These were labeled inconclusive. -

A summary of these findings is shown in Tables ES-1, ES-2. and ES-3.

• Oetailed information .about each of the sites relative* to the siting* objectives, .

. siting* criteria. and the federal performance *objectives and criteria. can be found in Section 3.0 of this ~port.

Given the goals of the Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority and the information reviewed in this study, it is our* professional opinion that a low-level radioactive waste facility cannot be safely located at or adjacent to any of the four nuclear power plant sttes in Michigan. The primary reasons that support thif) opinion are.the proximity of the sites to wetlands. the .high permeability of the soils in each area. and the difficulty of predicting the long-term stability of surface. topography for a Great Lakes shoreline location.

• These loca~ons offer little or no natural protection to preverit release of

• radioactive waste materials to the environment. The satisfaction of long-term performance goals at any of the four sites can not be ensured in

• that none of the sites c;an . be considered environmentally . isolated and thereby capable of complete containment of all radioactive waste materials.

Although it may be *possible to design and construct a facility at or adjacent to one of the power plant sites that would be capable of withstanding the forces associated with a shoreline envir.onment. specifically those of wind-driven flooding and seiches. the uncertainty of the stability of a near-shore environment for the 500 year life of the facility is such that siting a waste facility is not recommended at the plant site locations themselves. Other areas adjacent to or near the plant sites may be more suitable for locating a facility of this type.

A complete discussion of* the conclusions of this study can be found in Section Four of this report.

ES-2.

TABLE ES-1 Summary Table of Michigan Criteria I

Big Rocle .D.C. Cook Pallaadea Fermi II Point

.EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA PASS PASS PASS PASS I-A Incorporated within city _ _ _ _ _ _ _

PASS PASS PASS INC.

1-B Aaaured 3000 ft Isolation dlatanco_ _ _ _ _

II-A 1 mil* or leas from fault-_ _.:__,_ _ __ . PASS PASS PASS PASS Earthquake of VIII or more ( m M J - - - -. PASS PASS PASS PASS 11*8 PASS PASS PASS FAIL 11-C 500 year f l o o d p l a l n - - - - - - - - - -

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL 11-D lnten.. geol~9lc procesau._ _ _ _ _ _ .. *** ....

FAIL PASS* PASS. FAIL lll*A .. Water table tftel~.--------

111*8 Soll thlc:lcneaa___, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ INC. FAIL FAIL FAIL INC. FAIL FAIL INC.

111-C . Radionuclide travel tlme *.- - - - - - - - - -

INC. FAIL FAIL INC.

111-0 Water travel t l m a - - - - * - - - - - -

PASS PASS PASS PASS 111-E . Sole source a q u l f

• r * - - - - - - - -

111-F Ground watar discharge_,_ _ _ _ _ _ __ PASS PASS .PASS PASS FAIL PASS PASS FAIL

• . 111-G Ponding and drainage capablllty*- ..--*-**_ _

111-H

• Distance from Great Lakes (not appllcable). __ _

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL Vil-A Wetts.nds araaa..--~-*----

PASS FAIL PASS FAIL Vll-B IX*A Environmental areas and high risk area&----*

Comply with federal l a w s - - - - - - - -

Total number failed* or Inconclusive 6 5 10 Big Rock *D.c. Cook Pallaadea Fermi II

.Point FAVOBAB!LITT CRITERIA 1 (A) 2 (A) 3 (A) 4 (A) 1-C Population g r o w t h - - * - - - - -

111_, Simple hydrogeology._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 4 (NA) 2 (A) 1 (A) 3 (A) 2 (NA)* 3 (NA) 4 (NA) 1 (NA) 111.J Overlying a q u l f e r a - - - * - - - - -

(A) (A) (A) (A) 111-K Public watar a u p p l Y - - - * - - - - - - - -

C (A) 2 (A) 1 (A) 3 (A)

IV*A Transportation Accldant&..---------

1 (A) 3 (A) 2 (A) C (A)

IV*B Exposure from acctdent&.-------

V*A Meteorology_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_._ (A) (A) (A) (A) 2 (A) 3 (A) 4 (A) 1 (A)

VI-A Natural ,.sources.-. *-*

INC. INC. INC. INC.

Vl!-C Wildlife conservation areas--*----

C (A) 3 (A) 2 (A) 1 (A)

Vll-0 Visual l n t r u a l o n - - - - - - - - - - - -

Vl!-E Prime farmland removat. ____...__..:.____ _ 2 (A) 3 (A) C (A) 1 (A)

VIII-A Approved development. ______ .:.. _______ _ 3 (NA) 2 (A) 1 (A) C (NA) 2 (A) 3 (A) C (A) 1 (A)

Vlll*B Disruption of economv--------------

Vlll-C Preference to communities that -nt faclllty. __

• Total number of not acceptable or Inconclusive 4 2 2 4 LEGEND INC.*lnoono&ualw* Aanlllng 1a8*t **Wont .NAaNot Acoe,itabl*

'* - ** - for ewatu-* A*Accept&ble

TABLE Summary Table of Federal Criteria ES-2

~-. .' .. ' . '. '. ~* ' *... . ' .. * -. .. . .:._ .. : *. ,,

Big Rock D.C. Cook PallaadH Fermi II Point PASS PASS PASS PASS eapab1a ot b81n11 charactltrl:r.ed, mOdeled, *et..

PASS PASS PASS FAIL II Population growth PASS PASS PASS PASS m Natural resource FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL IV Wall drained; pondlng and flood*tr. .. '

PASS PASS PASS PASS v Mlnlmlmd up81raam drainage PASS FAIL PASS FAIL VI Depth to water ta bl*

PASS PASS PASS VII Ground water discharge

- PASS VIII Tectonic proca...._

IX Burt.ca geologic procaaaas.

- *PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL x Nearby tacllltlea or actlvltln INC. INC. INC. INC.

Total number failed or lnconclualva 4 3 3 5

• .1t-------.....;...;;;.LE;;..G;;..E;;..N;.;.D;;...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..,

. INC.

• lnconclUm*

• 5/88

TABLE. ES-3

• Summary Table of Michigan and Federal Objectives Big Rock

• D.C. Cook Pallaad** Fermi II

~ *.: *,

. .. .Point .... ..... , .. ....

MICHIGAN OBJECTIVES **

3 of 3 3 of 3 3 Of 3 .. 1 of 3 Avoid population centers and human conflicts......:.

3 of .. 3 of .. 3 of .. 2 of 4 U Avoid areas subject to geologic/flood hazard-UI Protect surface *and ground wamr quality. ___ _ .. of 11 7 af 11 1. of 11 5 of 11 IV Minimize tranaportatlon problema.. _ _ _ __ 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 2 V Protect air quality_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 of 1 1 of 1 1 of 1 1 of 1 1 of 1 1 of 1 1 of 1 1 of 1 VI Avoid rHourc:e development confllct... a_,_,*-*- - -

VII Avoid conflicts with land U*-------- 3 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 2 of 5

.VIII Avoid conflict with aoclal and economic goals 1 of 2 2*of 2. 2 of 2' 1 of 2*

IX of communlty~------------

Comply wl_th federal lawa__,_ ..._,._,* - * - - - - - -

Big Rock D.C. CoOk Pallaadea *~rml 11*

FEDERAL OBJECTIVES Point I Aasu1'9 protection* of population-.-.** - - - - - " " " "

U ** Assure protection of Individual* from lntruaion_. t---'---t---'----1---'---+---'---1 DI Aasu,. protection of Individual* , , , ,

. IV

• during operation.~-------------*' t-------t-----+--------+----------1 FAIL* FAIL FAIL Assure atablllty of site after cloaul'e*

' LEGEND

-' a paa- du* to eagln*rtng of facutty

• • c.rtterton not used tor evaluation 5/88 ~

---

~

SECTION ONE Introduction

1. 1 Backgtgund Information The FederaI Low-Level Radioactive Waste *Policy Act (Public Law 99-240) gave each state the responsibility to safely manage the low-level radioactive waste generated *within its borders. On December 30, 1982, the Michigan Legislature passed....,.and-...Govemo:r,,Milliken.*.signed-*into law,,Act* 460 of 1982,.

allowing Michigan to enter into the Midwest Inter5tate L6w-:r..evel Radioactive*

• waste Compact Commission (Midwest . C_ompact). The Midwest Compact includes the states of Michigan,. Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri,

'Minnesota and Iowa. It was formed to help establish a low-level radioactive *

.waste disposal . facility within its boundaries. for. the use of all Midwest

• Compact members. .: . * . . . ** . . .. :

After extensive study and review,* the Midwest Compact selected the State of

• Michigan to be the *first state responsible for selecting, constructing and

• operating a facility for Midwest Compact member states. In December 1987, the Michigan Legislature .enacted .Act 204 of 1987 which created the Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority (the Authority). The

• Authority's primary objective is to safely manage low-level radioactive waste within the state. * ,. * *

• Among its many responstbnlties*. the Authority is charged with . developing .

siting criteria for a low~level radioactive. waste disposal facility. *To aid the Authority in developing* the criteria, *a . Siting Criteria Advisory Committee *

(SCAC). was formed to recommend to the Authority specific siting objectives and criteria that- protect the health .and .safety. of Michigan's citizens and *

• . protect the quality of Michigan's environment. Based on these

. recommendations, the Authority developed a draft report on siting criteria dated February 15, 1988. This report consists of 9 siting objectives and 31 siting criteria. All proposed. sites are ..to be evaluated against these state objectives and criteria to deteniline the suitability of the sites in providing an adequate natural protection barrier. Federal performance standards .and siting .criteria must also be .met. A copy of the February 15, 1988 Draft Siting Criteria report is included in this report as AppendiX C. The .Draft Siting Criteria report also includes the sections of Title 10 Part 61 CFR which contain the federal performance objectives and siting criteria ...

The Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority, in preparation for a report to the Governor and Legislature required by Section 21 of Act 204, Public Acts of 1987, requested assistance in evaluating the suitability of locating a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at or adjacent to an 1- 1

.f1 existing nuclear .power plant site. Environmental Resources Management.

Inc. _(ERM) proposed to evaluate the suitability of .sites on- March 21. 1988.

and was awarded the contract on March 25. 1988. Work was performed and completed as outlined in the Management Consultant Services Contract dated March 25. 1988.

1.2 Statement of the Problem The Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority was seeking consultant assistan~~ for a report it must submit to the governor. and state legislature on the feasibility and desirability of locating a low-level radioactive waste disposal* facility, at* or adjacent*_ to.. one. or the* four: existing . licens.ed. and ...

operating nuclear power plants. Each of the plant sites required evaluation and review to determine the satisfaction of the federal performance objectives and criteria and the Michigan draft siting criteria and objectives dated February 15. 1988. In addition *. professional recommendations and opinions were solicited regarding the suitability of such a facility being located at a nuclear power plant site. -

The primary objective of the draft siting criteria is to protect the health and safety of Michigan's citizens and to protect the quality of Michigan's environment. Generally speaking. a site for a low:-level radioactive waste disposal facility should have natural features such that waste breaching any of the engineered barriers would be naturally isolated and contained at the site.

1.3 Scope ofWork In order to evaluate each site for its conformance with *the federal siting criteria listed in Subpart D. Technical Requirements for Land Disposal Facilities" (Section 61.50). and the 31 criteria proposed by the Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority in its publication of February 15. 1988 entitled Draft Siting Criteria. ERM was asked to review the information that was available at the Radiological Health Division of the Michigan. Department of Public Health (MDPH) in Lansing. MDPH has Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs). Safety .Evaluation Reports. and Final Envtronmental Statements on file for each of the power plants developed and published as part of the

.Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) requirements for licensing. Because Big Rock Point was licensed prior to many of the NRC requirements. Big Rock Point did not have a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or a Final Environmental Statement published and on file at the Michigan Department of Public Health.

' Ii

• In addition to the information at the Michigan Department of Public Health.

ERM took advantage of several other information resources. Other documents that were consulted to obtain additional general geologic .

• 1-2

hydrologic. physical, geographic.* and institutional (demographic. cultui;al.

etc.) information for the areas included the Michigan Hydrogeologic Atlas, the Regional Management Plan of the Midwest Compact. USGS Topographic maps and other published and unpublished information and documents. A complete bibliography of information used to prepare this report can be found in Section Five of this report.

Finally. for information that was not available in the Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs). ERM contacted the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Information pertaining to Act 203 of 1979 and Act 245 of 1970 concerning wetlands status and environmental and high risk areas sp~tjfj.~ .,tq. ea,~ .<>(;.~~ ,~it~s, ..wa~ ...evaj:u,l,lt.ed from .. the MDNR information and

• can be found in Appendix *B of,this report.* -* * *

• Since the Big Rock Point plant was licensed for operation in 1963. prior to

_*the development of federal standards requiring extensive environmental impact documentation. no detailed information was available at the Public

.Health* Department for that facility. . For this reason. Consumers Power Company. owner and operator of the facility, was contacted and agreed to make available a copy of pertinent portions of a draft Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for ERM's use and review. Because of the draft nature of the document provided. strict reliance* upon the information obtained from the Big Rock Point plant is .not recommended.

All of the information mentioned above was reviewed" for each site and

• evaluated against the 31 state -and* 10 federal siting criterja. The siting criteria were divided into two groups. exclusionary and favorability.

Exclusionary criteria ai-e those criteria that must be met or exceeded as outlined in either federal or state law. Those sites that met or exceeded the exclusionary criteria were- labeled as PASS. Any*site in which the information indicated that th~. site did* not meet or exceed the *criteria was labeled FAIL.

In either case. reasons for the labeling :were. noted qn worksheets and are summarized in Section ~e of this report_. * *

• Favorability criteria were ranked relative to each other. with 1 being*.the relative best and .4 being the relative worst case. When applicable. the rankings were labeled as being ACCEPTABLE when the site met or exceeded the overall goal of the criteria or NOT ACCEPTABLE if the site did not meet

• the overall goal of the criteria.

Sufficient information was not always av3.ilable to adequately determine whether a particular site passed or failed a certain criterion. In such instances, an INCONCLUSIVE was noted. Copies of the worksheets used for this study are included in this report as Appendix A 1-3

PASS or FAIL indicates the evaluation of the site as reported m-the published Final Safety Analysis Reports and the other data sources mentioned above. It

. is possible that a change in the reported information or status about a site could result in a change in this evaluation.

It was not the intent of the Authority. nor ERM. to provide a comprehensive environmental evaluation of each of the sites. The evaluations of the plant sites were based only on information listed in Section Five and Appendix B of this report.

• 1-4

SECTION TWO General Information *

• 2. 1 General Plant Information

. The primary task of this project was to evaluate the four licensed and

- operating* nuclear power plants on the question of whether *a low-level

.radioactive<waste ...1solatton.,,facillty~-0ould,.be .. co-located-at* or adjacent to. the plants according to the federal* siting ciitei'ia listeff 1ri. Subpart D of 10 CFR 61 (subsection 61.50) and the 31 Draft Siting_ Criteria dated February 15, 1988. The four. licensed and operating plants that were reviewed and evaluated are: * *

• Big Rock Point -Nuclear Power Plant, Hayes Township, Charlevoix County, operated by Consumers. Power Company.

• Donald c.* Cook Nuclear Power Plant. Lake Township, Berrien County, operated by Indiana and Michigan Electric Company.

• Palisades Nuclear Power Plant, Covert Township, Van Buren

. _County. operated by Consumers Power Company.

• Enrico Fermi Atomic* Power Plant, Unit II, Frenchtown .

Township, Monroe County, operated by Detroit Edison.*

At the time of this report, all four sites were operating and licensed for producing commercial power.

• Figure 2-1 shows the general location of the four licensed power plants.

• Big *Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant The Big Rock Point Nuclear Power .Plant site is located between the towns of Charlevoix and Petoskey on the northern shore of Michigan's lower

. peninsula. Big Rock received a provisional operating license on August 30, 1962 and began commercial operations on :March 29, 1963. A full-term operating license was granted to Consumers Power Company on May 1, 1964 and in May, 1964, the plant iilcreased its power from 157 to 240 MWt (Megawatts thermal). The plant currently runs at 69 MWe (Megawatts electric).

2-1

_ FIGURE. 2-1 General Location Map of the Four Licensed Nuclear Power Plants*

Nt *.

• ~------------------------------8--~

The plant's operating licens~ is valid through midnight on May 31. 2000.

Currently. no plans for decommissioning of the facility have been developed.

Plant officials report that application for an extension of the license is likely. .. .

A full scale Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) was not required at the time of licensing. Tue FSAR's typically contain information about the general area and about the site. The FSAR's were used as a primary source of information for reView and evaluation of the sites.

Since an FSAR was not available for this plant.* the plant's owner. Consumers Power Company. was contacted and information about the plant site and the

. - ~ general . . setting ...was .. obtained ... vta . .pbone ...:conversation ... Big .. Rock Point is currently preparing a safety analysis**report,*for**the plant and **surrounding***

area for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A copy of the relevant portions of this report, was made available to. ERM by Big Rock Point personnel.

. Other sources of information about the site pertaining to wetlands, high risk areas, floodplains. and environmental areas were obtained from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management DiVision .

.Donaid C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Tue Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant is located approximately 11 miles south of Benton Harbor, Michigan, along the eastern shoreline of Lake

• Michigan. The plant is** operated** by the. Indiana and Michigan Electric Company and

• consists of two units. The two un.its received operating licenses in the early seventies and began operation in August 1975 and July 1978 respectively. Unit One is capable of producing 1020 MWe of power while Unit Two produces 1060 MWe.

Tue FSARs *for the two units were available at the Michigan I)epartment of

.Public Health. Other sources of information about the site pertaining to wetlands, high risk areas, floodplains and environmental areas were obtained from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management DiVision. * ..

Palisades Nuclear Power Plant The *Palisades Nuclear Power Plant is located approximately 4 l /2 miles south of South Haven. Michigan, along the eastern shoreline of Lake Michigan. Palisades is operated by Consumers Power Company and received a proVisional operating license in March, 1971 and* began commercial operation on December 31, 1971. In 1974. the plant's cooling system was modified to include a closed-loop cooling system that incorporated a* cooling tower. rather than the original once-through cooling system. The plant is 2-2 ***

f*

capable of producing 770 MWe of power with one reactor unit. The 1973 FSAR was on file at the Department of Public Health* in Lansing. Michigan and was used to evaluate the site. Other sources of information* about the site pertaining to wetlands. high rtsk areas, floodplains and environmental areas were obtained from the Michigan *oepartment of Natural Resources. Land and Water Management Division.

Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant The Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit II is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of Monroe. Michigan, along the northwestern shore of Lake

• 'Erie~*.

• Ferml*fl *is* operated, by the-'E>etroit *Edison *Company~*** The plant _.appli~d .

for an operating license in the mid-seventies and was s~heduled to begiil commercial operations in January of this year~ Commercial operations have begun but the plant is currently off-line for refueling and will begin gradual reoperations in the near future. The plant has yet to come on-line to its full power capacity of 1100 MWe. Unit I was decommissioned in 1972. *

• The 1987 FSAR was on file at the Department of Public Health and was used as a primary source of information about the site and the area. Other* sources of information about the site pertaining to wetlands. high risk areas.

floodplains and . environmental areas were obtained from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Divisj.on .

• 2-3

SECTION THREE Site Evaluation

3. 1 Criteria Act 204. Public Acts of i987. requires the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority to develop siting criteria for the location of a low-level radioactive waste site. The criteria used for this study included those developed by the  !

Authority'and*outlined*"in 1:he*~February* 01'~;-l988 *report "entitled: "Draft Siting ..

Criteria. These draft ciiteria were formulated based on recommendations II

• from the Siting Criteria Advisory Committee (SCAC). *The* SCAC consists of

• five members appotn.ted by the Authority. *

• In addition. the ten federal criteria under Subpart D of 10CFR6 l, entitled "Technical Requirements for Land Disposal Facilities" (Section (H.50). were

• . used to evaluate the suitability of each site.

The Siting Criteria are formulated based on the primary goal of ensuring the health and safety of Michigan's citizens and protecting the environment. A

• secondary goal was estabJished to ensure that the areas selected as a result of the application of the criteria can be licensed in compliance with federal and state regulations. A third goal was to avoid conflict with established societal and community Values.

• The criteria are formulated assuming no engineered containment. Based on the sitlng criteria. the potential site selected is to serve as a natural means of isolation for the waste.

• The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority organized the 31 state criteria into the following nine objectives.

I. Avoid population centers and conflicts with human activities .

.* n. Avoid areas subject to geologic and flood hazards.

Ill. Protect surface water and ground water quality.

IV. Minimize transportation hazards.

V. Protect air quality.

VI. Avoid resource development conflicts.

VII. Avoid conflict with special or protected land use.

VIII. Avoid conflict with community social and economic goals.

IX. Comply with federal laws.

Within each of the objectives. several specific criteria are. given. These criteria are divided into two basic types: those that reflect a legislative 3-1

mandate and those that *reflect desirable qualities iri the selected waste site.

In addition. the four federal performance objectives were used. They are as follows:

I. Assure protection of the general population from releases of

~dioactivity.

II. Assure protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion.

m.* Assure protection of individuals during operations.

IV. Assure stability of the site after closure.

Appendix, ;C . -.of , -this . report ,_,.contains ...the, ..Low.. Level* ,Radioactive Waste Authority's Draft Siting Criteria of February 15~ *1988~ and _the Fedetal.Sitiilg-Criterta found in Subpart D of 10 CFR 61. . * ,

The remainder of this section will discuss the individual state and federal criteria and evaluate each of the plant sites .

• 3-2

Criterion I-A Exclude areas within incorporated city limits as established on January 1, 1988 Big Rock Point Pass The Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant is not incorporated into a city. It is located within Hayes Township, Charlevo~ County.

D.C. Cook Pass .

W *.* ' " ' *. *' ' * *: . . , ~M *' *. * .~ * :** * ** 0 0 *, * * * * ' '* ,.t 0 .>>, ' ':

The D.C. *Cook Nuclear Power. Plant is not incorporated into a city. It is located within Lake Township,. Berrien County.

• Palisades Pass The Palisades Nuclear Power Plant is not incorporated into a city. It is located within Covert Township, Van Buren County.

F~UPass

• The Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant is not incorporated into a city. It is located within Frenchtown Township, Monroe County.

3-3

Criterion I-B

• Exclude areas not sufficiently large to assure that an

• isolation distance *of 3, 000 feet or more from the disposal unit and adjacent property lines is available.

In all cases, sufficient land at the plant site was not available to assure the 3, 000 foot isolation distance requirement could be met. The purchase of additional property would be necessary. The site would consist of. state owned land in any case.

Big Rock* Point* Pass--*~******* .... ,,. ... ..

According to plant personnel, there is approximately 2, 700 feet of property surrounding the unit. The unit currently owns a total of approximately 800 acres. Additional property could potentially be purchased from surrounding land owners in an effort to meet this criteria.

D.C. Cook Pass According to the FSAR (Final Safety Analysis Report), the property comprises 650 acres. The property boundaries do not allow a 3,000 foot isolation distance to be maintained. As with Big Rock, the potential for purchasing additional PI'O.perty from surrounding landowners existS ..

Palisades Pass

.According to the FSAR. the property comprises 487 acres. Site boundaries for this pfant do not allow for the mandatory 3, 000 foot boundary around a disposal site. Van Bureri State Park is located along the northern property boundary and 1-96 borders the eastern edge of the property making expansion of the existing property difficult.

Fermi D Inconclusive

• The information contained in the FSAR was incomplete. Site maps of the property did not include a scale for measuring the property. It is known that this is one of the largest sites, comprising l, 120 acres .

• 3-4

Criterion 1-C Seek areas where projected population growth and future developments are not likely to a.ffect the ability of the. disposal facility to meet the performance objectives of 1 OCFR61 Subpart C (10 CFR 61.50 (a) (3)) and are not likely to signiflcantly interfere with an environmental monitoring program.

This criterion is *a favorability. criterion.

• The sites are ranked relative to one another and it is noted whether each site is still considered to be acceptable. '"It*** is* *beyond-* the *-scope*',of"this' *study *t()':*attempt .to* provide .

precise population trends. given the element of time . that the site is expected to be in operation and secured. . Demographic information was obtained for each site and. used to rank the areas relative to *one another

. with l=best and 4=worst.

Based on information on* regiorlai population density found in FSARs. all of the sites appeared to have. similar population growth trends. Given that growth near these sites would be about the same. ranking of the sites was based primarily upon proximity to existing population centers.

• Big Rock Point

• 1 (Acceptable} *

• The .northern ,shore of Michigan's LOwer Peninsula 'J:ias relatively fewer .

residents within a 25 mile radius than the other three sites.

D.C. Cook 2* (Acceptable}

.*.:'-*Both. D.C~. Cook .arid* Palisades are located. within re~atively moderate population areas._. ._

Palisades 3 (Acceptable}

Both Palisades and D.C. Cook are located within relatively moderate population areas.

Fermi II 4 (Not Acceptable}

The Fermi II site is located proximate to the most densely populated area of all of the sites. with downtown Detroit and Toledo both within 30 miles.

3-5

• ,,Criterion D'-A 'Exclude, areas located *one mUe *or less from a fault -

where tectonic *movement has occurred within the last 10,000 years.

Big Rock Point Pass **

Information in the Draft copy of the Updated FSAR indicates that no major faultS are known to exist in the area.

According to the FSAR for this plant. there are no known faults within one mile of the plant site.

Palisades Pass

.According to the FSAR for this plant. there are no known faults within one.

mile of the plant site. *

.Fermi II Pass According* to the FSAR for this plant. there are no known faults Within one mile of the plant. site.

3-6

Criterion II-B Exclude areas of significant earthquizke *intensity, defined .as a zone with a modified Mercalli index of VIII or greater.

• Information was not found within the FSARs which delineated zones of earthquake intensity for the various sites based on the rµodified Mercalli

.index. Sites were passed given the fact that earthquake epicenters were not *.

located within a reasc:mable proximity of the sites..

i f

The* draft updated FSAR reports that the closest epicenter of an earthqualte

• with a significant modified Mercalli index was approximately 62 miles from

. the plant site and had an intensity of V (mM).

D.C. Cook Pass The FSAR for the D.C. Cook Plant indicates that the two c1osest epicenters of the highest modified Mercalli index were within *75 miles .of the. plant site, each with an intensity of VI (mM) (1883 and 1947).

Palisades Pass The FSAR for*the Palisades Plant indicates that the clo~est epicenter of an* .

• earthquak~ of a significant modified Mercalli index occ\llTed inl883 within

_50 miles of the site. The intensity of this earthquake was VI *(mM).

• Fermi D *Pass The nearest epicenter reported in the FSAR occurred within 100 miles of the plant with a modified Mercalli Index intensity of VIII (1937).

\

3-7

• Criterion 11-C Exclude .areas within the_ 500 year floodplain, .

including areas designated under 245 PA 1929 (Sections 323.1 to 323.13 of the Michigan Compiled Laws).

This criterion was developed to protect the site from flood damage during the expected life of the site. In general, the low-level radioactive waste site is to be located 10 miles or more from the Great Lakes and their interconnecting waterways. An exception to this criterion was granted to the four licensed and operating power plant sites.

• Because*1:he** power 'plants- are *located"along~the-Great *Lakes.* a*. ~00 year flood plain. per se, is not applicable at these sites. This is due to. the fact that .they are not located within any of the proximate river flood plains Instead, a 500 year maximum lake level was used in the evaluation of these sites.

Information about the 500 year maximtml lake level was obtained from the MDNR-Floodplain Control Unit in Lansing, Michigan. Copies* of MDNR correspondence can be found in Appendix B. Wave action and wave flooding would also play an important part in the siting of a waste site. at these locations.

Big Rock Point Pass The Big Rock Point Draft FSAR reports that the elevation of the sJte ranges from 594 to 592.5 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The MDNR-Floodplain Control Unit reports that the 500 year mSximum Lake Michigan water level

. at this site. Js expected* to be approximately 584.2 ft. MSL (583.0 International Great Lakes Data point (IGLD)). *The highest recorded lake level was reported to be 584 ft. MSL.

D.C. Cook Pass According to the .MDNR-Floodplain Control Unit. the 500 year maximum Lake Michigan water level for this site is 584.8 MSL (583~3 IGLD). The surface elevation at this site is estimated to be 610 ft. MSL at the plant site.

Topography of the site is quite variable.

Palisades Pass According to the MDNR-Floodplain Control Unit. the 500 year maximum Lake Michigan water level for this site is 584.8 MSL (583.3 IGLD). The surface elevation at this site is approximately 600 ft. MSL.

Fermi D Fail According to the MDNR-Floodplain Control Unit, the 500 year maximum Lake Elie water level for this site is 578.6 MSL (577.1 IGLD). The surface elevation at this site is approximately 575 ft. MSL.

3-8

Criterion II-D Exclude areas where geological processes such as mass wasting, erosion, slumping, landsliding, or weathering precludes

• meeting the performance objectives in 10 CFR 61 Subpart C or precludes defensible modeling and prediction of the long term

. _impact of such occurrences.

The life of the low-level radioactive waste site .is expected to be over 500 years. Because of this length of* time and because the level of the Great Lakes is in . a state of fh~ctuation, all shoreline sites, such as the four nuclear

... power 'planf' s'ites, 'fhlf'to.' satisfy.: :this ..criteiion .. :. . Associated. with 'the .

• everchanging lake levels are the ongoing processes of erasion. landsliding,

• weathering and mass wasting. The dynamic nature of the Great Lakes ecosystem is_ such that predictions of future lake levels and activities are not practicable. * '

• Big Rock Point Fail This site failed because of the possibility of wave erosion at this site given the 500 year life of the site.

D.C. Cook Fail

• This site failed because of the possibility o~ wave erosion at this site given the 500 year life of the site. * * * * ** . . * . * . .*

Palisades Fail

• This site failed because* of the* possibility of wave erosion at this *site given the 500 year life of the site.

Fermi U Fail This site failed because of the possibility of wave erosion at this Site given the 500 year life of the site. . .. ..

• 3-9

Criterion m-A *.Exclt.id.e areas where the water table .associated. with geolagU: deposits or formations is not sufficiently low to prevent the intrusion of ground water into the bottommost portions of the leak detection system of the disposal unit.

Assuming an above ground facility, relatively high ground water levels at a low-level radioactive waste site can be tolerated. The sites were evaluated based upon this assumption. Twenty feet was used as the pass/fail crtterion (see also 111"".B). Given the fact that the waste repository will be constructed near* the *surface~"* perhaps* completely *buried **wtthin *the ~ground, it. is likely .

that these evaluations would differ remarkably. In the case. of a near surface facility, 40 feet might not be a sufficient depth for ground water.

Big Rock Point Fail The ground water level at the site is approximately 10 feet b_elow the surface of the site.

• D.C. Cook Pass According to the FSAR. ground water levels appear to be between 40-80 feet below the surface pf the site in the underlying unconsolidated sand deposit.

Palisades Pass Ground water levels at the Palisades Plant are approximately 20 feet below the surface of the site. Unconsolidated sand underlies the site and is the principal water bearing aquifer along the lake shore.

Fermin Fall Ground water levels appear to be very high in the area due to the presence of swamps on site. A piezometric water level of between 570-580 MSL was noted in the FSAR (surface eleVa.tion is approximately 575) .

• 3-10

Criterion m-B Exclude areas where there is not 6 or more meters of soil with a rriaxtmum hydrauli.c conductivity of 1. 0 times 1O to the minus 6 c~ntimeters per second at all :Points below and lateral to the bottommost

• portions of the leak detection system of the disposal unit. *

• Detailed site information about the subsurface soils at these sites was for the most part unavailable .in the information obtained at the Michigan Department of Public Health. Generally speaking, sites adjacent to the Great *1*

. Lakes. hav.e near~surface ..soils..that..grado.from-clay- to, coarse sand,* ,indicative of near-shore geologic environments. * ** **

. Detailed site specific information may enhance *or change these conclusions.

Big Rock Point Inconclusive No site specific information, such as permeability .tests, was available in the Draft FSAR. It is stated that the area is well-drained and that the underlying soil is of questionable uniformity. Clay is the predominate subsurface soil at the site, interbedded with lenses of artesian sand zones.

D.C. Cook Fail* .

. The D.C. Cook site is located on sand dunes that predominate the southeastern shoreline of Lake Michigan. It is unlikely that 20 feet of 1o-6 cm/ sec soil can be found at this site.

Palisades Fail The Palisades site is located on sand dunes that predominate the southeastern shoreline of Lake Michigan. It is unlikely that 20 feet of 1o-6 cm/ sec soil can be found at this site.

Fermi U Fail The Updated FSAR states that the subsurface soils vary from clay to coarse sand. It is unlikely that 20 feet of lo-6 cm/sec soil can be found at this site.

3-11

Criterion m-c Exclude areas where the travel ti.me of rad.ionuclides along any 100 foot flow path from the water table at the edge

• of the disposal unit is less than approximately 1 oo years.

Site specific information about the subsurface hydrogeology is typically not

. incorporated into the FSAR's that were reviewed during the evaluation of the sites. D~C. Cook and Palisades both .fail this criterion because the* sites .are located on sand dunes. Because of the relatively high permeability of the sand dunes, little or no natural protection is available to the ground water.

Detailed site specific information may*enhance or change ~ese conclusions.

• e1g Rock Point Inconclusive No site specific permeability information was found for this site.

D.C. Cook Fail

• The site is located on a sand dune area which allows .rapid movement of ground water. *

• Pslfsades Fail The site is located on a sand dune area which allows rapid movement of ground water.

• Fermi II Inconclusive No site specific permeability information* was found for this site.

3-12

• Criterion m-D Exclude areas where the ground water *travel time from the water table at the edge of the disposal unit to an aquifer is less than 500 years.

Site spectftc information about the subsurface hydrogeology' is typically not incorporated into the FSAR's that were reviewed during *the evaluation of the sites. D.C. Cook and Palisades both fail this criterion because the sites are located on sand* dunes. offering little or no protection to the ground water

• and rapid movement of ground water to the natural discharge point.. Lake Michigan..*

Detailed site speciftc tnfonnatiori. may enhance or change ~ese conclusions.

Big Rock Point Inconclusive No site specific permeability information was found for this site.

• D.C. Cook Fail The site is located on a sand dune area which allows rapid movement of *

• ground ~ter.

Palisades Fail The site is located on a sand dune area which allows rapid movement of ground water.

Fermi D Inconclusive '**

No site specific permeability information was found for this site.

3-13

Criterion .m-E Exclude areas lot?ated over .a sole source aquifer.

As of the time *()f this study, no sole source aquifers have been designated in Michigan by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA defines a sole source aquifer as an aquifer that is the sole or principle drinking water source for an area. which, .if contaminated, could create a significant hazard

-to the public health.

Big Rock Point Pass D.C. Cook Pass Palisades Pass -

Fermi II Pass 3-14

• Criterion m-F Exclude areas located where the hydrogeology benecith the site discharges ground water to the land surface within 3,000 feet (915 mJ of the boundaries of the disposal unit.

Ground water at three of the four sites discharges directly into Lake Michigan. Ground water at Fermi II discharges into Lake Erie. Any of the standing *water on each of the sites is more likely due to the existence of perched ground water, than* to direct water table ground water discharge.

Perched ground water occurs when an impermeable layer of material is located within a pemieable layer. The impermeable layer serves as a trap for ariy incident precipitation. *This resilltS :.1n .ponding*...tf near or .at the. surface *....

or submerged "perched ground water," if well below the *.surface.

With the 3, 000 foot buffer isolation distance from the Lake to the *disposal unit. the ground water discharge criterion will be met by all of the sites.

Big R~ck Point Pass D.C. Cook Pass

• Palisades Pass

-Fermi D Pass 3-15

Criterion m-G Exclude areas not free of ponding or incapable of

-being drained in ,a manner that insures the iittegrity

. of the disposal unit.

Big Rock Point Fail Cedar Swamp surrounds the site. Wetlands are noted within a 3,000 foot radius of the power plant. These wetlands are more likely due to the presence of perched ground water than to direct water table. ground water discharge. The area appears incapable of being drained.

D.C~ Cook Pass Some swampy areas are noted within the lowlands of the general area.

There are wetlands noted within the 3,000 foot isolation boundary. These wetlands are more likely due to the presence of perched ground water than to direct water table ground water discharge. The area appears to be capable of being drained.

Some swampy areas are noted in the area, There are wetlands noted within the 3,000 foot isolation boundary. These wetlands are more likely due. to the presence of *perched**ground water than to direct water table ground water discharge. The area appears to be capable of being drained. .

Fermi II Fail The area is generally surrounded by swampy lowlands. These wetlands are more likely due to the presence of perched ground water than to direct water table ground water discharge. The area appears incapable of being drained.

3-16

Criterion m-H Exclude areas located within 10 miles of Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Saint Mary's River, Detroit River, St. Clair River or Lake St. Clair. This criterion shall not apply to a site that is located at or adjacent to a nuclear power generattng facility.

Big Rock Point Meets. exception D.C...Cook~ .... Meets,.exception .................. .

Palisades Meets exception Fermi U Meets exception

. . I 3-17

Criterion m-I Seek *areas with simple hydrogeologic systems that can be characterized, modeled, analyzed and monitored. .

• This criterion is difficult to measure because of the lack of detailed site-specific information about the sites. Given the geologic setting of the sites and the general information provided within the FSAR's, most of the sites could be mathematically modeled with a high degree of confidence.

Big Rock Point 4 {Not ,Acceptable)

The presence of artesian sand lenses (thin sand layers that contain ground water under pressure) would make modeling of this site difficult unless the location and extent of each of the sand lenses were known.* * *

.D.C. Cook 2 (Acceptable)

The FSAR states that the hydrogeologic system is simple.

Palisades 1 (Acceptable)

The FSAR states that the hydrogeologic system is simple.

Fermi U 3 (Acceptable)

The FSAR states that the hydrogeologic system is simple.

3-18

Criterion m.J Seek areas that do not overlie aquifers.

All of the *sites that were evaluated overlie an aquifer.

Big Rock Point 2 (Not Acceptable)

This site overlies a lim~stone aquifer.

D.C. Cook 3 (Not Acceptable)

This site *overlie*s*a~*sand':aqutfet:.-_ :.: . *~.

Palisades 4 .(Not Acc~pt(lbleJ.

This site overlies a sand aquifer.

Fermi. U 1 (Not Acceptable)

This site overlies a limestone aquifer.

3-19

Criterion m-K .seek areas which do* rwt include public *-water supply wells, well fields, high capacity production wells, and abandoned wells.

According to the FSARs. no public water supply wells. high capacity production wells or abandoned wells were located on any of the four sites.

The sites were not ranked relative to one another based on the assumption that this information is complete and *correct.

Big Rock Poiiit * '(AcceptabzeJ

• D.C. Cook (Acceptable)

Palisades (Acceptable)

Fermi U (Acceptable) 3-20

.Criterion IV-A Seek areas which minimize the *risk of transportation accidents.

This ciiterton was developed to address the consequences of transportation accidents. Accident probability varies with the type of route traveled. time of year, traffic densities, and type of road. Interstate freeways are the safest of the different highway types. Based primarily on the type of highway used to access the site and the relative traffic densities, the four sites were

• ranked relative. to one another with 1 =best and 4 =worst.

. * *~ .* * * * ' * * . * * *

• I. *

• Big Rock Point 4 {Acceptable)

The highway closest to the Big Rock Poirit site is US 31. It is a two-lane limited access United States Highway. Of the four sites, this site is considered worst primarily because of the increased rtsk of accident due to the highway type .

.D.C. Cook 2 (Acceptable)

Interstate Highway 94 runs directly through the D. C. Cook site. This multi-lane freeway is considered to be the safest type of highway.. The final ranking was based on the implied traffic densities for the area. because of the nearness to the industrtal area of Benton Harbor/St Joseph.

Palisades 1 (Acceptable)

Interstate Highway 196 and US Highway 31 run together at this point on the eastern boundary of the Palisades site. These highways are multi-larte freeways at this location, and thus offer the safest type of highway travel.

Based on the assumption that the traffic densities are somewhat less in this region than those further south along the lakeshore, this site was ranked as the best for minimizing conventional traffic accidents.

Fermi D . 3 (Acceptable)

Interstate Highway 75. a multi-lane freeway runs adjacent to the Fermi II

• site. Although this highway is considered to be of the safest type, due to the traffic densities on the highway and its nearness to two major metropolitan areas. Detroit and Toledo. the site was ranked on the lower end. Assumed traffic densities were believed to be much higher for this area than for the two sites on the southwestern shore of Michigan.

3-21

Criterion IV-B Seek areas which minimize the risks of exposures to radiattDn associated with transportation incidents.

Transportation routes which avoid areas of high population serve to minimize risks of exposure to radioactive materials during routine transport or in transportation accidents, however negligible those exposures might be.

_Based primarily on regional ,populations and secondarily on .available transportation routes, the four sites were ranked _relative to one another for population exposure minimizatlori, with 1 =. best and 4 = worst.

/

Big Rock Point 1 (Acceptable)

The population density in this region is well below the values for the three remaining sites. - -

D.C. Cook 3 (Acceptable)

Population density in this region was considered to be somewhat greater than for the area surrounding the Palisades plant due to the proximity of Benton Harbor/St. Joseph and the Chicago area as well.

Palisades 2 (Acceptable)

This area was considered to have the second lowest population density of the four power plant site areas. In addition, Interstate 196 is a less highly traveled highway than Interstate 94.

Fermi D 4 (Acceptable)

The population density figures for this area were assumed to be much higher due to the nearness of Detroit and Toledo, Ohio.

3-22

Criterion V-A Seek areas with simple meteorological systems that can be characterized, modeled, analyzed, and monitored.

Meteorological systems are monitored at each of the nuclear- power plant sites as required by the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Modeling of weather systems requires- long histories of detailed information about the specific site. With these -monitoring systems already in place, modeling weather patterns would be relatively easy. The sites were not ranked relative tp one. an,other ..base<i...()µ _th.~ assump~ons _that the metorological conditions would be similar* at *each-location~* and--that* modeling* would* be-*- **

equally facilitated by the reasons stated above.

• Big Rock Point (Acceptable)

D.C. Cook (Acceptable)

Palisades . (Acceptable)

Fermi D (Acceptable)**

3-23

Criterion VI-A Seek areas where natural resources do not exist on or significantly neat to the candidate site that, if exploited, would

• result in failure to meet the performance objectives in Subpart C of 10 CFR 61.

In developing the siting criteria. the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority defined natural resources as those minable resources. which if Iriined. might lead to a breach of containment at the facility. Future exploitations were not

. taken into a~co.unt. wh~n,.making_the.Jollowmg.detenntnations ....

Big Rock Point 2 (Acceptable}

There is limestone* mining in the area surrounding the site. However. it does not occur near the site. Mining could easily continue outside the boundaries of the site. with no impairment of productivity.

D.C. Cook *3 (Acceptable)

This area is known to provide silica sand to industry. The siting of a disposal facility .on the site would likely not result in any adverse impacts on silica sand availability.

• Palisades 4 (Acteptable}

This *area is kn:own to provide silica sand *to industry. The siting of a disposal facility on the site would *likely not result in any adverse impacts on silica sand availability.

Fermi U . 1 (Acceptable}

According to information obtained from the Updated. FSAR. there is a very low potential for hydrocarbon or subsurface gas production in the area.

3-24

.Criterion VII-A Exclude areas with wetlands as defmed in* the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, Act 203 of the Public Acts* of 1979, being sections 281.701 to 281.722 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

Big Rock Point Fail Accordtng to information proVided by ~the. Michigan Department' of Nattiral Resources. there are small wetland areas within the site boundaries and

• larger. more significant areas directly surrounding the site. These wetlands

• are mote likely* due* fo the :presehce .'oLperched .ground .Wa.ter*.than to -the direct discharge of water table ground water. .

D.C. Cook Fail According to information provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, wetland areas are found on the site, within the 3,000 foot isolation boundary. These wetlands are more likely due to the_presence of perched ground water, than to the direct discharge of wate:r *table ground water.

Palisades Fail According to information provided by the Michigan Departipent of. Natural Resources, wetland areas are found on the site, within the 3.000 foot isolation b9undary... These wetlands are more likely** due to the presence of perched ground water, than to the direct discharge of. water .table _ground.

water.

Fermi II Fail The entire Fermi II site is located within an active sWctmp with the north and south areas of the site domin*ated by large permanent lagoons.

According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, wetlands areas are found on the site. within the 3,000 foot isolation boundary. These wetlands are more likely due to the presence of perched ground water, than to the direct discharge of water table ground water.

3-25

Criterion VIJ.:B Exclude* areas with environmental areas or high risk areas as defined in the Shorelands Protection and Management Act of 1970, Act No. 245 of the Public Acts of 1970, being sections 281.631 to 281.644 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

Big Rock Point Pass .

. According to* the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, no environmental. areas ,or. . high rtsk.ar.eas. ar.e..located..on .. or.. nearby the site.

D.C. Cook Fail .

The information provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources indicates that a high risk erosion area is located on the power plant site.

The shoreline is receding at a rate such that a 70/95 foot setback is recommended by the MDNR (note: this is based on an expected life span of only 30 years so designated for the power plant). No environmental areas were noted in the local region.

Palisades Pass According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, no environmental areas or high risk areas are located on the site: However, high risk erosion areas are noted proximate to the site.

Fermi ll Fail According to the Michigan Department of .Natural Resources, the site does have environmental areas within one mile. However, no high risk areas are.

located at or nearby the site .

• • 3-26

Criterion VD'-C Seek areas which have rwt been desigrtated pursuant

• to Michigan Statute for Wildlife Conservation and Management~ for public recreation, or for protection of wilderness, wild, or natural values.

Because a power plant has already been located on each of the sites. it could be assumed that the areas are not wildlife conservation areas. However. the location of a nuclear power plant on any site does not necessarily preclude the use of the area for wildlife conservation. No readily available information dealt-.with this.subject,. thus.enabling.only..an-inconclusive note to be .*.*-.;...

attached to this criterion for each site. -*- - -* ** **-

A further investigation of the surrotinding areas may result in the discovery of proximate wildlife conservation areas.

Big Rock .Point Inconclusive D. C. Cook Iriconcl.uSive Palisades Inconclusive Fermi D Inconclusive ..

3-27

Criterion VII*D . -Seek sites which do not cause visual -intrtL.Sion on designated scenic highways so designated as of Jaru.w.ry l, 1988.

Big Rock Point 4 (Acceptable}

There is* a state scenic highway that travels along the Lake Michigan coast directly adjacent to the power plant site. Since a power plant has already been located upon the site. it is assumed that no additional visual intrusion would be caused .by siting.a_waste,disposal facility on.the. same. site.*

D.C. Cook 3 {Acceptable}

Several scenic routes are located in this area of the state. Since a power plant has already been located upon the site. it is assumed that no additional visual intrusion would be caused by siting a waste disposal facility on the same site.

• Palisades 2 {Acceptable}

Several scenic routes are located in this area of the state. Since a power plant has already been located upon the site. it is assumed that no additional visual intrusion would be* caused *by* siting a waste disposal facility on the same site..

• Fermi II 1 (Acceptable}

Since a power plant has already been located upon the site. it is assumed .

that no additional visual ~trusion would be caused by siting a waste disposal facility on the same site. * .

• 3-28

Criterion VJI-E Seek sites which will not require *that prime farmland. be removed from agricultural productiDn.

Big Rock Point 2 (Acceptable)

The surrounding area is not well known for its prime farmland. It is primarily considered a resort area. The siting of a nuclear power plant on the land has already designated the area for a non-farming use .

.... ... **.* . . * .* * . "' .. ' :- * *

• 1 '_*:..** . * * ~ * ._ *. .* .. ' ' .. ~. . .. ,;, .

D.C. COok 3 (Acceptable) -

The surrounding area is considered relatively good farmland. However, the siting of a nuclear power plant on the land has already designated the area for a non-farming use.

Palisades 4 (Acceptable)

The surrounding area is considered relatively good farmland. However, the siting of a nuclear power plant on the land has already designated the area for a non-farming use. *

• Fermi D 1 (Acceptable)

The surrounding area is highly urbanized. The siting of a nuclear power plant on the land has already designated the area for a non-farming use.

3-29

• criterion VI11-A Seek areas which are not included in- form.ally proposed approved *development plans as of January "l, 1988.

The information available at the Miclitgan Department of Public Health included no information regarding existing development plans for any of the sites. Accordingly, the Planning Commissions for each county were

• consulted for information regarding proposed development plans for the areas.

Big Rock Point 3 * {Not Acceptable)-** -**

• According to a representative of the Big Rock Point plant, a major housing development is in the planning stages for a plot of land proximate to the facility site, however, it has not yet been approved by any authority.

According to the Charlevoix and Emmet County Planning Commissions. two major development plans have been proposed for sites within five miles of the facility. One plan has received preliminary zoning approval, while it is uncertain as to whether the other proposed plan has yet been approved.

• D.C. Cook 2 (Acceptable)

No *development* plans' were *noted* in the FSAR. In addition, the Berrien County Planning Commission reported that no major development plans had been proposed for the area immediately surrounding the facility as of January 1, 1988. A large hotel complex development within 10 miles of the facility has been proposed but is not yet approved.

Palls a des 1 (Accept¢Jle)

• No development plans were noted in the FSAR. The Van Buren County Planning Commission, as well as the Covert Township Planning Commission was unaware of any major development plans for the area immediately surrounding the facility.

• Fermi Il 4 {Not Acceptable)

No development plans were noted in the FSAR. However, the Monroe County Planning Commission's "Preliminary Draft Overall Economic Development Plan" showed that several major* devlopment plans within 5 miles of the plant site had been proposed as of January l, 1988. The report provided no information as to whether any of these plans had been approved .

3-30

Criterion VIII-B Seek areas which do not require the removal from production of prime .farmland that would disrupt the economic base of the community.

• The siting of a nuclear power plaht on the laµd has already designated the land for a non-farming use. It is assumed that the economy of each area has stabilized from this initial . designation and would not be affected by the siting of a waste disposal facility on the site. This same information is. valid for each of the four sites.

• 0 ~ ...; ~ * ** * ... ~. *

• H* *~:._."':* *," _ . , * ._. , * .. * *-. -**;' '"

• 0 '** *<'"' *' *

• Big Rock Point 2 (Acceptable}

.D.C. Cook . 3 (Acceptable}

Palisades 4 (Acceptable} .

Fermi D 1 (Acceptable}

. . . . ~ .

3-31

• Criterion vm-c .If all other criteria are met. give preferences to areas near comm.unities desiring the facility. **

This criterion was not considered applicable to the study: therefore. it was not evaluated. *

.* :-- ,r_:.. .,._ .*

• ~ I

( .

• 3-32

Criterion lX-A Exclude areas where siting will be inconsistent with the requirements of the following federal laws:

(i) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, chapter: 1073, 68 Stat. 919.

(iO Federal Water Pollution Control Act, chapter

.758, 62 Stat. 1155.

(UIJ Coastal .lbne Management Act of 1972,

.........._.. , ..* _........ ,... . ; P.ublil:-~µi.f39~4.5~__16.USC1451 to.1454b, 1455 to *1459;**1461*to*J463*, *1464; ..

(tv) Endangered Species Act of 1973, Public:

Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884.

(v} WU.cl and Scenic Rivers Act,. Public Law 90-542, 16 USC 1271 to 1287.

(vi) WU.demess Act, Public Law 88-577, 16 USC 1131 to 1136.

(viO National. Wldlife Refuge System

• Administration Act of 1960,* Public Law 89-669, -16 USC 668dd., 668ee.

(vUi) Chapter 5993, 49 Stat. 666, 16 USC 461 to 467.

(ix) The National. Historic Preservation act, Public Law 89-665 16 USC 4 70 to 4 70a.

• 4 70b, 4 70c to 4 70w-6.

The research necessary to determine the compliance of each site with this number of federal laws is beyond the scope of the current project.

3-33

• Federal Criterion I The disposal. site shall .be .capable of being characterized, monitored.

modeled, analyzed, and It is assu~ed that each of the sites is capable of being characterized, modeled, analyzed, and monitored based on the fact that nuclear power plants have already been sited in each location.

• Big RoCk Point Pass .. .

. .. *. . *. . ~ ' ' .".. . ..

D.C. Cook Pass Palisades Pass Fermi II Pass

• 3-34

• Federal Criterion Il The disposal site shall be selected so that projected population growth and . future

. developments are not likely to affect the ability of the disposal facility to meet the performance objectives in 10CFR6 l Subpart C.

It is beyond the scope of this study to attempt to provide precise population trends, given the element of time the facility is expected to be in operation

• and secured. The following determinations were based primarily on proximity. . to .. areas_othigh.po.pul,ation,,d~ity .. _,., ... ,, ,. ,.....

Big Rock Point Pass The northern shore of Michigan's Lower Peninsula has relatively fewer residents within a 25 mile radius than the other three sites~

D.C. Cook Pass Both D. C. Cook and Palisades are located within relatively moderate population areas.

Both Palisades *and D. C. Cook are located within relatively moderate population areas.

Fermi U Fail The Fermi II sit~ is located in a very high population density area. being within 30 miles of both downtown Detroit and Toledo.

3-35

'Federal Criterion *m Areas must *be *avoided having knDwn. Natural Resources, which *if exploited, would result in a

. failure to *meet *Subpart C of 10CFR61 Performance Objectives.

Natural Resources are considered, for the purpose of this study, to be minable *resources. Future exploitations were not taken into account when making the following determinations.

. .. . *. . . *. .  ; . : ' ....... . . . . ~ .. **: .... :*

Big Rock Point Pass There is limestone mining in the area surrounding the site. However, it does not occur near the site. Mining could easily continue outside the bound~es of the site with no impairment of productivity.

. *D.C~ Cook Pass This area :*1s kriown to provide silica sand to the industry~ The siting of a disposal facility on the site would likely* not result in any adverse impacts on silica sand availability.

This area is known to provide silica sand to the industry. The siting of a disposal facility on the site would likely not result in any adverse impacts on

• silica sand availability.

Ferm.ill Pass

• . According to information* from the Updated FSAR. there ts a very low potential for hydrocarbon or *subsurface gas production in the area .

• 3-36

Federal .Criterion IV The disposal site must be generally well drained and free of areas .of flooding or frequent ponding. Waste disposal shall not take place in a 100 year flood plain. coastal high-hazard area, or wetlands .

A 500 year maximum lake level was used* as a reference point for evaluating flood potential. This was done because none of the four sites is located within a proximate river flood plain. This information. as well as that on

........ , wetland~ ... ,m,J,Q. ..higl,l.;-.b,~~d,,cp~s~,,.~~~~t>'fa$,,pbtajllec:l from. the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land*and Water*Manage~ent*Division ...*-***

• Big Rock Point Fail Cedar swamp .surrounds the site. therefore. ponding frequently occurs.

Wetlands were noted within a 3.000 foot radius of the power plant. No high-hazard coastal areas are present near the site. Finally. the 500 year maximum lake level at this site is expected to be approximately 584 ft Mean Sea Leyel (MSL). while the average elevation of the site is 594 ft MSL.

D.C. Cook Fail Wetlands* areas were noted within the .3.000 ft isolation boundary.. In addition. the area is noted to be a high risk erosion area. Ponding does occur on the site but the area appears capable of being drained. Finally. the .

500 year maximum lake level* at this site is expected to be approximately 584.8 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL). while the average elevation of the sit.e is 610 ft MSL. **

Palisades Fail

• Wetlands are found within the 3.000 ft isolation distance. However. there are no high risk areas noted within the proximate area.. Ponding does occur on the site but the atea appears capable of being drained. Finally. the 500 year maximum lake level at this site is expected to be approximately 584.8 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL), while the average elevation of the site is 600 ft MSL.

Fermi II Fail Wetlands are found on the site and ponding frequently occurs in the area's swampy lowlands. Coastal high-hazard areas are not present. Finally, the 500 year maximum lake level at this site is expected to be approximately 578.6 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL). while the average elevation of the site is 575 ft MSL.

3-37

Fec:feral criterion* v Upstream. drainage areas .ftU.iSt *be *minimized to

• decrease the amount of runoff which could

.erode or inundate waste disposal units.

\.

None of the four sites are located within any proximate river flood plains

.. thus negating the risks associated with flooding rivers, such as runoff and erosio~. *

,.. *Big.Rock.Point. Pass ....;.,,,,,,,. . .., . ,.,.*""*" ..... ""*" ,. . . .

D.C.Cook ~*

PsHsacfes Pass FermlU Pass

. *1' 3-38

Federal Criterion VI The disposal site must provide sufficient depth to the water table that ground water intrusion.

perennial or otherwise, into the waste will not occur.

Assuming ail above *ground facility, relatively* high ground water levels at a low-level radioactive waste disposal site can be tolerated.* The sites were evaluated based upon this assumption. Twenty feet was used as the pass/fail criterion (also see IIl-B)~ Given the fact that the waste repository will be constructed near the surface, perhaps :completely buried within the ground,

,., .I. ,it.is1ikely,that,these.evaluatlons.would~er..nfarkedly *.,::,in.the-case -of a near surface facility, 40 feet might not be a sufficient 'depth for* ground water~ * * **

. Big Rock Point Fail

• nie grouild water level at the site is approximately 10 feet below the surface of the site.

D.C. Cook Pass According to the FSAR ground water levels appear to be between 40-80 feet below _the surface of the site in the underlying unconsolidated sand deposit.

• *Palisades Pass Grat.ind water levels at the Palisades Plant are approX:imately 20 feet below the surface of the site. Unconsolidated sand underlies the* site and is the principal water bearing aquifer along *the lake shore .

.Fermi D Fail

• Ground water levels appear to be very high m the area due to the presence of swamps on site. A piezometrtc water level of between 570-580 MSL was noted in the FSAR (surface elevation is approximately 5 75).

• 3-39

.Federal Criterion Vll The hydrogeologicci.l unit used for disposal .sliall

• not discharge ground water to . the surface

. within the disposal site.

- Ground water at three of the four sites discharges directly into Lake Michigan. Ground water at Fermi II discharges into Lake Erie.

• Any of the standing water on each of the sites is more likely due to the existence of perched ground water, than to direct water table ground water discharge.

Perched ground water occurs when an impermeable layer of material is

. . . located.within.. a .permeable~layer.,,.:rJieJmpermeable.layer*serve.s. as*. a trap for

• any incident precipitation. This** r~sults

• m *pondmg *or* submerged -"perched *

• ground water." *

• With the 3,000 foot buffer isolation distance from the Lake to the disposal unit, the ground water discharge criterion will be met by all of the sites.

Big Rock Point Pass

.* D.C~ Co,ok .PQss Pslfsades *Pass Fermi II Pass

• 3-40

Federal Criterion VllI Areas must be avoided where tectonic processes such as faulting, folding, seismic activity, or

• vulcanism may occur with such .frequency and extent to significantly affect the ability of the disposal facility to meet Subpart C of 10CFR6 l performance objectives. *

-Big Rock Point Pass Information *in'**the,;draff*F5AR *indicate~"that *no*major* faults* ~e: kriown to exist in the area. In addition, the draft FSAR reports that the nearest epicenter with a significant modified Mercall1 index was *approximately 62 miles from the plant site and had an intensity of V (mM).

D.C. Cook Pass According to the FSAR. there are no known faults within one ~e of the site. In addition, the FSAR indicates that the two closest epicenters of the highest modified Mercalli index V?ere within 75 miles of the plant site, each with an intensity of VI (mM). ***

PsHsades Pass According to the FSAR. there ate no known faults within one mile of the site. In addition, the FSAR indicates that the closest .epicenter of a significant modified Mercalli index was within 50 miles of the plant site.

with an intensity of VI (mM). *

• FermiD Pass According to the FSAR. there are no known faults within one mile of the site. In addition, the FSAR* indicates that the closest epicenter of a .

significant modified Mercalli index was within 100 miles of the plant site, with an intensity of VIII (mM).

3-41

,.._--* ' ~

.Federal Criterion IX Areas must -be avoided where surface geologic

• processes such as mass wasting, erosion, slumping, landsliding, or weathering occur with such frequency or extent to significantly a.ffect the ability of *the facility to meet the

• performance objectives of 10CFR61 Subpart C.

The life of a low-level radioactive waste site is expected to be over 500 years.

Because of this length of time and because the level of the Great Lakes is in a

.state of fluctuation *. alLshoreline_sites... such .as_the .fouz:. nuclear power plant sites, fail to satisfy this criterion~* **Associated*with the *everchanging lake***

levels are the ongoing processes of erosion. landsliding~ weathering and mass wasting. The dynamic nature of the Great Lakes ecosystem is such that predictions of future lake levels and activities are not practicable Big Rock Point Fail This site failed because of the possibility of wave erosion at this site given the 500 year life of the site.

D.C. Cook Frul This site failed because of the possibility of wave erosion at this site given the 500 year life of the.site.*

Palisades Fail This site failed because of the possibility of wave erosion at this site given the 500 ye~ life _of the site.

Fermi D Fail This site failed because of the possibility of wave erosion at this site given the 500 year life of the site.

3-42

Federal Criterion X The disposal site must not be located where

• nearby facilities or activities could adversely impact the ability of *the site to meet Subpart C

. of 10CFR6 l performance objectives.

It is beyond the scope of this study to determine all the possible activities that might impact adversely upon the siting of a low-level radioactive waste facility in any of the four sites being investigated.

Big Rock Point Inconclusive

. .. . . ~* ' ....

Palisades Inconclusive

• Fermi D Inconclusive 3-43

.3.2 Obfectives The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authortty established nine Performance Objectives in their development of draft siting crtterta. After evaluating the four nuclear power plant sites for their satisfaction of Michigan's siting*

criteria. the findings were used to determine the extent to which each of these 9 objectives was satisfied. *Protecting the air quality. minimizing transportation problems. and avoiding resource development conflicts were objectives shown to be easily accomplished by each site. However, the remaining. objectives ,were**satisfted *-to-*a**lesser degree- at the four power

• plant sites. Protecttng surface and ground water qu~ty presented the greatest obstacle to any of these sites in meeting the established objectives.

The Fermi II site showed the least .number of satisfied criteria and thus achieved fewer of the Michigan performance objectives. The Big Rock Point Plant also showed similar problems, although they were not as extensive as those of the Fermi II Plant. Both Palisades and D. C. Cook failed to satisfy all the . criteria, .thus making the achievement of all performance objectives difficult. * * .. . ..

The four Fed.era! Performance Objectives were evaluated as well to determine the relative achievement of the objectives for each of the four sites. The objective of greatest concern is. the stability of the site after closure.. Due to the *proxiiility *of the sites to the Great Lakes. and the

. occurrence of intense geologic processes in these areas. it cannot be adequately assured that the sites would remairi stable over the* ure of the

• facility. The remaining three objectives can .be achieved through the

,. engin~ering of .the facility and are less controlled by the environment in which the facility is constructed. * * ,

3-44

SECTION FOUR

• • • • Conclusions This study-found that none of the four nuclear power plants in Michigan are suitable sites for co-location of a low-level radioactive waste isolation facility.

Based on the available information listed in Section Five of this report. the

• -.. -***nuclearµ power ,~plant-.. -sites *~d....-µnmediately-adjacent -area~ .~did . not p:ieet ....

several . key eX:clusionary criteria. These criteria include those in which areas of intense geologic proceses *such as mass. wasting, erosion and the

. like must be excluded, areas with high values of soil permeability must be excluded, areas exhibiting poor drainage and ponding must be excluded. and areas designated as. wetlands must be excluded. . .

Although some specific detailed information about the sites was unavailable, the information .that did exist .was enough for a proper initial evaluation as.

requested by the Authority.

The goal of the siting criteria is to select a site With outstanding natural barriers in the event of a leak or spill breaching one of the many engineered barriers of the actual facility*. an.d disposal process.

Relying oiily on the available information that was reviewed, a low-level

• radioactive waste disposal facility would *not .meet the go'als of the Siting

• Criteria Advisory Committee, Act 204 of 1987, the Authority's ~d the NRC's siting objectives and criteria and the overall goals of the .NRC's performance

• objectives. All of the sites are located *near either populated or popular seasonal re~ort areas of the State and are. located adjacent to one of the Great Lakes. These sites do not offer suitable natural protection from an inadvertent spill or undetected leak of the anticipated waste mixture.

Finally, tJie shoreline setting* of each of the nuclear power plants does* not

• offer the safety and security of alternative non-shore sites. Wind-driven flooding and seiches will undoubtably play an important role in the integrity .

• and longevity of the site and facility throughout its life.*

4-1

SECTION.FIVE Bibliography Big Rock Point* Nuclear Power Plant Big Rock Point Plant. Updated FHSR; draft Chapter 2. undated.

Environmental Qualifications and Safety-Related Electrical Eguipment. Big Rock Point Nucl~ar Plan~;. Consumers Po~. October 31. 19.80.

Integrated Plant Safety Asseselrent. A Systematic Evaluation* Pro~ for Big Rock Point Plant; US Nucl Regulatory Commission. September 1983.

Operating Ucense with Technical Specifications; continually amended ..

D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant D.C. Cook final Safety Analysis Report for.Units I and 2: Unit 1. 1974; Unit

2. 1977.. '

D.C. Cook Nuclear Power PlantTechnical Specifications. ongoing updates.

Enrico Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant ..

Fermi 2 Nuclear 1:'ower Plant Technical Specifications. ongoing updates.

Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit #2; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 1981.

Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Femn Atomic PoWer Plant; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. July 1981.

• Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for Fermi 2; April 1987.

Preliminaiy Draft Overall Economic Development Plan; May 1988.

Pallsades Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Eguipment.

Palisades Nuclear Plant; Consumers Power. September 1981.

5-1

Palisades Nuclear Power Plant (cont~)

Environmental Report of the Operating License Stage. Pa}isades Plant:

October 1970.

• Final Environmental Statement* Related to* Operation of the Pa}isades Nuclear Generating Plant: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 1978. .

Final Safety Analysis Report. Volumes 1. 2. and 3: December 15. 1973.

• Integrated Plant Safety Assessment - A Systematic Eva!uatton Program for *

• Palisades Nuclear Plartt:* USNuclear'Regtilatory Cotillriission, April ,1982 ...

Operating License with Technical Specifications: *continually amended.

• Palisades Plant Full Term Operatin(l License Application. Volumes 1and2:

January 22. 1974.

• Palisades Plant Facility Description and Safety Analvsis Report: General Information. Volume 1.

• Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Radiolo(lical Emergency Preparedness *

• Exercise - 1985; Emergency Management Division. Department of State Police. State of Miclligan: August 1985.

General Ostrow. J .L., et al: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Statton. Jn.:situ

• Decommissioning/Low Level Waste Management Topical Report: Ebasco.

January 1987. .

Regional Management Plan. Volumes 1-12: Midwest Interstate Low Level

• Radioactive Waste Commission, St. Paul. Minnesota. August. 1986..

Hydrogeologic Atlas* of Michigan*. Department of Geology. Western Michigan University; Kalamazoo, MI. 1981.

• 5-2

Appendix A Worksheets

MI Type or

1. Criteria Criteria_ OK Fails Reasons:

FEDERAL Protection of the general papulation from releases Within Smiles of Charlevoix (pbpulatfon .. 3300); within 15 miles of Petoskey of radioactivity (population ... 6000); total population reported lo be 59,000 within30 mile radius FEDERAL Protection of individuals from inadvertent intruSior x Power plant maintains intrusion protection FEDE~AL Protection of individual_s during operations x Emergency preparedness and procedures in place for power plant FEDERAL Stability of the disposal site after closure x I '

1-A Prime Exclude areas within in~Q~raled city limits as x Plant reports that it is not incorporated in any city; localed in Hayes Township EX esiablished on 1/1/88 ' .

'I -

I  :

1-8 ~e Exclude areas not large:~nough IO assure isolation x Approximately 2700 feet from unit to property boundary EX distance of 3,000 or more fL from the disposal uni 1 1-C Favorable Seek areas where population growth is not 1 Three cmmty area has an estimated growth rate of 20-30% over a ten year period expected IO affect the peif0nnance of the unit (Ranking 1'=8est; 4=Worsl)

II-A Prime Exclude areas located 1 'mile or less from a fault x Accor~ng IO draft UFSAR, no major faulting recognized in local area EX where tectonic movement has occurred in the last 10,000 years 11-8 Prime Exclude areas of earthquakes with intensities of x Keewenaw Pennisula in 1906 VIII; Houghton in 1905 V; Indiana, Ml in 1883 VI; EX a modified Mercalli index of VUI or greater closeSt was lOOkm from plant site and was V (modified Mercalli)

• WORKSHEET FOR BIG R T POWER PLANT - PAGE I OF 5

---

*-*---~--*******--*--

Ml Type or

1. Criteria Criteria OK Fails Reasons:

x Probable maximum flood =598.8 ft MSL. Probable maximum wave = 586.8 ft U-C Prime EX Exclude areas within the 500 year flood plain MSL. Highe8t recorded lake level = 584 MSL. According to MDNR, 500 year maximum Lake level 583.0 IGLD or 584.2 MSL: site=592.8 MSL D-D Prime Exclude areas of intense geologic processes such x Wave erosion may be a problem: no solution features (HLA Report)

EX as mass w~ting, erosion, slumping, landsliding, or weathering Exclilde areas where me water table is not x Ground water level =583.6 MSL design; Site elevation=592.8 MSL; soil is noted sufficiendy low to pre~e~t the intrusion of IO be well_ drained; artesian sand lenes noted in clay till ID-A Prime groundwater ...

EX - Ground Water must not be within the bottom of the unit  :'

r .

- Leak detcclion sys~ above the water table ill-B Prime Exclude areas where ~~ is not 6 meters (20 feet) Iiiconclusive; soil is noted to be well drained and porous; specific permeability EX of soil with 1.0 x lOE~ cm/sec below the leak test not available

• detcction system  ;-

Ul-C Prime Exclude areas where radionuclide travel lime is Inconclusive; specific permeability test not available EX less than 1()() years along a 100 foot flowpath W-D Prime Exclude areas where th~ travel time from the water Inconclusive; s~ific permeability test not available EX table at the edge of the disposal unit to an aquifer is less than 5()() years ill-E Prime EX Exclude areas localed o~er a sole source aquifer x No sole source aquifers present in Michigan (4/1/88)

WORKSllEET FOR DIG ROCK POINT POWER PLANT - PAGE 2 OF 5

Ml Type or - . *'

1. Criteria Cril'eria OK Falls Reasons:

Ul-F Prime Exclude areas where ground water is di~hatged x Ground water diseharges into Lake Michigan; 3000 foot isolation dis.lance from EX within 3000 feet of the unit disposal unit to lake m-0 **Prime Exclude areas not free of ponding or incapable of x Cedar Swamp surrounds sile; water s1ands in some areas EX being drained In a manner tO ensure inlegrity ill-H  : Prime Exclude areas located wiihin I0 miles of the Great x Meets exception

~" Lakes and the St. Marf's:river, Detroit River, St Clair River, Lake S~. Clair (not applied if located at or adjacent to, a nuclear power plant i

III-I Favorable Seek areas with simple hydrogeology (modeled and . x Artesian sand lenses in ~lay soil make modelling difficult monitored)

III-J Favorable Seek areas that dO not overlie aquifers .* x Sile overlies limestone (~lomile) aquifer

-:i ill-K Favorable Seek areas which do not include public waler x Charleviox has off-shore in~e; wells greater than 5 miles from sile supply wells, well fieldS, high capacity production wells and abandoned wCus '

IV-A Favorable Seek areas which mininiize transportation acciden(l; 4 Regional population and available transportation routes used to rank four power

~' plant si1es<RankinJt l=Best: 4=Worsl): US 31 (20 miles)

IV-8 Favo~ble Seek areas which minim,ize exposures to radiation 1 Regional p<>pulation'and available transportation routes used to rank four power 1WOCiated wi~ tran~tiOfl accidents plant siles (Ranking l=Best; 4=Worst)

~

v-A Favorable Seek areas with simple inereorological sysiems x ~ysiems monitored on-sile at plant lhat can be modeled and monitored ..

WORKSHEET FOR BIG ROC T POWER PLANT - PAGE 3 OF 5

• MI Type or Criteria Criteria i

OK Fails Reasons:

VI-A Favorable Seek areas where natural resources do not exist on x Limestone mining i~ area; several state and local parks within 10 miles of site or significantly near the site '

VII-A Prime Exclude areas with wCtlands as defme.d .. x Accordi"g IO MDNR, wetlands noted withiil 3000 feet of site EX by Act No. 203 VIl-8 frime Exclude areas with enviiorunental areas (EA) or x f'\Jo EA's or high risk areas (MDNR)

EX hig~ risk~ as defi*'ed in the shorelands protection act - Act 245 VU-C Favorable Seek areas !'hich are nQl wildlife conservati0n Inconclusive; power plant already located on site areas '

VIl-D Favorable Seek sites that do not:cause visual intrusion on x Power plant already located on site designated scenic hi~:ways (1/1188)

VIl-E Favorable S~ sites that Will llQ~ r;emove prime farmland x., Power plant siting has already designated land for non-fanning use.

VW-A Favorable Seek areas which are not included.in formally x Major development planned for old Cement Plant, 11 miles away (not approved) proposed approved development plans as of l/1/'88 VIll-8 Favorable Seek areas which do ~t require removal of prln:ie x.. . See Vll-E farmland ~t would disrupt a community's economy '

Vlll-C Favorable* Give preference IO coinmunities that want the unit WORKSHEET FOR BIG ROCK POINT POWE!{ PLANT --PAGE 4 OF 5 .

Type or Criteria Criteria

'Prime Comply with federal laws:

EX Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Chapter 1073, 68 Stal 919 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 7587, 62 Stal. 1155 Coastal Zone Manager!teni Act of 1972, Public Law 89-454, 16 USC 1451 to 1454b, 1455 to 1459, 1461 to 1463, 1464 Endangered Species Act of 1973, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Public Law 90-542, 16 U.S.C. 1271tO1287 Wilderness Act Publicl.aw 88-577, 16 U.S.C. 1131 to il36 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1960 Public Law 89-669, 16 USC 668dd, 668ee Chapter 593, *49 Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. 461 to 467 .. .

The National HistoriC'Preservation Act, Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a, 470b, 470c to 470w-6 Olher Laws Referenced:. :

Act No. 204 of Public A~ts of 1987 10 CFR 61 subpart C - (Performance objectives)

• Act No. 245 of Public Acts of 1929 (sections 323.1to323'J3 of MCL)- floodway designation 49 CFR Parts 100-179'  ;

Act No 203 of Public Acts of 1979 (sections 281.701-281.722 MCL) - wetlands*

Act 245 of Public Acts:of 1970 (sections 281.631-281.644 MCL) ~shorelines

. and high.risk areas WORKSHEET FOR BIG R . POWER PLANT - PAGE 5 OF 5

Ml Type or Criteria Criteria OK Falls Reasons:

FEDERAL Protection of the general population from releases Within 11 miles of Benton Harbor/ St Joseph (=27,000); total population or of radioactivity approximately 4.6 million within 60 mile radius; summer resort area FEDERAL Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusior x Power phmt maintains intrusion protection FED~RAL Protection of individUals during operations x Emergency preparedn~ and procedures in place for power plant .

~ l FEDERAL Stability of the dispos,ai site after closure x Shoreline erosion imminent I-A Prime Exclude areas within .incorporated city limits 8s x '

According IO the FSAR, plant is not incorporated inlO a city; located in EX established on 1/1/88 '  ;

Lake Township 1-B Prime Exclude areas not large enough IO assure isolation x Site comprises 650 acres; site boundaries do not allow sufficient propeny EX distance of 3,000 or rfiore fL from the disposal uni1  ;

IO assure isolation distance i

1-C Favorable Seek areas where population growth is not 2 Projected moderate.growth rate for area within 60 mile radius of site; Chicago, IL expected IO affect the }ierronnance of the unit is within 58 iniles of site (Ranking l=Best; 4=Worst)

D-A Prime Exclude areas located I mile or less from a fault x According IO FSAR~ no faults within I mile of site EX where tectonic moveriient has occuned in the last 10,000 years * "

ll-B Prime Exclude areas of earthquakes with intensities of x 2 epicenters within 75 miles of site with maximum intensity of VI EX a modified Mercalli index of Vlll or greater modified Mercalli p883 & 1947)

WORKSHEET FOR D.C. COOK POWER PLANT - PAGE I OF 5

Ml Type or "1

1. Criteria Criteria OK Falls Reasons:*

11-C Prime EX Exclude areas wilhin the 500 year flood plain x According lo MDNR, 500 year maximum Lake Michigan water level - 583.3 IGLD or 584.8MSL: surface elevation= 610 feel D-D Prime Exclude areas of intense geologic processes such

• x According to MDNR, site is in a high erosion potential area; near shoreline; EX as mass wasting, erosion, slumping, landsliding, sand dune ecology; swampy areas in eastern portion of site or weathering Exclude areas where 1hC water table is not x Static water table elevations*in 19 test borings ranged from 582 to 609 feet sufficiently low lO prevent lhe in.trusion of above MSL; water table 40-80 feet below grade W-A Prime groundwater EX - Ground Water mUst not be within the bollOm ..

. of lh~ unit '

- Leak detection system above. the water table lli-B Prime Exclude areas where there is not 6 meters (20 feet) x On sand dun~; permeability= 1-2 feet per day EX of soil with 1.0 x lOE,*6 cm/sec below the leak detection system m-<: Prime Exclude areas where qiwonuclide ttavel time is x Sand loose lO moderate at swface - compacting with deplh (25-35 ft. !hick); site EX less lhan 100 years along a 100 foot flowpath penn~bility indicates an average permeability 1-2 fl/day; gradient=0.5 to 4 %

IU-D Prime Exclude areas where ll:ae ttavel time from the water x Sand underlies si~

EX table at the edge of th~ disposal unit lO an aquifer is less than 500 years.-.

W-E Prime EX Exclude areas localed qver a sole source aquifei- x N~ in Michigan (4-1-88) '.

Ul-F Prime Exclude 3l"C$ where gri>und water is discharged x Ground water discharges lO Lake Michigan; 3000 foot isolation distance from EX within 3000 feet of the unit lake lO disposal unit

• WORKSHEET FOR D.C. POWER PLANT - PAGE 2 OF 5

Ml Type or '

1. Criteria Criteria OK Fails Reasons:

m-0 Prime Exclude areas not free of ponding or incapable of x Some shallow ponds on easiem portion of site; some swampy EX being drained in a manner co ensure in~grity ~exist; pond~ reflect ground waler !able in dunes m-H Prime Exclude areas located within 10 miles of the Great x Meets exception ,

EX Lakes and the SL Mary's river;Detroit River~

St Clair River, Lake St. Clair (not appliecl if

• located at or adjacent co a nuclear power plant) ill-I F!lvorable Seek areas with simple hydrQge.ology (modeled and x FSAR s1a1es re,ative si:mplicity of area hydroge.ology monitored) * -

m-J Favorable Seek areas ihat do not overlie aquifers x Overlies sand aquifer lll-K Fayorable Seek areas which do not include public waier x .' Private wells directly sunoumling area; municipalities in area utiliz.e Lake supply wells, well fields, High capacity production Michigan water as poiable source wells and abandoned wells ' * *

• IV-A Favorable. Seek areas' which minimi7.C transporta~on acciden~ 2 Regional population and available transportation routes used co rank four power nlant sites lRankin2 l=Best: 4=Worstl: 1-94 runs throu2h nronenv IV-8 Favorable Seek areas which minimize, exposures co radiation *J Regional population and _available transportation routes used to rank four power associated with transporlatfon accidents *

• plant sites (Ranking l,,;Best; 4=Worst)

V-A Favorable Seek areas with simpl~ meteorological systems x Systems monito~ on-site at plant that can be modeled and monitored * ..

• .~

VI-~ Favorable Seek areas where. natural re_sources do not exist on x Area ~own to provide silica sand co if!<f ustry or significantly near the site I WORKSHEET FOR D.C. COOK POWER PLANT - PAGE 3 OF 5

MI Type or ..  :

1. Criteria Criteria* OK Fails Reasons:

VII-A Prime Exclude areas with wetlands as defined x According to MDNR, wetlands noted within 3,000 foot isolation distance radius EX

• by Act No. 203 Vll-B Prime Exclude areas with environmental areas (EA) or x According to MDNR, area does not have EA's within I mile of site; high risk EX high risk areas as defined itJ the shorelands areas noted (MDNR); 70/95 fool setback recommended (MDNR) protection act - Act 245 VII-C Favorable Seek areas which are not wlldlife conservatibn In~nclusive; power plant already located on site areas ..

VII-D Favorable Seek sites that do not cause:visual intrusion on x Power plant already located on site designated scenic highways (1/1188) .

VII-E Favorable Seek sites that will not remove prime farmland x <i0% of surrounding land is used for farming; however, plant siting has already desinated land for non-farmiml use vm-A Favorable Seek areas which are not included in formally x None noted in FSAR proposed ~proved develo~ent plans as of 1/1188

..I .

Ym-B Favorable Seek areas which do not reqQire removal of prime x See VII-E farmland that would disrupt~ commuruty's .

economy VIJl-C Favorable Give Preference to communities that want the unit WORKSHEET FOR D.C. COO R PLANT - PAGE 4 OF S

Ml Type ol

1. Crlleria Criteria IX Prime Comply with federal laws:

EX Atomic Energy Act of 1954;_ Chapta 1073, 68 StaL 919

• Federal Water Pollution Con_tror Act, Chapter 7587, 62 Stat. 1155 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Public Law 89-454, 16 USC 1451 lo 1454b, 1455 lo 1459, 1461 to 1463, 1464 Endangered Species Act of 1.973, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884. . .

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Public Law 90-542, 16U.S.C. 1271 lo 1287 Wilderness Act Public Law BS-577, 16 U.S.C. 1131 to i 136 **

National Wildlife Refuge Sy~tem Administration Act of 1960 Public Law 89~9, 16 USC <i68dd, <i68ee Chapter 593, 49 Stal. 666, 16 U.S.C. 461 lo 467 The National Historic Preservation Act, Public Law. 89~5. 16 U.S.C. 470 lo 470a, 470b, 470c to 470w-6 Olher Laws Referenced:

Act No. 204 of Public Acts of 1987 10 CFR 61 subpart C- (perftjnnance objectives)

Act No. 245 of Public Acts qf,1929 (sections 323.1 to 323.13 of tvfCL) - floodway designation 49 CFR Parts 100-179 ' . .

Act No 203 of Public Acts of 1979 (sections 281.701-281.722 MCL) - wetlands Act 245 of Public Acts of 1970 (sections 281.631-281.644 MCLj - shoreliiies arid high risk~

,

• I

• WORKSHEET FOR D.C. COOK POWER PLANT - PAGE 5 OF S

Ml Type or

1. Criteria Crlteri~ OK Fails Reasons:

FEDERAL Protection of the general pop~lation from releases Within 16 iniles of Benton Harbor/St. Joseph (population =27,000); 4.5 miles of radioactivity from South Haven; total population reported to be near 2 million within 50 mile radius of site* summer resort area (50% rxmulation increase)

FED~RAL Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusio11 x Power plant maintains intrusion protection FEDERAL Protection of individuals dUring operations x Emergency preparedness and procedures in place for power plailt FED~RAL Stability of the disposal site 8ffor closure x Shoreline erosion imminent I-A Prime Exclude areas within incorP<>raled city limits as x According to the FSAR, plant is not incorporated into a city; located in EX established on 1/1/88 Covert Township

! ~

1-B Prime Exclude areas not large enopgh to assure isolation x Sile comprises of 487 acres; site boundaries do not allow sufficient propeny EX distance of 3,000 or more fL from the disposal uni1 to assure isolation distance 1-C Favorable Seek areas where populatiot) growth is not J Estimated 25% increase in population within 25yrs.; South Bend, Indiana and expected to affec~ the performance of the unit* Kalamaz<>WJ>ortage within 50 miles (1970 census values 125K and 85K respectively); 50% summez pop. increase; (Ranking l=Best; 4=Worst) 0-A Prime Exclude areas localed 1 mile or less fr6m a fault x No faults within 100 miles of site as reported in the FSAR EX where tectonic movement has occurred in the last -

10,000 years WORKSHEET FOR PALISAD.ER PLANT - PAGE 1 OF 5

Ml Type of

1. Criteria Criteria OK Falls Reasons:

11-B Prime Exclude areas of earthquakes with intensities of x .. One epicenter within 50 miles of site ( 1883) of an intesity of VI modified EX a modified Mercalli index of VUI or greater Mercalli; one within 100 miles (1947) VI modified Mercalli 11-C Prime EX Exclude areas within the 500 year flood plain x According to FSAR; 597.1 *fL MSL for maximum wave flood; 594.67 ft MSL

' for maximum flood level; according to MDNR, 500 year maximwn Lake

.. Michi2an water level - 583.3 IGLD or 584.8 MSL: surface elev.= 600 ft MSL 11-D Prime Exclude areas of intense getjl~ic processes such . x Sand dwtes present; new: shoreline; according to MDNR erosion potential exists EX ~ mass wasting, erQSion, slumping, landsliding, or weathering

... ~

I Exclude areas where the wa~ table is not x* Ground water apparently high; water level= 581' MSL; sufficiently low to prevent the intrusion of surface elevation .. 600 ft; no confi~ aquifer found within area ( 1966) m-A Prime growtd Waler ~  :

. EX - Ground Water must not be within the bottom . ' ..

of the unit .l

- Leak detection system above the water table

.. . ... ~

m-11 ~e Exclude areas where there i8. not 6 meters (20 feet) x Sand dunes over ~dy clay (top of saildyclay is 5()()..565 MSL)

EX of soil with 1.0 x lOE-6 cril/iec below the leak detection system ..

¥ lli-C Prime Exclude areas where radionoclide travel time is x High permeability (30-17~ fl/yr); gradient=llfeet per mile)

EX less tlum 100 years along a :100 foot no~th ..

m-D Prime Exclude areas where the tra~el time from the water x Sand Undeilies the site..

WC or table at the edge the di8'*1ll l.lllit to an aquifer .. .. _,

is less than 500 years WORKSHEET FOR PALISADES POWER PLANT - PAGE 2 OF 5 .

Ml Type or

1. Criteria Criteria OK Fails Reasons:

lli-E Prime EX Exclude areas loca~ over a sole source aquifer x None in Michigan (4-1-88) lli-F Prime. Exclude areas where ground \\'ater is diseharged x Ground water discharges IO Lake Michigan; 3000 foot isolation dist.ance from EX within 3000 feet of the unit lake IO ~isposal unit lli-0 Prime Exclude areas not free of ponding or incapable of x High ground water, swampy lowlands in area; site can be drained.

EX being drained in a manner IO en~ure integrity lli-H Prime Exclude areas located within ~O miles of the Great x Meets exception EX Lakes and the SL Mary's river, Detroit River, St Clair River, Lake SL Claif; (not applied if located at or adjacent IO a nuclear power plant Ill-I Favorable Seek areas with simple hydrogeology (modeled and x Appears geology is simple; no detailed reports found monilored) m-J Favorable Seek areas that do opt overlie aquifers x Overlie8 sand aquifer lli-K Favorable Seek tu"eas which do not foclude public water x Private wells located within I m!le of site; no identified public wells accodring supply wells, well fields, high capacity production 10 FSAR; wells and abandoned wells IV-A F?vorable Seek ar~ which minimii.e ~rtation acciden~ 1 Region.al population and available transportation routes used to rank four power nlanlsites <Rankin2 l=Best: 4=Wors0: US-31and1-196 border the site IV-B Favo~ablc Seek areas which minimize exl>osures IO radiation 2 Regional population and available routes used IO rank four power associated with transportation accidents . plant sites (Ranking l=Best; 4=Worst)

WORKSHEET FOR PALISADES PLANT - PAGE 3 OF 5

Ml Type or

1. Criteria Criteria OK Fails Reasons:

V-A F~vorable Seek areas with simple meteorological systems x s)'saen.s monitored on-site at plant site that can be ~odeled and monitored VI-A Favorable Seek areas where natural resources do not exist Of! x Area known to provide silica sand to industry; State Park adjacent or significantly near the site VII-A Prime as Exclude areas with wetlands defined x According to MDNR, wetlands noted within 3,000 foot isolation distance radius EX by Act No. 203 *' :

a. . ...

VII-B Prime Exclude areas with environmental areas (EA) or x No E,4.'s reported by MDNR; plant site is not a high risk area, but high risk EX m high risk areas as defined the shorelands areas are '10ted close t~ the site (MDNR) protection act - Act 245 Vll-C Favorable Seek areas which are not wildlife conservation Inconelusive; power plant already l~ted on site an2I Vll-D Favorable Seek sites that do not cause:visual intrusion on x Power. plant ~dy 'ocated on site designated scenic highways (1/1/88)

~:

Vll-E Favorable Seek sites that will not remove prime farmland

• x Plant ~iting l'ias already deSinated land for non-farming use :

"r vm-A Favorable Seek areas which are not induded in formally x None noted in FSAR proposed approved development plans as of 1/1188 VID-B Fav9rable Seek areas which do not require removal of prime x SeeVD-E . . ..

farmland that would disrupt a community's economv '

WORKSHEET FOR PALISADES POWER PLANT - PAGE 4 OF S

---

,----~ ....*-**-*-**-**** ...

Ml Type or

1. Criteria Criteria. OK Falls Reasons:

Vlll-C Favorable Give preference lO communities that want the unit IX Prime Comply with fed~ laws: .

EX Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Chapter 1073, 68 Stat 919 t Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 7587, 62 Stat. 1155 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Public Law 89-454, 16 USC 1451 to 1454b, 1455 lO 1459, 1461 to 1463, 1464

. Endangered Species Act of ;1973, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Public Law 90-542, 16 U.S.C. 1271 lO 1287 Wilderness Act Public La~ 88-577, 16 U.S~C. 1131 lO 1136 .

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1960 Public Law 89-669, 16 USC 668dd, 668ee Chapter 593, 49 Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. 461to467 ** **

• The National Historic Preseryation Act, Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470 lO 470a, 470b, 470c lO 470w-6 Other Laws Referenced:

Act No. 204 of Public Ac~ of 1987 10 CFR 61 subpart C - (performance objectives)

Act No. 2A5 of Public AclS of J929 (sections 323.1to323.13 of MCL)- floodway designation .

49 CFR Parts i00-179 . . .

Act No 203 of Public Acts of 1979 (sections 281.701-281.722 MCL) - wetlands Act 2A5 of Public Acts of *970 (sections l81.631-281.644 MCL) ~shorelines and high nsk areas WORKSHEET FOR PALISA WER PLANT - PAGE 5 OF 5

Ml Type or Criteria Criteria. OK Fails Reasons:

FEDERAL Protect.ion of the general population from releases Within 5.5 miles of Monroe, Ml (..,23,500); total population reported to be of radioactivity approximately 5.4 million within a 50 mile radius; seasonal recreation area FEDERAL Protection of individuals fmm inadvertent intrusio11 x Power plant maintains intrusion protect.ion I

FEDERAL Protection of individuals d~ng operations x Emergency preparedn~ and proCedures in place for power plant FEDERAL Stability of the disposal site Brter closure x Located within an active marsh; and on a shoreline

. ~  ;

~

I-A Prime Exclude areas within incorprirated city limits as x According to the FSAR, plant is not incorporated into a city; located in EX established on 1/1188 .. Frenchtown Township 1-8 Prime Exclude areas not large enoug~ to assure isolation lnconcilusive, site comprised of 1i20 acres of land; exact site ooundaries not EX distance of 3,000 or more fL. from the disposal wli1

• provided in FSAR 1-C Favorable Seek areas where population; growth is not 4 FSAR.estimates 10% incr~ in population per decade for the area within 50 expected to affect ihe perf~ce of the unit *j mile r8dius of site; downtown Detroit within 27 miles; downtown toledo within 2S .miles (Ranking l=Best; 4=Worsl)

II-A Prime Exclude areas located 1 mile or less from a fault x According to FSAR, no faults within 1 mile; 1 fault noted within 50 EX where tectonic m~vement ha5 occurred in the last miles of site I0,000 years 11-8 Prime Exclude areas of earthquakeli:with inlenSities of x No earthquakes have occurred with an intensity of VI or greater within 50 mile EX a modified Mercalli index of Ylll or greater ~dius; one epicenter within 100 miles of site (1937) of intesity VIII (modified Mercalli)

WORKSHEET FOR ENRICO FERMI UNIT 2 - PAGE 1 OF 5

Ml Type or

1. Criteria Criteria OK Fails Reasons:

U-C Prime EX Exclude areas wilhin the 500 year flood plain X Accoroing to MDNR, 500 year maximum Lake Erie water level - 577.1 IGLD or 578.6 MSL; surface elevation .. 515 ft

• D-D Prime Exclude areas of intense geologic* processes such X Near shoreline; located within an active swamp; area noled for EX as mass wasting, erosion, slumping, landsliding, sink holes or wealhering Exclude areas where ihe water table is nOt X Ground water level is high; piezometric water level is 570-580 feet sufficiently low to prevent the intrusion of (Lake Erie ~ater level is 572) lll-A Prime ground Waler ' .

EX - Ground Water must nod>e within the bottom of the unit ,

- Leak detection system above the water table ill-B Prime Exclude areas where there is nOt 6 meters (20 feet) X Soil cover ranges from 2-9 meters .

EX of soil with 1.0 x JOE-6 cm/Stt. below the leak detectioQ system lll-C Prime Exclude areas where radionuelide ttavel time is Inconclusive; drift deposits in area range from impervious till to coarse EX less than 100 years along ~ 100 foot Oowpath deposits of gravel and ~ulders; n~ reported permeability tests found in FSAR DI-D Prime '

Exclude areas where lhe ttav~I time from the water Inconclusive; no reported permeability tests found in FSAR EX table at the edge of lhe dispoSal unit to an aquifer is less than 500 years

• DI-E Prime EX Exclude areas located over a s0le'source aquifer x No sole souree aquifers present in Michigan (4/l/88)

WORKSHEET FOR ENRICO UNIT 2 - PAGE 2 OF 5

Ml Type or

1. Crileria Criteria OK Fa*ils Reasons:

lll-F Prime Exclude areaS where ground waier is discharged x Ground water discharges into Lake Erie; 3000 fool isolation distance from EX within 3000 feet of the unit disposal unit to Jake '

m-0 Prime Exclude areas not free of ponding or incapable of x North and south area of site are dominated by large lagoons; swampy low EX being drained in a manner to ens&ire integrity . lying areas present on site; located within the Lake Erie drainage

~in; area considered primary marshland lll-H Prime Exclude areas localed within JO miles of the Great x Meets exception EX Lakes and the St. Mary's ri~tr,.Dettoit River, -**

St Clair River, Lake St. Claii: (not applied if localed at le Seek sites that do not cause visual intrusion on x Power*plant already located on site designated scenic highways (l/1/88)

Vn-E Favor~ble ~eek sites that will not remove prime farmland x S.5% of land within io mi. of plant is farmland; however, power plant siting has

. already designated land for non-farming use.

Vlll-A Favorable Seek areas which are not incli.Jded in formally x None noted in FS~

proposed approved developm.ent plans as of 1/1188 WORKSHEET FOR ENRICO UNIT 2 - PAGE 4 OF S

Ml Type of Criteria Criteria OK Falls Reasons:

• VIII-B Favorable Seek areas which do oot requ,ire removal of prime . X See VIl-E farmland that would disrupt a community's economy Vlll-C Favorable Give preference to communitle8 ihat want the unit IX Prime Comply with federal laws::. .

EX Atomic Energy Act of 1954,.Chapter 1073, 68 Stal 919 Federal Water Pollution Coriuol Act, Chapter 7587, 62 Stat. 1155 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Public Law 89-454, 16 USC 1451 tO 1454b, 1455 to 1459, 1461 tp 1463, 1464 Endangered Species Act ot 1973, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stal. 884 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act PUblic Law 90-542, 16 U.S~C. 1271 to 1287 Wilderness Act Public L8w 88-577, 16 u.s.c. 1131 to 1136 * * '

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1960 Public Uw 89-669, 16 USC <>68dd, (J68ee Chapter 593, 49 Stal 6<>6; 16 U.S.C. 461 to 467 .

The National HislOric Pr~ation Act, Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C, 470 lO 470a, 470b, 470c to 470w-6

.Other Laws ~eferencCd:

Act No. 204 of Public ActS of 1987 IO CFR 61 subpart C - (peifonnance objectives)

Act No. 245 of Public ActS of 1929 (sections 323.1 to 323.i3 of MCL) - Ooodway designation 49 CFR Parts 100-179 Act No 203 of Public Acts:of 1979 (sections 281.701-281.722 Met.) - wetlands Act 245 of Public Acts of 1970 (sections 281.631-281.644 MCL)- shorelines and high risk areas WORKSHEET FOR ENRICO FERMI UNIT 2 - PAGE 5 OF 5

AppendixB Michigan Department of Natural Resources Correspondence

• Floodplain *Control Unit ~tter

STATE OF MICHIGAN URAL RESOURCES COMMISSION iOMAS J. ANDERSON

\'~J

""~

~RLENEJ. FLUHARTY

ARY KAMMER

'l<::d:j STEWART MYERS WID D. OLSON JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Governor

~YMOND POUPORE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING BOX 30028 L.ANSING. Ml '8909 GORDON E. GUYER. Director April 4, 1988 Mr. John Voytek Low Level Radioactive Waste Authority Re: *Service No. 8803 168 Floodplain Information

.I

Dear Mr. Voytek:

I The following are the 100-year and 500-year floodplain elevations iri the vicinity of the four power plants. The elevation datums used were: Interna-i l

tional Great Lakes Datum of 1955 (IGLD) and Mean Sea Level Datum of 1929 (MSL).

Cook Power Plant Watercourse: Lake Michigan Section 6, T6S, Rl9W

• Baroda- Towship Berrien County 100-Year 582 .-7 IGLD, 584. 2 MSL 500-Year 583.3 IGLD, 584.8 MSL Big Rock Power Plant Watercourse: Lake Michigan Section 8, T34N, R7W Hayes Township Charlevoix County 100-Year 582.4 IGLD, 583.6 MSL 500-Year 583.0 IGLD, 584.2 MSL Palisades Power Plant Watercourse: Lake Michigan Section 5, T2S, Rl7W Covert Township Van Buren County 100-Year 582.6 IGLD, 584.0 MSL 500-Year 583.2 IGLD, 584.6 MSL 1029 88-.i;~,

. John Voytek pril 4, 1988 Page Two Enrico Fermi Power Plant Watercourse: Lake Erie Section 21, T6S, RlOE Frenchtown Township Monroe County 100-Year*

• 5 76 .A . IGLD.,* , 5.77 _g: **MSL

.500-Year 5 77 .1 IGLD*; 578 .*6* MSL..

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us by mail or telephone.

Sincerely,

r

~~

Luis Saldivia Floodplain Control Unit

• LS:cjr Land and Water Management Division 517-335-3188

• _ Wetland Location Maps

Palisades Site Scale l :24 000 Contour Interval 10 feet The Palisades Nuclear Power Plant is immediately enclosed within the box on the left hand side of the map.

• Designated Wetlands areas within the 3000 foot isolation distance *are

• circled and shaded. Wetlands areas outside the 3000 foot isolation distance are merely circled .

-~calc *l : 24, ooo

~ mfoLlr- It'lter\ral Io tee:f- )

/,-*'.

I *

!I PfOlt.*.

\: .*.. b

~~~lr\C PfOIC J, ;

1* PFOlt llUSlJ

.*. ./

8 . ./ j :.. . r

/ ~

/

I I

r'

/ . . /{ :JMC

/ .! .

Big Rock Point Site Scale 1:25 000 Contour Interval 5 feet The Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant is enclosed *immediately within the box on the top middle of the map.

The designated Wetlands areas within the 3000 foot isolation distance are circled and shaded.

llllll gpn+q,r le I: 2$,COO

-I - lntenral S feet

• ---***640 12* r:JO"

-1 .... *-. ---.-- --*---**-*

641

• '42 . 64:J IU' 644

• !.lfil!QQ.O N

C - \-1 I_ G 7

' E tv\

~E [LE\11' ~

-~nN 111.0 1

NL""

• • ,.1E 1.4EI' .

~

{\ llf'f'llolU"' .***

_,*(d1ID i __

i'fl ""~;lft _

I

• • • I~ , ,.r_J .r..

I /

I* --******tlL.f 9 ..

~9A

-/',

~_.,***7*

. <l I

l'!f.l*q

. l. ) '

-4* 8

),.,,.,,~r

"<i"'-~<I.*/

~Ss

. i .* ..* -

1111.i ,.**

111.*

~_,::-,\.

, I

• -~--

.,L-

. . ./ ,

.I.

Burgess_ ~/".. . '.,, ; \.. . "j ~.....,

-*['** I £ 1;*11

-- *I .*/;t . *. I \. * \ '

.1*

" -f:-rf *. \ ""'7 r 1'1

~- ?;()-~:-~*-~ -~-*- )\r :~\j/

,~* * , . I * . \ .' ' _SHOR(.

_./'

4' ' .'. /

)

121\ :l1 **-

. I . r**.

T-

. ,:* I

..*~ ,-::* ~13 I. -  ;*, .. ~ ~ ** ., 7 I \,I1  ! . I

.. . ~~~ I ---- ' *J ,_. .- . I- -*

,,lb I ' . \.

J I * ..

I -

'-.*I I' I ' -" ""I \ \\\

.1 1/~-*-: 1*_. ,. v*,.-i-,-; **1:**-1-\. . ' 1**- - __-_- -*--*-~-\'. ~ '° )

, i t.,,.. ' f j '* ,\ .1 *\f; ; I I I \ ' '. ' '

.. ** ***r 3* .., ' . \(

')

~

....... 1 .. - 1* .f'

.:.c .' . * *. .. I ' . I .

--~f\:

.~= *

• I - --- . ---- -

' ~*

' - '-'{ - . ,,. I - . * - -

~ \.--=;;.Ii

. --' * : -. * - - , .. -/,I.

" ".'\

I s .,

' .I '

~.h,1rv1on 1: I lcl<l '

("hntlr\'t*I*

• Fermi Unit II Site Scale 1: 24 000 Contour Interval 5 feet The Fermi Nuclear Power Plant is immediately enclosed within the box on the right hand side of the page.

• The designated Wetlands areas within the 3000 foot isolation distance are circled and shaded. The wetlands area outside the isolation distance are merely circled.

l*,.. ~

. <$J

~'4

---~-..--:>* -v_.*

\ -.:--:::.-::..-*:::::' 1~  :::.. * *

• • ~**

.I ~*.

. ~~ / :

-* . /

~-----

1 T

'J 1-2.0WH

.~-:*:._

.i

.D. C. Cook Site i cale *1: 24 000 Contour Interval ,. 10 feet The D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant is immediately located within the boxed -!

i area on the left hand side of the page. *

• Designated Wetlands areas Within the 3000 foot isolation distance are circled and shaded. Wetlands outside the isolation distance are merely circled.

I

~' .

Environmental Area Map

Fermi Unit Il Site Scale 1 :24 000 Contour Interval 5 feet The Fermi Nuclear Power Plant is immediately enclosed within the semi-circle.

The three areas enclosed in black boxes are considered Environmental Areas by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The box labeled "a" is within the 3000 foot isolation distance. while the boxes labeled b" and "c"

. are within** one *.mile,-0f.the site**"-'"' , ,, . * .

-***- ...-* 6 I

/---- 1...

_J' _J

//

/

/4 i.;

t

5 IS

/

, l I

t l

19 I .-....

12 I

j I I~

I I.

\.

• --. I  ;'

"--*'~

. *1 Ii--

I I

L

• 1 J t- N

.Scale I: 24 I 000 Contoor ln-lerv-a.l S"teet . .

MONROE COUNTY FRENCHTOWN TOWNSHIP 3

• Appendix C Draft Siting Criteria (February 15, 1988)

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

• Isolation Facility

• For Midwest Interstate Compact .. , ** , ..

. .., ... ' ...... ' :*~ .. . . ....

Draft Siting Criteria**

February 15, ~988 Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED SITE SELECTION CRITERIA ..................................................... 4 GOALS .....*................................................................................................... 4 OBJECTIVES .................................... ~ ............ ~ .. ~ ........................................... 4 CRITERIA**~*.:~~~~*~.'.~ .... ~~~ .... *~ ... *..*.*.... *~- ... ~ ***. *-*. ~- ..-....... *~ ...*.*.*-~.~ *.. ~ .....~.-.-~ .......................... 5 .

OBJECTIVE I. - AVOID POPULATION CENTERS AND CONFLICTS WIIB HUMAN ACTIVITIES ....................._........................ 5 OBJECTIVE II. - AVOID AREAS SUBJECT TO GEOLOGIC AND FI.-00 D H~RDS ..*.............. ~ ................................. -~ ....... 8 OBJECTIVE III. ~ PROTECT SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY .........................................................*.............. 11 OBJECTIVE IV. - MINIMIZE TRANSPORTATION HAZARDS ..................... 17 OBJECTIVE V. - PROTECT AIR QUALITY************************************~*********** 18 OBJECTIVE VI. - AVOID RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CONFLICTS .......... 18.

OBJECTIVE VII. - A VOID CONFLICT WIIB AREAS OF SPECIAL OR .

PROTECTED LAND USE INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ............... ~ ..... 19 OBJECTIVE VIII. - AVOID CONFLICT WITH COMMUNITY SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GOALS ................................................ 20 OBJECTIVE IX. - COMPLY WIIB FEDERAL LAWS WHICH PROTECT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND WHICH PROTECT CULTURAL AND HERITAGE VALUES ................................... ~ ................... 21 APPENDIX A - PUBLIC LIBRARY REPOSITORY APPENDIX B - SUBPARTS C AND D OF 10 CFR 61

PROPOSED SITE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR A LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WAST ISOLATION FACILITY MICHIGAN LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTEAUTHORITY INTRODUCTION The Federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (Public Law 99-240) gave each state the responsibility to safely manage the.low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders. In December, 1982,.the l;;egislature-passed -artd"GO\iem(>f .Millike*ri signed-into law* Act *460 of 198 an act for entering into the Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, whereb Michigan indicated its wil1ingness to join with other midwestem states in a regional compact to meet these responsibilities. This Compact was approved by the United States Congress in December 1985 (Omnibus Compact Act of 1985). In July, 1987, the Midwest Compact selected Michigan as the State respc;msible for constructing a facility to isolate low-level radioactive was generated in member states. In December, 1987, Michigan enacted legislation creating the

• Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority to safely manage Michigan's waste (204 PA 1987) and creating a regulatory framework in the Department of Public Health to ensure the safety of Michigan's citizens and the protection of its environment. .

Among other responsibilities, the Auth~rity is directed to develop final criteria for siting a lo\\-

level radioactive waste isolation facility in Michigan by March 15, 1988. To assist the Authorit: _

in carrying out its responsibilities, the Act required the establishment of a Siting Criteria

• Advisory Committee: Members of the Committee "... shall by education and experience be a

knowledgeable in _technical specialty related to the siting of a low .. level radioactive waste disposal site." The Authority's charge to the Siting Criteria Advisory Committee was:

.. .to assist the Authority in its goal of assuring the protection o_f the health of Michigan's citizens and the quality of Michigan's environment in the process of selecting a low-level radioactive waste isolation facility site.

The Committee. shaII employ its expertise to:

(a) Recommend to the Authority proposed siting criteria.

(b) Review existing and proposed federal and state laws and rules pertaining to siting criteria.

(c) Review all of the technical information available to the Committee and make recommendations regarding siting criteria.

(d) Attend any public hearing that may be scheduled by the Authority that pertains to proposed siting criteria .

(e) Assist the Authority in drafting responses to the comments of the

• Department or any person regarding the final siting criteria adopted

• by the Authority.

(f) At the request of the Authority, provide scientific and technical review of site selection activities.

(g) Fulfill its responsibilities in accordance with target dates established by the Authority.

The Committee was convened on January 6, 1988, and has met on the following dates: Jam!"~

6, 12, 15, 16, and 28, and February 9, 1988. Each meeting was open to the public and puc involvement and participation were enc_ourag~d.. Meeting_ minute summaries are availabl ..;r the Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority;*Suite 574, Hollister Building-;-Lar. ,.. ::...

Michigan. Copies of the materials used by the Siting Criteria_ Advisory Committee and relate\.!

information are available at the twelve public libraries listed in Appendix A. These materials may also be examined at the office of the Authority.

The criteria developed by the Committee provide the basis for this draft version of final siting criteria proposed by the Authority as the standards by which areas of the state are to be Judged for suitability as a location for a low-level radioactive waste isolation facility. Proposed criteri; are based on Federal Regulatory Guidelines and Michigan statute. Most of the proposed criteri are the same as those in Federal Regulation or State statute. In some instances, the proposed criteria are more restrictive than legislation or regulatory guidelines ..In other instances, th Committee and the Authority have interpreted guidelines which were unclear in such a manner as to provide proposed criteria which are most protective of citizen health and the environmem In two instances, the Committee recommends and the Authority concurs, that criteria specified in* 204 PA 1987 should be changed in order to provide more protection *to citizen health and

,safety and the environment. Recommended changes affect criteria III. D(Section .11 (2)(E) of 204 PA 1987) and III.*F(Section lO(h) of 204 PA 1987)* Reasons for suggesting changes are discussed in the text accompanying each criterion~

• The proposed criteria can be divided into two categories: 1) Primary criteria, or criteria that exclude an area from further consideration; and 2) Secondary criteria, or criteria that distinguish the relative suitability of those areas not excluded from further consioeration. The primary criteria will be applied statewide and areas of the state which fail to meet each primar ..

criterion will be excluoed from consideration. The remaining areas will be evaluated using the secondary criteria. Areas selected as candidate sites are scheduled to be announced in June, 1988.

During the period from February 15; 1988, to March 15, 1988, the Authority s_olicits commern and questions from all interested parties. The Authority will consider public comments and the .

Siting Criteria Advisory Committee responses to those comments and additional

• recommendations in its preparation of Final Siting Criteria.

2

The Authority strongly encourages all those interested in issues pertaining to the management *of low-level radioactive waste to participate in the discussion of these siting criteria. -

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS The Authority is seeking opportunities for the public to participate in the discussion of the draf siting criteria and has arranged a series of information meetings with opportunity for public comment.* In addition, the Authority has scheduled a public hearing. These public participatio:

opportunities are as follows:

.. DATE ....... : .................. . TI.ME. .... -* LO.CATION. FORMAT .

February 15, 1988 7:00 PM Room G, Clarion Hotel Infonnation .

& Conference Center meeting with 6820 South Cedar, opportunity for Lansing, Michigan public comment February 23, 1988 7:00PM Community Room Infonnation*

Old Kent Bank meeting with Main Office opportunity for Main St. public comment Gaylord, Michigan March 8, 1988 7:00 PM . Stryker Room Infonnation Room 2020 Second Floor meeting with Fetzer Center opportunity for Western fytichigan Univ .. public comment Kalamazoo, Michigan March 9, 1988 7:00PM Ball Room 3 Infonnation Novi Hilton meeting with 21111 Haggerty Road . . opportunity for Novi, Michigan public comment March 10, 1988 7:00 PM Delta Charter Township Public Hearing 7710 W. Saginaw Highway

• Lansing, Michigan

• 3

PROPOSED SITE SELECTION CRITERIA GOALS The Siting Criteria Advisory Committee formulated iLc; recommendations based on the primnr*

goal ofensuring the health and safety of Michigan's citizens and protecting the environment.

.The secondary goal of the committee was to ensure that the areas selected as a result of the application of the recommended criteria can be licensed in compliance with federal and state regulations. The third goal of the committee was to avoid conflict with established societal and community v~lues~., .,_ . , *..

Although any low-level radioactive waste isolated in Michigan will* be in proper containers anc enclosed in a containment structure~ in evaluating the criteria necessary to assure that a disposa site will be as safe* as possible, the committee did not assume that artificial structures at the site would permanently isolate the waste from the environment. The intention of the Committee wa to develop criteria to guide the selection of a site, the geologic, hydrogeologic, and geographic characteristics of which will ensure that long-term performance goals are met. Protection I provided by careful operational procedures, site and facility design measures, and ,continuous I environmental monitoring will be additional to protection provided by the site itself. ~ I

• OBJECTIVES j I

The Siting Criteria Advisory Committee, in consultation with the Authority, identified eleven objectives to be met by the siting criteria:

I. Avoid population centers and conflicts with human activities.

II. Avoid areas subject to geologic and flood hazards.

III. Protect surface water and groundwater quality.

IV. Minimize transponation hazards.*

V. Protect air quality.

VI. Avoid resource development conflicts.

VII. Avoid conflict with special or protected land use including areas.

VIII. Protect environmentally sensitive areas.

IX. Protect cultural and heritage values.

X. Avoid conflict with community social and economic goals.

XI. Comply with Federal Laws.

4

~fter considering the recommendations of the Committee, the Authority combined objectives VII, VIII, and IX, into one objective, * ** -

--Avoid c*onflict with areas of special or protected land use, including environmentally sensitive areas--.

Although the Authority fully agrees with the objectives discussed by the Committee, the suggested criteria under the Committee's Objectives VIII and IX were so vague as to give little practical guidance in facility site selection. In addition, the Michigan Legislature, in mandatin~

siting criteria pertaining to these values in section 11(3)(e) of 1987 PA 204, seems to have encompassed .what the. Committee_intended. The . Authority .believ.es.. that its responsibility to comply with State and federal laws and -regulations,--specifically those referenced in 'PA 204 of 1987 will result in the full protection of these values.

Nevertheless, the Authority encourages those with special interests and. expertisE-in -these areas to. closely review the criteria associated with this objective and . to suggest more specific guidance if that seems necessary or advisable ..

In addition, the Authority has reworded Objective IX (SCAC Objective XI) so that it is proposf as,

--Comply with Federal laws which protect environmentally sensitive areas and protect cultural and heritage* :values--.

• rRTTERIA

_;BJECTIVE I. - AVOID POPULATION CENTERS AND CONFLICTS WITH HUMAN ACTfVITIES A. Criterion - Exclude areas within incorporated city limits as established on January 1, 1988.

By eliminating heavily populated areas from consideration, the risk that the

_ operation of a. low-level radioactive waste disposal facility might interfere with human activities is minimized. Any risk that a large population might be exposed to radiation due to a release of radionuclides from a waste disposal facility or a low-level radioactive waste transportation accident is also reduced.

5

B. Criterion

• Exclude areas not sufficiently large to assure that an isolation distance of 3,000 feet or more from the disposal unit and adjacc property lines is available.

) -

[Section 10(d) of 204 PA 1987 reads, "The Authority shall establish final siting criteria that at <

minimum excludes a candidate site that is any of the following: .... (d) Not sufficiently large to assure that an isolation distance of 3,000 feet or more from the disposal unit and adjacent property lines is available.")

The specific 3,000 foot isolation distance, is mandated by the legislation (Section 10 (d) of 204 PA 1987) presumably to assure that releases of radionuclides will not

. reach the disposal site boundary and to.minimize impacton. focal.popµlations.,.,Qne important effect of the 3,000 foot buffer zone is a reduction in the impact of the facility on surrounding populations and protection of private property values since the total area of the site will be on the order of 2*square miles. This offers opportunities for land use that will be compatible with local interests, and given the long term control, such space has the potential of being a resource of considerable value to local communities.

Had the Legislature not chosen this buffer zone for several beneficial purposes, the committee would have recommended a distance, which in combination with other

• criteria, would be sufficient to isolate radionuclides within the site for several.

hundred years. The .isolation.distance required by the Legislatl,lre will be more than sufficient for this purpose. *

• C. Criterion

• Seek areas where projected population growth and future developments are not likely to affect the ability of the disposal facility to meet the performance objectives of 10 CFR 61 Subpart C (10 CFR 61.50 (a)(3)) and are not likely to significantly interfere with an environmental monitoring program.

[Section l 1(3)(d) of 204 PA 1987 reads, "In designating 3 candidate sites, the Authority shall give preference to sites that are all of the following: (d) Located where projected population growth and future development<; within the municipality and county where the candidate site is located are not likely to affect the ability of the disposal site to meet the performance objectives in subpart C of 10 CFR part 61 or could not significantly interfere with an environmental monitoring program. "l The performance objectives of 10 CFR 61 subpart C are summarized by the general requirement of 10 CFR 61.40 which states, " ... .land disposal facilities must be sited, designed, operated, closed, and controlled after closure so that reasonable assurance

• exists that exposure to humans are within the limits established in the performance

• 6

objectives in section 61.41 through 61.44." These performance objectives are as follows:

1. Protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity.

2. Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion.

3. Protection of individuals during operations.

4. Stability of the disposal site after closure.

(See Appendix B for subparts C and D of 10 CFR 61)

The Committee believes that the location of the disposal site in areas with low population density and distant from populated centers will minimize the number of people that could be exposed to radiation from accidents. This also enhances comp.liance witlf.the *performance objective of protection .of .the .general population .....

from releases of radioactivity.

i I

I I

I II

• 7

OBJECTIVE II. - AVOID AREAS SUBJECT TO GEOLOGIC AND FLOOD HAZARDS

• A. Criterion - Exclude areas located one mile or less from a fault where tectonit movement has occurred within the last 10,000 years.

[Section l 0( c) of 204 PA 1987 reads, "The Authority shall establish final siting criteria that at a minimum excludes a candidate site that is any of the following: (c) Located 1 mile or less fm~

fault where tectonic movement has occurred within the 10,000 years preceding the effective ..

of this act.")

• Tectoriicmoveinent is the niovement-0f*the*earth's-cn1st-along,.faults;**An-isolation~

facility should not be located in an area where movement could breach its integrity or change the geologic structure of the site. Such a breach of integrity could result in a release of radionuclides by water (rain, snow melt or groundwater) flowing through the damaged area and transporting radionuclides off the isolation facility site. A change in the geologic structure of the site could reduce the ability to predict groundwater movement and therefore radionuclide migration and reduce the effectiveness of an environmental monitoring system. In the judgement of the committee, tectonic movement is unlikely in Michigan, but the committee believes this potential should be addressed by the siting criteria.

B. Criterion - Exclude areas of significant earthquake intensity, defined as zone with a modified Mercalli index of VIII or greater~

Although there is no specific statutory reference, areas of significant earthquake intensity should be excluded .because of the potential for damage to the waste isolation facility or"change in the geologi~ structure of the site. Such damage or change could result in a release of radionuclide by water (rain, snow melt or groundwater) flowing through the damaged area and transporting radionuclides off the isolation facility site. A change in the geologic structure of the site could reduce the ability to predict groundwater and thereby radionuclide migration and reduce the effectiveness of an established environmental monitoring system. The modified Mercalli intensity scale follows:

8

Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale*

Intensity L'haractenstac E11ects I Instrumental Detected only by seismographs 11 Feeble Noticed only by sensiuve oeoole

., Ill Slight Like the vibrations due to a passing heavy truck; felt by people at rest, especially on upper floors.

IV Mcxierate Felt by people while walking; objects rock, including standing vehicles.

v Rather Strong Felt generally; most sleepers are awakened VI:***** Suon.g ... Trees sway; suspended objects swing; loose

.. . .. ... . .. .. .objects_ o:verium and fall - . .

vu Very Strong General alarm; walls crack; plaster falls Vlll . Destructive Masonry cracks; chimneys fall; poorly constructed buildings damaged; water well levels may change IX Ruinous Some houses collapse where ground begins to crack; pipes break open x Disastrous Ground cracks badly; many buildings destroyed and railway lines bent; landslides on steep slopes XI Very Disastrous Few buildings remain standing; bridges destroyed; all services (railways, pipes, and cables) out of action; great landslides and floods Xll catastrophic Total destruction; objects thrown mto air,

~ound rises and falls in waves .

The Committee believes that earthquakes of less intensity than VIII will not breach

• the integrity of a disposal facility. Although earthquakes of this intensity have not occurred within Michigan*~ recorded history, the Commiue*e believes this potential

. should be addressed by the siting criteria.

• Wood, H.O. and Nc~mann, F., 1931, Modified Mercalli intensity scale of 1931: Scjsmolocical Society of Amerjca Bul!ctjn, \'. *~

no. .5, p. 979-987 ..

• 9

C. Criterion - Exclude areas within the 500 year flood plain, including areas designated under *245 PA 1929 (Sections 323.1 to 323.13 of the Michigan Compiled Laws).

[Section 1O(a) of 204 PA 1987 reads, "The Authority shall establish final siting criteria that at a minimum excludes a candidate site that is any of the following:

(a) Located in a.500 year flood plain.

(g) A floodway designated under Act No. 245 of the Public Acts of 1929, being sections 32_~. l 323.13 ofthe Michigan Compiled Laws."1

.. .* .. _. ~ .. : \ .

Excluding sucfi areas minimizes the potential of flooding a *waste* isolation-facility;** ***

Flood waters could come into coritact with waste during facility' operations or

• . through a breach in the* containment structure after a facility has closed and transport radionuclides off the facility site. Although most other host states and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission require exclusion of areas within the 100 year flood plain, the Committee believes that the added margin of safety gained from excluding areas within the 500 year flood plain is warranted. By definition, a 500 year flood is caused by a storm that is likely to occur only once in a 500 year time period. Similarly, a 100 year flood is caused by a storm that is likely to occur only once in a 100 year time period.

D. Criterion - Exclude areas where geological processes such as mass wasting, erosion, slumping, landsliding or weathering precludes* meeting the performance objectives in 10 CFR 61 Subpart C or precludes

• d~fensible modeling and prediction of the long term impact of SU<

occurrences *.

• [Section 11 (3)(i) reads, "In designating 3 candidate sites, the Authority shall give preference to sites that are all of the following: (i) Located where geologic processes such as mass wasting,

• erosion, slumping, landsliding, or weathering do not occur to the extent and with such frequent that the ability of the disposal site to meet the performance objectives in subpart C, l 0 CFR 61.*

to 61.44 is significantly affected or may preclude defensible modeling and prediction of the long-term impact of such occurrences." I The performance objectives of 10 CFR 61 Subpart C are summarized by the general requirement of 10 CFR 61.40 which states, ...... "land disposal facilities must be sited, designed, opernted, closed and controlled after closure so that reasonable assurance exists that exposure to humans are within limits established in the performance objectives in Sections 61.41 and 61.44."(See Criterion I.C.)

10

The geologic processes described could damage the facility or change the geologic structure of the site and result in a release of radionuclides by water (rain, snow melt or groundwater) flowing through the damaged area. Such a flow could

• transport radionuclides off the disposal site. A change in the geologic structure of

~the site could eliminate the ability to model and predict groundwater movement and reduce the effectiveness_ of an established environmental monitoring system.

OBJECTIVE III. - PROTECT SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY A... CriteHc>>h **- 'Ei:Cliioe **areas .*where the~."wate1

referential p*athways~~-~ to *groundwater.flow:* ~This* ~riterion al~o implies. that natural processes affecting the disposal site should be occurring at a consistent and definable rate such that the modeling of the site will represent both present and anticip~table site conditions after closure. Finally, since monitoring programs can . sample only a small fraction of the surface area or subsurface volume of the disposal site, site characteristics must be such that the number of monitoring points can adequately describe the extent to which radionuclides have migrated from 'the waste disposal units." _., J. Criterion - Seek areas t.hat do not overlie aquifers. The intent of Criterion J. is to minimize. ~e possibility of an aquifer being contaminated by radionuclides derived from the disposal unit. The committee recognizes that throughout there are. geologic deposits or fonnations that yield*varying amounts of drinking water and that it may be impossible to find a suitable site for the disposal unit which is not underlain by one of these deposits or formations. We believe ho.wever, that Criterion J, together with Criterion B through F, and I provide adequate protection of the groundwater and insure the integrity of these deposits and formations. K. Criterion - Seek areas which do not include public water supply wells, well fields, high capacity production wells, and abandoned wells. The intent of Criterion K is to avoid siting the disposal unit where public water supply wells, well fields and high capacity production will affect the groundwater movement in the surrounding area. It also avoids siting in areas where abandon wells may result in preferential pathways for the migration of radionuclides. OBJECTIVE IV. - MINIMIZE TRANSPORTATION HAZARDS 16 *** A. Criterion - Seek areas which minimize the risk of transportation accidents. This criterion addresses the conventional consequences of transportation accidents,. while Criterion IV. B *addresses the risk of radiation exposure due to transportation of wastes. The conventional hazards of a transportation accident outweigh the radiological hazards of an accident. Accident probability varies with the route traveled. The Department of Transportation. has statistical data on the number of accidents on 's highways . ..The accident.rate .Yanes. cansiderably.(by...a.ratio.ofas,,much as 3-to 1}as a function of the design standards of the* highway system .. Freeways are the safest highways, and areas with good access to the freeway network would be preferred to areas which would require the transport of radioactive waste over roads with lower design standards and a higher probability of accidents. Since the severity of accidents involving trucks is greater than that for accidents involving only

• automobiles, public safety concerns argue for encouraging as much travel on freeways as can reasonably be achieved.

The committee believes that minimizing accidents is an appropriate consideration in

• siting a facility.

B. Criterion - Seek areas which minimize the risks of exposures to radiation associated with transportation accidents. Available infonnation indicates that there is negligible risk of exposure to radiation associated with accidents involving transportation of low-level radioactive wastes. The Committee believes that transportation routes which avoid areas of high density population will serve to minimize the risk of exposure. ' If an accident should result in a _breach in the container carrying radioactive waste, there is a radiological risk to humans who come into contact with the shipment before the waste material is re-packaged. This risk is greatest where the population density is highest and the probability of contact is incurred. Transportation of commercial low-level radioactive waste is regulated under Department of . Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts I 00-179). OBJECTIVE V. - PROTECT AIR QUALITY 17 A. Criterion - Seek areas with simple meteorological systems that can be characterized, modeled, analyzed, and monitored. The meteorological system refers to the near surface atmospheric characteristics .. over an area. A waste isolation facility with a simple meteorological system is r,* easier to assess, monitor and model. A simple system provides a greater level of confidence that the model accurately predicts the charc1cteristics of the meteorological system. OBJECTIVE VI. - AVOID RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CONFLICTS A. *CriteriOn _. Seek **areas where. natural re.sources ~do*.not. exist .on .or ..significant! near to the candidate site that, if exploited, would result in failur* to meet the performance objectives in Subpart C of . [Section 11(3)(c) of 204 1987 reads, "In designating 3 candidate sites, the Authority shall give preference to sites that are all of the following: (c) Located where natural rescues do not exist on or significantly near to the candidate site that, if exploited, would result in failure to meet the performance objectives in subpart C of 10 CFR pan 61."l Natural resources include metallic or industrial mineral deposits, coal deposits and . hydrocarbon deposits. According to Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines, areas should be avoided if they contain natural resources in sufficient quantity and quality that future exploitation could affect waste isolation.

• OBJECTIVE VII. - AVOID CONFLICT WITH AREAS OF SPECIAL OR PROTECTED LAND USE INCLUDl~G ENVI.RONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS A. Criterion - Exclude areas with wetlands as defined in the Goemaere-Anderso-

• wetland protection act, Act No. 203 of the Public Acts of 1979, .

being sections 281.701 to 281.722 of the Compiled Law ; [Section (e) of 204 1987 reads, "The Authority shall establish final siting criteria that at a minimum excludes a candidate site that is any of the following: (e) Has wetlands within the boundaries of the candidate site as defined in the Goemaere-Anderson wetland protection act, Act No. 203 of the Public Acts of 1979, being sections 281.701to281.722 of the Compiled Laws."] The purpose of the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act is to protect and conserve the fragile wetland ecosystems that are vital habitats for fish, birds, and 18 *- other wildlife. A low-level radioactive waste facility should not be sited in an area that would disrupt wetlands conservation. B. Criterion .* *Exclude areas wit.h environmental areas or high risk areas as defined in the shorelands protection and management act of 1970, . Act No. 245 of the Public Acts of 1970, being ,sections 281.631 to 281.644 of the Compiled Laws. ISection 1O(f) of 204 1987 reads, "The Authority shall establish final siting criteria that at a minimum excludes a candidate site that is any of the following: (t) An environmental area or high risk area as defined in the shorelands protection and management act of 1970, Act No. 24: of the Public. . Acts of- 1970, being sections 281.631 to 281.644 of the Compiled Laws. The purpose of the Shorelands Protection Act is to protect and conserve the fragile I

• I shoreland ecosystems that are a valuable national resource. This criterion would i exclude from consideration those areas identified in the Shorelands Protection Act.

C. Criterion - Seek areas which have not been designated pursuant to.

• Statute for wildlife conservation and management, for public recreation, or for protection of wilderness, wild, or natural values.

• D. Criterion - Seek sites which do not cause visual intrusion on designated sceni highways so designated as of January 1, 1988.

• E. Criterion - Seek sites which will not require that prime farmland be removed from agricultural production.

OBJECI1VE VIII. - A VOID CONFLICT WITH COMMUNITY SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GOALS

• 19

A. Criterion - Seek areas which are* not included in formally proposed or approved development plans as of January 1, 1988 B. Criterion - Seek areas *which do not require th~ removal from production of prime farmland that would disrupt the economic base of the community. C. Criterion ~ If all other criteria are met, give preference to areas near communities desiring the facility. [Criteria tA, l.B; I.C, and VI.A are also directly relevant to the achievement of this obje~ive] * * ** ** ,. * * * * *: ' * **** **- * *

• 20

.I. ,.1 I I OBJECTIVE IX. - COMPLY WITH.FEDERAL LAWS WHICH PROTECT . I

• . ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND WHICH PROTECT I i

CULTURAL AND HERITAGE VALUES i A. Criterion - Exclude areas where siting will be ... inconsistent with the requirements of the following ~ federal laws: ( i) , chapter 1073, 68 Stat. 919. (ii) Federal water pollution control act, chapter 758, 62 Stat. 1155. '

• * * * * * * * ** *:*'(Hi}"*,*Coastat*zone* managentent"*~tct" *or* 1912;. Public .. Law~.89."454!

16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1454b, 1455 to 1459, 1461 to 1463, 1464. (iv) Endangered species act of 1973, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884.* ( v) Wild and scenic rivers aCt, Public Law 90-542, 16 U.S.C. 1271 *to 1287. (vi) Wilderness act, Public Law 88*577, 16 U.S.C. 1131 to 1136. (vii) National wildlife refuge system administration act of 1961 Public Law 89-669, 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee. (viii) Chapter 593, 49 Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. 461 to 467. (ix) The national historic preservation act, Public Law 89-665

• 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a, 470b, 470c to 470w-6.]

• 21

I I lSection 11 (3) of 204 1987 reads, "In designating 3 candidate sites, the Authority shall - I preference to sites that are all of the following: (e) Consistent with the requirements of feden>J . * : laws, including all of the following: *" I I I (i) , chapter 1073, 68 Stat. 919.  ? ~ I (ii) Federal water pollution control act, chapter 758, 62 Stat. 1155. (iii). Coastal zone management act of 1972, Public Law 89-454, 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1454b, 1455 to 1459, 1461 to 1463, 1464. * (iv) Endangered species act of 1973, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884. (v) Wild and scenic rivers act, Public Law 90-542, 16 U.S.C. 1271to1287. .! . . . (vi) ;a, Wildemess-act<<Rubliolaw 88 ..57i7*; 1*6*U ;S.e~-- l 131 to 1136. _,. . .* 1 1  : (vii) National wildlife refuge system administration act of 1966, Public Law 89-669, le U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee. (viii) Chapter 593, 49 StaL 666, 16 U.S.C. 461to467. . (ix) The national historic preservation act, Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a, 470b, 470c to .")

• APPENDIX A - PUBLIC LIBRARY REPOSITORIES

• I

• APPENDIX B -SUBPARTS .. C AND D OF 10 CFR 61 II

<il 22 61.29 61.50(:i l PART 61

• LICENSl.NG REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE ntersSlry maintenance and.repalre al Subp1rt C-Performance Obl*cftv11 Subpart D-T1chnlcal Requirements

&he di1po11l aile until the llcenH 11 for Land Dl1poaal Facmu. . tun.rened by the Comml11ion In 11 uo O.neral requlreinenL accord.nc1 wllh I 8\.30. Reapon1ibillty f I 1.50 Dllf'OUl afte **~ ~* .Land dl1po11l faclliUu mu1I be ailed, requltarnenta lot land dlapoul

• i for the dilpoHI 1ile mu1l be m1lntained deal1ned. operated. cloud. and by the Ucen1ee for 5 yean. A 1hortar or controlled alter do1ure 10 lbal I*) Dl1poHl 11le 1ullability for near*

• • ",. .. lonarr lime period'lor po1t-clo1ure observation and maintenance may ba re11on1bl1 a11urance eid1l1 thel upo1uru to human* ere within the 1urface dilpo11L (1) The purpoae of thh erction 11 to

• eatabli1hed and approved aa part ol tha limll1 eal1bli1hrd in the performance 1peclly the minimum characteri11ic1 1 1ile clo1ure plan. baaed on 1il**1pecilic: oblectiv11 In II OU1 through 11.tt. di1ponl 1ila mu1l have 10 be accrptabla condition1. for uee H a n11r*1urface diapoHI.

I 1Ul Proltctlonof the general facility. The primary emphaai1 in* 1IUO Tranafar of .nM.

• populaUon lrom r1l111H ol racSloacUwlly. di1po11l 1lle 1uitabilily i1 si\*en lo l*I Followlna do1un and the period Concentratlon1 of r1dioacUv1 l1olatlon or w11t11 ** mailer havins

• or po11-c101un obaervatlon and material which may b1 releHed to lh1 lona*tenn Impact*. and to dispoHI alle maintenance, the licen1H may apply for 1eneral 1nvlronmenl Ill' 1round water, feecuru lhat en1ure that che lona*tenn

. an 1mendment to trander the llcenee lo 1urlace w11er, air. 1oil plaDt1. or

• perlonnance objecllv11 ol Subpart C of

• the di1poaal 1lle*ownu**Tha,licen1a ** 'anlmilJ1'muit*not ra1uJHn an*aMuel,_ .... ** -* * . .this, part ara met. H opposed to 1h~rl*

ahall be lranllened when Iha an do11 uceedlni equivalent or 2.5 . term convenience or benefi\1. ~ .*. Commi11ion r111da: 11 I '111at the do1un of the dlapoHl mllllrem1 lo the whola body, 75 121 The d11po1al 1lle ahall be capable or beina characleriied. modeled, l **ii* baa been made In conformance with mlllirem1 lo the thYJOld. and 2.5 analyzed and monitored. .~* "' the licen1ee"1di1poHl1ila clo1ure.plan. .. amended and approved .. part or lha mlllir1m1 lo any olher ora1n of any member of lh* public. Re11on1ble effort 1hould b1 made lo maintain rel11u1 of (3) Within the resion or 1ta1e where the faclllty 11 to be located. a diapoaal

• ' lice nae: 11le 1hould be aelected 10 that projected radloactMty In efOuent.-io the aeneral (21 That reuonable auuranca hu anvlrorunenl 11 low at 11 reoaonably populalloo arowlh and future been provided by tbe llcenaee &hat the *development* are noc likel)' lo af?ecl the 1chl1Yabll. 1bility of th* di1p0Hl lacilily lo meet performance objecllvea of Subpart C of

• UU. part arw met: t IU2 Pret1ctlon of lncUYtdual* lrOlll the performance objeclivH 1JI Subpart C

(3) That any funda and n1c111ary  : ~"flftenl lnll~ *  : . or thl1 pert.

"' record* for can will bir tranalernd to

• Dealsn. opuollon. aod doaure or the

. :  : I') AreH mu1t be avoided havlna ~ the di1p0Hl 1lte owner: a: land di1poaal facility mual enaun  ; lr.nown nalural re1ourc11 -.*hlch. U

141 That the po1t-clo1un monllorlnt ~ protection of any lndlvldi,aal ... 111plollcd. would reault In failure to meet proaram 11 operational for

• lnedvertently lntNdlna Into Iha dl1poaal  ; the performance objectln1 uf Subpart C

• Implementation by Iha di1poaal 1Ua of thl1 part. .

all* and DCCUpylna th* 1111 or contacllna -~ owner. and . (5) 'Tbe di1poHl 1iie mu1t be senerally

(51 That the Federal or Stale the wa1ta al any lime 1l1er acUv1

• ln1lltullonal control* over Iha di1po11l well drained end free ol are11 ol Ooodtn1 or frequent pondins. WHle

.... aovemmenl *sency which will 1i1um1 all* 111 nmovad. dlapoHI 1hall not lake place In a 1~ ~, rw1pon1lbillty for lnalltuUonal c:O~trol of the diapoHI 1111 la prepared lo a11um* I IUJ Protection of lndlwlduale dlslnt* year Oood plain. co11tal bigh*huard area or wetland. H defined In uecutlv1 .J ~j .re1pon1lblllty and anaun that Iha ln1tllutional requirement* found oplf811oc& Operallon1 et the land dl1poeal Ordar 111118. "t1oodplaln t.lanaaemenl Culd1llnea.* necHHry under I 11.ll(&J will ba mal faclUly mu1t ba conducted ID ~ (D) Up1tream dr1ln11e area1 mual be (b) (RHervadl compliance with lh1 11andard1 for 1,. radlaUon protacllon ael out In Part ZO of minimized to decrca11 lhe 11nount of llt.Jt Terllllnatlon of 11c9nM. runoff which could erode or lnundace ..~ thl* ch1pler, 111cepl for relea111 or -~ I*) Followln1 any paitod of ln1tllullonal control nHded to meet the nqulremenla found nece11ary undar ndloacUvlly In 1ffiuent1 from lh1 l1nd dl1poHI facility, which 1hall be WHll dl1poHJ unlla. (7) The dl1poaal 1ll1 mual provide 1ufficlenl depth lo the waler table lhal savem1d by I 1u1 of thl1 part. En17 .t I 11.23, the llcen111 may apply for ao sround waterlntni1lon. perennial or na1onabl1 effort ah11l b1 made lo

• ~ .. amendment to termln111 the llceoae. m1lntaln radiation 1:11:po1urea 11 low 11 otharwf11. Into the waala will not occur.

The C:Ommlnlon will con1ider aa

• , (b) Thia appllcallon mu11 ba nted. ind will tM reviewed. In accordence with th1 la naaonablr 1chl1V1ble. 111ceptlon lo 1hl1. requirement to allow 7~ provlalon of I 01.20 1nd of thl1 aecUoa. I t t.44 l1alllllty of IM CS11po1al Ille efler dl1po1al below the waler table If II can dOa&n. be condualvely 1hown that dbpoaal 1111 (c) A llcen11 11 t1rmln1ted only wbm cheracterlatica will reault In molecular the Commlnloa Rn~1: Th* dl1poHI fadllty mual tM ailed. dllfualon belns the predominant meana (1) That the lnalltutlonal contnil dulsn*d. uaed. operated. ind doaad to or radionuclide movement and the rate

• china lona*tama 1tablllly of the

.1 nqulre111ent1 found nece11ary under I 11.ll(J) b1V1 bHn met ind dl1poHl llll and lo ellmlnlll lo \hi ol movament will re1ult In the perlormanca objeclivH ol Subpart C of

.*.~ (2) Thal 1ny 1dditlonal nqulrlmnll n1uhtna from new lnlormaUon 111tent pracllcabl1 Iha n11d for onaotna ICUYI malnlen1nC1 of th1 dl1poHl llll Ihle part b1lr11 rn1L In no caae wW waal* dl1poHI be permitted In the &en* * 'I ('.>.

• .\

~ developed durln1 Iha ln1tllullon1I followln1dotun10 that only

• 1unel111nce, monitoring. or mlAor of fluctuation of th1 waler table.

control period h1V1 been met. and that (I) Thi hydto1cologic unit uaed for -~

• pennan1nt monumenta or marlien cu1todlal can ar1 required. d11poHI ahall not di1chargr 1round l

wamJr11 *1*ln1t lntru1lon hlY* beeo lnatal11d. waler lo the 1urf1ca within the dlapoaol 1111. 61*9 December 30, 1982 .~ I:' .. , 61.SOl:il 61.SJ(d) i PART 61

• LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

.* ( (9) Ann muat be avoided when with wHte during dlapoHI. and lbe (8) A buffrr 1on1 of land mual be tectonic proceuea auch 11 fauJtlna. contact of percolating or 1tandin1 w*ler malnt*lned between uy buried wHle loldina. aeiamic *clivity. or wlcaniam with WHIH *lier di1poHL and lhe diapoaal 1ile bo@dary aod m*y uccur "

• bcnnth the ditpo1ed ***le.~ bwfer utent lo 1igniric1ntly *fleet lhe ability *pHr*1urf1u ditpoaal (n:acrnd),. sonc ah*ll be of adequale dimenaiune to of the di1po1al aite to meet the ""1 out envlronmeal&J monilorina prrlcmn*ncr oblecli""" of Subp*rt C of 111..12 Land dltpoul fecllrJ operation and Cll1941MI ell* cto-. acUvtt.i11 apeoified in I DUl(d) Ol lhia thia par&. or may p~clude ddrnalbl* part *nd &al.a mill&*tiu me11&.ll'e.I 11 mod1lina *nd prediction of lon1-c11m (*) Nur**wf*ce diafoaal radlUy

• ii* needeJ.  ;

• ifnft*CU.

(101 Arne muat ~ avoided where aurlau 1e'llogic proceura auch H man ope,..llon end diapoaa (11 Wutea d1ti1n1t1d u C*u A clueurc. pwtuant to I 11~5. must lie H¥rr1ated (91 Clo*W"I and 1tabiliulion ~c11wea

• • HI f.,rth In the appruud *lie duaun

• \

from other w11IH by pl*cina In diapoHI pl*n mu1t be carried oul 11 Heh

• wHlina. eroaion. alumpina. landalidlna.

wuth1rin1 occur with auch lrequenq

• nd utent lo 1i1nilicantly-.Cfect th* from di1poHl lll\ll1 '°'

unlla which *rt aufficiently aeparaled the other waate clau11 10 th*l aay lnl*ractioo b*lwHD diapoHI unll (**I* uc:h trench) 11 11Ued and covered. (IOI Ac:dve w11t1 diapoul opcratJon1 * ".. *bility ol lbe di*poHI alle to meet the perfunn*ncr ol>jrctivn of Subp*rt C of Clan A wHtH and other wutra will not rHuh In the failure lD meet th* 111u11 not ha"** aA *dveru cflac:I on completed doaww and 111llllwlioo

• thia p*r&*. or lll*Y .pr-.c)~J1. . !i~J.e.n.1IJ,,l~ ....... . 8)ealUIH*

i modelina and prediclioo ol lona*term * * .perforrnaoce .o.bjcc;U11u l,n .~ubpe.r

t C of thia Part.--Thi111are11t1on.i1 aot . :*. *. * * (111 Only WHlea conteinina or .

lmp*cta. conteminated wilh*r*dioactlve a1*leri*l1 (U) The dlapoHI 1it1 muat oot be .necHHl'J' for Clan A waalH If &Mr a1ecl l)le at*bility requlnmcnll ln 1h1U be di1po11d of al the diapoHI tile. loc*t1d where nearby f*cilltiea or I Ol.~(b) of lhla pan. .(b) F*cility oper*Lioo aod diepoaal aite

• cti\*iti11 could 1d,*er1ely impact Lbe do1ure for land di1po1al facililiea other ability of the *lie to *ID eel the (2) W11tea dulanated H Clan C perfonn*ncr objectlvea of Subpart C of pwauanl to I 81.!S, muel be di1po1*d o1 U.an oeu*awfaca (r11erv*d).

thia p*rt or aignilicantly m.... th8 10 tl1al the top of th* weal* i* a minimum o! S melen below the top I IUJ lnWONnenlal -""~ environmental monitoring pro1r*m. (a) Al the llsne 1 llcen11 *rplicalloa la (b) Di1poaal 1ite ault*bility aurface of the cover or snual be diapoaed of wllh lntnader barrien that are aubmil~ed. the applicant th*ll bn* ,. nquirementa for l*nd dlapoHI other conducted 1 preoper*tional monitorfna .. deaianed to protect *11*il11l &D .. than nur*aurface (rnerv*dJ.

f 11.11 Dbpout att* de.ign fol~ ,. .,..

in*Jverlenl lnlna1ion for a leHl !00 proar*m lo provide baaic envin11u11entsl

d*I* on the dlapoHI 1111 c:b*r*cteriatiu.

dltpoaa&. a

(3J All WHtH ahalt be dJapoeod or lD  :: n11 epplicent ah1U obt*ln Information

~ l*I DiapoHI alte dealp Cat n*.,.. ... accord*nce wtlh the requirement. of a: about Iha *cology. meteorology. cllm*to, ... '  :: 1urf1ce*di1poHL  : par11p*ph1 (a)(t) lhrouah (11) of lhla ~ hydrology. aeology. acocliemi*lry. *nd (ll Sit* deai1111 fnturH mual be HCtlOn.

• 11l1mology of the duroaol alte. For

• directed tu ..*arJ lo111*tcrm leglaUon and (4) WHIH mutt be empl*ced In a ll1uH c:baractert*hoa 11.. 1 111 1ubjcct a\'oiJance ol the naed for contlnulna snanner that a1alntaln1 the p*cli*p 1111tun*I verlaliun. dale lnuel cuver

• active m*inlenanca aflar 1ile doa\&1'8. lnlt&rity. durini emplacement. 111lnlml&et leaat

• tw.N* a.onth period.

• .. (ZJ The Ji1po11I alle dealgn and Iha void 1pac:e1 between packa911. and (b) Th* Jlcen111 mual have plana lor operation must be compalibl* wilh &bit permila lhe void 1pac11 lo be f'1led. ta .. lnl c.oncctive meuwu If 01igraUon dlapoHI 1111 do11&11 *nd 1labllinUoa * (~) Vold 1p*ce1 belween wait*

• of radionudldea would lndlca11 lhet the plen and lead lo diapoHl alt* cloaure p*ck*ae* mull be ruted wtth utth or performance obt*ctivea ol Subpart C that pro"*IJ11 reaaonablt Htur*nca that other meterlal lo reduce fulut'9 .-ynolbemeL the performance obtcclive1 of Subpart C 1ub1ldcnca. within the ft1l. (c) Durina lh* land dltp01al faclllly.

ol thla part will be ineL (0) WHte mu1t-b1 pieced and covered alt* conalnlclioa and opcr*tlon. th* (JJ Th* di1p0Hl 11l1 Inuit be deai,ned In

• Dl*nner thAl Junita th* r*dialioo licen11e ahall maint*in

• monilorina to complement and Improve. when doH rate *I the 1urlaca of lh* cover to proar*m. Mcaau.reme.nta and appropri1lt, lhc *blllly or lh1 dhpoaal levela that at a mlnlinum will permit the ob11rvalloa1 mual be made and 1111'1 natural characlertallca lo auww llcen111 lo cosnply wtlh all provlalona ol recorded lo provide d*t* lo evalu*le tha thet lh* performance obleclivea of I 20.l~ of thla c.h*pler *I the lim* lh*

• polentl*I health and cnvlronrncntaJ

• Subpart C oC lhla part will be meL UcenH 11 lr*nal*ned p1111uanl to I 01.lO lmpacta durln1 both the conallvc:Uon 141 Coven mual be d11lgn1d to ol lhla pert. and lh* operatloo or lhe facility and to.

minim.lie lo the 11.lent pracllc:.ble wain (71 The boundarf11 and locaUom of enable the avalu*llon ollong*term lnnltralion. to direct pen:oladng or .. ch dl1poHI unit (**I* lrenchca) mu1t 1Rec:t1 and the need for mJtig*Uva aurlace waler 1w1y from the dl1po1ed be acaaralely localed and m*pped b)' 111ea1un1. Th* monltorlna 1y1lem mu1l waat*. and lo n1i1l desr*datlon by. mean* or a l*nd aurvey. Near*aurface b* capable of providing early wamlna of 1url1ce 11olo1lc proceuea and biotic di1po .. I unit* muel be m., ... d In 1uc:h a rtleH11 of r*dionucllJu from th*

• • ." activity. **r that th* boundariea of .. ch unit di1po1al all* beCon: they leave the all*

ISi Surlaca fHlun1 muat dlnd can be ... ny defined. n1111 pennanent boundary. 1urfaca water drain*s* awar from 1urny m*r ..er control poiota. referenced (d) After the di1posal alte 11 cloaed. diapoaal unlla *t nlodtlee and to Unll*d Stalea Ceoloalcal Swver *th1 llcen111 rnpon1ibl1 for poet* 1redienll which will nol nault ID (USCSJ or Nallonal Ceod*Uc Swirer opcnt.ional IWV*lllanc. ollhe diapoHI 1ro1lon that will requlrw on1otn1 actlVCI () 1uney colltrol al*tlocu, muat be alte *hall m*lnt*in

• monitorina 1y1tem

• meinten*nce ln lhe hah&n. Hlabli1hed n th* all* lo fadlil*I* baaed cm lh* operalinB hiato~ and the (ll The diapoHI alte mual be dealsned IW'Vl)'I. The uses or NCS control doaur* end 1t1bill:r.alion o( th* di1po1al a) lo minimize lo the utenl practicable the 1t*llon1 mu1I provide horizonlal *nd 111*. The monllorina l)'llem muel be -1:*

conlecl of w*lcr with wu11 durina vartlcal controla H checlied *1*lnal c*r*bl1 ol providing early wamlna o( 1lor*11. th1 contact of 1tandlna wat*r USCSD or record nlea. ralu1e1 of r*dlonuclidea from the

• _,* 61*10 Dec1mber 30, 1982

~.~

• • • ~

i ,. 61.SJ(dl 6l.!\5(:tl PART 61

• LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. FOR LANO DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE dltpo11l elte before they leave the 1111 (Iv) W11l1 that ll nol 1enerally (Iv) If the concenlr11ion uceeJ1 lhe boundary. acceptable for n11r*1ud1c1 dilpo11l ll value In Col11mn 3. lhe watle 11 nol

\ i w1111 for which wa111 lorm and aenerally acceptable for ne*r*1wlace .:* I

• t.U Allamall.,. fequl,.menta liw di1po11I m1thod1 mu1t bt dUTerenl. and dl1po11I. .

d**'en anc1 ope* **IOn&. In 11ner1l 111ore 1lr1naenL lhan thoee (v) for w11111 containing mb.luica al The Commlulo" m1y. upon requt1t or 1p1cili1d for Cla11 C w1111. ID the

• the nuclid11 li111d In Table z. 1he 10111 on 111 own lniliallv1. 1ulhor1ze abaence or lptclfic requir1m1nl1 In thl1 concentration 1hall be determined by provi1ion1 other than tho11 111 forth In part, propo11l1 for di1po11I of lhh w1111 the *um of fradion1 nde ducribcd in 11 eu1 throuah e:.53 for the m1y be 1ubml1ted to the Commiulon Jor paraaraph (*Jl7) of lhi1 1cction.

Hlf*lllion and di1poaal Of WHll and epproYIL punuanl lo I 81.54 of thl1 for lhe duian and operallon or

• land part. . TAaU 2 di1poaal lacilily on a 1p1clfic ba1l1. U It * (3) Ctaulficallon determined by Iona*

find* rt11onabl1 111uranc1 or c...-...-. CMl'9ll Uvcd r1dionudid11. If radlo1clivc w1111 ~ compliance with the performance conlain1 only radlonuclidu li111d ln c obj1ctlv11 al Subpart or lhl1 part. Table 1. dauificallon 1h1U be ,__ ., , Cd *. Cd Cd. i I delcnnined 11 lollow1: ' It US W11t1 dtHIRcaUon. (*I Ci11m~~lion of wai11. lor DHr . II) U.lhe conc1ntratlon do11 not

• • 1ace1d:o.1111n11*the:valu1 *tn Tabl1 i. .. * ~ ..

1urfacc di1poaal. the w111e 11 Cla11 A. .. c..i ... .lat .. .. n ~ II ro (1J Con1iderotion1. Delermlnatlon ol (llJ U lh1 concenlrallon 111ceed1 0.1 the CIH1ificallon Of raJioact.ive WHll Um11 the value ln Table 1 bul do11 DOI e..t.1--~---.. H OCM 100 HO Involve* two con1lderatlon1. rU'll. 1ace1d th1 value In Table 1, lh1 w11te la C>IJr con1lderalion mu1t be aiven lo the .. CauC. .-.~----*~- concenlratlon or lon1*liv1d (lliJ Uthe concenlraUon eaceed1 the o.*n. ..... . c. ....... -......................"** .. raJionuclldea (and their 1hor11r*llv1d Y1lue In Table 1, the wi1te l1 not  ::=:~~===== ~:--:. ..... - .... _ .... 1................. Ottt. prccunon) who1e potential buard will 1ener1lly acc.eptabla lor __.,.. . . ~.._.. * - - __..... ... tei... I penl1t Iona after 1uch precaut.lon1 H dhpo11L . . - ... - .... c w . . c : * * - * - ln1tllullonal con1rol1. Improved w11t1 (IY) Forwul11 conlalnlna mlah&re1 of

form. end deeper di1poHI have CHiid

• ndionudldu l111ed lo Table 1. the total .(5) Cla11lncallon determined by bolh

lo be eUecth*1. Thea1 precaulion1 delay  : concentrat.lon 1hall be delermlned by  : Iona* and 1hort*llved radionuclidn.11

.: the time when lona*llved redlonuclid11 *: tha 1um ol lracllon1 nde d11cribed lD  ! radioactlv1:w111e conlein1

• mixture of

., could au11 111po1w11. ln add.it.Ion. lb1  : panarapb (aJl7) al thl1 1ect.loo.  ;. radionudidH, tome of whic.h lrt 1i1tcd

m*anilude or the potenllal doll le "' In Table 1, and 1ome of wliic:h are 1i11ed

T~1 Umlltd by the conunlralloo and  ; In Table Z. cla11ifica1lon 1ball be naUability ol the radionuclide al th*

. ._ ..... c:..- determined H follow1: *

• lime of eapo1we. Second. conalderatJOA (I) If the concentralion al a nuclide

-~ mu1I be alven lo the conc1nuaUon of .. l11ted In Table 1 do11 nol ncecd 0.1 -~ ~ ahorter*lived radlonudid11 lor which requirement* on ln1tllullonal connla.. Wiiie rann. and d11po11l m1thodl .,. 1rrect1ve. ~** ~** .. I tlm11 lhe valu1 ll111d ln Table 1. the da11 1tiall be that determined by the concentratloo ol 011clid11 l11ted lD Table 1. ) (t) CJ01H1 of wiut*. (l) Ca11 A wa1t1 (II) If the concentration ol 1 nuclide 1

1. l1 w11t1 th11 la uaually 11sr11ated from other w111e cla1111 at Iha dl1po11l alt1.

~ fllo.1u ._ a* U1ted In Tabl11eaceeda0.1 tlmea lhe value llaled lD Table 1 bul do11 not The phy1lcal lonn and charact1r11llC1 of C1a11 A WHll mual meet the minimum Ooo-ld ,__ *ao.- aaceed the value In T1bleJ. the w1111 1hall be Cla11 C. provided the* ~ requlrem1nl1 111 forth lo I 11°.M(a). U C1111 A w1111 al10 m11t1 Iha 1lablUly concentrallon of nuclld11 li11ed In T1bl1 1 do11 Dot eaceed lhe value 1bown ln (4) C1111lllcallon delennln1d bJ 1hort* nqulrem1n11 111 forth In I 11.M(b). ll la Uved radlonudldu. ll 11dloact.IY1 w1111 Column 3 of Table Z. not n1ce11UJ to 111reia11 the wa11e for (el Cla111Rcallon of w111ea wllh .J . di1po11L (II) Can B w11le 11 w1111 that mut do11 not c:oataln any ol th* radlonuclld11 U111d ln Table 1, radlonucllJ11 other than lhoae ll1led In Tabin S and Z.11 radioactive wHla d111lrlcallon 1hall be determined ba11d ..~ 111111 ll'ION n1orou1 r.qulrementl CID on ~ concenlratlon1 1bown lo Table ~ dou nol contain any nuclldu l111ed In

w11le lonn to eneunr 1tablUtJ efter HowiYlr, aa 1pectned In paraaTapta either Table 1 or Z. It l* Cta11 A.

!J dl1po11L Th* phyalcal form and (aJllJ or Ihle 11ctlon. lf radloacUve (7) Th* tum or th1 fr1cllon1 rule for

• .\ char1ct1rt1lle1 of CJa11 B w11t1 m111t w1111 dOH nol contain any nudld11 1nlallll't1 or radlon11dldea. For

-i 111111 bolb the minimum end 1tabWtJ de1ennlnlna d111mcatlon for w11le lhal U1t1d In 1llh1rT1bl11 or Z. It l1 C1a11 A.

• .~ nqulrem1nt1 nl forth lo I 11.a. (I) U the concenUatlon do11 nal contalnt a rnJatw* ol radlonuclidu. 1111 (Ill) Cla11 c ..... l* ..... that Dal 1ace1d the value ln Column 1, the w11l1 nec111ary lo delermln1 the. 1um of

....~.,. only mu*l m11t more rtpnnaa laC1111A.. . (11ctl0nt by dividing each nuclide '1 nqulrement1 on w111a form to~ (II) II the c:oncmlralloo eaceedt the concentrallon by the appropr1ale llmli r :'.2 ~ '~ ' et1blllty but alao requln1 additional

• llRHIWH at the dl1p"11I fadlltf lo value In Column s. but do11 not 1acaed z.

tha value lD Column Iha wHll le and addlna Iha r11ullln1 valun. The appropriale 1imll1 snual all be t1ken prolect a1aln1l lnadYartent lntru1loa. C11aB. from the 11me column o( the Hma table.

-~~,, The ph71lcal lama and characl1r11Uca of (Ill) II Iha concanlrallon 1aceed1 the The 1um o( lhe rractlona (or lhc column

.. , C1111 C w11t1 mu11 m11I both th1 value In Column Z. but do11 not eac11d 1nu1t be 1111 lhan 1.0 If the w11la cla11

• • 1 mlnlmwn and 1labllllJ nquiremeoll NI th* nlu1 ID Column S. the wa111 la 11 to be d11ennlned by lhal column.

• • ~ forth ln I eue. Call c. Example: A w111e conlaina Sr*80 In a I

61-11 Oacambo* 30, 1982 6155c:il .. ol.t1~lhl PART 61

• LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LANO DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

(

• concenUalioa or so Cl/m* and C.-137 la mazimum eatenl practicable &he owned ID fee by lht Federal or a Slal a c:oncenuaUon or 22 Cl/m* Sine:. the polenl.ial hazard from the Don* aovemmtnL  :

concenllationa bolh aacud th.I \'alu11 radlolosfc:al malariala. (b) ln.titutionol control. The l~nd In Colwnn 1, Table 2. thty muat be (b) The rwqulr1menl1 ln lhll 1ection owner or cualodial a9ency 1h1U carry . c:ompaud lo Column z valuea. FGI St-00 are lnlendrd to provida 1tability or lhe out 1n lnalilullonal control prugnm 10 . (uc:lion 50/150.*0.33: for C.*137 waeta. SiabUity 11 lntended to enaura pby1icallr cont1ol acc.e11 to the di1poea;- *

• l fractloa. 22/44 *0.~; the *WD ol l!ie that the wule doca not 11ructurally 1ite followins Iran.tu of contn>I of the *";<* .

fractiona*O.al. Since the awza i. Leu dearade and allect overall alablllty ol di1poaal 1ite lrom the diapoe.al eitc ,* I'"" lhan 1.0. the wu11 11 Clan B. the 1ile lhrouah 1lomping. collopaa. or operalor. The lnalilutional c:on11ol ' .* (a) Drtuminotipn of conuntrotion1 in other failure or ti1e dlaponl unit and program roual 1110 lndude. bu1 nol be 11.-astrJ. The concentration or a thereby to waler lnfiltrallon. limited to. carrying out aQ ~ radionuclide may be delermlned by StabUily la alao a factor In limitinl environmen1al monilorina prol'*m al ,.

• indirccl 11111hod1 auch H un or 1caUna eapo1ur1 to an lnedvertenl Intruder, the diapoHl 11111. periodic 1un*1illance. ,

facton which relale the lnlernd aince II provide1 a recognizable aad minor c:.u1todial care, and oLher ~ concentrati0n of one *radionuclide to nondlapenlble w11te. requlremenl1 ** determined by the an~ther ~al i1 mH.*uted. or (1) WHte mu1t have 1lnaclural Commi11ion: and 1dmlnl11ration of radio~uclade matenal accouatabUJry, ll *11ablllty. A atnacturally 11able waata lund1 to cover the co111 for thue thtrr 11 re11oaable auuranc.a lhal tha fonn will generally maintain lb pbyalc:al actlvtUea. The period of lnalilutional lndlrecl method* can Ii, cornlaced with dlmenaians and 111 lonn. under the controle will be dclenniacd by tlie

• 1ctuah~euw~men~e cooceatr1tioD>>'**' .. ixpected 'dlapolal* coilditiOrui 1uch..

• Coinmlnloa. but ln1tltulional control*

of a radaoauchde may be anr*.sed over weight of ovuburden and compaction may nol be relied aipon for* more than the volume of the wnte. or wea&ht ol l!ia equipment. the pre1ence of moialun 100 yea11 lollowins trander of control of wule if the unite ara e.xpreaaed H and mlcroblel activity, and lnlemal ' the dl1po1al aita lo the owner.

• nanocwi** per ar*m. facto111uch ** radJalion elfecl.I end Subpart E-Rnanclal Aeauran~*

.I lt.M waate d\ancleriaaca. chemical chan9e1. Structural 1tabOlly ,*~)The followlna requlremmta .,.. can be provided by lhe w1111 lorm IIu 1 Appllc:anl .,.nnc.Uon1 and

• • , aninimwn requirement* for all dHua al ltaell, proceulna the wula to 1 11able ae-ancaa.

wr.sle ind are lnlcnded to faciUtall form. or pladna tha.wule ln a diapoaal Each applicant 1hall 1how lhal It i .....-. handlina at the dispoHI alte and provtda proteclion of health and eafety ol pcraonnel 1 t lhe diiponl 1tt1*  : container or 11nactura thal provide.

11abllity after dl1poaal (Z) Notwlth1taadln1 the provlllon1 In either poneun the necea111ry lund1 or ha1 rea1onable 111urance o{ obtaining the nece11ary fund1. or by a I!

(1) Wule mu11 not be packaged for  ; 11 01.(a) (Z) and (3), llquld w11te1. or  ; combination of the two. to cover the .-"... di1po1al ln cardboard or fiberboard boae1. (21 Uquld wutc mu11 be 1olldlnad or

11. waa111 conlalnlna liquid. mu1t be

converted Into a form that contalna 11 Uttla fra1.11andin1 and noncorro1lva eatimaled COlll or conductina all llcen1ed activtlie1 over the plaMed operatJna life of the project. lncludl.ng

.:.\ -~ padia9ed In 1ufficlent ab1ori>nt malerial to abaorb twice the Yolume of the liquid. . Uquld 1111 reeeonably adalavable. but In DO cue 1hall the liquid exceed 1" of tha volume of the wG1t1 when tha WHla

• co1t1 of conalnlction and d.i1po1al.

I 11.12 Funding tor dl1po19' all* cto -~ (3) Solid waale contalnln11 llquJd ahaD conlalo ** little frea 1tandiq uMi *

• II In a dl1po111I container dc1l9nad to

• en1.U. 1labi111y; or o.5" of the volume al and a&ablll&eoon.

(a) The applicant 1bail provide a11urenca that 1ufficlenl funda will be

• "J

.~

• • i aoncorro1lve Uquld ai.11 n11onabl1 ,

achievable, but ID oo ca11 ahall the liquid eac11d 1* al the Y'Olwna..>

• the w1til1 for wuta proce111d IO

• 1tabl1 form.

(3) Vold 1paca1 within the waat1 aad avallabla to carry out di1poaal 1it1 do1un and 1tabllizatlon. lncluding: (1) Decontamlnatloa or diamontlesncDt of (4) W11te r11u1t DOI be nadiljcapable belwem th* WHla and lb padr.a9e mual .J. of detonalion or of e.xplo1m be ndlic:ed to the ext1al practicable. land d11poHl ladUty 1tnlcturn; and (Z) .:.::: decompo1ltJon or raactioa at llOl'lllal 911.17 Labetftt. cloaura aod atabllludon of the diapoHl .."\ ... pre11un1 and temperaturea. or o( e.xplo*IYI reaction with watw. Each padr.a9e of wa1te mu1l be all* 10 that followina traiuler of the dl1poaal alta to the *It* owner. the Deed

? (~) Waete muit not conlaiA. or be dHriJ labeled lo ldenlify whether II la for onauiDI ICtiYI maintenance ll

.: cap~ble of aeaerattna. quaatUin of lmW: Ca11 A wa1la, Cau B wuta, or d11a C 1llmlnated lo the eatent practicable and -:- 1a111, Ylpora. or fumea banafu1 ao waata ID accordance with I 01.U. *only minor cu1todial cara. 1urveillanca,

• . panon1 traa1port1q. bancWna. or 111.a Aft9fnlllft ,..,ir-nta for_.. and monltortna are nquind. Theaa

• . dlapo1ln1 of the wute. Thia doa DOt cAaaalllcalloft Md c"8racawtaoc.. 111iu'ance1 1hal1 be ba1ed oa

...... apply to nclio1ctfv1 a a -

• waste Cornmi11loa*approved coat t1timat11 padiaaed ln accordaaca with parasnpla

(*)(7) of lhla 11ctloa. * 'ani. eo-111loa may. upoa raqu11l or lta OWD lnltiativ1, authorize otber provlalon1 for the da111fication and raOactlna tha Comml11loo*approved plea for d11po11I 1ita. doaure and (0) W111e must not ba pJTOPboric:. cbenct1rilde1 of wa1t1 GD a 1pec:lflc . alablllution. 'Ille applic:aat'I COil

• Pyrophoric materiala coatalDtd ID wute ba1la. lL after e\'aluation. of the 1peclflc eaUmatea rou1t take Into account total 1hall b1 treated. prepared. ud padr.aa1d charact.rtatlca of tha wa1ta. dJ1poaal capital co1u that would ba 1'u:WT11d II .

lo be nonll&m.111abla. 11l1, ud method of dl1po1*L It flDda an Independent contractor wen bittd to (7) Wute lo a 1111CN8form1111111 be naaonable a11urance of compU.- p1dorm tha do1ura ud 1labil.lutioa packapd at a pra11ura that doa DOI with the perfcmDIACI ob)ectlna a work. exceed 1.1 almo1ph*ra* ef JO"C Total Subpart C of lhll part. (b) 111 order to avoid unnec.e11.,Y activity 1111111 aot ucetd 1m caria per dupUc:atlon and expenae. th* container. 111.11 lndtvdonal ~ Coinml11loo will accept flnandal (a) Waite contalnlna buardaaa. (*)Land ownenhip. Dl1p0Hl of 1urelle1 that have been coruolidaled 1: blolotlcaL pathoaenlt. or Wecthnaa radloacdve wa1t1 rwcclved from olher with earmarked financial m aurety ~ malarial mu1t be tnat.d lo nduce lo the panona maJ be pemlitt1d only laad "a111emant1 **labllahed to meet Dec1mber JO, 1982 ....*: 61-12 -:~ .... *- ..... ****-****--

Michigan

Michigan

Michigan

10 CFR 61

PA

Michigan

IO

PA

Michigan

Michigan

PA

Michigan

Michigan

Atomic energy act of 1954

PA

Atomic energy act of 1954

470w-6

UC

Ith 1uch frequency *nd (b) DitpoHI 1it1 deal1n for other than

OI

NCS

NCS

JOG

n11r-1urface

lead

SO

OD

UT