ML19323A245
| ML19323A245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/10/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8004180137 | |
| Download: ML19323A245 (29) | |
Text
~
G
)
I Y "%>
s p
k
%,.8&x)
(
l UNITED STATES I
N UCLE AR R EG UL ATO RY COMMISSION l
I' In the matter of:
j BRIEFING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT l
TECHNICAL REGULATIONS I
I i
l P1 ace:
Bethesda, Md.
l l
Date:
April 10, 1980 Poges:
1 - 28 I
l i
l INTDtNATIONAL VanaAT1M REPonTrnS, INC.
Att SOUTH CAPITCL STREET S.it. SUITE 107 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 201 ama.tamin o
i 800.4180137 i
w e
e 6+
eusp e W
,,-- r,--
Ca43.4 i
~
I i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
i j
I A
x l
3 In the Matter of:
l' 6
5 l BRIEFING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT-i 7
TECHNICAL REGULATIONS 4
x i
9 10 i
Room 550, East-West Towers i
11 i
Bethesda, Maryland M
i Thursday, April 10, 1980 ta
,i i.
U The Commission met, pursuant to notice, for l
ts I
presentation of the above-entitled matter, at 3:00 p.m.,
7' I
John F. Ahearne, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
l BEFORE-l i9 i
JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission 3
i VICTOR GILINSKY, Member j
- 1 i
I
=
l l
l
=
- 4
% <== %
--_-.s...
- ' ' =
l
9 e
CDH T3/1 l
2
=
nsas sc.
I I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We now have before us the I
Waste Management Group.
Well, we, 7 gather are here to -- in the process 3
of going forward with an advance notice, and so I recognize this is not an attempt to say here's what you have 0
implicity decided not to be the case but now you've now 7
{
gone through many sets of reviews and it's about time to a
go out formally to -- for comments.
t 9
MR. DIRCKS:
That's right.
I just wanted to i
10 stress that point.
We've developed the criteria in-house, 11 we've developed it in association with contractors and i:
consultants and standards group.
13 We met with numerous outside specialists groups.
]
i 14 I
We reached the point in the development of the criteria l
13 that we feel it necessary now to go out even further for l
14 additional comments.
I7 l
And we do not in any way say that this is a i
18 i
i i
regulation even ready for a proposed rule.
What we're I
19 I
i i
seeking only is permission to go out for an advancement i
i
,O 1
to continue this input process.
l 1
l 4
7 l
This is the second major event in the waste i
i 3
management history of the agency, the first one was the 4
proceedural rule.
We promised you that we'd be back to l
J you in the spring with the technical criteria, was it.
l 8
iwre.=% veneTn. mumeneum i r.
as same Cas*Tek 87 MEET. E e. Surff 187
- a..
T3/2 l
3 G
c
..ca sc I
I I
But this is not in any way a rule that you t
i would say we are ready to propose.
We just want to continv.e the process by going for an advance notice.
3 1
f CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'd like to make an assumption l
we've all read the paper.
There are some points that you'd
~
i 6
I look at as an assumption -- some points you'd like to make? I I
7 MR. DIRCKS:
I think what we want to do is trace 3
i back to somethine in the major points that we're making 9
i in the notice.
I think what we want to do is tell you 10 the number of groups that we met with and I think what we 11 l
might want to do is to tell you the process by which we're 1
going to complete this rulemaking.
13 MR. ROBERTS:
I want to restate that we're not u
asking for your approval on the content of the graph 13 l
criteria, just on the publication.
Is that clear?
l j
14 I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There are several ways to i
interpret that.
We'll interpret it in a good sense.
l 18 MR. ROBERTS:
That's the way it was intended.
19 l
I l
It might be useful to start out with a review l
4 f
of the schedule, of the progress today in rulemaking 21 i
l for high level waste.
l t
i i'
And, I think when you have that, you have --
- 4 l
Page 1 presents a title line for the three elements, the proceedures, the technical criter'ia, and EIS.
l t
iampnam vasesetee Asyquergast leer.
m sonrew surre ter a
T3/3 I
4 l
- o
=
usas so.
i The proceedure requirement; that'ovuld establish I
f the regulatory framework were published as a proposed rule I
f 2
last December.
The effective rule in the proceedures is scheduled for your consideration in September of this year.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
When did the commentary 5
close on that?
7 MS. COMELLA:
March 3rd.
3 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are they -- How is someone 1
9 coming on -- Are you handling the comments?
10 i
MS. COMELLA:
Yes, we are.
We received -- So 11 l
far we received about 29 comments.
They're fairly even1 i:
l n
i.
divided among the industries, states, and environmental l
groups-some even from academics and others.
14 I
I We're in the process of catagorizing them now i
13 by subject areas and into a systematic fashion, 14 prepare the analysis of staff finding.
17 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It still looks like you'll 18 i
f be able to hit the September date?
19 i
l i
i MS. COMELLA:
I think so.
20 I
COM. GILINSKY:
What does that -- What does that 1
4 i
point signify?
Is that when --
i i
~,
MR. ROBERTS:
It comes to the Commission for i
i
- 4 l
your consideration.
1 3
COM. GILINSKY:
It comes tc the Commission?
e J
i - = v w,= =i.
. soun. m 7..,. m
T3/4 i'
5 l
C 8-noz.wc.
l 1
I MR. ROBERTS:
Okay.
With respect to the f
technical criteria, we are now at the advanced notice f
I 3
I milestone, and the proposed rule on the criteria is also l
scheduled for your consideration next September.
i l
l And, that'n a very tight schedule and conceivably I
6 could be effected by the comments we receive on the advance 7
notice.
3 l
l The period between the proposed and effective 9
l rules where the technical criteria is, 13 months includes 10 i
time for a hearing.
11 l
In the draft DIS, or environmental statement, 10 whatever it turns out to be, is scheduled to be issued 13 i
concurrently with the proposed rule on the technical 14 i
criteria.
I 13 l
I j
Then with the question of page 2, why an A&R --
14 s
Why an advanced notice now, and what it would contain, --
17 An advanced notice at this time would communicate to DOE 18 i
a concise and early statement of the best thinking available f
l to us.
3 I
21 l
Such information would be helpful to DOE, who
~
=
will be the license applicant in meeting the President's j
i n
recently announced schedule.
- 4 COM. GXLINSKY:
Can I just take you back for a minute?
j i,
=,. _v
- m. e i e.
e
_. - a. c. m.
_7.-
T3/5 0
0 pass we.
\\
l i
1 MR. ROBERTS:
Yes?
2 COM. GILINSKY:
When you say it includes time f
3 l
fo' a hearing, do you mean something other than people 4
submitting written comments?
i 3
MR. ROBERTS:
Yeah, for the hearing on the --
i 0
comments received and changes in the rule and --
i 7
COM. GILINSKY:
But are you talking about sub-I l
mitting, I mean, a hearing in writing or a hearing in 9
i speaking?
10 l
MR. ROBERTS:
Well, I can't -- The details aren't 11 l
here, but an opportunity for public input.
1 l
l l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But isn't there always l
13
-- It's always public comment on a proposed rule.
14 i
MR. ROBERTS:
Spoken here.
i 13 l
MR. DIRCKS:
I think when it's a public comment, l
Id i
you're not going around and asking for --
ty i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I guess you've --
l 18 I
There's still some lack of --
l 19 i
MR. DIRCKS:
I think it's the normal -- public
,0 4
l j
should get to comments, resolve the comments, and come
,1 s
s I
i i
forward as a rule.
i COM. GILINSKY:
So you really mean an opportunity
~-
3 for the public to comment on the proposed rules?
j MR. ROBERTS:
Well, if there had to be a public i
i_v~-x J
m on,r= cm smere. s n. surer w I
- m. c.==
T3/6 1
7 C
sa sc.
I I
meeting, there's time here for that public meeting.
I This will be quite a controversy rule, or high 3
interest in this one and I think that we should take into 4
i account there may be a need for a public meeting.
e i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think that's something i
6 l
we'll have to talk about.
We're never quite sure about --
I 7
A public meeting on a big rule like this, I'm not even s
i quite sure how the whole thing would be staged.
9 l
My view is that we have published the rule for to l
comment and we get comments back in.
I'm not quite sure 11 I
of a public meeting.
12 You'd have -- You'd probably have to wait, 13 I
i atleast to see what kind of comments you get on this Id I
advanced notice first before you -- Okay.
l 15 I
MR. ROBERTS:
An advanced notice, this time we i
14 l
i formalized and further broadened public participation in 1,,
i the development of technical criteria.
),
As was noted earlier, there has been considerable 39 i
20 staff effort to date in developing the criteria and these f
I 21 l
have been carried out and opened in public manner.
Drafts t
have been circulated to the agencies, groups. and in-i I
dividuals, and I'll go through a list of those in a minute. ',
i 24 But a complete statement of the results has l
never been made.
And, the content and emphasis of the lerrgunafiquena. VenesFtte REPuurfunE 18mc f
aus sh,fte CM*TWE. gTHET, g, g, ggffEIW oo C
T3/7 C
0 l
wacs se.
l i
I subject matter has changed from draft to draft.
\\
c I
And further, much of the thinking $which underlies 3
the staff work, such as a particular aspects of the prob-4 i
lem to be solved and the possible approaches to their I
l
=~
solution is implicit in the drafts but it's never been 6
I l
stated exclusively.
I 7
l An advanced notice would provide such a statement and would signal the start of formal rulamaking.
9 Page 3 is a list of the staff interaction. Unless to i
you want to go into it, I just note it.
I will point out 11 i
l that the type of involvment, the type of information that 1:
has been considered is quite different with each of the f
i 13 l
groups.
l Id j
i The Kingstone group, for example, centered on the 13 i
broad performance objectives and the general approach 14 I
taken in developing the criteria.
I.
s i
And by contrast, the University of Arizona review 3,
on the right-hand side near the bottom, which took place 39 i
3 last January, focused on the earth science anc engineering i
1 21 i
criteria.
l l
i f
COM: GILINSKY:
Could I ask you, when you say, i
i n
j for example, AIF briefing or NRDC briefing, who is briefing j l
I 24 whom?
Are you briefing them, or are they briefing you?
3 MR. ROBERTS:
I'll r ;fer that to Jack, on this.
i.e
% vs n % i c ase sun,F.e CAM 94n. fTuBEET. & w. SusTE '8F "AL"
T3/8 I
9 l
9 0
pasa so.
i I
MR. MARTIN:
Well, on the AIF briefing, for I
example, we went over it with the subcommittee of the AIF 2
just exactly what was in the draft we were working on at the time in some detail and got reaction and comments back from them on it.
~
l 6
i The same with, like the EPA briefing, for example,.
7 l
where it was a mutual back and forth, to which we did keep 8
i minutes so there was a record of what was said and who I
9 i
~
said what about it.
10 i
l MR. ROBERTS:
I call your attention te paga 4 11 j
then.
In the staff's view, the problem --
repository 1:
be very different in many respects, for many facility for 13 which there is licensing experience at this time.
14 And in the Staff's view, the problem -- unique 13 l
l aspects, the problem can be described as follows:
I 16 i
There will be three distinct stages in the life i,s l
time of the repository, each involving different public 18 i
i health protection considerations.
l During the construction-oo,erational phase, l
3 i
l 21 criteria will be needed to deal with construction techniques l l
l
=
and placement techniques and operation proceedures and i
i i
=
j radiological protection of workers and persons who j
i i
- 4 live nearby.
i 3
Following the closure of the repository, the t
e i
r inw= % vs = me. cwa se t
t
T3/9 10 l
n PAGE N&
a t
i l
fission product in the waste will dominate the radiological 2
I hazard.
And the heat output could jeopardize the long-i 2
l term integrity of the repository by causing effects such as dormal uplift of the rock, and changes in rock stress i
3 i
field and disturbance of ground water flow systems.
So, design criteria are needed to accommodate 7
I those factors.
a l
l Within approximately'1,000 years, the fission i
9 i
products would have decayed to such a level that the to actionides become the principle contributors to radiological 11 hazards.
12 Similarly the heat output from the waste will I3 j
have dropped off markedly.
During it's final phase, the la i
useful lifetime of engineered features, such as waste 15 j
containers and repository design will have been exceeded.
Therefore, properties that effect rate of 17 l
leaching and transport of the w aste will become important.
18 i
The physical extent of the repository is also I
a unique feature and that includes not only the surface
,0 4
and sub-surface operations areas, but also the surrounding
,1 4
- rock, i
i i
n The surface facilities can be expected to cover r
l i
t i
- a an area of 200 acres a square kilometer.
The sub-surface i
l i
l u
area will be in the range of 2 to 8 square kilometers.
l l
4 l
i-= v-m. % e som.e m case,s...minin i
i
'e
e
._ c T3/10 11 I
PAGE NC.
t i
l And most analyses assume the repository radius i
of about 1 to 2 kilometers.
3 Since the surrounding rock will be the primary i
barrier, performance criteria for that barrier which are 3
capable of being demonstrated will be needed.
i i
Also assurance will be needed that natural 7
l effects such as floods, earthquakes and glaciers will l
g l
not effecc the performance of the geologic area.
i 9
I The interaction between the waste and the sur-10 i
rounding rock is another characteristic unique to reposi-11 l
tories.
1 l
The waste will effect the performance of the 13 i
rock, most notably through heat output, so criteria that la i
keep the adverse within acceptable limits will be needed.
p l
l There will also be a need to treat uncertainties. l 16 I
I The technology of deep underground structures has not 17 developed a body of precise codes and standards which i
18 t
can be used as acceptable basis for repository design.
19 l
Therefore, on-basis information will have to l
0 l
be developed fresh and earth scientists will be called i
1 I
4 I
i i
upon to assess and quantify factors never before done
=
l i
and in ways almost opposite to their. experience.
l 24 Geologists who have primarily focused on the 3
past and present, will be called upon to make projections l
s v -,, - i.
- """*"NS"""'
T3/ll 4
0 12 l
nsa.wo.
i l
I I
l into the future.
I Ground water hydraulogists will be called upon 3
l to assess low permeable rocks and the absence of water l
when their experience has been largely with highly permeable s
rocks in the search of water.
l And finally, inadvertant or purposeful intrusion 7
into repository, could short-circuit all of the protective 8
l l
features provided and the consequences would vary widely I
9 depending on the point in the lifetime of the repository 10 I
[
and when it occurred.
11 i
l So, institutional controls that would prevent 10 intrusions cannot be expected to be effective for more 13 l
i than 200 years and I think Jack Martin will be going into 14 i
l some of the possibilities for decreasing tha lik14*.ood of intrusion when he goes through the considerations of f
{
14 1,1 developing technical criteria.
l I'll turn it over to Jack.
i 18 l
MR. MARTIN:
Yeah, I'll pick up here.
II l
What I would like to do is to discuss the approach to i
l 21 that we're taking to deal with the problem that is very j
i comolex that Craig described.
f I
I i
I'll go into it briefly without alot of elabora-
- 4 l
tion.
i Basically what we have done is structured 4 8
infuss.am Vessesme Asmosfsm lac.
j me summe afft ter
T3/12 13 l
[
e pues se i
i I
interlocking and interrelated considerations that are on I
the last page.
3 I think it's important to view these as a whole and not any one individually.
But, basically we've elected to pursue the 6
I i
multiple barrier system where each barrier to a degree 7
is independent and to a degree is redundant, not completely but to a substantial degree.
9 i
i And, the three barriers we've identified are 10 l
the waste package, the engineered underground structure 11 j
itself, and also lastly the site, geologic setting.
12 And, we've taken an approach of putting atleast f
13 l
a minimum performance objective on each of these and 14 j
we've selected minimum performance objectives being such i
that by meeting the minimum objectives, whole areas of 14 i
uncertainties are avoided.
17 l
For example, on the waste package, we selected la I
a lifetime of the package to contain the radio 19 i
of 1,000 years and as long thereafter as can be reasonably ;
3 I
i i
achieved.
21 So, the engineering of an underground structure, l
I for example, we've selected a performance requirement that i
l i
24 l
the structure has to protect the waste package so that I
3 it stands a chance of meeting the 1,000 year lifetime and e
ImTuusnaftesnae. Vuonavne 4spessesnt inc, 61 fn i
T3/13 0
8 14 l
.m se i
l i
I that the underground structure and the waste package to-i l
gether should limit the release of radio 2
to one f
part of 100,000 per year after package failure, which 3
i d
I will insure a very very low release rate to the surrounding e
l rocks.
i 6
l Lastly, on the site itself, we have a performance 7
j requirement that would be apparently stable, simple site i
i and have a numerical requirement that the ground water I
9 transport time from the site to the accessible environment to i
be atleast 1,000.
11 l
These three things together, we feel deal with 12 i
the considerable uncertainty that would otherwise tend 13 to confound demonstrative compliance with the EPA standard.
14 l
In addition to the minimum performance standards, I je i
l we have set.out some siting criteria for those who are 16 out screening the country for sites.
I.,
l We tried very hard to come up with some definitive l
and numerical siting criteria,.and made it very clear 39 I
i that if you have these it's unacceptable and if you have i
20 t
21
]
these other requirements, it's acceptable.
~;
As yet, we've been unable to find any categorical I l
i
~
siting criteria to which we can't figure out logical l
- 4 reasons for exception.
So, what we have done is structured e series of f
e terresuma?nssnaa. Venemftes Musesfunt M J
= e rs t.==
I
T3/14
- O O
15 l
nome sa i
i l
I potentially adverse aspects that are to be avoided and provided a way of -- providing an exception for that if I
l l
there are -- a good case can be made that there are enough 3
compensating good features.
This then becomes primarily useful in comparing r
6 l
sites.
Perhaps in tce comment period we'll get some 1
l 7
l additional insights on how to be more definitive in some s
absolute siting requirements.
But we feel what we have 9
today provides substantive guidance without unduly elimina-10 l
l ting sites that may be good sites.
11 l
The last feature is one that's -- We call retrieva-12 l
l bility.
Basically it's a requirement of the design that n
l if we design such that future generations could elect Id l
l to maintain the waste in a retrievable condition, reasonably' I'
l retrievable condition, for atleast 50 years after it's in place.
i The idea here is that we don't want to bequeath is i
people of repository because of thermal conditions as 9
i I
unstable or caving in.
3 I
21 l
It will allow people, if they want to, to watch it for 50 years.
If they don't want to take advantage j
i I
=
of that, they can close it up and revocably seal it.-
24 But it adds a certain additional measure of 3
time during which one can watch the performance if there l
8 larygmaam Vguesfone h Isa; ame an,fte M STHWT. & s. gWrft ISP 4
-~...
T3/15 I
16 l
- a PAGE NC l
l t
l 1s still any substantial uncertainty left.
2 That, then, in summary are the major features I
of the role.
There are many, many other details, but in 3
i 4
broad outline that's the essence of it.
And that's the 5
summary that I have.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could I ask you a question?
f Now, page 25.
And you said a few words about I
l 3
I stability.
I I
9 l
MR. MARTIN:
Well, the stability number and the 10 associated 10,000 years is a definition that keys closely i
with the EPA standard.
EPA for a variety of retsons, I
which I agree with, has concluded that trying to foresee 13 into the future, much beyond about 10,000 years gets to 14 i
be pretty futile, particularly coupled with the fact l
13 that the -- I mean in a geologic sense, not that so much 16 what people will do, but trying to predict ahead beyond 17 i
that is very difficult.
18 i
And in addition, the repository is definitely I'
l i
less hazardous than the initial ore by that time.
So, 20 i
l we basically for predicting stability have keyed into the 21 l
I EPA definition.
It seems about as reasonable as any.
f O
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
On 27.
You say under D i
l at the top that emissions in the general design criteria
,4 don't relieve an applicant from the requirement of
(
me QQ rrearr, t e. warr ist
I 17 o
o pass so.
3/16 I
providing safety features.
By that you mean that although 2
we haven't required it, he still is required?
3 MR. MARTIN:
I think isn't that a standard thing in most of the regulations that there may be -- there i
3 may be things that need to be done in addition to what we have in here to make it safe.
You know, maybe that 7
will come up in the --
l 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bob, is that just a boiler-plate design?
10 MR. MINAGUE:
- Yes, I think it is.
The basic 11 l
concept that underlies it is that the applicant has some 12 l
responsibility to address the safety question, and that 13 just meeting the bare bones of the regulation, which I
14 would impose on us a burden of foreseeing all possible IS I
l eventualities, it's just not a reasonable posture.
I 16 I
wouldn't -- I'm not sure that exact wording is boiler-i
- 7 i
plate.
But the concept, it certainly runs through all 18 of our regulations.
19 COM. GILINSKY:
Could I just take you back to 20 I
your comment that af ter 10,000 years the f acility -- the 21 contents of it are no more hazardous than the original 22 What -- how do you put numbers on l
of a uranium ore.
22 that?
24 I
MR. MARTIN:
Well, I hesitate to pass out l
l l
~
0 0
nas no.
3/17 I
this semi-long draft that I brought, but there's been 2
a number of indexes that people have come up with in the 3
last couple of years to try to make some relative compari-sons among different hazards.
And one of the schemes 3
it's come up with, I just took a draft that EPA put 6
together, was a hazard index where you compare biologial I
threat of tlie pilable waste with time versus just 8
uranium ore with time, and when do they both get to be about the same amount you'll allow in drinking water, 10 for example.
11 l
And for spent fuel, the spent fuel becomes l
12 less hazardous than the apparent ore body at about 1 --
i 13 at about 10,000 years.
Right at 10,000 years.
14 l
In other words, you could mix more spent 12 fuel in your water than you could uranium ore.
16 l
COM. GILINSKY:
Is it actual spent fuel, or 17 i
is it all of the material in the repository homogenized is in some --
19 l
MR. MARTIN:
All of it homogenized, right.
20 l
Right.
If you take a reasonable --
21 COM. GILINSKY:
Including the dirt --
22 l
l MR. MARTIN:
-- size of the repository and 23 mix it all up so it looks like an ore body, a spoonful 24 l
j of that would be less hazardous than a spoonful of the l
25 i
l I
i
= v me w.m i c.
me muuru c.apmat swearr a e m,rt 's,
. -. ~ -
19 0
rsas nr I
I 3/18 ore at that point.
2 Now, that's not an exact comparison because 3
the nuklides are different in -- but it's a way, for 1
l example, that's frequently used to compare it to I
t Cadman ore or mercury.
I 6
COM. GILINSKY:
Why would we impose requirements h
I that would deal with conditions that far in the future 8
then?
9 MR. MARTIN:
Well, I don't think we do.
The 10 EPA standard, for example, which we are implementing I
f 11 cuts off at 10,000 years partly for that reason.
12 COM. GILINSKY:
Well, let's see.
If that's 13 the case at 10,000, then presumably it's the case at 14 about a 1,000.
Is the --
MR. MARTIN:
Well, it -- it's still a few times --
i l
16 j
COM. GILINSKY:
Because the -- the maxinism 17 i
~
change very much --
18 MR. MARTIN:
-- higher than natural ore at 19 a 1,000.
Maybe three or four times higher.
20 l
And as I say, that isn't an exact comparison.
21 I hate to get into a real rigorous comparison, but it's 22 I
l a useful way to think of the problem.
But, you know, 23 l
l one has to point out that uranium ore body is there because 2d i
i it's been capture in the geologic bottle, and so you know l
I5 i
i-- v -, - =
l 0
N. 1 mfd I
l 20 o_
_e I
PMEE NC.
I 3/19 it's going to stay there.
Or you don't really know 2
that about the repository.
You hope you were smart 3
enough to do it that way.
But it's a -- I think it's a useful thumbrule i
I e-as any.
O COM. GILINSKY:
I think it is, too.
I was 7
just trying'to get a better feel for it.
Thank you.
8 CHAI1EAN AHEARNE:
Also, on page 77, what is 9
the Batos Zone or -- zone?
10 MR. MARTIN:
Well, that's an idea that a fellow I
i L
11 f
at the USGS has been pushing.
I think it's very attractive.
12 It's like out West frequently there are like a l
13 l
l for example, there may be 400 feet to the water table, and there is no captured agua for above it.
It's just 13 400 feet of unsaturated soil until you get to the water 16 l
table.
And that area above the water table up to the l'7 l
1 surface is the Batos Zone.
18 And the attractive feature of it is that you l
19 don't have water perculating down through it.
The 20 evaporation rate is so much higher than the rainfall 21 that you don't get any recharge down to the ground water.
22 And we don' t want to -- we' re not meaning to preclude 23 i
l that, we're just not covering it here.
l 24 l
CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Now, by saturated, you l
i 25 l
I 8
i l
i - = v - m. e i.
..on..
pass No. 21 G
C I
3/20 mean you're assuming that for calculational purposes 2
that it's in medium which is water saturated?
3 MR. MARTIN:
Right.
CHAIMAN AHEARNE:
The 50 year retrievability, e
is that rule of thumb more than zero, less than a hundred?
4 MR. MARTIN:
Well, the way --
C$ AIRMAN AHEARNE:
Or is it a two-number?
MR. MARTIN:
Well, I guess the way we came up 9
with that number was that it will probably result in 10 around a 100 years altogether.
11 We figure 25 years, maybe to load the repository and 50 years to watch it, and maybe another 13 25 years to unload it if you have to.
14 But our conclusion was that ought to leave 15 plenty of time to resolve residual doubts.
And in l
16 l
addition the thermal insult, if you will, for the t
17 I
repository is reaching the maximum above that point.
So 18 that you should be able to validate whatever the cal-19 j
culations or predictions that are still sort of shaky.
l 20 I
And beyond that there's not a whole lot more new data I
21 going to come in.
22 l
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
On page 33, the siting 23 l
l l
requirements you have, before you can conduct investigations:
24 l
l in the horizontal radius to about 100 kilometers, what l
23 t
i i
e i
iwam m vs
- m. no.wom 1 e
"""*N""' '"
o e
22 3
PAGE No.
3/21 I
kind of investigations are in mind there?
2 MR. MARTIN:
Well, these are the far-field 3
investigations.
For example, an investigation of 4
surface weather; an investigation of hydralogical under-I ground hydralogical features and --
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would you have in mind test I
borings?
I I
MR. MARTIN:
Well, this is purely a surface kind of thing.
We're not advocating any underground 10 exploration to that degree.
Perhaps the boring might i
11 i
be required, but we're not specifying.
l 12 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But you're not specifying.
13 MR. MARTIN:
We want to try to provide some la direction on the site screening program.
You ought 13 to look at least that far so we don't have to get in i
I 16 I
an argument about it later.
I 17 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
My question was did 18 you have it in mind requiring a series of test borings 19 j
out to a 100 kilometers around the site.
20 I
MR. MARTIN:
No.
There might be a case where 21 l
l that could be called for, but I don't think --
22 l
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now, 35.
What is the 23 geologic profits?
24 1
MR. ROBERTS:
A region of similar geologic 03 o
lorTWuaaftenas. Veseavies Rapssaryant her.
sum. cums. einser...
,rfs in
- a. c. - a
.._3 7
nog no. 23 3/22 1
characteristics.
I just heard about it last evening.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, yes, I was wondering 3
if we were having a new -- similar to a techtonic problem.
4 This is going to be a new phrase that we're introducing.
i MR. MARTIN:
I think something like the 6
Tasco Basin, for example, where you have a hydrological 7
basin, and the Washington or.the Los Bandanos Basin, or 8
a salt zone.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is that a term of art or --
10 MR. MARTIN:
I don't know, Craig.
I don't i
II i
know.
12 MR. ROBERTS:
We should defer to a geologist.
13 In my view it is not a scientific term, a geologic term.
Id CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess the question is I3 why are we using it as our description?
I' MR. MINAGUE:
Mr. Chairman, I predict we'11 i
f get into the same kind of problem.
I think you just I7 I8 made a very good comment that we'll take into account 19 as we work further.
It's the same basic problem --
t CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
It's not -- let's not --
l 21 since we just heard --
22 l
MR. MINAGUE:
All that says is we have to l
23 l
l define it at this point.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
23 MR. MINAGUE:
That's a problem wording it.
Not --
i I
1wesonaftesnaa.Veseattas Rapostuas Isac.
[
[
amo es,rie c4arven. rrue?. s. w. marTE ter N
e s,.
.. - =
esas no.
3/23 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, yes.
Right.
Right.
2 How does one include undiscovered deposits?
2 I mean, the requirement here is the department 4
shall include undiscovered deposits.
It's on page 35.
5 There's a hand in the back.
6 MR. WRIGHT:
Mr. Chairman, most people choke 7
when they see that term. But it's a -- it refers to a 8
technique that's becoming more and more important in 9
assessing national resources of any sort.
10 The geological survey, for example, in its II estimate of the oil and gas resUurces in the United States I
l includes an estimation of oil and gas contained in the 12 I3 clauses that are expected to be there geologically, but I'
haven't been found yet.
13 Now, the Department of Energy, for example.--
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am well aware of the --
l 17 i
l familiar with the speculative of uranium.
I know the 18
\\
program well.
l 19 MR. WRIGHT:
All right, sir.
I 20 MR. MARTIN:
This sounds like another thing l
21 i
like geologic proviences.
i 22 l
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I underr,tsd tMt concept 23 you're working on.
I think it'd n.e. tic a better defined l
l l
than it is.
l 23 t
I i
twfuummatic>ma. Vasseaftes RepoWTWEIL lMC.
.I des sin #Tte CaprMm. STIEW?. 8. w mffT 10F I
e..-.. _. _ _ _ _ _
~.
O C
25 puss so.
3/24 I
MR. MARTIN:
I agree.
2 CHA'. RMAN AHEARNE :
In the next -- on the next 3
page, on page 36 where it's talking about the Do we in our -- does this lead to the site charaterization I
requiring examination to two kilometers outside the 0
repository?
7 MR. MARTIN:
No.
It requires doing an investiga-I tion to have a -- these are for -- to get some reasonable 9
j assurance that the repository itself meets the -- or you 10 i
know what the properties are.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
12 MR. MARTIN:
It does not require that you mine i
I around two kilometers around the outside of it.
The 14 two kilometer order is something that we've established 1.5 so to make sure that you don't lease it if by analogy 16 1
you can argue that it ought to extend at least that far.
17 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
No, I can understand 18 l
the logic.
My question is really -- getting back to --
19 you know, the debate on what are we going to require at I
20 l
site characterization, and is this -- would this lead 21 you to conclude that you have to go --
l 22 l
MR. MARTIN:
No.
Not unless the thing is so i
Z1 discontinuous that you can't predict it.
It turns out I
24 I
I that thermal effects extend out at least two kilometers.
I i
15 I
I I
lorrusanationna6 Vemmartne Mapquessa lac
{
e a
-l 0
o 26 pasa No.
l i
l 3/25 I
And it's important to know --
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
I'm not taking exception 3
with the importance.
It's just that I'm trying to --
MR. WHITE:
Mr. Chairman, this would lead into 3
when we get into giving guidance on site characterization 6
you are anchored on this.
We would be more specific 7
about the kinds of information and tests.
i g
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I know.
l 9
My question really, though, was one of the big 10 debates that, as many of you know, that we are having, 11 for example, with DOE, and with DOE and the Congress is what are we going to end up requiring for our site 13 characterizations?
And the issue, for example, of how I
14 I
I much horizontal excavation is going to be required.
l t*e But I was interested in finding out whether this srstement 16 j
in here would end up requiring horizontal to work out to 17 j
two kilometers outside the --
i 18 MR. WHITE:
No, no.
The idea was that you 19 would make projections out to that distance --
20 f
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
21 MR. WHITE:
-- for the purpose of exploratory 22 l
excavation just to see what's there in your field.
l 23 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
2d l
On page 77.
And this might, again, be just a 15 l
s i
mm v no w.= i c.
e e,- o
~.
l 4
0 27 PAGE No.
I 3/26 boiler plate provision.
I notice that on the container 2
and packaging it says that it must be done in accordance 3
with generally recognized codes and standards except as 4
I authorized by the commission upon demonstration, et i
i e
I cetera.
is that a --
0 MR. MINAGUE:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's just a boiler plate.
r 8
All right, that concludes my questions.
9 j
COM. GILINSKY:
I'm all for putting us out since 10 l
it is just an advance notice and -- and it's good to get 11 l
it on the streets so everyone can see it and get idea I
of what the thinking here is and -- and start commenting 13 l
on it.
I 14 I
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter?
15 I
I MR. BRADFORD:
I have no other questicas.
16 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me ask, then, one other 17 l
- item, i
18 l
On this schedule does it -- if I put a line 19 l
i on there called EPA?
20 l
MR. MARTIN:
Well, EPA has sent their standard 21 forward to Hawkins, which we expect to see it for inter-l I
agency review, and which is a formal step, momentarily.
I l
So, I would say that they are very close to where we are.
l 24 l
l It's moving --
l
- 5 l
l e
l 1
tempmam Venaanu Murowesus, lac J
= = M ~ ~ '"
1
e. m _,.
2..__
6-0 nas no.
i 3/27 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What steps will they go 2
through, then, after it goes for inter-agency then whati MR. MARTIN:
Well, it goes for inter-agency 3
4 review, and I believe in parallel it goes to a peer review I
l i
group that they have internally, and then to i
6 for issues.
So, they expect if things go right to probably have it proposed in mid-summer.
July.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That would be as --
9 i
i MR. MARTIN:
As a proposed -- a little bit 10 ahead of us probably.
11 i
And I think that the last time I heard the --
12 we've been keeping a fairly good track of what EPA is 13 i
doing.
And I don't think we have any major conflicts 14 between what we are doing and what they will be proposing.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Thank you very much.
16 17 l
18 19 i
- o l
21 l
l 2:
24 I
l l
2 i
i IsrTWImmaticanaa. VElseaT9as REPeurTWEL Inc l
il
-=*='""S*"""
I