ML19330B831

Forwards PA House Resolution 211 Urging That NRC Provide Operating Plants W/Personnel Trained in Plant Characteristics & Emergency Planning & NRC Review Procedures for Dissemination of Info

ML19330B831
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	05/08/1980
From:	Mebus C PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19330B820	List: ML19330B819 ML19330B823 ML19330B825 ML19330B827 ML19330B828 ML19330B831 ML19330B834 ML19330B836
References
NUDOCS 8008070041
Download: ML19330B831 (4)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:~ a ~ CH ARLES F. MEBUS noow.sas THE CNIEF CLERK MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING E ,-a. O HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV' S E COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ~ HAARISBURG May 8, 1980 John F. Ahearne, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Ahearne:

. Enclosed is a copy of House Resolution No. 211, adopted by the House of Representatives on May 5,1980. This Resolution is sent to you for your consideration as per the direction contained in said Resolution. ry truly yours & / )Cr y Charles F. Mebus Chief Clerk CFM:myg Enclosure et\\\\ 6008070 4

=,. _. _. .. _. _.. _... =... .._...._g ....a PRI OR' PRINTER' S No. 3114 Printer's No. 3260 2~- .=:... .... z .====._.,, ; THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA ~E 9.n.._ :::::::1 = _, HOUSE RES01.UTION Jr 4 .3 Session of No. 211 i,.o --~_=_ %=: INTRODUCED BY MESSES. J. L. WRIGHT, JR., MA NHILLER, PICCOL A, YAHNER, STUBAN, COHEN, KLI NG A5 A N, McKELVEY, RAPPAPORT, REED,

DORR, A.

C. FOS T ER, JR., GEESEY, DININNI, BARBER, FREIND, ..a 30EHL5 ANN A ND HOEFFEL, BARCH 18, 1980 ~ AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE 05 RULES, HOUSE OF BEPHESENTATIVES, I.S ABENDED, APRIL 29, 1980 In the House of Representatives, March 18, 1980 ~~ 1 WHEREAS, The House Select Committee - THI learned that there 4 2 was a serious deficiency of trained Nuclear Regulatory _] p-- 4 3 Commission personnel at the THI site at the time of the incident E l:':. ..d 4 to handle the fast moving events which occurred and that the [._._ . _......_] 5 utility operating personnel were not trained to handle an

.-E:'.

=;=M 6 incident of the type which occurred; and l' 7 WHEREAS, The committee also learned that an incident of g 8 similar nature had recently occurred at a nuclear power plant in h...... 3 y 9 Ohio and that it was the opinion that the dissemination of jj=.g 22 ue 10 information on the incident could possibly have minimized the EE E!555 _ 11 effects of the THI incident; and ..] 055 ~;" 12 WHEREAS, The committee learned that the operating controls c;:.._...._;;;- 13 and visual instrumentation in the control room of THI Unit 2 ) E:' -- -- aj 14 were designed and placed in such a manner that the operators on [:.:;-.. -.m 15 duty at the time of the incident did not have immediat e visual

y

-4 16 or manual access to the necessary controls and instrumentation; a f_:._ :. :". ...............d = = = = - - - A ..............g

• .h.

==

...=.._:.

• =:

~. _.. _... - i.. s. '1 and 2 WHEREAS, The committee feels that the operation of a nuclear 3 power plant requires highly trained operating personnel because + .-] 4 of th nature of and the dangers associated with nuclear energy; S therefore be it ~ " - 6 RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives urge the Nuclear 7 Regulatory Commission to provide, at each operating nuclear er-N55 8 power plant, a continuous team of personnel trained in the 9 individual plant characteristics and energency procedures and 10 that these personnel he.ve the communications facilities 11 necessary to immediately be in contact with appropriate 12 officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the case of 13 accident; and be it further '~ 14 RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives urge the Nuclear 4 15 Regulatory Commission to immediately review its procedures for 16 the dissemination of information, reports and corrective actions 17 taken at any facility as a result of operational malfunction .a 18 among all operating nuclear power plants under its jurisdiction; ~ ~ ~ " 19 and be it f urt her 20 RESOLYED, That the House of Representatives urge the Nuclear 21 Regulatory Commission to review operation room physical 22 configurations to assure that operating personnel will have 23 immediate, dir ect access to all controls and instrumentation 24 necessary to properly respond to operating difficulties and _~g 25 equipment mal' functions; and be'it further 26 RESOLVED, TH AT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENT ATIVES REQUESTS THE 27 CHAIR 5AN OF THE HUCLEAR REGULATORY C05EISSION TO INDICATE TO THE 28 'CH AIRE AN OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THREE 5I' LE ISLAND, IR 29 ERITING RITHIH 30 DAYS FOLLOWING BECEIpT OF A COPY OF THIS 30 EESOLUTION, THE STATUS OF THE REC 055ENDATIONS SET FORTH HEREIN; 2-

---

A

...\\N n ...... ] J

/ 1 AND. BE IT FURTHER 2 RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to "-^ - ",',-] 3 the Chairnaa of. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ....._....s .==. w 9 2 C A 1 1 .= k[b 5- ~ B28L66DGS/1980030211B3260 :. .."i -.

---

-- ~=- -- - :.. - ::--..... _:: ;.._....... -- :_~ ~ ""...

n===-....... _.. . = = = - - - i e

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 94 / Tuesday. May 13. 1980 / Proposed Rules 31393 authority may be used under a program which has been determined Proposed Rule circumstances such as the following: to be of low prQrity.The new proposed The Department proposes to amend 7 (1) An employee or an agency date for termination of the program is CFR Part 7EO, by revising the title of the presents matenal facts not previously July 1.1980. The comment period is Subpart-Beekeeper Indemnity Payment considered by the regional office being lengthened to allow interested Prosram (1978-1981)-and i 760.101(b) involved: parties time to familiarize themselves to read as follows: (:) There is room for reasonable doubt with the information, determine the as to the appropnateness of a regional impact and prepare their responses.This Subpart-Beekeeper indemnitf office decision, or notice invites further comments on the Payment Program (1978-80) (3)The p^tentialimpact of a regional proposed termination. + + office decuon on similar jobs under Comments must be received on of other regional offices is sufficiently 760.101 Definitions. oATE: significant to make central office review before June 12.1980. l of the decision desirable. AooREss: Send comments to Director. (b) " Application period" means any [ (h) The Director of the Office of. Emergency and Indemnity Sagrams period with respect to which application Personnel 51anagement, may, in his Divisions. ASCS. USDA. P.O. Box 2415. for payment is made beginning not discretion, reopen and reconsider any Rcom 4095 South Building. Washington. earlier than January 1.1978. and ending previous decision when the party D.C. 20013. not later than July 1.1980. requestmg reopenmg submits written This regulation has been determined FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT *. argument or evidence which tends t Robert Cook. Emergency and Indemnity significant under the USDA criteria ) ew an material evidence is Programs Division. ASCS. USDA. P.O. implem ecuti de 1 a he the pr i us de is on as is ue ash ton D C 3( } 47 po al to e nate e p og am s (2) The previous decision involves an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION:The available from the Emergency and erroneous interpretation of law or Food and Agriculture Act of1977.91 Indemnity Programs Division. regulation or a misapplication of Stat. 921,7 U.S.C. 284, extended the Signed at Washington. D.C on hfay 7, established pobey: or authority of the Secretary to conduct the usa (3) The previous decision is of a Beekeeper Indemnity Payment Program "'I "**8 precedential nature involving a new or through September 30,1981. On July 14. unreviewed pohcy consideration that 1978, the Department published final may have effects beyond the actual case regulations (43 FR 3026) to govern the A" " *"'d at hand, or is otherwise of such an conduct of the program through exceptional nature as to merit the September 30.1981.1t is not mandatory penonal attention of the Director of the that the program be conducted. Office of Personnel Stanagement. (i) A final decision by the Office of The proposed 1980 budget for the NUCLEAR REGULATORY Personnel Stanagement constitutes a Department of Agriculture contained no t't)MMISSION certificate which is mandatory and funding for the Beekeeper Indemnity 10 CFR Part 60 binding on all administrative certifying. Payment Program. On June 15.1979, the payroll, disbursmg. and accounting Beekeeper Indemnity Payment Program Technical Criteria for Regulating off:cials of the Covernment. Regulations were amended to provide Geologic Disposal High-Level that payment of claims filed aftar that Radioactive Waste irn ooc. ex.ae' rw wa-am tes e=1 date would be conditioned upon the swmo coes sum availability of funds. Claims for 1978 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory losses, approved for approximately $2.10 Commission. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE million, were unpaid because of the lack ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed ~ of funds.The Agriculture Appropriations Rulemaking. Agricultural Stabilization and Act for Fiscal Year 1980 atsthorized $2.89 spMARY:In the December 6,1979 Conservation Service million for the beekeeper indemnity edition of the Federal Register (44 FR 7 CFR Part 760 p.ogram. 7(M08). the Commission published its The public is invited to submit written proposed licensing procedures for the Beekeeper Indemnity Payment comments regarding the proposed disposal of high-level radioactive wastes Program (1978-81) ' termination, to the Director. Emergency (HLW) in geologic repositories. This and indemnity Programs Division, advance notice is the next stage in the AGENCY: Agricultural Stabili2ation and ASCS, USDA. P.O. Box 2415. Room 4095 HLW rulemaking process.This notice Conservation Service. USDA. South Building. Washington D.C. 20013. Informs the pubhc and interested parties ACTION: Lengthen comment period on persons submitting comments should concerning the status of efforts related proposed rule include their names and address and to the development of technical criteria

SUMMARY

On Apnl11.1980, a notice give reasons for the comments. Copies to become part of10 CFR Part 60. It was published m the Federal Register of all written comments received will be invites public comment on issues related (45 FR 248991 that the Agricultural available for review by interested to such development: on the approach Stabilization and Conservation Service persons in Room 4095 South Building.

being considered. including partitioning proposed to amend its regulations - USDA. during regu!ar business hours. of the problem into workable elements relating to the Beekeeper Indemnity Accordingly, the comment periodis and statements of underlying principles Payment Program by terminating the lengthened and public comments must and technical considerations. Attached program on May 15.1980. This action be received by June 13.1980, in order to to this notice are draft technical criteria. was taken because of a lack of funds for be assured of consideration. These criteria are a result of the efforts j e ' * % *er. d e

31394 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 94 / Tuesday. May 13, 1980 / Proposed Ruits of the staff to accommodate andinclude Commission seeks comment from all~

f. Lifetime of the Repository the best thinking which has been made interested parties in order to provide the The operationallife of a geologic available to the staff from technical Commission andits staff the opportunity repository for the dispos al of HLW quite experts in the form of technical points.

to obtain public assessment of the naturally divides into three periods-the suggestions and criticisms on previous general direction being taken in the penod of construction and emplacement drafts of technicalcriteria.However, development of the technicalcriteria. of the wastes: the period dunng which these criteria do not necessarily The formative work on the technical the shortlived fission products dominate represent staff positions with respect to criteria has been conducted in as pub!!c the hazard posed by the wastes: and the rulemaking on this subject. *,. a manner as possible. Numerous drafts long term during which the hazard is DATZ: Comments must be received by of the technical criteria have been dominated by the very long-lived July 14,1980. developed, and widely circulated to isotopes including the actinides. The interested agencies, groups, and technical criteria must reflect the ADDRESS: Written comments or individuals to obtain input.These drafts, different physical conditions of the suggestions on the advance notice should be sent to the Secretary of the prepared by the licensing staff. have repository during these periods and be formed the basis for this interaction responsive to the specific nature of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. with outside groups.They started with a hazard posed by the wastes. Washington. D.C. 20555. Attentiam Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of fairly diffuse set of pnnciples and ideas During site selection, the ongoing and have evolved with an increasing program is one of probing and testing to comments, may be examined in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public concreteness through 14 staff drafts. find an appropriate site for a repository Document Room.1717 H Street. NW Technical reviews of early drafts of the and develop a compatible design. criteria have been conducted by the Construction has not yet begun, and no Washington D.C.20555. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keystone Radioactive Waste Review radiologic hazard is posed. Nonetheless. I. Craig Roberts. Assistant Director for Group and at a workshop held at the technical criteria are needed (1) to Siting Standards. Office of Standards University of Arizona.The results of indicate site features which clearly Development. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory these reviews have been placed in the render a site suitable or unsuitable (site Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555. NRC public document room.Other suitability criteria), and (2) to allow a Telephone 301-443-5985. Federal agencies and groups which have judgment as to whether a proposed site bee nvolved in the review of one or can accommodate an effective SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: more of the drafts melude DOE. epa. repository design and together provide

Background

USCS, NRDC. Atomic Industrial Forum, the protection sought (site acceptability Bureau of Mines, and a host of criteria). The nature of the criteria is On December 6.1979, the Nuclear comment in the Federal Register, public interest groups., changed to fit the particular needs of the ndividual Scientists, engineers, and Regulatory Commission published for periods as explained below. The technical criteria include specific Constructi;n and emplacement of proposed regulations for licensing numerical criteria in certain areas in wastes is the next period which the geologic repositories for disposal of HLW (44 FR 70408).The proposed order to further stimulate the thoughts criteria must address. During this period regulations contained only the and commentary of the public.The staff the immed: ate radiologic hazard is to procedural requirements for licensing. Is preparing a document explaining the those who are working at the repository basis and rationale for these technical and to a much lesser extent those who Subparts A. B. C. D concerning general provisions, licenses. participation by criteria. it is anticipated that this reside nearby. (There are also the document will be available as a NUREG hazards of construction to workers, State governments and records, reports, tests and inspections. respectively. The report at the time that the technical Criteria which address these hazards technical criteria against which a criteria are published in the form of a would be expected to follow the license application will be reviewed proposed rule. A working draft of the regulations of the Mine Safety and bases and rationale document has been Health Admmistration.)In addition. were and are still under development. However. the technical and scientific placed in the NRC Public Document there is the actual design and understanding concerning the scope of Room for inspection. construction of the repository to be considered for the long term. But the the technical criteria were regarded as Nature of the Problem more proximate problem during this sufficiently developed to enable an appropriate licensing procedure to be To best comprehend regulation of phase is that the construction and established for their implementation. geologic disposal of HLW it is useful to emplacement methods used will not Thus, the Commission was able to. note that such disposal of HLW is emnpromise the ability of the repository propose a procedural rule to establish - separable into five distinct problem to protect future populations. Thus, the the necessary regulatory framework for areas: lifetime of the repository, physical technical criteria directed at this period extent. waste / rock interaction. deal with construction techniques. licensing. treatment of uncertainties and the emplacement techniques operations Since then the staff of the Commission has made further progress is focusing problem of human intrusion. In turn. procedures. and designs for radiological each of these areas can be further protection of workers and persons living more sharply on :he technical and scientific issues and problems related to separated into fairly distinct regimes nearby (accidents). licensing geologic disposal of HLW. in over which certain aspects or The third period begins following partitioning the problem so as to characteristics of the problem area closure of the repository, and will facilitate the development of practicable dominate.Each of these regimes then persist for the time that the relatively technical enteria:in articulating can be treated more-or.less individually. short-lived fission products dominate principles which might reasonably not as specific criteria, but as functional the hazard. During this time there will underlie the technical criteria: and in elements addressed by the criteria. be a substantial heat output from the considering these principles in the What is desenbed below is essentially a wastes which if not properly identification of approaches to matrix for the techmcal criteria cutting accommodated by site selection and across the five areas above. engineering could compromise the specifying the technical criteria. The W"* gg -

o Federal Restister / Vol. 45. No. 94 / Tuesday. May 13. 1980 / Proposed Rules 31395 in.cgrity of the repositc,ry. In addition. out in a manner which assures that the in fact, the very process of combining the chemical species and makeup of the integrity of the repository is maintained. those elements compounds the empiaced wastes are rapidly changmg Hence. criteria applicabia to the uncertainties associated with them. due to radioactive decay. Criteria excavated area address siting. design. Thus. criteria are needed to assure that applicable to this penod will focus on operations and the first two periods of those uncertainties are identified. understood, and compensated. Avoiding selecting sites and generating designs to concern.. acccmmodate these two, major features. J. Woste/ Rock [nteracticn potentially adverse features is one way By the time the short.hved fission of compensating for uncertaimties. products no longer dominate the hazard. The chemical and thermal properties Placing constraints on design and the wastes are no longer generating of the wastes undoubtedly will have a performance of components is another. sqmficant amounts o(heat. Moreover, significant interaction with the rock unit Siting criteria which tend to lead toward the short-lived elements have for the into which they are emplaced. To assure relatively geologically simple sites are a mest part decayed away and the that the repository will function as third. Finally, developing criteria which chem: cal properties of the waste have planned, siting designing, emplacement address individually the separable greatly stabilized-generally dominated methods. engineering and waste form aspects (temporal and spatial) of by the actinides. However, for this final criteria will be needed to understand-geologic disposal is perhaps the surest period it would be irf! prudent to rely on control, and assess the effect of the means of dealing with uncertainties. engineering to contain the emplaced waste upon its surroundings.These

5. Human Intrusions wastes: and final protection is achieved criteria are the complement to the by the ability of the geologic setting to excavated area criteria above. Those To this point the discussion has inhabit migration of the wastes leached criteria are to protect the emplaced focused upon the processes of nature-from the waste form in a c'ontrolled wastes from their surroundings; whereas how the repository can be expected to manner. Properties which affect leaching these protect the repository from the behave over the long term. However. the of the waste and which affect transport effects of waste themselves.

problem of human intrusions. intentional or inadvertent moots much of the of the wastes such as fractures, porosity.

4. Treatment of Uncertainties previous discussions since there is no sorption. hydraulic gradient, and If there. to be confidence that way to reasonably limit the variety of is thermal gradient, and determination of wastes disposed in a geologic repository conceivable human activities which the long-term stability of the geologic will not pose a significant hazard to the might compromise a forgotten setting will dominate the criteria health and safety of future populations, repository. The only logical recourse, addressed to this period.

hen two factors wMch pose since engineering against human y, p3),sicalExtent fundamental difficulties must be intrusion is impossible practically.'is to A repository also can be divided addressed sttisfactonly. First. geolog,c avoid targets. i.e sites which may invite i physically into two broad categories-disposal is an entirely new enterprise-- such intrusion. Mineral resources. water surface and subsurface. The subsurface no experience exists with geologic resources, interesting geologic or can be further divided into the area disposal Second there will be n hydrologic features are sure to attract affected by excavation and opportunity to observe behavior over the developer or the explorer. Shallow emplacement of waste and the broad the long term-the decisions to close the repos tories would more easily be geologic environment into which the repository in effect will be a statement intruded upon than deep ones. repository is set. ofits expected behavior based upon. Therefore, what is needed are site The surface portion is comprised of inference. deduction. and extrapolation suitability criteria which would lead the surface facilities and operations from results of tests and expenments toward unintercstmg sites of little areas needed to support construction carried out for a comparatively short resource value, and design criteria and emplacement of wastes. Generally period and upon predictions of future which would yield designs that present the criteria which apply here are those geologic, hydrologic, and climatologic minimal targets. which address the construction and conditions based upon observations of emplacement period. the past.These facts impose very . - Underlying Principles The criteria which pertain to the definite constraints as to how The efforts of the Comitis'sion' staff to' broad geologic environment address confidence is achieved that the develop the technical criteria have been those geologic and hydrologic features expectation of behavior will match gt'ided by the following principles: which if too close to the excavated area actual behavior over the long term. (1) Under Reorganization plan can produce effects on the integrity of These constraints fairly clearly define Number 3 of1970. the Environmental the repository that are not readily the ite'ms of uncertainty which arise Protection Agency [ EPA) was given the understood: and. therefore, lead to doubt because qualitative descriptions and authority under the Atomic Energy Act that the waste can be safely disposed at models necessanly approximate nature of 1954 as amended to set the generally the repository. The thrust of these rather than exactly describe or predict applicable standards for radiation in the enteria would be to assure that such nature: uncertainties which arise. environment. Such standards represent features are far enough away so that because the data used as input to those a broad social consensus concerning the they either present no problem. or the descriptions and models upon which our amount of radioactive materials and, prolem they do present can be made understanding of the natural processes levels of radioactivity in the general tractable. in question are based are the result of. environment that are compatible with The last division in the subsurface is tests and measurements which the area affected by excavation and themselves have degrees of uncertainty. ' Actually. contamme the weites withm a camster emplacement of wastes. It is here that Finally, there are uncertainties which for the pened that the reistweiy short-taed rission the wastes are emplaced and that the arise simply because of the large products dommate the hazard does tend to lessen engineering is expected to be used number of geologic and hydrologic the impact of drillms mio the repository by I*'*!"'na the weste (Le-. keepms the target'small) during the first period following closure. elements which must be identified. It is also here that the construction and measured, and combined to determine '",d ",,,'ns a s er quinjy n a r pe

oagn,

., p n,, o s emplacement activities must be carried the expected behavior of a repository-penetraie weite cann,.ier. ~

• 9*

~ u. mm

313 % Federal Regist:r / V 1. 45. N2. 94 / Tu;sdry M;y 13, 1980 / Propos;d Rul:s prn ection of the health and safety of the tractable the problem of demonstrating it is appropriate there ore, to consider r pubhc. This EPA authonty extends to that the criteria and the EPA standard how engmeering-in the broadest sense the settma of the standard and not to the are met. of anything used to effect a purpose-implementation of such stan1ards or to (4) Because the scientific and might be used to compensate for. the establishing of requirements techrucal problems associated with reduce, or eliminate at least some of the concernmg how they are to be met.The HLW waste disposal are sufficiently uncertainties inherent in reliance on the Commission is bound to implement. understood. it is possible, even in the geologic setting alone. Engineering can these standards in its regulations, thus absence of an EPA standard toidentify be used to narrow the extent of geologic assunng that they wdl be met by relevant areas of regulation.These are processes which need to be considered activities authorized by the the areas which contribute to: protection in the rulemaking and licensing Commission's licensing decisions. The of the public health and safety or the processes: that is. engineering can be Commission may not substitute its environment; the reduction of used to bound and/or diminish the judgment for that of the EPA.but the uncertainty; or the confidence in any importance of certain geologic Commission may, and must, determine decision as to whether the EPA standard ' processes. Engineering also can be used whether partic.ular proposed disposal and NRC regulations are met. to make the containment of emplaced actmties will conform to the EPA (5) The natural divisions of the waste as insensitive as possible to standard. problem in time and space and the potential changes in'the geologic The EPA has published its generally separation of the problem of human environment. For example, the use of intrusion from natural events aid in buffering materials to retain applicable environmental standard for all of the fuel cycle except waste storage understanding which areas should be radionuclides is one possible way to and disposal. 40 CFR 190, which regulated. facditate the analyses which compensate for uncertainties in the

• ! serve as the decision-bases, and so sorption capabilities of a particular espresses the limit in the form of a quantitative dose limit to the individual.

will increase confidence in regulatmg medium and site. The EPA is in the process of developing and licensing decisions. In light of these considerations, (6)The analyses and requirements therefore. the Commission staff believes its HLW standard. The Commission expects this standard (40 CFR 191), to be must reflect a degree of examination that it is reasonable to couple a and control which corresponds to the prudently and cautiously selected similar in approach to that followed in importance to safety of any given geologic setting (natural barrier) with a 40 CTR 190.. technical area, T%s. the technical set of engineered barriers capable of (21 As noted above, although the critena must address not only questions performing or assisting the performance Com mssion is bound to implement the UIs s f the functions stated above.Further, EPA HLW standard,it has the authority pg, ess o of the Commission staff belie..s that sites and discretion to determine how that facdity acceptaWy. which are relatively easily understood star dard will be achieved. In particular, the Commission must decide how it will Considerations and can be expected to be stable for deselop its regulatory requirements, viz., in the course of developing technical long times, are the most desirable: and the technical criteria of10 CFR Part 60-cntena a number of considerations have that engineered systems which are and carry out its decision process to arisen.The Commission believes that r.ompatible with and make the least show that in each particular licensing the program to develop the technical adverse impacts upon the geologic and case. the EPA standard wdl be met. criteria for HLW disposal in geologic hydrologic characteristics of the site will 131 in order to establish the technical repositories would benefit from contribute most to the performance of entena for meeting the EPA standard comment on them: the overall disposal system. Similarly, to and to make individuallicensing (1) Systems Approach.The term the greatest extent possible. the decisions as to whether such cnteria are " systems approach" relates to the set of performance of engineered systems met. the Commission needs to carry out natural and engineered barriers which should be insensitive to changes in conservativa analyses because of the would function to contain and isolate those characteristics and should provide many un ertainties associated with . the waste from the biosphere for the a high degree of protection by HLW waste disposalin geologic periods of time required. to increase the themselves. repositones. These uncertainties arise degree of the Commission's confidence Given the nature of the problems, as from the inability, given the present and that indeed such containment and discussed earlier. the Commission staff expected state of science and isolation would be achieved, or to has identified the following as technology, to determine precisely the permit appropriate and conservative composing the set of three primary degrrr 'o which wastes. under credible analyses to be performed which would barriers of the waste disposal system: cond.Nns for the time periods involved, form the decision bases. the geologic setting; the design and wdl bt eontained and isolated. Further. It is evident that for a geolog'c configuration of the repository. including in order to carry out such analyses the repository, the geologic setting must be the waste emplacement scheme and Commission may require measures one barrier. In considering whether engineered barriers; and the waste which may not directly enter into the there should be other barriers. a key

package, analyses. but will add to confidence in question which needs to be answered is (2) Use o/ Minimum Ferformance those analyses, thus adding to the whether it is prudent. in view of the Standards forMajorRegulatory Commission's confidence in the degree nature of the problems and the Elements. Determining the expected to which the EPA standard can be or uncertainties involved. to rely on the evolution of a geologic repository in time has been met. Such measures are likely geologic setting alone to accomplish the is the key to understanding the to be aimed at simplifying the problem:

functions stated above.The state-of.the-consequences of emplacing wastes in a such as requirmg that precepts of art in the earth sciences is such that all repository. Such expectation of the simplicity and stability of the geologic of the uncertainties associated with effects of pertubations and changes, settmgs govern the site selection process these functions cannot be resolved both natural and man-caused to the the in order to reduce the overall through consideration of the geologic hydrologic environment, serves to uncertainty and thus render more settin'. Identify th-kinds of events. including = quem e.*w ewow * - = - *

• • =*p

- w-ye

a Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 94 / Tuesday, May 13. 1980 / Propos-d Rules 31397 institutional failures. which might cause that is. to the potential of a site to serve Consider that the judgement of the a radioactive release to the biosphere. as the location for a repository. appropriateness of these models for Assessment of such events that Unfavorable site characteristics are their intended purpose will be supported reasonably can be assumed to occur and identified to eliminate from largely through expert opinion:{e) their likely consequences permits the consideration sites which would not be Confront and 2xplore fully these identification of the " credible" events acceptable under any circumstances for uncertamties and their ramifications which should be considered in the a HLW geologic repository or which includmg " uncertainties" ansing from design of the repository and evaluated would present insuperable difficulties in differences in expert opmion: (f) Judge in rulemaking and licensing decisions: terms of understanding the geology and the acceptability of the consequences of Identification of these " credible" events hydrology of the site or would introduce events in the light of these uncerainties: permits development of performance or compound uncertainties which would and (g) assure that the judgment itself requirements for both the natural and affect negatively confidence in any will be detailed in the public record. mmeered barners to assure that such licensing decisions. Favorable site If one views the realization of our events are avoided where possible for characteristics are identified where the understanding in geologic disposal from their consequences mitigated when likelihood of a site / facility combination successively more nearly complete and these performance requirements are (repository) being acceptable is greater accurate qualitative descriptions of the met. Such describes the deterministic or which would contnbute to increased observed phenomenon in question approach the Commission staff has been understanding of the geology and through more precise and semi-takmg in development of the hydrology. permit uncertainties to be quantitative and quantitative performance requirements for HLW better handled, and increase confidence approximations where uncertainties are disposal in geologic repositones. and in any licensing decisions. However. better understood and can be treated defense-in-depth approach to provide neither kind of site suitability mathematically. to an elegant theory assurance and confidence that the EPA characteristics say anything about the embodied in a mathematical desenption standard can be met. ultimate acceptability of the repository which represents a culmination of (3) The Nature of the Major system as a means to safely contain and human thought, the present state of Regulatory Elements. The regulatory isolate the wastes for the time required modeling for geologic repositories is elements selected should be either with the degree of confidence necessary closer to qualitative than quantitative. important to safety. that is, contain and to a licensing decision. Criteria by which This fact does not make whatever isolate the waste from the biosphere for the acceptability of the site / facility understanding we have less valid-we the periods of time required. or combination can be assessed are know what we know. Rather this means contribute to confidence in the needed for this determination. that neither the process by which the functioning of the repository system or Specifically, this second aspect relates technical criteria should be developed individual components. As discussed to questions of whether or not. given the nor the process by which a licensing above the repository is conceived as a present state-of-the-art in the earth decision should be made should rely system of multip!: barriers, both natural sciences. it is possible to identify on a solely on quantitative calculations and and engineered. The two most important generic basis site characteristics the assessments. It means that when attnbutes of the natural barrier are that presence of which at an otherwise analytical techniques are used, care the site should be geologically simple suitable site would render the site / must be taken not to apply those ~ and stable so that the site can be easily facility combination unaccepatable for techniques outside their established understood and so that there can be Hl.W disposal The question of general region of validity. Finally. it means that cor.fidence that the ability of the site to site acceptability criteria is an open one confidence in a licensing finding is contain and isolate the wastes will in the sense that the staff has not inextricably linked to uncertainty: and remain viable for long times. identified to date such criteria. Should the validity of any licensing finding is The three most important atthbutes of general site acceptability criteria not be linked to the means by which the engineered barners must be their developed. It will be necessary to uncertainty is uncovered. explored, and compatibility with the geologic and determine the site acceptability question treated. hydrologic characteristics of the site so on a case.by-case basis. There are a number of' considerations that the engmeered barriers will have (5) Codification ofModels in that need to be taken into account the least adverse impact on the site's I.icensing Process.The question of b fore establishing whether qualitative / ability to retain the emplaced w 13: whether regulations should codify quantitative models will be codified in their insensitiveity to any change. m the models to be used in licensing disposal the regulations or their use merely site characteristics so that there can be of HLW or whether the criteria shoud permitted:(1) If modeling is used as the confidence in the predictability of their only allow the use of models is a primary decision tool then performance over time: and their ability, controversial one. In considering these demonstration of whether the geologic to complement the performance of the questions the staff recognizes that it is setting at a particular site can fulfill the site so as to increase confidence in necessary to:(a) Use descriptions stated purpose of the geologic barrier overall repository performance to (models) of the behavior of geologic relies fundamentally on the predictive supp!ement the performance of the processes and of the repository and of power of the particular transport model site-where possible-to increase the the consequences associated with that appropriate to that site:(2) The less overall margm of safety. behavior:(b) Acknowldege that these stable the site geologically and (4) Adequacy ofravorable and descriptions are approximations to hydrologically, the less reliable the Unfavorable Site Characteristics to nature and as such introduce transport model as a description of the Impose Proper TechnicalResrictions. uncertainties into the process:(c) steady. state: (3) The more complex with Consideration of site characteristics is Recognize that for the foreseeable respect to geologic and climatology important to the development of future, the "old** models. in which there processes, the poorer the modelis as an - technical requirements for Hl.W is the greatest confidence because of approximation to nature and the greater disposal from several aspects.ne first their " proven" use appear to be as the uncertainty of any prediction:(4) relates to question of site suitability. qualitative as they are quantitative:(d) The more complex the site or less stab!'e s 4 1 e r e,-g 4 7., t L-,- y_ mt

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 94 / T ' sday. May 13, 1980 / Proposed Rules 31399 Subpart H-Criteria for Personnel Training percent or greater chance ef flooding in their encapsulating matrix. but including IReserved) any given year, absorbent material, spacing structures. Subpart I-Emergencies arid Emergency ' Geologic repository"-means a thermal insulation, radiation shielding. Programs [ Reserved! system for the disposal of radioactive devices for absorbing mechanical shock, wastes in excavsted geologic media. A external fittings or handling devices. Subpart E-Technical Criteria geolorcic repository Ireludes (1) the neutron absorbers or moderators and geologic repositor'/ op erations area, and other supplementary equipment. 1 60.2 Definitions. (2) all surface and subsurface areas " Stability"-mesas the rate of natural For the purpose of this part-where natural events or activities of processes affecting the site during the " Accessible Environment"-means man may change the extent to which recent geologic past are relatively low thuse portions of the environment wartes are effectively isolated from the and will not significantly change during directly in contact with or readily accessible environment. the next 10.000 years. available for use by human beings. it " Geologic eepository operations " Radioactive waste"-means HLW includes the earth's atmosphere, the area"-means an HI.W facility that is and other radioactive materials that are land surface, surface waters, and the part of a geologic repository, including received for emplccement in a geolog!c oceans. It also iclades presently used both surface and subsurface areas. repository. aquifers which have been designated at where waste handling and emplacement " Transuranic wastes" or "TRU underground sources of drinking water activities are conducted. wastes"-means radioactive waste ur. der the Environmental Protection "High-level radioactive waste" or containing alpha emitting transuranic Agency's proposed rule 40 CFR Part 146. "HLW"-means (1) Irradiated reactor elements, with radioactive half-lives " Aquifer"-means a distinct fuel. (2) liquid wastes resulting from the greater than one yea 4.in excess of to hydrogeologic unit that readily transmits operation of the first. cycle solvent nanocuries per gram. water and yiel 4 sigmficant quantities extraction system. or equivalent and the " Underground facility"-means the of water to wells or springs. concentrated wastes from subsequent civil engineered structure. including " Barrier"-means any material or extraction cycles, or equivalent. in a backfill materials, but not including structure which prevents or facility for reprocessing irradiated seals. In which waste is emplaced. substantially delays movement of reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which " Waste form"-means the radioactive radionuchdes from the radioactive such liquid wastes have been converted. waste materials and any associated wastes wards the accessible W facility ce ng a d elat encapsulating or stablizing materials. " Candidate area"-means a geologic regulatory authority of the Commission Waste package -means the and hydrologic system within which a pursuant to Sections 202(3) and 202(4) of physical waste form. its container and tl Ene eorganization Act of1974 yyacla c u es u g its geologic repository may be located. g .. oy (oc.h " Container"-means the first maior ( m ans th geo g g 60.101 Purpose. sealed enclosure that holds the waste "Hydrogeologic unit"-means any soil (a) This subpart states the . Containment'.-means keeping or rock unit or subsurface zone that has performance objectives to be achieved radioactive waste within a designated a distinct influence on the storage or and the technical criteria to be met by boundary. movement of ground water by virtue of the Department of Energy in order for " Confining unit"-means a distinct its porcsity or permeability. the Commission to make the findings hydrogeologic unit which neither "Important to safety" with reference called for in Subpart B. transmits ground water readily nor ' to structures, systems, and components. (b) The Commission will apply tlie yields significant quantities of water to means those structures, systems, and technical criteria in this subpart in, wells or springs. components that provide reasonat3 making findings that the activities " Decommissioning"-means final assurance that radioactive waste can be authorized by a license, or any backfilling of subsurface facilities, received. handled, and stored without amendment thereof, will not constitute sealing of shafts. and decontamination undue risk to the health and safety of unreasonable risk to the health and and dismantlement of surface facilities. the public. safety of the public. " Department"-means the U.S. " Intrinsic permeability"-means a (c) The Commission will also apply Department of Energy (DOE) or its duly measure of the relative ease with which the technical criteria in this subpart. ~ ) authorized representatives. a porous medium transmits a liquid insofar as they may be pertinent in " Disposal"-means permanent under a potential gradient. It is a making determinations with respect to > the issuance of a construction emplacement within a storage space property of the medium alone and is - with no intent to retrieve for resource independent of the nature of the fluid. authorization. values. " Isolation"-means segregation of (d) Omissions in the General Design " Expected processes and events"- waste from the accessible environment Criteria do not relieve an applicant from j means those natural processes or events within acceptable limits. the requirement of providing the that are likely to degrade the engineered "Overpack"-means any additional, necessary safety features in the design elements of the geologic repository receptable, wrapper, box or other.. of a specific facility. during a given period after structure which becomes an integrated (e) The requirements and conditions decommissioning. As used in this part. part of a waste package and is used to in subsequent sections assume that expected processes and events do not enclose a waste container for purposes disposal will be in sat-ated media.The include human intrusion. of providing additional protection or Commission does not intend to exclude " Floodplain"-means the lowland and meeting the requirements of an disposal in the vadose zone or any other relatively flat areas adjoining inland and acceptance criteria. method by promulgating these creteria: coastal waters including flood prone " Packaging"-means the container. however. different criteria may need to i areas of offshore islands including at a and any overpacks, and their contents be developed to license other disposal minimum that area subject to a one excluding radioactive materials and methods. 9 gg

• - ' W"**
• e a'sume - smelew e-o.us e

-e -w. \\ .~ s

• g

31398 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 94 / Tuesday. May 13. 1980 / Proposed Ru'es the site, the greater the difficulty in (6) Retrievability. Selection of a that knowledge of the existence of the modeling long-term behavior at the suitable site for a geologic repository for repository is known? What is a interface between the geologic barrier HLW disposal and the design. reasonable period of time? What steps and the set of engineered barriers;(5) construction and operation of a in repository design and enforcement The lack of empincal data on the repository is a new human enterprise. In can be taken to mitigate the performance of engineered barriers or undertaking such a venture for the first consequences of an accidental the insbility to obtain credible data may time,it is reasonable to expect that, intrusion? Is one kind of intrusion more preclude the development or use of whatever the care exercised and likely than the other? Are the credible quantitative models in the however advanced the techniques, consequences of inadvertent intrusions showing that either the uncertainties are mistakes will occur. improved different from those for deliberate addressed properly in the performance technologies developed, better designs intrusions? The human intrusion issue is standards or the performance standards created, and operational procedures a difficult one that is far from having are met in a particular licensing action. improved. It is reasonable, therefore, to been resolved. In light of these considerations the assume that it might be c.esirable t staff's thought has been not to require postone any irreversible (or not easily Questionsr In particular, we are g g gg modeHng to be the primary decision tool reversible) decisions until the maximum to determine the capability of the amount of reasonably obtainable 9 information about how well the (1) Does the list of considerations fsolate was e rom t e biosp er The repository is functioning and can be above clearly, adequately and fully staff believes. however, that expected to function to contain and identify the relevant issues involved in quantitative models can be used to isolate the waste for the periods of time disposal of HLW7 compare sites and designs. required is at hand. The staff believes (2) Would a rule structured along the that it may be desirable to maintain the lines of the referenced draft rule in sum. the staff considers the option to retrieve the wastes for a reasonably deal with issues in an following to be,a reasonable position period of time after the last waste is appropriate manner? with respect to the use of models: emplaced and is developing criteria to (3)In light of the fact that EPA has the Technical criteria must be developed require it. The draft technical criteria responsibility and authority to set the through a rulemaking process in which contain a requirement that the generally applicable environmental the logic and factual basis is clearly repository be assigned to preserve the standard for radiation in the articulated and can withstand challenge. option to retrieve the wastes for a Hence where appropriate. quantitative period of years following emplacement. envir ament from the disposal eMW. models should be used to develop This option. however. is not without with what factors / issues should an NRC technical criteria. However, because of impact, particularly in the areas of environmentalimpact statement on the limitations discussed above. it is repository design and waste technical criteria deal? desirable to specify technical enteria emplacement. However,it would allow (4) What are the environmental associated with the regulatable monitanng and taking corrective actions impacts of criteria constructed in elements in such a manner as not to if required including removal of the r:cordance with the above cited predicate their technical justification on wastes, before the repository is sealed. principles? What alternative criteria the results of quantitative modeling. (7) Human Intrusion Problem. For exist and what are their impacts? quan$it ie e ing can contribute to fr t sfon obl fs n t a a pfe or DraMechcal Meria for 10 m Part 60 their technical justification. Where straightforward extension of natural quantification is not possible, without events and may require different Subparts E-1 are proposed to be meaning, incomplete or ambiguous, the standards as well as a different added to Part 60 as set fort'1 below: process must rely on expert opinion to approach. Simply stated. human provide insight and alternatives. This intrusion cannot be prevented:In spite PART 60-DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL process is particularly appropriate to the of all efforts to avoid sites which may RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN GEOLOGIC development of criteria for which prove attractive to humans. there may REPOSITORIES neither direct experience nor recourse to be dehberate or inadvertent intrusion. In Subpart E-Technical Criterta expenmental verification exists to the former instance. it is reasonable to provide the basis for the criteria. assume that the intruder has access to Sec. Through expert opinion in public information which makes it attractive to 60.2 Definitions (to be inserted as proceedings and the exercise of intrude. For example, the intruder may appropriate into subpart A). Judgment by the Commission, a know of the location and contents of the m101 Purpose. satisfactory ifimprecise margin of safety repository itself and may regard the

• 60.111 Performance objectives.

for site characteristics and engineering HLW as a resource of some value. How 60.1:1 Site and environs ownership and design can be realized.This is should such an intrusion be regarded as control. particularly important where an event to be considered in the design m12: siting requirements. quantitative modeling and experimental of the repository? That is, should m132 Design requirements. venfication alone cannot be used to attempts to be made to protect future m133 Waste package and emplacement establish a sound record. When these generations from the deliberate environment. qualitative and semiquantitative intruder? What are the consequences of 60.135 Retrieval of waste. , considerations are combined with intrusion to the intruder? To the general m137 Monitonna programs. quantitative models to develop a population? In the latter instance, where Subpart F-Physical Protection (Reserved] scheme for compr.rison, the staff the event is one of inadvertent believes the result willlead'to a sound (accidental) intrusion other questions Subpart G-Quality Assurance regulation and to sound licensing occur. Did the intrusion occur beyond I 60.171 Quality Assurance Program. decisions. the time that it is reasonable to expect 1 -==w- =

i 31400 Federal Register / V:1. 45. N;. 94 / Tu;sd y. M:y 13, 1980 / Proposed Rubs 8 60.111 Performance objectives. (ii) Containment of all radionuclides withdrawn and reserved for its use. The (a) Overal/ repositoryperform-once. for the first 1.000 years after Department shall hold such lands free (1) Radiation eiposure or releases decommissioning of the geologic and clear of all significant during operation.The Department of repository operations area and as long encumbrances (including rights arising Energy shall design and operate the thereafter as is reasonably achievable, under the general mining laws. geolo3 c repository operations area to assuming expected events and easements for right-of-way. and all other f pr:: vide reasonable assursnce that processes and that some of the waste nghts arising under lease, rights of radiatien exposures and releases or dissolves soon after decommissioning. entry, deed, patent. mortgage, radioactive materials are within the (3) Overal/ performance of the appropriations. prescription, or limits set forth in Part 20 of this Chapter. engineered system offer contomment. otherwise). The Department shall design the (b) Establishment of a contro1 zone. (2) Releases ofter decommissioning. The Department of Energy shall provide engineered system to provide The Department shall establish a reasonable assurance that: Control Zone" surrounding the geologic reasonable assurance that after (i) Starting 1.000 years after repository operations area. The decommissioning the geologic repository decommissioning of the geologic Department shall exercise such willisolate radioactive wastes to such a up sitory operations area, the jurisdiction and control with respect to degree that quantities and radionuclides present in HLW will be surface and subsurface estates in the concentrations of radioactive waste in released from the underground facility control zone as may be necessary to the accessible environment will conform at an annual rate that is as low as prevent adverse human actions that to such generally applicable reasonably achievable and is in no case could significantly seduce the ability of environmental standards as may have greater than an annual rate of one part the natural or engineered barriers to been established by the Environmental in ne hundred thousand of the total isolate radioactive materials from the Protection Agencyh The Department of activity present in HLW within the accessible environment.The (3)Retrievabilit unde ground facility 1.000 years after Department's rights may take the form Energy shall design the geologic dec mmissioning assuming expected of appropriate possessory interests, repository operations area so that the processes and events. servitudes, or withdrawals from location radioactive waste stored there can be r patent under the general mining laws. retrieved for a period of 50 years after ra i n clide present in a te will (c)long-term control. The Department termination of waste emplacement be released at a rate that is as low as shall identify the geologic repository operations,if the geologic repository reasonably achievable and is in no case peraGons ana by the most pemannt operations area has not been greater than one part in one hundred markers and records practicable.The decommissioned. If during this period a thousand of the total activity present in markers shall be inscribed in several decision is made to retrieve the wastes TRU waste within the underground languages as well as English. In the Department shallinsure that wastes facility at the time of decommissioning addition, the Department shall deposit could be retrieved in compliance with assuming expected processes and records of the location of the geologic Part 20 of this Chapter and in about the same period of time as that during "h"))erformance of thegeologia repository operations area and the nature and hazard of the waste in the which they were emplaced. environment. (i) The Department shall major archives of the world. For the (b) Requiredbarriers. In the desi n provide reasonable assurance that the Purpose of demonstrating compliance b and construction of a geologic degree of stability exhibited by the with I 60111 (Performance Objectives). repository, the Department shall utilize geologic environment at present will not the Depanment shall assume that other (1) an engineered system including significantly decrease over the long institutional controls will not persist for waste package and an underground term'The Department shall provide more than one hundred years. facility, and (2) the geologic (i j environment. reasonable assurance that the site 5 60.122 Siting requirements. (c) Performance ofregm.redbom.ers exhibits properties which promote I'I C#""I"N####"'#' and engineeredsystems. (1) Waste isolation and that their capability to Department shall select the site and Packages.8The Department shall design inhibit the migration of radionuclides svir ns so that they are not so complex waste packages so that there is will not significantly decrease over the as to paclupe thorough investigation reasonable assurance that radionuclides long term. and evaluation of the site characteristics will be contained for at least the first (iii) The Department shall provide that are important to demonstrating that 1.000 years after decommissioning and reasonable assurance that the the performance objectives of i 60.111 for as long thereafter as in reasonably hydrologic and geochemical properties wW be met. achievable given expected processes of the host rock and surrounding (2) The Department shall investigate and events as well as various water confining units will provide radionuclide and evaluate the natural conditions and flow conditions including full or partial travel times to the accessible human activities that can reasonably be saturation of the underground facility. environment of at least 1.000 years (2) Undergroundfacility. 'nte assuming expected processes and expected,to affect the design. construction, operation. and, Department shall design the events. underground facility to provide decommissioning of the geologic reasonable assurance of the following: 5 60.121 site and environs ownership and repository operations areas.The natural control. conditions include geologic, tectonic, (i) An environment for the waste packages that promotes the achievement (a) Ownership andcontro/of the hydrologic, and climatic process. The SeoloB o repository operations area. The Department shall evaluate the stability i of i 60.111(c)(1) above under conditions resulting from expected processes and Department shalllocate the geologic of the geologic repository and the repository operations area in and on isolation of radionuclides after events. lands that are either acquired lands decommissioning. %cnons ao.ttticut) and ec 111(cH2l epply only under the jurisdiction and control of the (i) The Department shall cenduct to Hl.W. Department or lands permanently investigations on the order of100

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 94 / Tuesday. May 13. 1980 / Proposed Rules 31401 kilometers horizontal radius from the volume of rock within which the objectives. The conditions and activities geologic repository operations area. geologic framework. ground. water flow, in this section apply, unless otherwise (ii) The Department shall emphasize ground. water chemistry, or stated. to the volume of rock determined those natural conditions active anytime geomechanical properties are by the Department in i 60.122(a)(8) since the start of the Quaternary Period anticipated to be stgnificantly affected above. In their Investigations. by construction of the geologic (1) Potentially adverse human (iii) The Department shall emphasiza repository or bp the presence of the activities. (i) There is or has been the first 10.000 years following emplaced wastes, with emphasis on the conventional or in situ subsurface decommissioning in their prediction of thermalloading of the latter. In order to mining for resources. changes in natural conditions and the do the analyses required in this (ii) Except holes drilled for performance of the geologic repository. paragraph, the Department shall at a investigations of the geologic repository. (3) The Department shall conduct minimum conduct investigations and there is or has been drilling for whatever investigations that adequately tests to provide the following input data: purpose to depths below the lower limit characterize and provide representative (i) The pattern, distribution and origin of the accessible environr;;pnt. and bounding values for those human of fractures, discontinuities, and (iii) There are resources which are activities and natural events and heterogeneities in the host rock and economically exploitable using existm, g conditions that may affect any of the surrounding confining units: technology under present market following: (ii)The presence of potential conditions. (i) The design, construction. operation, pathways such as fractures. . (iv) Based on a resource assessment, and decommissioning of the geologic discontinuities, solution features, there are resources that have either repository operations area. unsealed faults, breccia pipes, and other higher gross or net value than the, (ii) Demonstration of the stability of permeable anomalies in the host rock average for other areas of similar size in the geologic repository after and surrounding confining units. the region in which the geologic decommissioning. (iii) The in situ determination of the repository is located. (iii) Demonstration of the isolation of bulk geomechanical properties. pore (v) There is reasonable potential that radionuclides from the accessible pressures and ambient stress conditions failure of human.made impoundments environment after decommissioning. (4) The Department shall evaluate of the host rock and surrounding could cause flooding of the geologic reasonably hkely future variations in the confining units: repusitory operations are prior to site characteristics which may result ( v) The in situ determination of the decommissioning. from natural processes, human bulk hydrogeologic properties of the (vi) There is reasonable potential activities. construction of the repository. host rock and surrounding confining based on existing geologic and units. hydrologic conditions and methods of or waste / rock / water interactions. . de ina on of the construction for construction of large-(v Th. sj scale impoundments which may affect ~ gg)8 (5) The Department shall conduct the e six investigations m such a manner as to obtain the required information with particularly the redox potential. of the the regional ground. water flow system. mmimal adverse effects on the long. term host rock and surrounding confining (vii) There is indication that present or reasonably anticipatable humad units: performance of the geologic repository. activities can significantly affect the (6) The Department shall validate (vi) The m. situ determination of the analyses and modeling of future bulk response of the host rock and hydrogeologic framework. Human activities include ground-water conditions and changes in site surrounding confinmg umts to the withdrawals, extensive irrigation, characteristics using field tests,in situ anticipated thermal loading given the subsurface injection of fluids, tests field.venfied laboratory tests, pattern of fractures and other monitoring data, or natural analog discontmulties and the heat transfer underground pumped storage facilities studies. properties of the rock mass. or underground military activities. (2) Potentially adverse naturol (7) The Department shall continuously As a minimum. the Department shall conditions-geologic and tectonic. (I) verify and assess any changes in site assume that the volume will extend a There is evidence of extreme bedrock conditions which pertain to whether the horizontal distance of 2 kilometers from incision since the start of the performance objectives will be met. the limits of the repository excavation Quaternary Period. (8) The Department shall perform a and a vertical distance from the surface (ii) There is evidence of resource assessment for the region to a depth of1 kilometer belo.v the dissolutioning, such as karst features, within 100 km of the site using available limits of the repository excavation. breccia ipes. or insoluble residues. Information.The Departnient shall (b) Potentia //y adverse conditions. (iii) There is evidence of processes in include estimates of both known and The following paragraphs describe the candidate area which could result in undiscovered deposits of all resources human activities or natural conditions structural deformation in the volume of that (i) have been or are being exploited which can adversely affect the stability rock such as uplift, diapirism, on (ii) have not been exploited but are of the repository site, increase the subsidence, folding, faulting. or fracture exploitable under present technology migration of radionuclides from the zones. and market conditions.The Department repository, or provide pathways to the (iv) The geologic repository operati.ons shall estimate undiscovered deposits by accessible environment. The. area lies within the near field of a fault reasonable inference based on geologic Department shall demonstrate whether that has been active since the start of and geophysicalinformation. The any of the potentia!!y adverse human the Quaternary Period. Department shall estimate both gross activities or natural conditions are (v) There is an area characterized by and net value of resource deposits. The present. The Department shall document higher' seismicity than that of the estimate of net value shall take into allinvestigations.The presence of any surrounding region or there is an area in account dsvelopment extraction and of the potentially adverse human which there are indications, based on marketing costs. activities or natural conditions will give correlations of earthquakes with (9) The Department shall determine by rise to a presumption that the geologic tectonic processes and features, that appropriate analyses the extent of the repository will not meet the performance seismicity may increase in the future. - e

• 3 j

j

i 31402 Federal Register / V;l. 45. N2. 94 / Tu sday. Wy 13. 1980 / Propos;d Rul;s (v!) There is evidence ofintrusive presence of favorable characteristics in lii) Possesses a geologic framework igneous activity since the start of the Paragraph 60.122(c) of this Section: and that permits effective sealing of shafts. Quaternary Period. (4) The potentially adverse human drifts, and boreholes, and that permits (vii) There is a high and anomalous activity or natural condition can be excavation of a stable subsurface geothermal gradient relative to the remedied during construction, operation, opening, and the emplacement of waste regional geothermal gradient. or decommissioning of the repository. at a minimum depth of 300 meters from (3) Potentially adverse natumi (c) Favorable chancteristics. Each of the ground surface: conditions-hydrologic. (i) There is the following characteristics represent liii) Possesses ground-water flow potential for significant changes in conditions which enhance the ability of characteristics that-hydrologic conditions :ncluding the geologic repository to meet the (a) Result m a host rock with very low hlvdraulic gradient, average pore performance objectives. Candidate water content: . b) Prevent ground. water intrusion or ( velocity, storativity, permeability, areas and sites which exhibit as many natural recharge, piezametric level, and favorable characteristics as practicable circulation of ground water in the host discharge points. Evaluation techniques are preferred.The Department shall rock: include paleohydrologic analysis. demonstrate the degree to which each (c) Prevent sigmficant upward ground-(ii) The geologic repository operations favorable characteristic is present.The water flow between hydrogeologic units area is located where there would be Department shall fully document all or along shafts. dnfts. and boreholes: long term and short term adverse investigations. The Department shall (d) Result in low hydraulic gradients impacts associated with the occupancy perform evaluations to demonstrate to, and modification of floodplains. what extent the favorable characteristic con 7m.. (Executive 0rder 11988). {ont butes o a su n t stab ity c (e) su n sorizontal or downward hydraulic gradients in the host rock and aste (iii) There is reasonable potential for natural phenomena such as landslides, by restncting the access of groundwater surrounding r.onfining units: and to the waste, the rate of dissolution of (f) Result in ground-water residence subsidence, or. volcanic activity to e mi at n cg times under ambient conditions, create large-scale impoundments that

• • S}-

d-se o} gic between the repository and the may affect the regional ground. water repository. The Department shall use accessible environment, that exceed eonse ~ (iv) er is a fault or fracture zone, ge g n e ithe fav bl ossesses geomechanical irrespective of age oflast movement, which has a horizontallength of more characteristics.The Department shall pmperties that provide stability during than a few hundreds of meters. nelude evaluation of the degree to castructie, operation, and under the which the favorable charactenstic has mDuences of thennalload or other (4) Potentially Adverse Nctural been adequately charactenzed, given waste / rock / water interactions: Conditions-Geochemical. The rock the degree of resolution achieved by the I*I. Possesses a low population units between the repository and the investigations. The specific favorable density: accessible environment exhibit low retardJtion for most of the radionuclides characteristics are the following: (vi) Possesses a combination of meteamWcal c.haractensucs (1) The Department shall select the cmtamed in the radioactive waste. site so that to the extent practicable the (especially prevailing wind flow A presumption that the geologic candidate area-direction) and population riistribut:,on repository will not.neet the performance (i) Exhibits demonstrable surface and such as to assure that a radio agical objectives can be rebutted upon subsurface geologic, geochemical. exp sure f the population. which is within the limits of Part 20 of this showing that the presence of the tectonic, and hydrologic stability since potentially adverse condition does not the beginning of the Quaternary Period: chapten and adversely affect the performance of the and 9I"""*#88* * * *

• change is n t expected to have an geologic repository. In order to make (ii) Contains a host rock and ahem impact u 6e gedogs tectsc.

this showing, the Department shall first surrounding confining units that provide: r hydrologic charactenstics. demonstrate that: (a) Long ground-water residence times (1) The potentially adverse human and long flow paths between the j 60.132 Design requirements. activity or natural condition has been repository and the accessible (a) Ceneral design requirements. The adequately characterized. including the environment: requirementsin this section apply to estent to which the particular feature (b) Inactive ground. water circulation surface and subsurface facilities. may be present and still be undetected within the host rock and surrounding (1) Compliance with mining takmg into account the degree of confining units, and little hydraulic regulations. The Department shall resolution achieved by the communication with adjacent design, construct and operate the investigations; hydrogeologic units due to ground-water surface and subsurface facilities to (2) The effect of the potentially characte istics such as low intnnsic comply with all applicable Federal and adverse human activity or natural permeability and low fra:ture state mining regulations including condition on the geologic framework. permeability of the rock mass: and Subchapters D. E. and %! of 30 CFR Part ground-water flow. ground-water (c) Geochemical properties, such as 57 as applicable. chemistry and geomechanicalintegnt/ reducing conditions which result in low (2) Identification of structures, has been adequately evaluated usmg solubility or radionuclides, and near-systems. and components important to conservative analyses and assumptions, normal pH or a lack of complexing safety. The Department shall identify by and the evaluation used is sensitive to agents. appropriate analyses those systems, the adverse human activity or natural (2) The Department shall select the structures and components that are condition: volume of rock-(3) Protection against natural site so that to the extent practicable the important to safety. (3) The effect of the potentially adverse human activity or na' ural (i) Possesses the favorable phenomeno and environmental condition is compensated by the characteristics descnbed above; conditions. (i) The Department shall

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 94 / Tuesday May 13. 1980 / Proposed Rules 3140:1 design and locate structures, systems, facilities and services that assure a safe insure that exposures are within the and components important to safety to and timely response to emergency limits of Part 20: accommodate the effects of and to be conditions and facilitate the use of (b) Control and monitor the spread of compatible with site characteristics and available offsite services such as fire, contamination: environmental conditions associated police. medical and ambulance service (c) Control access to areas of high with normal operation, maintenance and that may aid in recovery from radiation or potential contaminatiort testing at any time prior to emergencies. and decommissioning. (8) Utility services. (i) The (d) Warn workers by a radiation (ii) The Department shall design and Department shall design each utility alarm system of significant increases in locate structures. systems and service system to provide for the radiation levels in normally accessible components important to safety to meeting of safety demands under areas and af excessive radioactivity withstand the most severe of natural normal and abnormal conditions. The released in effluents. The Department phenomena that are likely to occur at Department shall design utility services shall design such systems with the site including seismic. meteorologic and distribution systems important to redundancy and in situ testing and hydrologic events without loss of safety to include redundant systems to capability. capability to perform their safety the extent necessary to maintain, with (10) Criticality control. The function. adequate capacity the ability to perform Department shall design all systems for (4) Protection against dynamic efects safety functions assuming a single processing. transporting, handling, clequipment failure and simdar events. failure. storage. retrieval. empla cement. and The Department shall design and locate (ii) The Department shall design isolation of radioactive waste to insure structures, systems and components emergency utility services to permit that a nuclear criticality accident is important to safety to resist dynamic testing of the functional operability and possible only if at least two unlikely. effects that could result from equipment capacity. including the full operational independent and concurrent or failure. missile impacts, the dropping of sequence, of each system for transfer sequential changes have occurred in the crane loads in transit. and similar events between normal and emergency supply conditions essential to nuclear criticality and conditions. sources, and the operation of associated safety. Demonstration of criticality (3) Protection againstfires and safety stems. safety under normal and accident ex;!osions. (i) The Department shall (iii) e Department shall make design and locate structures. systems, provisions so that in the event of a loss, conditions shall be by calculation of the effective multiplication factor (k.n). This and components importrant to safety to of the primary electric power source or minimize the potential for impairment of circuit, reliable and timely emergency value must be sufficiently below unity to show at least a 5% margin after their ability to perform their safety - power is provided to instruments, utility allowance for the bias in the method of functions during fires or explosions. service systems, and operating systems (ii) The the extent practicable. the including the security central alarm calcul,ation and the uncertainty in the Department shall design the geologic station. in amounts sufficient to allow experiments used to validate the method of calculation. repository to incorporate safe conditions to be maintained with noncombustible and heat resistant all safety devices essential to safety (11) Instrumentation andcontrol materials. functioning. systems. The Department shall provide (iii) The Department shall design the (9) Radiologicalprotection. (i) The instrumentation and control systems to monitor and co ttrol the behavior of geologic repository to include explosion Department shall design structures. and fire detection alarm systems and systems, and components for which engmeered systems that are important appropriate suppression systems with operation, maintenance and required to safety over anticipated ranges for sufficient capacity and capability to inspections could involve radiological normal operation. for abnormal minimize the adverse effects of fires and exposure to personnel to include means operation and for accident conditions. explosions on structures, systems, and to control extemal and internal The Department shall design the components important to safety. radiation exposures within the limits systems with sufficient redundancy to (iv) The Department shall design tie specified in Part 20 of this Chapter.This assure,that adequate margins of safety 3:ologic repository to include provisions includes the means to: are mamtained. to protect personnel from either the (a) Prevent the accumulation of (b) Additionaldesign requirementsfor operation of, or the failure of the fire ' radioactive materialin those systems to surface facilities. The requirements in suppression systems. which access by personnel is required: this section apply only to the design of (elInspection. testing, and (b) Minimize the time required to surface facilities. maintenance. The Department shall perform work in the vicinity of (1) Compliance with Part 72. If the design and locate structures, systems radioactive components, such as by geologic repository includes surface and components important to safety to providing sufficient space for ease of facilities that would be required to p:rmit periodic inspection, testing. and operation and designing equipment for comply with 10 CFR Partr., were they mamtenance, as appropirate. to ensure ease of repair and replacement: and to be geographically removed from the their continued functiontng and (c) Provide shielding to assure that site, the Department shall design, readiness. exposures to personnelin accessible construct and operate those surface. (7) Emergency capability. (i) The areas are within the limits of Part 20. facilities to conform with 10 CFR Part 72. D.partment shall design and locate (ii) The Department shall design the (2) Facilities for retrieval of waste. structures, systems and components geologic repository to include means The Department shall design and Important to safety to assure safe to-construct surface facilities to facilitate storage of radioactive waste. prompt (a) Provide appropriate radiation safe and prompt retrieval of wastes termination of operations and protection systems and programs for all including facilities to inspect, repair. evacuation of personnel during an areas and operations where personnel decontaminate, and store retrieved emergency. may be exposed to levels of radiation or wastes prior to their shipment off site. (ii) The Department shall design the airborne radioactive materials Surface storage capacity of all emplaced geologic repository to include onsite significantly above background levels to waste is not required but must be

314M Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 94 / Tuesday. May 13.1980 Proposed Rules sufficient to handle waste backlogs prior decommissioning to levels that are as performance of the waste package or to shipment offsite. Iow as reasonably achievable.The other engineered barriers: (3) Ventilation. The Department shall Department shallinclude an (c) Creation of an emplacement design surface facility ventilation identification and a comparative environment which reduces the system (s) supporting waste transfer. evaluation of attematives to the ior potential for creep deformation in the inspection. decontamination, processing design features that are provided u rock and deformation of waste - and/or packaging to assure that enhance radionuclide retardation and packages: and occupational exposures and releases of containment. (d) Backfill materials as a barrier to gases and airborne radioactive (ii) The Department shall design the ground. water movement into the particulate materials during normal underground facility such that the repository.The Department shall select-operations do not exceed the limits orientation, geometry. layout. and depth backfill materials to provide for (1) identified in Part 20 of this chapter. of the underground excavation in adequate placement and compaction in (4) Radiation cot trol and monitoring. addition to any engineered barriers underground openings. (2) seals to (i) Effluent control. The Department provided as part of the underground reduce and control ground-water shall design the surface facilities to facility are optimized for that site. The movement. (3) absorption of minimize the release of radioactive Department shall use as optimization radionuclides. and (4) preservation of materials in effluents of any form. criteria the performance objectives in favorable properties in the presence of anticipated rise of rock temperatures. during normal operations.The i 60.111. (c)(2). (c)(3). (vii) Thermal and thermomechanical Department sbail momtor the systems (iii)Th Department shall design the provided to guard against the release of underground facility so that the effects response of the rock-(a)The Department shall design the radioactive materials. The Department of disruptive events will not propagate underground facility to assure that the shall insure that the monitoring systema through the facility. predicted thermal and are provided with alarms which are ( v) To assure that shafts and thermomechanical response of the rock periodically tested. The Department boreholes do not act as preferential could not adversely affect the shall design an.d construct facilities to pathways for ground-water or performance of the natural or assure treatment of contaminated radionuclide migration. the Department engineered barriers to radionuclide effluents as necessary to ensure that the shall design shaft and borehole seals migra don. concentrations and total quantitles of such that-(b)The Department shall conduct m, radioactive materials in effluents are (a) The shafts and boreholes are &m ng 6enn mechamcal maintained within the limits of Part :0 of sealed along their entire length as soon response of the geologic repository until this chapter. after they have served their operational decommissioning io assure that the (ii) Effluent monn.oring. The p o g thermomechanical response of the Department shall design efDuent ]ga aled s a ts.a d boreholes natural and engineered features are monitoring systems to adequately prMe a barrier,to radionuclide within design limits. Should these limits measure the amount and concentration jb ed and informed of any needed changes or be exceeded. the NRC shall be notified of radionuclides in any efDuent to {8'b up Y assure that radioactive materials are f Ch maintained within tl.a limits of Part 20 of actions. (c) There is effective sealing to the (3) Design to facilities retrievalof this Chapter. rock contact and the adiacent zone of waste. The Department shall design the (5) It'aste t'eatment. The Department disturbed rock surrounding boreholes underground facility to facilitate shall desin radioactive waste treatment and shafts: and retrieval of waste in accordance with facilitier to process all site generated (d) The shaft and borehole seals can i 60.111(a)(3).To accomplish this the wastes. (6) Considemtion of decommissioning. accommodate potential variations of Department shall design the The Department shall design and stress, temperature, and moisture, and to underground facility to assure structural construct surface facility structi.es to provide for radionuclide retardation. stability of openings and minimize facilitate decommissioning. (v) The Department shall place ground water contact with the waste (c) Additionaldesign requirementsfor emphasis on multicomponent borehole packages and design an emplacement subsurface facilities. The requirements and shaft and seals and use matenals environment that otherwise promotes in this section apply only to subsurface that are compatible with the rock waste recovery without compromising facilities. properties and other m situ conditions. the ability of the geologic repository to (1) Undergroundfacility.%e (iv) The Department shall decign the meet the perfdirmance objectives. Department shall design the underground facility to include (4) Design of openings. (i) The underground facility as an underground engineered barriers which protec: the Department shall design subsurface civil engineered structure that satisfies waste package from (1) natural events openings to assure stability throughout requirements for structural performance, and processes. (2) in situ stresse9. (3) the construction, operation. and control of groundwater movement and chemical attack, and (4) groundwater retrieval periods. If support systems and control of radionuclide transport.The contact.The Department shall structures are required for stability, the Department shall design the facility to determine the location of the barriers by Department shall design them to be preside for safe operation during proper engineering analysis and in situ compatible with long-term deformation construction. emplacement, and testing. The Department shall include in characteristics of the rock and to allow retrieval of waste and to assure the design-for subsequent placement of backfill, compliance with $ 60.111(Performance (a) Engineered barriers where shafts (ii) The Department shall design Objectives), could provide access for ground water openings to minimize the potential for (2) Waste isolation engineering. (i) to enter or leave the underground deleterious rock movement or fracturing The Department shall demonstrate that facility: of overlying or surrounding rock. The the underground facility includes those (b) Creation of a near-field, waste Department shall optimize opening engineered features that are needed to package environment which favorably design, including shape, size, limit radianctive releases after . controls chemical reations affecting the orientation. spacing and support b l l

Federal Register / Vol. 45. N;. 94 / Tu;sdty, MIy 13, 1980 / Propos:d Rul;s 31405 materials with respect to natural stress (iv) The Department sha!!. as 1 (1) Site development and excavation conditions, deformation characteristics minimum, make measurements of rock sequence. (i) The Department shall plan of the host rock under thermalloading. deformations and displacement. changes the exploratory program so that and the nature of weaknesses or in rock stress and strain, water inflow construction takes advantage of structural discontinuities present at the into subsurface areas changes in explora~ tory boreholes, shafts, and location of the opening. ground-water locations and conditions, excavations in order to minimize the (5) /ining o/ subsurface excavations. host rock pore water pressures, and host total number of penetrations within the The Department shallline subsurface rock thermal and thermomechanic,al geologic repository operations area. excavations in areas that require: response as a result of deselopment and (ii) The Department shall coordinate [i) A positive control of water or gas operations of the geologic repository. the design of the geologic repository inflow from aquifers or other porous The Department sha!! compare such with site characterization activities to zones: measurements and observations with assure that boreholes necessary for site (ii) Support for zones of weak or ogginal design bases and assumptions characterization are located at future fractured rock: and if si;nificant differences exist the positions of shafts or large unexcavated (iii) Anchorage for equipment or Department must determine pillars. hardware. modifications to design or construction (iii) If critical host rock and other site (6) Shaft conveyances used m. waste methods and report to the Commission specific design assumptions cannot be bandheg. (i) The Department shall the recommended changes. verified from boreholes. geophysical consider shaft conveyances as a system (8) Compacted Backfi# TeiSection. measurements, and/or an exploratory important to safety. To verify performance requirements shaft and initial excavation. then the (ii) The Department shalidesign hoists intended in the design the Department Department must establish a pilot with mechanical geared lowering shall establish, before any backfill program to further characterize the devices that preclude cage free fall. placement is initiated, a program for entire volume to be occupied by the (iii) The Department shall design facement, sampling. and testing of the underground facility and to verify rect sIg ackfill section.If the result of testing critical host rock and site specific de, sign I from m tp des and observations made at the test assumptions prior to design finalization alllevels in the shaft.The Department section are different from the original and waste emplacement. I shall design and construct' final unload l oints which are controlled and verified design intent then the Department must (iv) The Department shall design the analyze the need for changes and report subsurface facilities with sufficient y local position detectors. (iv) The Department shall design shaft the rec,ommended changes to the flexibility to ensure that designs are Commission. compatible with specific site features loading and unloading systems with a reliable system of interlocks that will (9) Water control during operations. encountered during pilot development l fail safely upon malfunction.The (1) The Department shall provide water and excavation and to facilitate the use Department shall include in the design control systems which are of sufficient of tests and monitoring system outputs. i two independent indicators to indicate capability and capacity to minimize the (2) Construction management whether waste packages are in place, potentially adverse effects of ground program. The Department shall establish grappled. and ready for transfer. water or service water (including that a construction management program (7)In situ testing and design supporting excavation) intrusion on which is sufficient to assure that rerification. (i) During the early or structures systems and components construction activities do not adversely developmental stages of construction an. important to safety, waste emplac.ement affect the suitability of the site or area the Department shall excavate and operations. the performance of waste jeopardize the containment capabilities reserve an area forin situ testing of packages as engineered barrier to of the underground facility.The borehole and shaft seals, backfill, and radiunuclide migration, or effect Department shallidclude in the program thennal effects and waste. rock retrieval capability. means to assure that the underground interaction.The Department shall (ii) The Department shall design the facility is excavated and constructed as initiate the testing as early as is water control systems to monitor and designed. practicable and continue as long as control the quality and quantity of water (3) Excavation techniques.' The necessary to demonstrate that flowing into or from the repository. Department shall assure that methods performance is within design limits. (iii) The Department shall provide used for excavation will neither create a (ii) The Department shallinsure that water control storage capability, preferential pathway for ground water the contact between lining and the rock modular designs, or other provisions to or radioactive waste migration, nor surrounding subsurface excavations assure unexpected inrush or flood can increase the potential for migration- ) does not jeopardize repository be controlled are contained. through existing pathways.The containment by providing a preferential (iv) The Department shall construct Department shall use to the extent pathway for ground. water or water control systems to control water practicable mechanical excavators. radionuclide migration. from waste emplacement areas and boring machines and other nonblasting (iii) During repository construction shall keep those systems separate from methods. If blasting is required for 1 and operation the Department shall the systems controlling water in the . excavation, the Department must use conduct a continued program of excavation areas. methods specifically designed for eachi ) surveillance, testing, measurement, and (v)If aquifers or water bearing phase of the work that minimize i geologic mapping to ensure that design structures are encountered during fracturing of the surrounding rock. In parameters are verified and to provide construction then the Department must this program the Department may additional data to confirm the isolation use pregrouting in advance of include the use of pilot bores and and cuntainment characteristics of the excavation. tunnels and delay systems designed to seals and the underground facility.The (d) Generaldesign requirements for minimize the amount of explosives Department shall measure and monitor construction. The requirements in this detonated simultaneously. If blasting is changes in subsurface conditions on a section include general design criteria utilized the Department must utilize regular basis. which are important for construction. controlled perimeter blasting such as the

31406 Federal Register / V:1. 45. Nr. 94 / Tu:sday. May 13. 1980 / Propos:d Rul;s smooth blasting or preshearing the cores to be readily available for emplace radioactive wastes to have techniques and cushion. inspection. The Department shall store positive, fail safe designs to preclude (4) Control of explosives. If explosives in the same area logs of the borings. impairment of the peiformance of the are used, the Department must meet the including geophysical logs. waste packages as a barner to provisions of.30 CFR Part 57.6 as (f) Ceneraldesign requirementsfor radionuclide migration and to minimize minimum safety requirements for subsurface operation. The requirements radiological hazards. storage, use and transportation. The of this section apply during repository (ii) The Department shall design the Department shall use electrical operations. handling systems for emplacement and detonation.lf the rock contains open (1)If concurrent excavation and retrieval operations to minimize the joints or fractures the Department must emplacement of wastes are planned. potential for operator error. use cartridge or packaged explosives then the Department must design the (iii)The Department shall only. repository in modules which are demonstrate that the handling (5) Support structures. If temporary sufficiently separated to assure that equipment and systems for support structures are uscd the excavation activities could not impair emplacement and retrieval operations Department must assure that they do tiot en, placement operations or adversely are effective under in situ conditions impair the placement of permanent affect retrieval. prior to the start of waste emplacement structures or the ability of the repository (i) If interconnections are provided, operations. to contain wastes by adversely affecting the Department shall design each (iv) The Department shallinspect any the ability to seal excavated areas, module to be sealed and isolated from holes that are bored to > eceive waste all other midules in the event of an (e) Records andreporting, prior to wa: a emplacement to assure requirements. (1) /dentification and accident and so that waste can be safely the absence of adverse conditions that reporting of odrersefectures or retrieved if necessary. could jeopardize the integnty of the conditions. (a) If any feature listed (ii) The Department sha!! separate waste package. l under i 60.122(b)( (Adverse Conditions) ventilation systems supporting (4) The Department shall determine by } is encountered during excavations then excavation and waste emplacement, anay>, sis the specifications af waste the Department <nust report it to the (iii) The Department shall coordinate I s spac gs Commission within 5 days.The excavation rates and emplacement rates D-a Department must analyze the effect of and schedules to assure physical prior to receipt og waste.The i such features or conditions report as separation of actjvities and further Department shallinclude in the required in i 60.122(b). assure that handling and emplacement analysis-I (2) Construction and mopping records. operations are not adversely affected by (i) Effects of the design of the geologic The Department shall maintain and the excavation activities. (2) Ventilation. (i) The Department repository on the thermal and preserve records which provide a shall design ventilation system (s) which thermomechanical response of the host complete documented history of the 'f rock: are capable of controlling the transport repository construction. The Department shallinclude in the of radioactive particulates and gases (ii)The characteristics of the site and within and from the subsurface facility. the host rock that affect the thermal l records the following-(i) Surveys of underground The Department shall design and test response of the host rock: I excavations and shafts located with the ventilation system t, sssure that (iii) Site and host rock features that respect 40 readily identifiable surface radiological expesures during operations affect the thermomechanical response of will not exceed tia limits of 10 CFR Part the seals an underground facility. features or monuments: (ii) Materials encountered: 20. including but not limited to: behavior (iii} Geologic maps and profiles: (ii) The Department shall design and deformational characteristics of the (iv) Locations and amount of seepage: ventilation systems to permit occupancy host rock. the presence ofinsulating (v) Details of equipment. methods, of all areas as required either for normal layers, aquifers, faults, onentation of progress and sequence of work: operations cessation of operations, or bedding planes and the presence of i (vi) Construction problems: for maintaining the facility in a safe discontinuties in the host rock. l (vii) Anomalous conditions condition. (iv) The effect of temperatures and (iii) The Department shall design the stresses on the performance of the encountered: (viii) Instrument locations, reading, ventilation system (s) to be capable of waste packages and other engineered and analysis; accommodating changes in operating barriers: and t (ix) Location and description of conditions such as variatiens in (v) The extent to which fracturing of support sy stems: temperature and humidity. the host rock occurs during temperature (x)1.o::ation and description of (iv) The Department shall design the increase and decrease cycles. l dewatenng systems: and ventilation system (s) to protect against (xl] Details of seals used, methods of the intake and accumulation of. g 60.133 waste package and emplacement. and location. radioactive materials and hazardous emplacement environment. The Department shall perform and substances. (a) Cenera/ Requirements. The l plot surveys and geologic mapping as (v) The Department shall design Department shallinsure that waste the work progresses. 'ventilat'on system (s) for under normal packages are designed and fabricated to (3) Retention ofcores cadlogs. The and accident conditions. so that the performance objectives of 8 Department shall retain on site. until (vi)The Department shall design the 160.111 will be met. To demonstrate decommissioning. all cores from all ventilation system to assure by means that the waste package meets these exploratory borings drilled dunng site of redundant equipment, fail safe control objectives, the Department at a selection. site characterization. systems or other provisions, the minimum, shall do the following-construction. and operation.The . continuity of ventilation. (1) Perform comparative evaluation of Department shall store the cores in (3) traste handling and emplacement. several candidate waste form and durable boxes housed in a weatherproof (i) The Department shall design the packaging combinations considering the building. The Department shall arrange systems used to handle. transport, and proposed emplacement environment to h

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 94 / Tuesday, hiay 13. 1980 / Proposed F.ules 31407 = optimize the waste package (i) Compromise the integrity of other design of the geologic repository performance: packages: operations area shall provide for (2) Provide reasonable assurance that (ii) Result in radiation exposures or retrievability of the waste within a the it situ chemical:. physical and/or releases of radio-active materials in period of time that is about the same as nuc! car properties of the waste package excess of permissible lesels; and that in which it was emplaced. and/or its interactions with the (iii) Adversely affect any safe *y I 60.137 Monitoring programs. emplacement environment will not relattd structures, systems, or The Department shallinitiate a cc= promise the function of the waste components. packages. Supporting analyses shall (5) Explosive, pyrophoric. and toxic system of monitors during site include. but not be limited to evaluation materiais. The Department shall Insure characterization. The Department shall of the following factors: Solubility. that there are not exv!osive or maintain and supplement these oxidation / reduction reactions. pyrophoric materials in the radioactive monitors, as appropriate, throughout the ~ corrosion. gas generation, thermal waste. nor are there chemically toxic period of institutional control. The effects. mechanical :trength, mechanical wastes that could compromise either the Depart =ent shall design the monitoring stresses. radiolysis, radiation damage, operation or performance of the systems to verify that the performance nuclide retardation. leaching. fire and ' repository or adversely affect operator objectives of f 60.111 are being explosion hazards. thermal loads, and safety. achieved.The Department shall design, synergistic interactions: (c) Container andpackaging design construct and operate the monitoring (3) Provide reasonable assurance that requirements. Containers shall meet the system so that-(a) They do not adversely affect the the in situ chemical, physical, and/or following criteria-nuclear properties of the waste package (1) Physica/ dimensions and weight. natural and engineered elements of the and/or its interactions with the Each container has been designed and geologic respository; emplacement environment wi!! not fabricated to permit safe handling at the (b) They provide baseline'information compromise the function of the site or repository during operations and if on those parameters and natural engineered elements of the geologic necessary, during retrieval prior to processes pertaining to the safety of,a ] repository. The supporting analyses repository decommissioning: candidate site that may be caused by site characterization activities: and shall include, but not be limited to. (2) Codes and Standards. The evaluation of the following factors: container and packaging shall be (c) They monitor changes from ) solubility, oxidation / reduction designed, fabricated, and tested to the baseline condition of parameters which reactions. corrosion, gas, genera tion, maximum extent practical, in could affect the performance of a j thermal effects., mecham, cal strength, accordance with generally recognized geologic repository operations area,s stress, radiolysis. radiation damage. codes and standards 8 except as natural or engineered barriers to nuclide retardation. leaching, fire and authorized by the Commission upon radionuclide migration durmg explosion hazards, thermal loads, and demonstration by the Department that construction, operation, and after synergistic interactions. this would result in hardship or unusual decommissioning. (4) Design and fabricate the waste diffic ! h 3 packages to promote safe handling increas in th le elof qua$i a Subpart F-Physical Protection smW during transportation, handling, safet3. emplacement. and retrieval: and (5) Test the waste packages, as

1. l",C# ##" j,"f,#"

Subpart G-duality Assurance 3 gg,,,y surface contamination on the exterior of g 60.171 cuality assurance program. requ rements of i .133(a) 1) and 60.133(a)(2) of the Performance the package is such that exposure to (a) As used in this part. " quality Objectives are met. operational personnel will not exceed assurance" comprises all those planned (b) Waste form Requirements.The the valqs m Part 20 of this chapter: and and systematic actions necessary to Department shall accept waste for (4) Umque identification. A label or provide adequate confidence that a disposal only if it meets the following other means of permanent identification structure, system. or component will must be provided for each container. perform satisfactorily in~ service. Quality cnteria-(1) Solidification. Allliquid The identification shall not impair the assurance includes quality control. radioactive wastes must have been integrity of the container and shall be which comprises those quality l converted to a dry solid and placed in a permanently applied in such a way that assurance actions related to the physical sealed container before transfer to the the information will be legible at least to characteristics of a material, structure, repository: the end of the retrievable storage period. component, or system which provide a (2) Stcbilization. Finely divided waste Each container identification shall means to control the quality of the forms must have been stabilized (for match the container with its permanent example, by incorporation into an wntten records. material, structure component. or system to predetermined requirements. i (b) The Department shallimplement a encapsulatmg matrix) to limit the 5 60.135 Retrievalof waste. production and availability of respirable quality assurance program based on the fines during any accident condition to a The Department shall design and criteria in Appendix B of Part 50 of this level as low as is reasonably c nstruct the geologic repository chapter.The quality assurance program achievable; perations area to permit retrieval of all shall apply to all activities affectin8 the waste cka es.me a cally tact. if safety-related functions of those (3) Free I.iquids. The Waste package must contain no free hquids: P structures, systems, and components (4) Combustibles. All combustible years after all of the waste has been that prevent or mitigate events that radioactive wastes must have been emplaced and if the geologic repository could cause unreasonable risk to the has not been decommissioned.The reduced to a noncombustible form health and safety of the public.These unless the associated packaging is such activities include exploring, designing. ,Resulatory suides describms seneraity that a fire involving a single package acceptable codes and standards for contamers of fabricating purchasing, handling. will not-similar type and function mii be >>aed. shipping, storing. cleaning. erecting.

31408 Federal R;gister / Vol. 45. Ne. 94 / Tuxsday. May 13. 1980 / Propos:d Rules installmg. Inspecting. testing, operating. Issued in Washington. DE on May 9.198o. maintainmg. monitoring. repairing and Jerry t. Pfef fer. modifying. Assistant Admimstatorfor utsty Systems. EconomicRegulatoryAdmmistxtion. Subpart H-Criteria for Personnel Training '. Reserved) I" D"' * ***2 N'd "8-** '* '*l seno caos semei-as Subpa".1-Emergencies and %er',ency Programs [ Reserved) Late i at Washington. D4 this 5th day of FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD May. tsso 12 CFR Part 563 For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. !00-2921 Samuel J. Chilk. Secretary ofthe Commission. Accounting for Loan Servicing Fees in o am.m ra.4 us a.s.=l AcENcy: Federal Home Loan Bank swwo coes n***' Board. Action: Proposed rule. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

SUMMARY

The Board is proposmg to Economic Regulatory Administration restrict savings and loan associations

• accounting treatment for loan servicmg 10 CFR Part 461 fees by providing that such fees may be.

credited to current income only to the (Docket No. ERA-R-79-12A] extent earned.The proposed regulation Financial Assistance Programs for is intended to prohibit the reflection in Stat'e Utility Regulatory Commissions net worth of unearned servicing income, and Eligible Nonregulated Electric which the Board regards as an unsafe Utilities and unsound practice. AGENCY: Economic Regulatory EFrEcTtvt DATE: Comments must be Administration. Department of Energy. received by July 9.1980. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking: ADDRESS: Send comments to the Office cancellations of public hearing. of the Secretary. Federal Home Loan Bank Board.1700 G Street. NW.

SUMMARY

The Economic Regulatory Washington, DC 20552. Comments will Administration of the Department of be available for public inspection at this Energy hereby cancels the public address.

hearing on proposed amendments to its FOR FuRTHER INFORMATION CONTACTt regulations on the Innovative Rates Nancy L Feldman. Associate General Program which was scheduled for Counsel (202-377-6140). or Joseph M. % ednesday, May 14.1980, in Arendes. Assistant Regional Director. Washington. D.C. The public hearing is Department of Supervision. Office of cancelled due to the lack of any written Examinations and Supervision (202-377-t requests to speak at the hearing. Aa 6512) SUPPLEMENTARY !NFORMATION:The ma in.I su d on A 980.[45 Federal Home Loan Bank Board s FR 24092. April 8.1980) written regulations for mstitutions the accounts comments on the proposed amendments of which are insured by the Federal must be received by 4:30 p.m. on June 9. Savings and Loan Insurance 198* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rule 8 8pecifying the accountmg M. La"Y Kaseman. Office of Utility treatment to be accorded loan servicing Systems. Economic Regufatory fees, or premiums received in lieu of Admirustration. Department of Energy, such fees.The Board currently cannot 2000 M Street NW., Room 4308 rely on the application of generally Washington, D.C. 20461 (202) 653.-3920; accepted accounting principles (CAAP) Mary Ann Masterson. Office of the to be controlling in this regard because Assistant General Counsel for it has been the Board's experience that Conservation and Solar Applications, there is not a uniform position among Department of Energy. James Forrestal accorag ! rofessionals as to the Butiding. Room 1E-258. Washington, proper treatment of such fees. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-9516: It has come to the Board's attention William L Webb. Offic,e of Public that some associations are followmg a Information. Econonue Regulatory-practice of taking into current income Admirustration. Department of imputed net gains on loan servicing to Energy. 2000 M Street N.W., Room B-be performed in the future in connection 110. Washington. D.C. 20461. (202) with the servicing ofloans and loan 653-4055. participations sold by these i

~ a 4 61372 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 208 / Thursday. October 25, 1979 / Proposed Rules or breakdown of irrigation equipment or tobacco is planted for any crop year, any terms and provisions of the contract facilities shall not be considered as a any indemnity will be paid to the from year to year. Any changes shall be failure of the water supply from an ' person (s) the Corporation determines to mailed to the insured or placed on file unavoidable cause. be beneficially entitled thereto, and made available for public (c)lnsurance shall not attach on an (g) The Corporation reserves the right inspection in the office for the county at irrigated basis on acreage otherwise to reject any claim for indemnity if any least 15 days prior to the cancellation insurable on such basis unless it is so of the requirements of this section or dm oreceding the crop year for which reported and designated by such section 8 of the policy are not met and the changes are to become effective, and practice at the time the acreage is the Corporation determines that the such mailing or filing shall constitute reported. amount ofloss cannot be satisfactorily notice to the insured. Acceptance cf any

4. Annuo/ Premium. If thereis no determined.

changes will be conclusively presumed break in the continuity of participation. any assignee or transferee) ass (igns to6. Sabregotion. The insured in the absence of any notice from the any premium adjustment applicable insured to cancel the contract as under secron 5 of the policy shall be the Corporation all rights of recovery provided in section 13 of the policy. transferreo to (1) the contract of the insun d's utate or surCving spouse la against any person forloss or damage to This proposal has not been classified the extent that payment hereunderis "significant" and is being published case i! A sth of the insured. (2) the made by the Corporation.The under emergency procedures, as contract of the person who succeeds the Corporation thereafter shall execute all authorized by Executive Order 12044 insured if such person had previously papers required and take appropriate and Secretary's hiemorandum No.1955, participated in the farming operation. or action as may be necessary to secure without a full 60-day comment period. It (3) the contract of the same insured who such rights. has been determined by James D. Deal, stops farming in one county and starts

7. Terminotion of the Contract. (a) hf anager. Federal Crop Insurance farming in arnther county.

The contract shall terminate if no Corporation that an emergency (b)If there is e break in the continuity premium is earned for five consecutive situation exists which warrants less of participation. any reduction in years. than a full 60-day comment period on premium earned under section 5 of the (b)If the insured is an Individual who this proposal because the final policy shall not thereafter apply; dies or is judicially declared regulations and policies coverning irowever, any previous unfavorable incompetent. or the insured entity is tobacco must be published and be insurance experience shall be other than an individual and such entity considered in premium computation is dissolved, the contract shall terminate available in the FCIC county offices not following a break in continuity. as of the date of death. Jud;cial later than December 15.1979, to afford

5. CloimforandPoyment of declaration or dissolutiom However, if the farmers an opportunity to examine Indemnity. (aj Any claim for mdemnity - such event occurs after insurance them before the cancellation date of on a unit shall be submitted to the attaches for any crop year, the contract December 31.1979. A Draft Impact Corporation on a form prestnbed by the shall continue in force through such crop Analysis has been prepared and is Corporation.

year and terminate at the end thereof. available from Peter F. Cole. Secretary. (b) In determining the total production Deat': of a partnerin a partnership shall Federal Crop Insurance Corpora tion. to be counted for each unit. production de t a the partnership unless the Room 4088. South Building. U.S. from units on which the production has been commingled will be allocated to pannership agreement provides Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. 20250. otherwise. If two or more persons such units in proportion to the liability having a joint interest are insured Note.-The reporting requirements on each unit. (c) There shall be no abandonment to jointly, death of one of the persons shall contained herein have been approved by the the Corporation of any insured tobacco dissolve the joint entity-office of Management and Budget in

8. Coverage Leve/ ondPrice Election.

accordance with the Federal Reports Act of 194: and OMB Circular A4o. acreage. (a)If the insured has not elected on the (b)In the event that any claim for application a coverage level and price at September 6,19'*9. Approved by the Board of Directors on Indemnity under the provisions of the which indemnities shall be computed contract is denied by the Corporation. from among those shown on the Peer F. Cala, an action on such claim may be brought actuarial table. the coverage level and Secretory.rederalCmpInsurance against the Corporstion under the corporoijon. price election which shall be applicable prosisions of 7 U.S.C.1508(c):Provided, under the contract, and which the g, o,, %,as rdm e % That the same is brought within one insured shall be deemed to have elected, ,,tuno coes mo-os-u year after the date notice of denial of shall be as provided on the actuarial the claim is mailed to and received by table for such purposes. the insured. (b) The insured may, with the consent NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (e) Any indemnity will be pa,yable of the Corporation change the coverage within 30 days after a claim for level and/or price election for any crop 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51 indemnity is approved by the Corporation.Nowever, in no event shall year on or before the closing date for the Corporation be liable for interest or submitting applications for that crop Storage and Disposalof Nuclear year. Waste damages in connection with any claim

9. 4ssignment oflademnity. Upon for indemnity whether such claim be approval of a form presenbed by the Commission.

AcENCY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory approved or disapproved by the Corporation. Corporation the insured may assign to i ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. another party the right to an mdemnity (f) If the insured is an individual who for the crop year and such assignee shall

SUMMARY

The United States Nuclear dies. disappears, or is judicially have the nght to submit the loss notices Regulatory Commission is conducting a declared incompetent, or the insured is and forms as required by the contract.

generic proceeding to reassess its degree an entity other than an individual and

10. Contract Changes. The of confidence that radioactive wastes such entity is dissolved after the Corporation reserves the right to change produced by nuclear facilities will be l

Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 208 / Thursday. October 25, 1979 / Proposed Rules 61373 safely disposed of, to determine when sites past those dates and until an off. conclusions about waste repository any such disposal will be available, and site solution is available. In response to impacts or performance. The whether such wastes can be safely the D.C. Circuit's decision the Commission will consider economic stored until they are safely disposed of. Commission has decided to undertake a issues in this proceeding in the same This rulemaking has been initiated in genenc reconsideration of the fa3hion such issues were considered in response to the decision of the United radioactive waste question so that it the recent fuel cycle ru!emaking: States Court of Appeals for the District can:(1) reassess its confidence that safe namely, a waste disposal model will not of Columbia Circuit in State of off-site disposal of radioactive waste be considered realistically available if it afinnescto v. NRC, Nos. 78-1269 and 78-from licensed facilities will be available; would be prohibitive ly expensive to 2032 (May 23.1979) but it also is a (2) detarmine when any such disposal or build and operate such a proposed continuation of previous procesdings off-site storage will be available: and (3) fac!!ity. Cf. 44 FR at 45367. conducted by the Commission in this if disposal or off. site storage will not be During this proceeding the safety area. 42 FR 34391 (July 5.1977). available until after the expiration of the implications and environmentalimpacts - This notice desenbes the procedures licenses of certain nuclear facilities. of radioactive waste storage on-site for the Commission will employ to conduct determine whether the wastes generated the duration of a license w II continue to that proceeding and how members of by those facilities can be safely stored be subjects for adjudication in the public can participate. If the on-site until such disposalis available. Individual facility licensing proceedings. Commission finds from this proceeding previously,in connection with a petition The Commission has decided, however, reasonable assurance that radioactive for rulemaking filed by the Natural that during this proceeding the issues wastes from nuclear facilities will be Resources Defense Council the being considered in the rulemaking safely stored or disposed of off-site prior Commission considered the related should net be addressed in individual to the expiration of the license for the question of the likelihood that waste licensing proceedings. These issues are facility,it will promulgate a rule disposal will be accomplished safely, most appropriately addressed in a providing that the safety and and at that time it found reasonable generic proceeding of the character here environmentalimplications of assurance that methods of safe envisaged. Furthermore. the court in the radioactive waste remaining on site permanent disposal of high-level waste State ofarinnesota case by remanding after the anticipated expiration of the would be available when they were this matter to the Commission but not facility licenses involved need not be needed. 42 FR 34391. 34393 (July 5.1977). vacating or revoking the facility licenses censidered in individual facility pet. forrev. dismissed sub nom. NRDC involved. has supported the. licensing proceedings. In the event the v.NRC. 582 F.2d 166 (2nd Cir.1978). Commission's conclusion that licensing Commission determines that on-site However in denying the NRDC petition, practices need not be altered during this str ige after license expiration may be the Commission announced its intent to. proceeding. However. N ficensing r asary or appropriate. it willissue a reassess this finding periodically.This proceedings now underway will be proposed rule providing how that new proceeding will offer an subject to whatever final determinations question will be addressed. opportunity for the Commission to are reached in this proceeding. oATes: Notices ofintent to participate reassess its earlier finding. to obtain if the Commission finds reasonable must be filed by November 26.1979. wider public participation in its decision assurance that safe, off site disposal for Other deadlines are described below. and alsolo take account of new data radioactive wastes from licensed and recent developments in the federal facilitites will be available prior to AcoREss: Send comments to the waste management plan, most notably expiration of the facilities

• licenses,it Secretary of the Commission. U.S.

the Report to the president by the will promulgate a final rule providing Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Interagency Review Group on Waste that the environmental and safety Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention: Ma nagement. TID-29442 (March.1979) implications of continued on-site storage Docketing and Service Branch. All (the 'IRG Report ). after the termination of licenses need filings will be available for public n t be considered in individuallicensing inspection in the Commission's Public Purpose ofProceeding D nt Ro m at 1717 H. Street. N.W., The purpose of this proceeding is boYmiss n eterm nes t a on-site 8 solely to assess generically the degree of storage after license expiration may be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a ssurance now available that necessary or appropriate, it will issue a Stephen S.Ostrach. Office of the tadioactive waste can be safely proposed rule providing how that GeneralCounsel U.S. Nuclear disposed of. to determine when such questior will be addressed. Regulatory Commission. Washington, disposal or off. site storage will be Procedures D.C. 20555. (202) 634-3224. available, and to determine whether SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION". radioactive wastes can be safely stored The Commission has chosen to on-site past the expiration of existing employ hybrid rulemaking procedures

Background

facility licenses until off site disposal or for conducting this proceeding. Within On May 23,1979 the United States storage is available. In addition to thirty days after publication of this Court of Appeals for the District of information submitted by public notice members of the public may file a Columbia Circuit remanded two - participants and government agencies, notice ofintent to participate as a " full licensing actions to the Commission to this proceeding will draw upon the participant"in the further stages of the consider whether an off-site storage record compiled in the Commission's proceeding discussed below. The notice solution for nuclear wastes will be recently concluded rulemaking on the ofintent should set forth the perso6's or available by the years 2007-09. the - environmentd impacts of the nuclear group's identity, technical or other expiration dates of the licenses of the fuel cycle (44 FR 45362-74 (August 2. ' qualifications to participate, tentative Vermont Yankee and Prairie Island 1979)). and the record complied herein positions on the issues to be considered. ' ? nuclear plants to which the Commission will be available for use in the general and a discussion of any special matters i had granted permits to increase the on-fuel cycle rule update discussed in that or concerns sought to be raised. site waste storage facilities, and.if not. rulemaking. However. this proceeding is Furthermore, at that time those members whether that waste can be stored at the not designed to reach quantitative of the public who do not wish to be full

613N Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 208 / Thursday. October 25. 1979 / Proposed Rules participants but who wish to file demonstrated. An alternative proposal presentations will be efficient and cornments on the issues addressed in which is also under consideration would useful. Unless different procedures are this rulemaking should file their be to apply to this proceeding the set out in the second prehearing order, comments. discovery procedures set forth in 10 CFR the hearing will begin with dehvery of The individuals or groups who have Part 2 and to have any discovery prepared statements from the chosen to participate as full participants supervised by the presiding officer. representatives, both technical and shall be supervised by a " presiding Participants or other members of the ' legal, of the groups into which the otficer" to be named by the Commission public who wish to express views on participants have been consolidated. at a later date. That officer's principal this matter should file those views with These statements should succintly responsibility will be to mcnitor the their notices of intent or comments summarize the participants' views early stages of the proceeding for the which are due November 26.1979. In previously set 4rth in their statements Commission. and to assist the particular participants should discuss and cross.statemena. Participants Commission in conducting the later whether imposition of the discovery should ensure that their representatives portions. To those ends he or she will provisions of Part 2 or their absence will be able to address the merits of the have authority to order consolidation of would be likely to alter their willingness legal. technical and institutional issues individuals or :troup in the same to participate in this rulemaking or to that have been raised in this proceeding. fashion previded in to CFR 2.715a. The affect the quality of their contnbution to After the prepared remarks the speakers presiding officer may take appropriate the record. The presiding officer will will be questioned by the members of action to avoid delay, including, if then summarize the views expressed - the Commission. Furthermore, other necessary, holding pre. hearing and present his or her recommendations participants will be given the conferences or certifying matters to the to the Commission. The Commission opportunity to submit written questions Commission, willissue a prompt decision on this to the Commission for it, in its The Commission's staff will compile a matter so that the participants' discretion, to ask of participants. full bibliography.on the subjects preparation of their statements wi!! not The Commission reserves the option ' relevant to the proceeding which will be be adversely affected by uncertainty as of providing a final stage at which made available to the public at an early to the extent of data that nay be representatives of the participants may stage of this proceeding. In addition to available to them. be cross-examined by other that bibliography the Commission will Approximately 30 days after the participants. The Commission will defer maintain a publicly available data bank notices of intent are filed, the officer will deciding whether to permit any cross. which willinclude relevant infor=ation issue a prehearing order resolving all examination until after the hearing is on waste storage and disposal The data preliminary issues including over. To obtain cross-examination a bank willinclude the IRC Report, the consolidation. Following the prehearirg participant will be required to identify background material the IRC co!!ected order the participants will have the issue or issues as to which cross. in preparing the report. the Generic approximately 60 additional days (the examination is sought, and the Environmental Impact Statement on exact time to be set in the prehearing representative or participant involved. Waste Management being prepared by order) to prepare and file their and to demonstrate that cross. the Department of Energy, and a statements of position.The statements examination is necessary to prepare a collection of oth'er principal works that will be the participants' principal

• record adequate for a sound decision.

the Cor aission 2taff will compile on the contribution to the waste confidence Based on the material received in this subir., of radioactive waste storage and proceeding. and participants should proceeding and on any other relevant di,,osal. Furthermore. the Commission focus their preparation on them.The information properly available to it, the will solicit the views of a number of statements should set forth the Commission will publish a proposed or federal agencies on the questions participants' views on the issues final rule in the Federal Register. Any involved in this proceeding and on the discussed above. and on the underlying such final rule will be effective thirty conclusions of the IRG Report and make assumptions and scenarios, both days after publication. the responses of those agencies technical and institutional. upon which Comments. nonces ofintent to available in the data bank so that the those views are based. After the participate and any other documents participcnts can address them in their statements are filed, the participants filed in this proceeding should be filed papers. The Commission expects that - will be given approximately 60 days (to by serving a copy on the Secretary of full participants will voluntarily make be set by the order) to prepare cross. the Commissiort U.S. Nuclear relevant documents in their possession statements discussing statements illed Regulatory Commission. Washington, available to other full participants to the by other participants.The cross. D.C ?0555. Attention: Docketing and extent practical and will reference and statements s' auld be limited to material Service Branch. All filings will be produce on request the documents on, discussed in the statements and should available for public inspection in the which they rely. not be used to introduce new material Commission's Public Document Room at The Commission is considering After the statements and cross. 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. whether additional procedures should statements have been received, the Dated: October 18.19r9. be employed. One proposalis to strictly Commission with the assistance of the For the Commission.- control inter. participant discovery and presiding officer willissue a second Samuel J. Chilk* to provide that requests for prehearing order. This order will set out interrogatories, depositions or other, the procedures to be followed for the [ [#f(([*[""' formal discovery will not be entertamed remainder of the hearing and may unless the Commission finds compelling provide for further written submissions justification therefor.If this proposal from the full participants, or for the were adopted the Commission expects scheduling of an oral hearing. !f the that there would be at most only a few Commission desires oral presentations. exceptional circumstances in which the participants may be further such justification could be - consolidated to ensure that the oral

i { gE $ g,?.$ s o g ZQ'ng s h g w 9 o{ . Us s 8a'c :l o E.1 a s T 6 L O s t e ecn 0s l ee 6 y ut v a Rfi 0d ft 3 dr n oe o ct i ei s R re i Wl s c w u 0y e edR 8a dd in 1d r va of e co R e rn o oy fi ra ot 1d g a n wr i ea r s i r a oy ve n fe t a er o i d RF i s - ic e gn dD N no r ii 0 of rt co 1 aa d e s 55G er sr R n 0y h a t o o 6 a lN t erg sc fi 1d ftI ren ee ot D 0t rri ur a Fr q wr Ci J a s ef ea C nd e 0 y ro jp 5O onl cal 9 a s g e 5R d nn 6 y er tF e r eo 8 a RF 5 5E S ro i d ef st AL d se U r ol 0R O rp 1 5 C = G3 o Nt C g n Ii KC i d s r sr MA t a t o ID n e s c se g h ee tN UA sm s n uR oe 0y i l) q R 3 rt 6 a r sa sef R - Ca d a 4 yu o s t S le f at e 0y O5 R l

• dcds n 7 a F

el d o o !O 0 sl tF f 1 s e 4!E ( ol s p r, !l l t n ss ! t n o en o C lC[ e l S! io C m l s ni f efi 0y ot s DC t os 6 a rs 6.i tS a o d t e 7 l i t P eu d g A'l S RQ n t l lW ir s li a 2y (E le a l d C fN Ot r s t e n f no Ni 0i en ei ror tt s s 5N l O PC e t s 13 a .s y e d i e RC t gr fru d yn Ar snO s iQ no 1 ri 0y op i ire 3 a cs f0 Fac d ie C en tR he se. s y Ts y n n 4 a ee to 7d r= ri s al s at tf pt 8 y ps no es 4 a ee e re d ru me s Fl PQ oct 1 Cin s t e 0 y cot 3a il n d f l i \\ bdun Pa j gs gs es ne ne R 3 il ii 4 Lt rt rt s a AfE al s ai 0y a R5C ev 3 y ev 2 a r Dfll hi 8 a hi 1d Il -6 et d et 2 fio rc rc w c TRh PA PA s 4 a -s d le + i a F s a 7 EG s CN s s E 2 ED C - e NI a o Dt N e c F A5 Eli R5 co 1fC u m A 5NO 3 D t l t i AOR f i i iCF 5 F C ( s

\\ 70408 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 236 / Thursday. December 6.1979 / Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY quality and quantity ofInformation of a policy nature related to the timing COMMISSION aeeded to select a site for a repository. and scope of the Commission's initial The Commission is withdrawing the review. 9pportunities for State and 10 CFR Parts 2,19,20,21,30,40,51, proposed General Statement of Policy as public participation. and the respective 60, and 70 being superseded by this action. NEPA responsibilities of the Commission and the Department cf Authority and Rationale Energy. Disposalof High-LevelRadioactive Sections 202[3) and (4) of the Energy Comments about the initial review Wastes in Geologic Repositories. Reorganization Act of1974. as amended, straddled the position set forth in the Proposed L! censing Procedures provide the NRC with licensing and Policy Statement. Some commenters AoENcy: Nuclear Regulatory regulatory authority regarding urged the Commission to achedule Department of Energy facilities used hearings early in the Department's site primarily for the receipt and storage of selection process; others recommended Commission. 8 ACrioN: Proposed rule

• high.leve! radioactive wastes resulting that hearings be deferred until

SUMMARY

This notice invites public from activities licensed under the construction has been completed and an comment on a proposed rule for Atomic Energy Act and certain other application to receive waste is filed. The

!! censing the receipt and disposal of long-term. high-level waste storege Commission has undertaken a thorough high-level radicactive wastes (HLW) at facilities of the Department of Energy. review of the matter and now proposes geologic repositories.The proposed rule Pursuant to that authority, the a more extensive informalinvolvement sets forth requirements applicable to the Commission is developing procedures during early phases of site characterization and a deferral of 8 ~1epartment of Energy (Department) in and critena appropriate for licensing sut.mitting an app!! cation for a license geologic disposal of HLW by the formal proceedings until site characterization has been completed, for such activities and specifies the Department. The requirement contained procedures which.the Commission will in the instant proposed rule that the The scope of the review procedures would be expanded, as urged by several fo!!ow in considering such an Department submit a site application.The proposed rule also sets characterizttion report in advance of commenters, to include an assessment of site characterization data for multiple forth provisions for consultation and performing exploration which may sites. The reasons for the modifications participation in the license review by include in situ testing at depth also ~ implements Section 14(a) of the NRC are explained in the text below. State governments. DATE: Comments must be received by Authorization Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 95s The proposed rule also provides detailed provisions to ensure extensive March 3.1980. 601).s Alternatives to rulemaking that were opportunities for State and public considered included the issuance of participation. We have not made ADDRESS: Written comments or suggestions on the proposed rule should specific provision for funding of be sent to the Secretary of the Nuclear regulatory guides and NUREC reports, intervenors, as requested by some - Regulatory Commission. Washington, which would be applied in the context commenters.This question may be D.C. 20555. Attention: Docketing and of other existing. parts of NRC Service Branch. Copies of comments regulations. However, the considerable addressed separately m the context of rulemakmg applicable to various may be examined in the U.S. Nuclear differences between a geologic adjudicatory proceedings. Provis, ions for Regulatory Commission Public repository and other licensed facilities, State participation would be reviewed Document Room.1717 H Street. NW., particularly in view of the significance in the light of any pertinent statutory Washington. D.C. of a repository with respect to the health changes that may be enacted. and safety of future generations, make it The proposed regulations do not FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTt I. desirable to develop rules tailored explicitly address the NEPA C. Roberts. Assistant Director for Siting specifically to geologic disposal of HLW. responsibilities of the Commission Standards.-Office of Standards Moreover, the rulemaking proceeding regarding matters within the scope of Development. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory should provide the Commission the the Department s generic environmental Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555* broadest opportunity to receive and Irnpact statement on the management of telephone (301) 443-5985. consider the views of the public. commercia!!y generated radioactive SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments wastes.The possibility of adopting the

Background

Depetment's statement may be Comments on the Policy Statement cor"Wered by the Commission, as in November of1978, the Nth touched upon many issues. Some of the suggested m comments, at an Regulatory Commission pubitshed for comment a proposed General Statement comments dealt with details of, appropnate time, implementation that are being of Policy outlining procedures for addressed for the first time in these licensing geologic high-level radioactive proposed rules. The principal comments ,,,,p1a ,N and r seare to ir l e abo or wastes (HWL) repositories to be and in the field. undensken to estabhsh the seoloitic 2 constructed and operated by the me Communion inwrpnts stonse as usedin conditiona and the ranses of those parameters of a Department of Energy. At the same time' the Energy Reorsanization Act to include disposal partacular site relevant to the procedures under this a gag ge g gp ement e po icy was s section 14 1 ruda u follows:Any person, part. site charactenzation mcludes bormss. surface g circulated to State governments for agency or other etitity proposmg to develop a excavations. eacavation of exploratory shafts. review. Comments on the Policy storise or disposai faciuty. incNdma e test disposal Imuted subsurface lateral excavauons and bonnss. facihty. for hish-level radioacuve wastes. non.high-and in situ testmg needed to determme the Statement were received from thir'./ imi adi acun wuta inc udes tunsunnusm suitabibty of me site for e pelosic apository but Iroups and individuals. Fourterc. States contamanated wastes. or irradiated nuclear reactor does net mclude prehmmary bonnas and Commented on the draft rule.The rule fuel shall notify the Comtrussion as eariy ps scophysical testms needed to decide whether site that is presently being proposed reflects Posable after the comrnencement of plannms for e charactenzation should be undertaken. The mtent P'"2culaf proposed facihty.The Commission shall of permitting these setmties is to allow the timely a change in our earlier views stimulated in tuni n tify ee cmnior ud me sinie lesialatun samenns of mfonnauen needed both to i in part by those comments and by a of the State of proposed sites whenever the charactenze a site and for a meanmgful cornpanson somewhat different appreciation of the Comnussion hu knowledge of such proposal of alternatives. 4

Federal RegLter / Vol. 44. No. 230 / Thisd:y Dec:mber 6.1979 / Proposed Rules 70409 Departure From the General Statement licensing dect'ston are reasons that the situation in the case of geologic Commission regards some provision for repositories is different in each of these of Policy preapplication review to be appropriate. resoects. With a geologic repository. The procedures delineated in the Further, early guldance on development reconnaissance level date alone will not pro losed rule depart from those set and consideration of alternative sites support a presumption that a site is f;rt s by the proposed General Statement will help to avoid later delay caused by suitable with respect to safety for a .n Policy in three ways. These inadequate discussion of alternatives as repository. Hence, any decision on alternative site issues at this early point d :partures all bear on the initial stages required by NEPA. cf thelicensing process.First. itis In addition to providing for the early is likely to reqwre reexamination at the clearly stated that review of the review of the Department's site coristruction authorization proceedings DIpartment s plans for site characterization and site selection and, therefore, would be of quest!onable value. characterization as well as the site programs, the submittal of a sitt selection methods and criteria to be characterization report assures n. early However, other findings could be used by the Department is required in opportunity for other Federal and State made: the adequacy and ~ advance of site characterization and agencies and the public to become appropriateness of the Department's site that the Director of NMSS willissue an involved in the decision making process characterization program, including the cpinion on the basis of that review, with respect to those programs.The development of a state of alternatives. Second, the review does not presume opportunity for involvement is provided can be reviewed in a licensing action that the Department has selected a through publication of the Department's which would allow the Department to repository site. but only that it has site characterization report and the proceed with that program. But, identified a number of sites in Commission staff assessment of same considering the preliminary nature of appropriate media to undergo site and by means of meetings between the the geologic and hydrologic data characterizatica.The third departure Commission staff and State officials, available. the fact that the Director's from the Policy Statement is the residents of the areas near the sites to review of these items as described slimination of the provisional be characterized, and other interested earlier willinclude the benefit of public construction authorization and persons. Furthermore. where other comment. and the relatively sxpansion of the concept of site Federal agencies have decisionmaking insignificant environmental impact of characterization.These changes are authority regarding the Department's site characterization. the Commission being proposed to reflect our current proposed action,it is expected that they has concluded that the considerable appreciation of the quality and quantity will consider the recommendations of time and effort on the part of the of information needed to bring the the Director in carrying out their Commission, the Department, and the licensing proceeding to an appropriate responsibility, public demanded by formal proceedings would not be justified.' conclusion. The change is also intended to ent the requirements of b. 3 Site Characterization Review Sites The provision for early review of the that the notice from the Department will. Department's site characterization plans in fact Initiate a meaningful, substantive The revised procedures permit the will provide an opportunity for the review. Although the Commission Department to include exploration and Director to point out those aspects of a cannot direct the Department to comply in etu testing at depth as part of its site location which in the judgment of the with the provisions' for involving it chracterization activities. We staff require special attention or present during the site characterization anticipate that it will be necessary for special problems, and to indicate activities, any failure to do so is likely to the Department to explore at depth more particular items ofinformation needed - result in imprudent expenditures and than one site at dtfferent locations and for the Commission to make licensing subsequent delays. and ultimately could in different geofogic media. This position decisions with respect to the sites being result in the denial of the application for follows from consideration of both the long. term performance required of and considered. Moreover, the Director will the proposed site. be able to consider the methods and In sum, the Commission believes that the technical uncertainties involved in procedures of exploration contemplated the required submission of a site geologic disposal of HLW, and the need-for use by the Department.The characterization report and subsequent for the Commission to discharge its opportunity to review those methods public review will achieve early NEpA responsibilities with respect to and procedures is valuable because if Commission. State and public evaluation of alternatives. the process of characterizing a site to involvement without undue schedule It is expected that each site selected obtain informaiton necessary to delays. for site characterization and testing will determine if a site is suitable for a Consideration has been given to potentially satisfy the technical criteria repository is not carefull done. it may providing for formal heanngs prior to in 10 CFR 60,i.e., no obvious deficiency render the site unusable for a repository. site characterization, with the objective will be evident when the site is assessed For example, an excessive number of of resolving alternative site issues. Early in terms of NRC's preliminary site bore holes or improper excavation of an Site Review [ESR) regulations (10 CFR exploratory shaft or drift could make the Part 2 Subpart F) certainly provide a .n. pnncipalimpact of site char cienzauan at a repository unsealable. Presumably, this precedent for this approach. However, typicas. te can be attnbuted to man sement or the concern for possible exploration-this is a reasonable approach for .poils from excavation of an exploratory shan.no spode en be in the mem*=4 or sono cubic induced damage is one reason that some reactors only because of the ccmmenters on the Policy Statement considerable experience we have had 7,'j'eYd'O k". Nea". Ui : suggested a multi. step review process with siting such facilities, the knowledge ses et that from excavanon of a main shaft for a begun before commencement of site we have of typicallight water reactor repository end tens than o.ts of the spons from total acavanamndwacnt remai canamma exploration."ntis factor and the designs and characteristic impacts, and y @ g g dedrehanI"at P desirability of evaluating whether the the extent to which engineered features Department's program will generate can be relied upon to accommodate envsronmental impacts useanted mth maior ~ data suitable to support a Commission deficiencies in site characteristica.The actions whicJi n propease to undertaka.

70410 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 236 / Thursday. December 6.1979 / Proposed Rules review. NRC will examine the thereby reduce the stringency of the unacceptable on the basis of careful Department's site selection process with subsequent safety reviews. examination of surface reconnaissance this in mind. and the results of this Support for our revised position is data. However, this situstion is unlikely review will be reflected in the Director's bolstered not only by comments for two reasons. First, the process of site opinion. "Itus, application of the recefved on the Policy Statement but characterization is also a process of site technical criteria will guide the also by many in the earth science elimination. There is no point to Department toward a slate of candidate community with whom we have proceeding with exploration and testing sites that are among the best that discussed this matter. including at depth if the surface reconnaissance reasonably can be found. Under this members of the U.S. Geological Survey data reveal an insuperable defect. approach, the selection of a proposed staff.These experts agree that Second, under the procedures site from among the alternatives would exploration and testing at depth should contemplated by the proposed rule, the be deferred until site characterization of be performed if sufficient data are to be Department will augment the site the slate of candidate sites is at least obtained to determine whether the characterization report with semiannual substantially complete, surrounding geology will retard waste reports to the Director. Office of Nuclear It can be noted that the procedure migration and to make meaningful hf aterial Safety and Safeguards. These here is consistent with the comparisons among alternatives. reports along with any comment by the recommendation of the Interagency Further, the importance of exploration at Director will be made public. If review Review Croup on Nuclear Waste depth has been cited by both the IRG of a report reveals such a defect. the hf anagement which calls for report (Appendix A) and the recer.t Director will publicly inform the simultaneous investigation of several National Academy of Sciences report. Department of the problem and,if potential sites.* " Implementation of Long term warranted, could caution the Environmental Radiation Standards: Department from proceeding further Site Chsacterization and Authorization The issue of Verification"(Committee with the site. Aforeover,in the context of d Construction "

• on Radioactive Waste hianagement, overall project costs for a repository, the Under the proposed Policy Statement.

19 9). incremental site characterization costs only surface exploration combined with The investigations which the Policy are smallindeed. Again. It is difficult to some test borings would be permitted Statement would have allowed prior to generalize since different media and prior to the Commission's initial construction authorization were limited sites will present a variety of factual licensing decision-either a construction to surface geophysical techniques such situations. In our analysis. however, we authonzation or a provisional as aeromagnetic and gravity surveys have determined that total site construction authorization.This' and seismic traverses augmented by a characterization expenses for a generic procedure was intended to allow the few borings and welllogs. Insofar as hypothetical site could be expected to Commission to complete a safety and subsurface geology and hydrology are -mt to about $20 million. environmental review before the concerned such investigation would We do not minimize the amount of Department undertook a major provide substantialinformation public funds that we have identified as a , commitment of resources (money and reprding the stratigraphy and reasonable estimate ofincremental site manpower). hydrogeology of the site.While this characterization costs or the increasing We now perceive two grounds for information is obviously relevant and urgency for disposing of the wastes questioning our previous thinking. First. extremely important in evaluating a site, which may accompany any delay in the quality of the data that will be the data needed to establish the ultimate licensing action.These factors should be available before completion of site suitability of the site is likely to be examined, however. in the light of the characterization as currently envisioned obtained only through exploration and requirement discussed above that is unlikely to provide a satisfactory in situ testing at depth. i.e In the multiple sites must be characterized. basis for arriving at the technical proposed host rock unit.This The effect of this change is to decrease, judgments reflected in the standards for exploration and testing are needed not in a highly significant way, the level of construction authorization and only to determine whether serious but commitment of the Department or the provisional construction authorization not readily observed defects are present. Commission to any particular site. Also, that are contained in the Policy but also to determine specific properties the delay will help to assure that the Statement. Second. further study such as homogeneity, porosity. the Commission avoids making any persuades us that the commitment of extent of fracturing and jointing, and improvident. premature commitment to resources involved is not so great nor thermal response of the rock including a particular site by making a licensing the environmentalinipacts so large as to expansion. fluid migration and decision before it has the necessary lead the Commission to exercise its decrepitation. Of course, the kinds of technical data that would permit it to licensing authority in advance of site defects-fractures, breccia pipes, etc.- make a commitment with confidence. charactenzation. Our revised position will vary from one kind of medium to Further, this approach could provide a now more closely resembles an another, and from site to site, as will the ready alternative for consideration in approach presented in comments properties which are key to isolation of the event that the Depa-tment's submitted by the Natural Resources the wastes. But the important point is proposed site is found unsuitable. Defense Council. among others, that that without exploration and in situ As discussed earlier,it would be deferment of some specific safety testing in the proposed host rock unit. possible for the Commission to structure findings may be desirable in order to neither the defects nor the key its proceedings so as to provide for avoid decisions based on inadequate parameters can be determined with formal hearings on limited issues at an information and analyses so long as the confidence. it might be argued that early stage in the process. The hearing increased financialinvestments and defernng the initial licensing decision to process has clear advantages as a institutional commitments do not a later stage in some cases could lead to mechanism for fact-finding. But it can be the expenditure of some resources and an inefficient and cumbersome means 'Repon of the Interagency Review Group on the waste of time pursuing projects that for arriving at decisions. Moreover, men wwe mnas. ment.umb som might otherwise have been found to be since several sites are to be i i j

I Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. De / Thursday. December 6.1979 / Proposed Rules 70411 characterized. hearings would not be so

1. incensing of a geologic repository under NEPA for site characterization well. focused as they would be after a would be a major Federal action which activities proposed for a particular site.

single site had been identified in a requires the preparation of an Once site characterization is initiated. license application. environmentalimpact statement by the the Department should inform the We are satisfied that the opportunities Commission. While development of Director by semiannual report of the for public participation and the disposal' technologies and methods is a - progress of the site characterizatica Commission's staff review that have programmatic activity for which the activities and schedules. The been included in the proposed rule will department must assume responsibility. Commission staff should be permitted to provide an acceptable avenue for issues related to alternative visit the site and to observe excavation. achieving early identification of relevant technologies will be considered by the bonna and testing activities. The issues and concerns.The proposed rule Commission in the context oflater Director may respond from time to time contemplates an opportunity for formal decisions. in writing to the Department to express Commission proceedings before his current views on questions raised in Procedures construction, before receipt of the semiannual reports or site visits. radioactive waste, and before and after The Commission will participate in Inasmuch as the site characterization decommissioning. Each of these decision four stages in the review of the activities could have an adverse impact points may involve issues of great Department activities involving high-upon site safety. i.e., could affect the significance to the health and safety of level waste disposal at a particular site's ability to contain the waste, failure the public. Questions arising during site geologic repository. Although essentially by the Department to involve the NRC in characterization can be resolved less the same features are addressed. with the' manner desenbed here and to formally. in our judgment, without each stage there is a progressive implement the recommendations of the jeopardizing public health and safety. Increase in knowledge regarding these Director could result in denial of the j Moreover. the independent NF.PA features and a corresponding increase in subsequent license application. These obligations of the Department provide confidence in a decision whether HLW procedures wi!! be followed for each of i additional structured opportunities for can be disposed of at a repository at the the number of sites in appropriate evaluation of environmentalissues. site. geologic media which the Department i in the first stage when the Department intends to characterize, prior to its Scope of Proposed Rule has formulated plans for a prospective selecting a proposed site. We believe The proposed rule addresses only the repository to the extent that it wishes to that these procedures will provide licensing of geologic disposal of HLW. begin site characterization. It will be adequate regulatory participation so Alternative methods of disposal are not required to submit a site that a site will not be made unusable by addressed chiefly because information characterization report which contains. characterization, and at the same time from the department indicates that among other things, the program plan by will assure that the data needed to geologic disposal is the only technology which the Department willinvestigate enable a comparison of alternatives and I likely to be the subject of a license and characterize sites. The report will a reasoned choice in the selection of a application in the foreseeable future. address the process by which the media rite is gathered. Some methods are still developing and site (s) were chosen for s ne second stage begins with the technologies, e.g., transmutation. For characterization and the Department's submission by the Department of an others it is not clear what the program for further development of application for construction 1 Commission's licensing authority would alternatives.'The report also will authorization at a particular site from l be. For example technical feasibility contain a description of the media and among those characterized.' We do not issues aside, sea bed emplacement or site (s) to be characterized and the site I anticipate that action will be taken on disposalin Antarctic ice sheets would characterization program.The report an application until the site require international arrangements will be reviewed by the NRC staff with charaterization efforts at several sites involving legislative action. In general, opportunity for public comment on both the Commission does have licensing the report and a staff analysis of the are substantially complete. authority over surface storage and report. Also. it is anticipated that the Subsequent to staff review and disposal facilities within the United Commission will hold local public preparation of an Environmentallmpact i -1 States. However, surface disposalis not rneetings in the immediate area of the Statement. it is anticipated that a anticipated; and surface storage.perse, site (s) to be characterized. These licensing board will be appointed and could be covered under other parts of meetings will be held both to the license application will undergo the the commission a regalations. dissemmate information and to obtain first formal review, including public The proposed rule contains only the public input which will be factored into hearings. lf the Commission finds after procedural requirements for h,eensmg. the final version of the staff analysis. considering reasonable alternatives that j The technical criteria against which the included in the final analysis will be a the b fi f th d and that here is bcense application will be reviewed are statement by the Director expressing his costs under EP still under development. However, the opinion on the site, the site report and reasonable assurance that the types and scope of the technical critena is the Department's site selection and amounts of wastes described in the regarded as being sufficiently developed characterization program.The application can be received, possessed' to determine an appropriate licensing, Department should consider the site and disposed ofin a repository of the procedure for their implementation. This characterization analyses before design proposed at the site without enables the Commission to propose a publishing a final environmental Impact procedural rule even though the statement, where such may be required ,To satisfy the requirements of NEPA. the technical criteria are still under review. commission ant 2cipates such characienzation at a l In the interest of proceeding with ' Note-This willinclude the identification and two geologic media. Howeve. in 1:sht of the nunimum of mree situ repruentms a muumum of development of the necessary regulatory location of other media and sites which the 8'snificance of the decision selectuts a site for a framework for licensinI, these licensinE Depanment considus altunatins to se site beng repository. es Conun2nion fuuy upects Ge procedures, therefore, are being put forth for site charactertzstion and for which the Department to submit a wider ranse of alternatives proposed at this time. Department intends to submit subsequent site than the maimum sussested here. charactenzeuen reports.

7tM12 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 236 / Thursday. December 6.1979 / Proposed Rules unreasonable risk to the health and Stata Participation Improving State Participation in the safety of the public or being inimical to-The submittal of a site Siting. I.! censing and Development of the common defense and security. charactenzation report by the [. a u a as e ac 3 e tent of construction of the repository will be Department not only begins the authorized. Commiselon's involvement in the State participation may be affected by Stage three is a further review of the planning and develepment of a geologic legislative action on the matters application prior to receipt of wastes at repository. but also marks the beginning discussed in that report.. the repository.The Commission will of State participation in the licensing Other Reviews issue a license to the Department ifit process. States may submit proposals In addition to reviewing applications finds, among other things, that the for participation in the review of the Site from the Department and materials issuance of the license will not Charactenzation Report and any submitted in support of those constitute an unreasonable risk to the subsequent license application from the applications, the Commission's staff will health and safety of the public.The Department. In addition, at that tfme follow closely the unfolding of the Commission staff will be made available Endings would be based upon a review Department's overall program for the of an update of the application to discuss with representatives of both disposal of radioactive wastes. The submitted for construction authorization State and local governments information Director will comment from time to time and an updated environmental report if submitted by the Department. on all matters pertinent and appropriate States may request to participate in to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's needed. Among items to be considered sacral ways. S ates could assist the role as the licensing agency.The in the review are additional data Commission in the review of specific Director also will provide the acquired during construction, portions of license applications. States Department with specific guidance on conformance of construction with could perform other technical assistance technical matters relevant to licensing design, and resolution of questions not work for the Commission, particularly in requirements. answered during the construction the area of envircamental studies and Two areas to which the Commission authorization review. !!is expected that the like. States might perform staff intends to pay particular attention adjudicatory hearings would be held to environmental and radiation monitorin8 are the Department's site screening consider apptcpriate issues. (All for the Commission throughout the procedure and its waste form research hearings would be conducted in operational period and perhaps after and development program. Both the accordance with subpart G cf10 CFR closure as well. States coud also screening of sites for site Part 2.) participate through employment or characterization and selection of a Or.ce all the wastes have been exchange of State and Federal personnel waste form are programmatic decisions emplaced, the Department may submit under the Intergovernmental personnel within the prerogatives of the an application to decommission the Act. In addition. States could participate Department as the agency charged with repository, and the final review of in hearings on a license applicanon the responsibilities to dispose of the repository activities will begin.. under the applicable provisions of the wastes. However, it is important to the Additional geologic and hydrologic data rules of practice.The Commission Commission's ability to discharge its acquired during the emplacement period intends to develop further guidance to licensing responsibilities that the course as we!! as the results of test and assist Ge States in planning for such which the Cepartment follows to select experiments on backf!!!ing and shaft participat:,en. sites is systematic, well-reasoned, Besides review of site sealing, along with the Department's publicly accessible, and ultimately will planned decommissioning prog am, will applications,"and ongoing work m. result in a slate of characterized sites whose members are among the best th.t be considered by the Commission in support of the license application. States reasonably can be found. Moreover. determining whether the planned might also be involved by the because selection of a waste form method for decommissioning is Department (in response to the commits significant resources to the adequate. Following decommission (ng. regulations for implementation of NEPA development and production of that DOE may seek an amendment to or otherwise)in the site selectfon waste form, as well as influences terminate the license.The Commission process itself. The requirement that the repository design. the Commission may terminate the license ifit finds that Department must desenbe in its site believes that the Department's research the final disposition of wastes is in characterization report how States were and development program must address conformance with the Department's involved in the site selection process and compare alternative waste forms. license. that the final state of the reflects the Commission's expectation The Commission also must be familiar repository site is in conformance with that the Department willinvolve State with the Department's waste form the requirements of the license, and that and local governments in its site research and development program so termination of the license is authorized selection programs.The Commission the results of the program can be under the Atomic Energy Act. believes that many issues. Including the factored into the licensing process. Alternatively, the Department may NEPA questions related to alternatives The Commission has decided not to continue to be a licensee of the and alternative sites, will be more easily prepare an Environmentallmpact Commission and conduct such resolved if State concerns are identified Statement for the rule here proposed. An monitoring and exercise such control at and addressed at the earliest possible Environmentallmpact Appraisal setting the repository as might be appropnate. time. In any esse, these procedures have forth the basis for this decision is been designed to allow affected States available for pub!!c inspection in the 'Unlus expre. ry authortred in the scense to to participate to the fullest extent Commission's Public Document Room. receive and pos eu HLW. an amendment to that possible within the limits of the Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of Lcenn wiu tw wenred re suow the Department to Commission's authority and the State's 1954, as amended. The Energy en e st!IhN'.'.InYYn7n'pi.e d in Ee '7 own desires a id capabilities. Reorganization Act of19N. as amended. p.,is. (This do noe pply to backfuhns rests that ne Cocmpssion recently submitted to and section 553 of title 5 of the United are described ia the bc.nu.3 the Congrest a report on **Means for States Code. notice is hereby given that

Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 236 / Thursday. December 6.1979 / Proposed Roles 70413 adoption of a new 10 CFR Part 60 and requested to (i) Submit to the Director of f 2.103 Action on applications for the following conformation amendments Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards eyproduct, source, spectai nuclest material, to 10 CFR Parts 2.19.20,21,30,40,51 such additional copies as the regulations and operators' licenses. and 70 is comtemplated.' All interested in Parts 60 and 51 require. (ii) serve a (a)If the Director of Nuclear Reactor persons who desire to submit written copy on the chief executive of the Regulation or the Director of Nuclear comments or suggestions for municipality in which the geologic hlaterial Safety and Safeguards, as consideration in conjunction with the repository operations area is to be appropriate, finds that an application for proposed amendments should send them located or,if the geologic repository a byproduct. source, specf al nuclear to the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. operations area is not to be located material. or operator license complies Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within a municipality, on the chief with the requirements of the Act, the Washington. D.C. 20535. Attention: executive of the county, and (iii) make Energy Reorganization Act, and this Docketing and Service Branch by March the direct distribution of additional chapter, ha willissue a license. lf the 3.1980. copies to Federal. State. and local license is for a facility or for receipt of waste radioactive material from other Copies of comments received on officials in accordance with the proposed arnendment may be examined requirements of this chapter and written persons for the purpose of commercial in the Commission's Public Document instructions from the Director nf Nuclear disposal by the waste disposal licensee. or if it is to receive and possess high. Room at 1717 H Street. NW.* hiaterial Safety and Safeguards. All level radioactive waste at a geologic Wa shington. D.C. such copies shall be completely repository cperations area pursuant to P' ART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE assembled d 8' fied bY Part 60 of this enapter, the Director of j9c be bse Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the 1.10 CFR 2.101 is amended to add a distributed amendments however, may Director of Nuclear Af aterial Safety and new paragraph (f) to read as follows: include revised pages to previous Safeguards, es appropriate willinform submittals and. in such cases, the I 2.101 FUing of application. the State and local officials specified in recipients will be responsible for i 2.1Me) of the issuance of the license. inserting the revised pages. 3.10 CFR 2.104(e) is revised to read as (f)(1) Each application for a license to receive and possess high level (5) The tendered document will be follows: radioactive waste at a geologic formally docketed upon receipt by the repository operations area pursuant to Director of Nuclear Material Safety and i 2.104 Notice of hearing. Part 60 of this chapter and any Safeguards of the required additional environmental report required in copies. Distribution of the additional (e) The Secretary will give timely connection therewith pursuant to Part 51 copies shall be deemed to be complete notice o' the hearing to all par *ies and to of this chapter shall be processed in as of the time the copies are deposited other persons. if any, entitled by law to accordance with the provisions of this in the mail or with a carrier prepaid for notice. The Secretary will transmit a paragraph. delivery to the designated addressees. notice of hearing on an application for a (2) To allow a determination as to The date of docketing shall be the date facility license or for a license for .whether the application or when the required copies are received receipt of waste radioactive material environmental report is complete and by the Director of Nuclear Material from other persons for the purpose of acceptable for docketing,it will be Safety and Safeguards. Within ten (10) commercial disposal by the waste initially tiested as a tendered document. days after docketing. the applicant shall disposallicensee or for a license to and a copy will be available for public submit to the Director of Nuclear receive and possess high-level inspection in the Commisison's Public Material Safety and Safeguards a radioactive waste at a geologic Document Room. Twenty copies shall be written statement that distribution of the repository operations area pursuant to filed to enable this determination to be additional copies to Federal. State, and Part 60 of this chapter to the Covernor made. local officials has been completed in or other appropriate official of the State (3)If the Director of Nuclear Material accordance with requirements of this and to the chief executive of the Safety and Safeguards determines that chapter and written instructions municipality in which the faci!!ty is to the tendered document is complete and furnished to the applicant by the be located or the activity is to be acceptable for docketing, a docket Director of Nuclear Material Safety and conducted or. if the facility is not to be number will be assigned and the Safeguards. located or the activity conducted within applicant will be notified of the (6) Amendments to the application a municipality, to the chief executive of the county. determination. If it is determined that all and environmental report shall be filed t to CFR 2.105(a)is amended by. or any part of the tendered document is and distributed and a written statement renumbering existmg subparagraphs (3) incomplete and therefore not acceptable shall be furnished to the Director of and (4) as (4) and (5), by adding a new for processing, the applicant will be Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards subparagraph and revising the informed of this determination and the in the same manner as for the initial subparagraph renumbered as (4) to read respects in which the document is application and environmental report. deficient. (7) The Director of Nuclear Material (4) With respect to any tendered Safety and Safeguards will cause to be i 2.105 Notice of proposed action, p' published in the Federal Register a (a)If a hearing is not required by the ting the ppl cant e notice of docketmg which identifies the Act or this chapter, and if the O8

• Commission has not found that a

' Amendments to to CFR Part s1 were published as a propesed rule on october :s.1979 (44 FR proposed geologic repository operations hearing is in the public interest,it will. etml. it is anticipated that ru es sunt!ar to the ones area Muld be located and will give prior to acting thereon. Cause to be there proposed wd1 have been issued in final fonn notice of docketing to the governor of published in the Federal Register a poElf a.th7e n'eYm n*r's"to Part s w ui that State. notice of proposed action with respect different in fann. though not oecesuniy in 2.10 CFR 2.103(a)is revised to read as to an application for: substance, frotn those presently being proposed. follows:

70414 Federal Register / V:1. 44. Nr.136 / Thursd:y December 6.1979 / Proposed Rules (3) A license to receive and possess (a)(4), and adding a new subparagraph I 51.5 Acuens recuring preparation of high-levet radioactive waste at a (a)(5) to read as follows: environmentalimpact statements. negative geologic repository operations ares declaradons, enwronmentalimpact pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter; I 20. aos Reports of personnel monitoring appraisals; actions excluded. (4) An amendment of a license on tenninauon of empiopnent or work. (a) An environmentalimpact specifled in paragraph (a) (1). (2). or (3) statement will be prepared aad of this section and which involves a (5) Possesses high.! eve! radioactive circulated prior to taking any of the significant hazards consideration; or waste at a geologic repository following types of actions: (5) Any otherlicense * *

• operations area pursuant to Part 60 of 5.10 CFR :.105(e)is amended by this chapter.

(10) issuance of an authorization for a replacing the words "willissue the goelogic repository operations area license" with the words "may take the PART 21-REPORTING OF DEFECTS pursusnt to part 60 of this chapter. proposed action" following the phrase AND NONCOMPUANCE (11) Issuance of a license to receive "... or Director of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate. I21.2 iAmended) and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository and by adding the words "or other 13.10 CFR 1.2 is amended by operations area pursuant to Part 60 of action" following the phrase inserting "60." after "35,40." and also by this chapter. "... published in the Federal Register a inserting "60." after "40. 50 ". (12) Any other action which the notice ofissuance of the license." 6.10 CFR 2.106 is amended by adding i 21.3 fAmended] Ccmmission determines is a major Commission action significantly a paragraph (c) to read as follows: 14.10 CFR Part 21. I 21.3(a) 21.3(a-affecting the quality of the human 1)(1) 21.3(a-1)(2). and 1.3(k) are environment. I2 ce oflssuance, amended by addmg "60." after "40. 50.". 19.10 CFR 51.5(b)is amended by: (c) The Director of Nuclear Material i 21.21 fAmendedi replacing the period at the end of subparagrph (4)(lii) with a semicolon: Safety and Safeguards will also cause to 15.10 CFR :1.:Mb)(1)(1) and adding a new subparagraph (4)[lv); be published in the Federal Register notice of, and willinform the State and 21.21(b)(1)(ii) are amended by adding substituting "(b)(4)(iv)" for "(b)(4)(iii)" in "60." after "40. 50.". para gra ph (5): inserting "60." following local officials specified in i 2.104(e) of. "40,50."in paragraph (6); and adding a any action with respect to an PART 30-RULES OF GENERAL new paragraph (9). With these changes, application for a license to receive and APPUCABluTY TO UCENSING OF to CFR 51.5(b)(4) reads in part as possess high-level radioactive waste at BYPRODUCT MATERIAL - follows: a geologic repositcry operations area pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter for 16.10 CFR 30.11 is amended by adding I 51.5 Actions requiring preparation of which a notice of proposed action has a new paragraph (c). environmentalimpact statements. negative been previously published. declarations, environmental appraisats; $ 30.11 Specific exemptions. action excluded. PART 19-NOTICES. INSTRUCTIONS AND REPORTS TO WORKERS; (c)The Department of Energy is (b) * *

• INSPECTIONS exempt from the requirements of this i 19.2 fAmended]

part to the extent that its activities are (4) Issuance of an amendm"ent which

7. It' CFR 19.21s amended by adding subject to the requirements of Part 60 of would authorize a significant change in "60." following "30, 40 ".

this chapter. the types or significant increase m the amounts of effluents or a significant I 19.3 fAmendedl PART 40-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF increase in the potential for accidental 8.10 CFR 19.3(d) is amended by SOURCE MATERIAL releases of a license for: addmg "00." following "35, 40.". 17.10 CFR 40.14 is amended by adding (iv) The receipt and possession of ~ PART 20-STANDARDS FOR 8 new paragraph (c). high. level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION I 40.14 specmc exemptions. pursuant to part 60 of this chapter. I20.2 iAmended] 9.10 CFR :0.2 is amended by adding (c) The Department of Energy la (5) Renewal flicenses to conduct "60." following "30. 40.". exempt from the requirements of this activities liste in paragraph (b)(4)(i)- part to the extent that its activities are (iv) o this section, ~ j 20.3 fAmended] / subject to the requirements of Part 60 of 10.10 CFR 20.3(a)(9) is ' amended by this chapter. ~ (9) Termmation of a license for the adding "60." following "35. 40.". possession olhigh level radioactive PART 51-UCENSING AND waste at a geologic repositcry 1 20.301 fAmended] REGULATORY POUCY AND operations area at the request of the 11.10 CFR 20.301(a) is amended by PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL licensee. adding "60." following "35. 40.". PROTECTION 00.10 CFR 51.5(d)(3)is amended by 12.10 CFR 0.408(a)is amended by deleting the word "or" following the 18.10 CFR 51.5(a)is amended by a dding "60." following "40. 50." phrase "of this chapter;"in adding new paragraphs (10) and {11), 21.10 CFR 51.40 is amended by subparapaph (a)(3). inserting the word and renumbering present paragraph (10) revising subsection (a) to start "except "or" following the phrase "of the as paragraph (12) to read as follows: as provided in paragraphs (b). (c). and (d) of this section.."and by adding a following quantities:"in subparagraph new subsection (d) to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 230 / Thursday. December 6.1979 / Proposed Rules 70415 i I $1.40 Environmental reports 5 70.14 Specific asemptions. Subpart A-General Provisions (a) Except as provided in paragraphs j 60.1 Purpose and scope. (b). (c). and (d) of this section. * * * (c) The Department of Energy is exempt form the requirements of the This part presenbes rules governing regulations in this part to the extent that the licensing of the Department of (d) The Department of Energy, as an its activities are subject to the Energy to receive and possess source, applicant for a license to receive and requinments of Part 60 of the chapter. special nuclear, and byproduct material posses radioactive waste at a geological

24. A new Part 60 is added to read as at a geologic repository operations area.

repository operations ares pursuant to foHows: ,,,,,n,,,,,,,,n,, Part 60 of this chapter, shall submit at the time of its application or in advance. PART 60-DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL As used in this part:(a)" Candidate and at the time of amendments. In the RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN GEOLOGIC area" means a geologic and hydrologic manner provided in i 60.22 of this REPOSITORIES system within which a geologic chapter, environmental reports which ^ up 5 may b i a d. discuss the matters described in 151.00. Sut>part A-CeneralProvfslons The discussion of alternatives shall sec. means clearing of land, surface or include site characterization data for a M1 Purpose and scope. subsurface excavation, or other number of sites in appropriate geologic m2 Def;nitions. substantial action that would adversely media

• so as to aid the Commission in y3 ejcju affect the environment of a site,but 4

t u. making a comparative evaluation as a does not include changes desirable for 60.5 Interpretations. is f ving at a reasoned decision 60.e Exemptions. the temporary use of the land for public recreational uses, site characterization 22.10 CFR 51.41 is revised to read as Subpart B-Ucenses activities, other preconstruction fdlows: Preapplication Review monitoring and investigation necessary eo.21 Content of application. to establish background informatien l 51.41 Administrative procedures. m22 Filing and distnbuuon of application. related to the suitability of a site or to Except as the context may otherwise co23 Etnunauon of repetition. the protection of environmental values, require, procedures and measures co24 Updating of applicanon and or procurement or manufacture of similar to those desenb >d in !! 51.22-environmentai report. og g g gp 51.00 will be followed ut proceedmgs for Construction Authorization operations area 60.31 Constructfon authorization. (c) " Decommissioning" means final ac ons o e ed 51 a 60.32 Conditions of construction backfilling of subsurface facilities, not covered by i 5120 or 5121.The ad s os a s. ateria slice se I r flect t e fact a sz (d), Department mean's the that, unlike the Ifeensing of production Ucuse Issuancs and Amendment Department of Energy orits duly and utilization facilities, the IIcensing of m41 Standards forissuance of a hcense. authorized representatives. materials does not require separate 60.42 Conditicas oflicense. (e) " Disposal" means permanent authorizations for construction and eo 43 cen88 8pecifications. emplacement within a storage space operation. In the case of an application iments. with no intent to retrieve for resource for a IIcense to receive and possess N Ame b toibe n's vabs. high-level radioactive waste at a maa Particular activities requiring!icense (f), Director,, means the Director of geologic repository operations area amendment. the Office of Nuclear Material Safety pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter. Decommissiontng and Safeguards, however, the environmentalimpact 60.51 ucense amendment to decommission. (g)" Geologic repository" means a statement required by I 51.5(a) shall be m32 Tumination oflicense. system which is intended ~to be used for. ~ prepared and circulated prior to the Issuance of a construction authorization; Subpart C-Participation by State or may be used for, the disposal of radioactive wastes in excavated the environmentalimpact statement Governments geologic formations. A geologic shall be supplemented prior to issuanca oo.et Site review. of a license et take account of any 60.82 Filing of proposals for Stata respository includes (1) the geologic substantial changes in the activities participation. repository operations area and (2) all proposed to be carried out or significant eaes approvalorpro'posals.- surface and subsurface areas where natural events or activities of man may new information regarding the Subpart D-Records, Reporta. Tests, and change the extent to which wastes are environmentalimpacts of the proposed, inspections effectively isolated from the biosphere. activities. 80.71 Records end reports. (b) " Geologic repository operations 60.72 Tests. area" means an Hl.W fac:lity that is part PART 70-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF ~ eo.73 Inspections. of a geologic repositcry. Including both SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL Authorityt Seca. St. 53, 62. 63. 85 st.1 stb, 23.10 CFR 70.14 is amended by adding f, I, o, p,182.183. Pub. I. 83-ro3. as surface and subsurface areas, where amended. 68 Stat.929,930. 932. 933,935. 94a. waste handling activities are conducted. a paragraph (c)* 953. 954. as amended (42 U.S.C 2071. 2cr3. (i) "High. level radioactive waste" or 2092,2093. 2095. *111. *201. 27.32,2233]; Secs. =HLW" means (1) irradiated reactor "To nahsfy the requirements of NUA.the 202. *oe. Pab.1. 93-438, 86 Stat.1244.1246 (42 fuel. (2) liquid wastes resulting from the Commission antidpates such characfaruanon at a USC M 584e) Sec.10 PL 95-601 N operation of the first Cycle solvent munimum of three sites represenung a muumum of U S C 'o21e), extraction system. or equivalent. and the bif ca e'l e site or e For the purposes of Sec. 2.23,68 Stat. 958. as repository, the Commisaton fully espects the amended. 42 USC 2**3. ll 60.71 to 60,73 are. concentrated wasles from cubsequent e a Department to subaut a onder rense of alternatives 13 sued under Sec.1610 6e Stat.950 as extractiott cycles, or equivalent. in a than the nununum suasasted here. amended (42 U.S.C.2201(o)). facility for reprocessing irradiated ~

m16 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 236 / Thursday. December 6.1979 / Proposed Rules reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which authorized by a license issued by the including appropriate quality assurance such liquid wastes have been converted. Commission pursuant to this part. programs:(3) the criteria used to arrive (j)"HLW facility" means a facility (b) The Department shall not at candidate areas:(4) the method by subject to the licensing and related commence construction of a geologic which the site (s) was selected for site regulatory authority of the Commission repc. Cory operations area unless it has characterization; (5) identification and pursuant to Section 202(3) and 202(4) of filed an application with the location of alternative media and sites the Energy Reorganization Act of1978 Commission and has obtained on which DOE intends to conduct site (88 Stat 1 44).* construction authorization as provided characterization for which DOE (k)"Important to safety" with in this part. Failure to comply with this anticipates submitting subsequent site reference to structures. systems, and requirement shall be grounds for denial characterization reports:(6) a components, means those structures. of a license. description of the decision procers by systems, and components that provide which the site (s) was selected for reasonable assurance that radioactive j 60.4. Communicadons. characterization. including the means waste can be received, handled, and Except where otherwise specified, all used to obtain public and State views stored without undue risk to the health communications and reports concerning during selection; and (7) any issues and safety of the public. the regulations in this part and related to the site selection. alternative (1)"Public Document Room" means applications filed under them should be candidate areas or sites, or design of the the place at 1717 H Street NW., addressed to the Director of Nuclear geologic repository operations area Washington. D.C., at which the records Safety and Safeguards. U.S. Nuclear which the Department wishes the NRC of the Commission will ordinarily be Regulatory Commission. Washington. staff to review. The Department may made available for public inspection D.C. 20535. Communications, reports. include multiple sites m a single site and any other place, the location of, and applications may be delivered in characterization repart. Also included which has been published in the Federal person at the Commission's offices at shall be a descriptior. of the research Register, at which public records of the 1717 H Street. NW Washington. D.C. and development activities being Commission pe'rtaming to a particular or 7915 Eastern Avenue. Silver Spring, conducted by the Department which geologic repository are made available Maryland. deal with the waste forms which may be for public inspection. considered appropriate for the sites to (m)" Radioactive waste" means HI.W $ 60.5 Interpretations. be charactenzed. including research and any other radioactive materials Except as specifically authorized by planned or underway to evaluate the other than Hl.W that are received for the Commission, in writing. no performance of such waste forms. emplacement in s geologic repository. interpretation of the meaning of the (b) The Director shall cause to be (n)" Site characterization" means the regulations in this part by any officer or published in the Federal Register a program of exploration and research. employee of the Commission other than notice that the information submitted both in the laboratory and in the field, a written interpretation by the General under paragraph (a) of this section has undertaken to establish the geologic Counsel will be considered binding upon been received and that a staff review of conditions and the ranges of those the Commission. that information has begun. The notice parameters of a particular site relevant shallidentify the site (s) selected for site to the procedures 9nder this part. Site $6&6 Eseniptions. characterization and alternate areas characterization includes bonngs.. The Commission may, upon surface excavations. excavation of application by the Department. any cunsidered by the Department and shall exploratory shafts. limited subsurface interested person. or upon its own advise that consultation may be lateral excavations and borings, and in initiative, grant such exemptions from requested by State and local situ testing needed to determine the the requirements of the regulations in governments in accordance with $ 60.61. (c) The Director shall make available suitability of the site for a geologic this part as it determines are authorized a copy of the above information at the repository, but does not include by law, will not endanger life or Public Document Room.The Director preliminary borings and geophysical property or the common defense and also shall transmit copies and the testing needed to decide whether site security, and are otherwise in the public published notice of receipt thereof to the characterization should be undertaken. Interest. Covernor and legislature of the State (o)" Traceability" means the ability, through the use of container Subpart B-Ucenses and to the chief executive of the municipality in.which a site to be identification and preparation and Preapplication Review characterized is located (or if it is not maintenance of appropriate records. to located within a municipality, then to delineate a step-by-step history of any I 60.11 Site charactertzation report. the chief executive of the county) and to radioactive waste. (a) As early as possible after. the Governors of any contiguous States. commencement of planning fo' a (d) The Director shall prepare a draft r $ 60.3 Ucense required. particular geologic repository operations site characterization analysis which ~ (a) The Department shall not receive area, at.d prior to site characterization, shall discuss the items cited in or possess source, special nuclear or the Department shall submit to the paragraph (a) of this section.The byproriuct material at a geologic Director a site characterization report. Director shall publish a notice of repository operations area exept as The report shallinclude (1) A availability of the draft site l description of the site (s) to be characterization analysis and request

• nne m Deparunent of Ewry "facGun used charaeterized:(2) a description of the comment in the Federal Register. Copies Ea"Eo*a"ct e Ns*te"' 'Eu"r acu tAlfc'e*nsed site characterization program including shall be made available at the Public

) s under such act [the Atomic Ener y Actj" and extent of planned excavations, plans for Document Room. 1teenmble surface storise racihties and other in situ testing. investigation activities (e) A reasonable period not less than j facibun authonud for the express purpose of which may affect the ability of the site 60 days, shall be allowed for comment [b'll,'"f*$'4'l",83'y", $ch are to isolate wastes, and provisions to on the draft site characterization not used for. or are part of. research and control any adverse, safety-related analysts. The Director shall then prepare dmlopment acertues? Impacts from site characterization a final site characterization analysis 1 l

Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 238 / Thursday. Decemb;r 6.1979 / Propos:d Rults 70417 which shall take into account comments constitute informal conference between (includin8 geologic media, general received and any additionalinfo mation a prospective applicant and the staff, as arrangement, and approximete acquired during the comment period. described in i 2.101(a)(1) of this chapter, dimensions). and (iv) codes and included in the final site and are not part of a proceeding under standards that the Department proposes characterization analysis sha!! be either the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as to apply to the design and construction of the geoloF c repository operations i an opinion by the Director that he has amended.'" area. no objection to the Department's site 1.lcenu Applications (3) A description and analysis of the characterization program. if such an opinion is appropriate, or specific j 60.21 Content of application. design and performance requirements the

• for structures, systems, and components objections of the Director to,th (a) An application shall consist of of 6e geologic repository which are Department's proceeding wi generalinformation and a safety important to safety.The analysis and characterization of the named site (s).In analysis report. An environmental evaluation shall consider (l) the margina addition. the Director may make specific report shall be prepared in accordance recommendations to the Department on with part 51 of this chapter and shall

. of safety under normal conditions and under conditions that may result from the matters pertinent to this section. accompany the application. Any anticipated operational occurrences, (f) Neither issuance of a final site Restricted Data or National Security inclu&ng those obatural o@ W b characterization analysis nor the Information shall be separated from adequacy of structures, systems, and opinion of no objection by the Director unclassified information. components provided for the prevention shall constitute a commitment to issue (b) The generalinformation shall f accidents and mitigation of the any authorization or license or in any includ'-- consequences of accidents. including way affect the authonty of the ge"' P those caused by natural phenomena: Commisison, the Atomic Safety and p se o i ntifybg and (iii) the effectiveness of engineered 1.! censing Appeal Board. Atomic Safety the pmposed she of de gSoIogk and natural barriers. including barriers and I.icensing Boards, other presiding $P fct.erof p ns an that may not be themselves a part of the officers, or the Director. in any u P9 d ti e and geologic repository ofradiaactive erations area, proceeding under Subpart G of Part 2 of a o e e .cens4 against the release o this chapter. If the Department prepares material to de mimnment. an environ =entalimpact statement with (2) Proposed schedules for (4) A description of the quality respect to site Sharacterization activities construction receipt of waste, and assurance program to be applied to the proposed for a partialar site. it should emplacement of wastes at the proposed design, fabrication, inspection. consider NRC's site i.haracterization geologic repository operations area. construction, testing, and operation of analyses before publishingits final (3) A certification that the Department the structures, systems, and components environmentalimpact statement with will provide at the geologic repository of the geologicrepository operations respect to site characterization activities proposed for that narticular site. Operations area such safeguards as it area importart to safety. I (g) During site characte ization, the requires at comparable surface facilities (5) A description of the kind, amount, i Department should inform the Director (of the Department; to promote the and specifications of the radioactive by semiannualreport of the progress of common defense and security. material proposed to be received and i the site characterization and waste form (c) The safety analysts report shall possessed at the geologic repository include:. operations area. j research and development including (1) A desen. tion and analysis of the (6) An identification and justification p schedules as appropriate. During this time. NRC staff should be permitted to site at which the proposed geologic for the selection of those variables. visit the site (s) and observe excavations, repository operations area is to be conditions, or other Items wh!ch are borings, and in situ tests as they are located with appropriate attention to determined to be probable subjects of f done. Inasmuch as these site those features that might affect facility IIcense specifications. Special attention characterization activities could have design.The assessment shall contain an shall be given to those items that may adverse impact upcn site safety, failure analysis of the geology, hydrology. - sign.2cantly influence thefinal design. by the Department to involve the geochemistry, and meteorology of the (7) A description of the program for Commission in the manner described site and the major design structures. control and monitoring of radioactive here and to accommodate the systems, and components, both surface effluents and occupational radiation recommendations of the Director could and subsurface, that bear significandy exposures to maintain such effluents - result in denialof the subsequentlicense on the suitability of the geologic-' and exposures in accordance with the repository for disposal of radioactive requirements of Part 20 of this chapter. application. (h) The Director may respond from waste. It will be assumed that (8) A description of the controls that time to time in writing to the operations' at the geologic repository the applicant will apply to restrict Department. expressing his current operations area will be carried out at access and to regulate land use at the views on questions raised in the the maximum capacity and rate of geologic repository operations area and semiannual teports referred to above, receipt of radioactive waste statedia adjacent areas. Comments received from States in the application. (9) Plana for coping with radiological accordance with ! 60.61 shall be (2) A description and discussion of the emergencies at any time prior to considered by the Director in design, both surface and subsurface of completion of decommissioning the formulating his views. All the geologic repository operations area geologic repository operations area. correspondence between the including: (i) the principal design criteria (10) A description of the nuclear Department and the NRC including the and their relationship to any general material control and accounting reports cited in paragraph (g) of this design criteria promulgated by the program. (u) A description of design. section shal* be placed in se Pub!Ic Commission. (ii) the design bases and, considerations that are intended to Document Room. the relation of the design bases to the l (1) The activities described in principal design criteria. (lii) Information facilitata decommissioning of the par graphs (a)through(h)of this section relative to materials of constrgetion facility. 1 I O

70418 ' Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 236 / Thursday. December 6.1979 / Proposed Rules (12) A description of plans for instruc'tions from the Director or his (4) Other information bearing on the retneval and alternate storage of the designee. Commission's issuance of a license that radioactive wastes should the geologic (c) The Department shall. upon was not available at the time a repository prove to be unsuitable for notification of the appointment of an construction authorization was issued. disposal of radioactive wastes. Atomic Safety and IJcensing Board. (c) ne Department shall update its (13) AC:lentification of those update the application and environmental report in a t!=ely manner structures. Wams, and components of environmental report, eliminating all so as to permit the Commission to the geologic re;.Jsitory, both surface and superseded information and serve them review, prior to issuance of a license, subsurface, whid require research and. as directed by the board. In addition, at the environmentalimpacts of any development to cr.nfirm the adequacy of that time the Department shall serve one substantial changes in the activities design. For systems, structures, and such copy on the Atomic Safety and proposed to be carried out or any components important to safety, the 1.icensing Appeal Panel. Any subseq:ent significant new information regarding Department shall provide a detailed amendments to the application or the environmentalimpacts cf activities description of the programs designed to environments! report shall be served in previously proposed. resolve safety questions. including a the same manner. Construction AMhon.zation schedule indicating when these (d) At the time of filing of an questions will be resolved, application and environmental report, 1 60.31 Construction authorization. [14) The following information and any amendments thereto, one copy Upon review and consideration of an concerning activities at the geologic shall be made available in an application and environmental report repository operations area: appropriate location near the site of the submitted under this part, the (i) The organizational structure of the proposed geologic repository (which Commission may authorize construction Department. offs!te and onsite. including shall be a public document room,if one ifit determines: a description of any delegations of has been established) for inspection by (a) Sofety:That there is reasonable autharity and assignments of the public and updated a,s amendments assurance that the types and amounts of responsibilities, whether in the form of to the application or environmental wastes desenbed in the application can regulations, administrative directives. report are made.This updated copy be received, possessed, and disposed of. contract provisions, or otherwise. shall be produced at any public hearing in a repository of the design proposed (ii) Managerial and administrative on the application for use by any parties without unreasonable risk to the health controls to be used to ensure safety. to the proceeding. and safety of the public. In arnving at (iii) Identification of key positions (e) The Department shall certify that this determination, the Commission which are assigned responsibility for the updated copies of the application shall consider whether: safety at and operation cf the geologic and environmental report, as referred to (1) The Department has described the repository operations area. In paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. [ reposed geclogic repository including (iv) Personnel qualifications and contain the current contents of such ut not limited to (i) the geologic, training requirements. documents submitted in accordance geochemical and hydrologic (v) Plans for startup activities and with the requirements of this part. cnaracteristics of the site:(ii) the kinds startuo testing. (vi)' Plans for conduct of nor=al I 60.23 EHmination of repetition. and quantities of radioactive waste to-activities, including maintenance. In its application, environmental be received. possessed, stored, and disposed ofin the geologic repositoryt surveillance, and periodic testing of report. or site characterization report, (iii) the principal architectural and structures, systems, and components of the Department may incorporate by the geologic repository operations area, reference information contained in engineering criteria for the design of the (vii) Plans for decommissioning. prr tious applications, statements, or geologic repository operations area;(iv) construction procedures which may (viii) Plans for any uses of the geologic reports filed with the Commission: repository operations area for purposes Provided. That such references are clear affect the capability of the geologic other than disposal of radioactive and specific and that copies of the repository to serve its intended function; wastes, with an analysis of the effects,if information so incorporated are and (v) features or components any, that such uses may have upon the available in each public document room. Incorporated in the design for the operation of the structures. systems, and protection of the health and safety of the components important to safety. I 60.24 Updating of appucation and public. environmental report (2) The site and design comply with ! 60.22 Filing and distribution cf (a) The application and environmental the criteria contained in Subparts E and appucation. report shall be as Complete as possible F of thts ;iart. receive and possess source, special '. In the light ofinformation that is (3) The Department's quality (a) An application for a license to reasonably available at the time of assurance program complies with the nuclear, or byproduct materialin a submission. requirements of Subpart G of this part. geologic repository at a site which has (b) The Department shall update its (4) The Depa-tment's personnel been characterized, and an application in a timely manner so as to training program complies with the accompanying environmental report. permit the Commission to review, prior criteria contained in Subpart H of this and any amendments thereto, shall be to issuance of a license: part. filed in triplicate with the Director and. (1) Additionalgeologic, hydrologic. (5)The Department's emergency plan shall be signed by the Secretary of meteorologic and other data obtained complies with the criteria contained in Energy or his authorized representative. during construction. Subpart I of this part. (b) Each portion of such application (2) Conformance of construction of (6) The Department's proposed and environmental report and any structures. systems, and components operating procedures to protect health amendments shall be accompanied by with the design. and to minimize danger to life or 30 additional copies. Another 1?O copies (3) Results of research programs property are adequate. shall be t-tained by the Department for carried out to confirm the adequacy of (b) Common c'efense endsecurity-distribution in accordance with written designs. That there is reasonable assurance that l

Federal Register / Vd. 44. N:. 238 / Thursday. D:c;mbir 6.1979 / hropos d Rules 70419 the activities proposed in the application (a) Construction of the geologic l 60.43 License specifications. will not be inimical to the common repository operations area has been (a) A license issued under this part defense and security. substantially completed in conformity shall include license conditions derived (c) Environmental: That, after with the application as amended, the from the analyses and evaluations weighing the environmental, economic, provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, included in,the application. including - technical and other benefits and and the rules and regulations of the amendments made before a license is considering reasonable alternatives, the Commission. Construction may be issued. together with such additional action called for is issuance of the deemed to be substantially complete far conditions as the Commission finds construction authorization. the purposes of this paragraph if the appropriate. construction of(1) surface and (b}1.icense conditions shallinclude ) 60.32 Conditions of construction authorization. interconnecting structures, systems. and items in the following categories: components, and (2) any underground (1) Restrictions as to the physical and (a) A construction authorization shall storage space required for initial chemical form and radioisotopic content include such conditions as the operation are substantially complete. of radioactive waste. Commission finds to be necessary to (b) The activities to be conducted at. (2) Restrictions as to size, shape, and protect the health and safety of the the geologic repository operations area materials and methods of construction public, the common defense and will be in conformity with the of radioactive waste packaging. security, or environmental values. application as amended, the provisions (3) Restrictions as to the location, size. (b) The Commission may, at its of the Atomic Energy Act and the configuration construction and physical discretion. incorporate provisions Energy Reorganization Act, and the characteristics (e.g., physical. chemical requiring the Department 1o furnish rules and regulations of the Commission. and thermal properties) of the storage periodic or special reports regarding-(1) (c)The issuance of the license will not medium. progress cf construction. (2) any site be inimical to the common defense and (4) Restrictions as to the amount of data obtained during construction which security and will not constitute an waste permitted per unit volume of are not within the predicted limits upon unreasonable risk to the health and storage space considering the physical which the facility design was based. (3) safety of the public. characteristi:s of both the waste and the any deficiencies in design and (d) All applicable requirements of Part storage medium. construction which, if uncorrected, could 51 have been satisfied. (5) Requirements relating to test, adversely affect safety at any future f 60.42 Conditions of Ilconse-time, and (4) results of research and the foregoing restrictions are observed. development programs being conducted (a) A license issued pursuant to this (6) Controls to be applied to restrict g g part shallinclude such conditions, access and to avoid disturbance to the (c) onst tion tho ization shall g ense spedcah, as 6e be subject to the limitation that a license Commission finds to be necessary to geologic repo,sitory operations area and adjacent areas. to receive and possess source. special protect the health and safety of the (7) Administrative controls. which are public, the common defense and the provisions relating to organization se urity, and environmental values. and management. procedures. geo o82 epo o p rat o.ns a en shall (b) Whether stated therem or not, the recordkeeping review and audit, and not be issued by the Commission until (1) the Department has updated its following shall be deemed condhions in reporting necessary ta assure that application as specified in i 60.24. and every license issued: activities at the facility are conducted in (2) the Commission has made the (1) The license shad be subject to findings stated in i 60.41. revocation, suspension, modification, or a safe manner and in conformity with the other license specifications. amendment for cause es provided by the f 60.33 Amendment of construction Atomic Energy Act and the f 60.44 Changes, tests, and experiments. authortzation. Commission's regulations. (a)(1) Following authorization to (a) An application for amendment of a (2) The Department shall at any time receive and possess source, special construction authorization shall be filed while the license is in effect, upon nuclear. or byproduct matenal at a with the Commission fully describing written request of the Conunission. geologic repository operations area. the any changes desired and following as submit written statements to enable the Department may (i) make changes m, the far as applicable the format prescribed Commission to determine whether or geologic repository operations area as for construction aut:.orization n t the license should be modified. desenbed in the application. (ii) make applications. suspended or revoked. changes in the procedures as described (b)In determining whether an (3) The license shall be subject to the in the application. and (iii) conduct tests amendment of a construction provisions of the Atomic Energy Act or expenments not described in the authorization will be approved, the now or hereafter in effect and to all application. without prior Commission Commission will be guided by the rules. regulations, and o(ders of the approval, provided the change, test, or considerations which govern the Commission.The terms and conditions experiment involves neither a change in assurance of theinitialconstruction of the license shall be subject to the license conditions incorporated in authorization, to the extent applicable. amendment, revision, or modification. the license nor an unreviewed safety - by reason of amendments to or by euestion. 1.lcense hsuance and Amendment reason of rules, regulations. and orO + (2) A proposed change. test, or issued in accordance with the tr 4 x cperiment shall be deemed to involve f 60.41 Standards forissuance of a ucanse. the Atomic Energy Act. a s unreviewed safety question if (i) the (c) Each license shall be d.rW hkelihood'of occurrence or the A license to receive and possess contain the provisions se. V & m consequences of an accident or source. special nuclear, or byproduct sectiori 183 b-d. inclusive. O the Atomic melfunction of equipment important to material at a geologic repository Energy Act, whether or not uese sehty previously evaluated in the operations area may be issued by the provisions are expressly set forth in the appucatio ils increased. (ii) the Commission upon finding that: license. possibiuty of an accident or malfunction 6

70420 Feder:1 Register / Vo!. 44. Ns 238 / Thursday. D;czmb;r 6.1979 / Propostd Ruhs of a different type than any previously disturbance of the geologic repository (b) Such application shall be filed, and evaluated in the application is created, operations ' rea or adjacent areas. will be reviewed. in accordance with the or (iii) the margin of safety as defined in (4) Destruction or diposal of records provisions of i 60.45 and this section. the basis for any license coMNen is required to be maintained under the (c) A license shall be terminated only reduced. provisions of this part. when the Commission finds with respect (b) The Department shall maintain (5) Any substantial change to the to the geologic repository: records of changes in the geologic design or operating procedures from that (1) That the final disposition of repository operations area and of specified in the license. radioactive wastes has been made in changes in procedures made pursuant to (6) Decommissioning. conformance with the Department's this section. to the extent that such, (b) An application for such an plan, as amended and approved as part changes constitute changes in the amendment shall be filed, and shall be of the license. geologic repositcry operations area or f*VI*wed. in accordance with the (2) That the final state of the geologic procedures as desenbed in the provtsions of i 60.45. repository operations area site conforms application. Records of tests and Decommissioning to the Department's decommissioning experiments carried out pursuant to plans, as amended and approved as part paragraph (a) of this section shall also I 60.51 Ucense amendment to of thelicense. be mamtained.These records shall decommiss6n. (3) That the termination of the license include a written safety evaluation (a) The Department shall sumbit an is authorized by law. including sections which provides the basis for the application to amend the license prior to

57. 62, and 81 of the Atomic Energy Act, determmation that the change, test, or decommissioning.The application shall as amended.

experiment does not involve an consist of an update of the license unreviewed safety question. The application and environmental report Subpart C-Participation by State Department shall prepare annually or at submitted under ii 60.21 and 60.22 Governments such shorter intervals as may be includin 60.61 Site review

• specified in the license, a report (1) A escription of the program for containing a brief description of such post. decommissioning monitanng of the (a) Upon publication in the Federal changes, tests, and experiments, geologic repository.

Register of a notice that the Department including a summary of the safety (2) A detailed description of the has selected a site for site evaluation of each.The Department measures to be employed-such as land characterization,in accordance w.th shall furnish the report to the use controls, construction of 1.60.11(b), and upon the request of a appropriate NRC Regional Office shown m numents, and preservation of State, the Director shall make available in Appendix D of Part 20 of this chapter records-to regulate or prevent NRC staff to consult with with a copy to the Director ofInspection activities that could impair the long-term representatives of State and local and Enforcement. U.S. Nuclear is ladon f emplaced waste within the governments to keep them informed of Regulatory Commission. Washington, 88 I gic repository and to assure that the Director's view on the progress of D.C. 20555. Any report submitted relevant infonnation will be preserved site characterization and to notify them of any subsequent meetmgs or further pursuant to this paragraph shall be for the use oHuture gennations. made a part of the public record of the (3) Geologic, hydrologic, and other stte consultations with the Department. licensing proceedings. data that are obtained during the (b) Requests for consultation shall be operational period pertinent to the long. made in writing to the Director. 1 60.45 Amendment of ucense. term isolation of emplaced radioactive (c) The Director also shall respond to (a) An application for amendment of a wastes. written questions or comntents from the license may be filed with the (4) The results of test, experime nts. States, as appropriate, on the Commission fully describing the changes and any other analyses relating to mformation submitted by the desired and Sllowing as far as backfill of excavated areas. sheft Department m accordance with i 60.11 applicable ine format presenbed for sealing, waste interaction with of this part. Copies of such questions or license applications. emplacement media, and any other comments and their responses shall be (b)In determining whether an tests, experiments, or analysis pertinent made available in the Public Document amendment of a license will be to the long-term isolation of emplaced Room and shall be transrmtted to the approved. the Commission will be wastes witMn the geologic repository. Department.. guided by the considerations that govern fah, ,'f,*[j$8 9 6.62 Filing of proposals for State the issuance of the mitiallicense, to the 8 (6) Other information bearing upon pameipauon. extent applicable. decommissioning that was not available (a) Consultation under 160.61 may I 60.46 Particular activities requiring at the time a license was issued, include among other things, a review of Econse amendment. (b) The Department shall update its applicable NRC regulations. licensing (a) Unless expressly authorized in the environmental report in a timely manner procedures, potential schedules. and the license, an amendment of the license so as to permit the Commission to type and scope of State activities m the hall b d P' f review. prior to issuance of an license review permitted by law. In the follo ing cti amendment, substantial changes in the addition, staff shall be made available decommissioning activities proposed to to cooperate with the State in be carried out or significant new develo ing proposals for participation empa is eve r d oact v waste irretrievable or which would inf rmation regarding the environmental y e ta te. substantia 11y increase the difficulty of impacts of such decommissioning. (b) States potentially affected by retrieving such emplaced waste. I 60.52 Termination of ticense... siting of a geologic repository operations area at a site that has been selected for (2) Dismantling of structures. (a) Following decommissioning, the characterization may submit to the (3) Removal or reductian of controls Department may apply for an Director a proposal for State applied to restrict access to or to avoid amendment to terminate the license. participation in the review of the site

Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 236 / Thursday December 6,1979 / Propos:d Rules 70421 characterization report and/or license If all or any part of a proposalis and adjacent areas to which the application. A State's proposal to rejected, the decision shall state the Department has rights of access. participate may be submitted at any reason for the rejection. (b) The Department shall make time prior to docketing of an application (d) A copy of all proposals received available to the Commission for or up to 120 days thereafter. shall be made available at the Public inspection, upon reasonable notice. (c) Proposals for participation in the Document Room. records kept by the Department review shall be signed by the Governor pertaining to activities under this part. of the State submitting the proposal and Subpart D-Records, Reports. Tests, (Amendments to all parts issued pursuant to shall at a minimum contain the and inspections citations of authonty presently codified or. in following informatiom the case of to CFR Part 60. as proposed to be (1) A general description of how the i 60.71 Records and reports. codified.1 State wishes to participate in the (a) The Department shall maintain Dated at Washington. D.C. this 3rd day of review, specifically identifying those such records and make such reports in December.19r9. Issues which it wishes to review. connection with the licensed activi'v as For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory (2) A description of material and may be required by the conditions of the Com:mssion. information which the State plans to license or by rules, regulations, and John C. Hoyle. submit to the NRC staff for orders of the Commission as authorized Assistant Secretary cf the commission. consideration in the review. A tentative by the Atomic Energy Act and the . p %,.m%, g schedule referenctag steps m,the review Energy Reorganization Act. sumo cooe rseo-oi-u and calendar dates for planned (b) Records of the receipt; handling, submittals should be included. and disposition of radioactive waste at (3) A description including funding a geologic repository operations area estimates of any work that the State shall contain sufficient information to proposes to perform for the Commission. assure traceability from the shipper under contract. in support of the review. through all phases of storage and (4) A description of State dans to disposal facili te local government, d citizen (c) The Department shall promptly (5) A preliminary estimate of the types notify the Commission of each and extent ofimpacts which the State deficiency found in the site expects should a geologic repository be characteristics, and design and constmetion of the geologic repository located at the site in question. which. were it to remam uncorrected, (d)If the State desires educational or information services (seminars, public could (1) be a substantial safety hazard, meetings) or other actions on the part of (2) represent a significant deviation from

• NRC. such as establishing additional the design criteria and design bases public document rooms or employment stated in the application, or (3) represent or exchange of State personnel under a significant deviation from the conditions stated in the terms of a the Inte? governmental Personnel Act, these shall be included with the construction authorization or the proposal license. Including license specifications.

The notification shall be in the form of a f 60.83 Approvalof proposals. written report, copies of which shall be (a) The Director shall arrange for a sent to the Director and to the meeting between the representatives of appropriate Nuclear Regulatory the State and the NRC staff to discuss Commission Inspection and any proposal submitted under i 60.6:(b). Enforcement Regional Office listed in with a view to identifying any Appendix A to Part 73 of this chapter. modifications that may contnbute to the I 60.72 Tests. effective participation by the State. (b) Subject to the availability of funds. The Department shall perform, or the Director shall approve all or any permit the Commission to perform. such part of a proposal, as it may be modified tests as the Commission deems through the meeting described above,if. appropriate or are necessary for the he determines that: administration of the regulations in this (1) The proposed activities are part.These may include tests of (a) suitable in light of the type and radioactive waste. (b) the geologic magnitude of impacts which the State repository including its structures, may bear, and systems, and components. (c) radiation (2) The proposed activities (i) will detection and monitoring instruments, enhance communications between NRC and (9 other equipment and devices and the State. (ii) will contribute used in connection with the receipt, productively to the license review, and handling, or storage of radioactive (iii) are authorized by law. waste. (c) The decision of the Director shall be transmitted in writing to the i6a73 Inspections. Governor of the originating State. A (a) The Department shall allow the copy of the decision shall be made Commission to inspect the premises of 1 available at the Public Document Room. the geologic repository operations area ~ ~

G Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 70 / Wednesday. April 9,1980 / Proposed Rules 24168 impact statement may be obtained on

• ne NRC has considered the question request from the Director. Division of of alternative sites in all of its NEPA Technicallnformation and Document reviews of applications to constnict and operate nuclear power plants. As in Control. Copies of the value/ impact most situations, however, the type snd statement may be examined in the Comrr Ission's Public Document Room at nature of the review has evolved over 171711 Street NW., Washington. D.C.

the yeers. Until recently, the NRC's review of the alternative site question rom FJRTHER INFORMATION CONTACTt has focused primarily on the qualities of Dr. Jerry R. Kline. Environmental the proposed site:1.e., a r,eview that Engineering Branch. Office of Nuclear i cuses on the, products of an Reactor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear apphcant s site selection process.The Regulatory Commission. Washington, NRC typ,ically did not initiate an D.C. 20555, telephone (301) 492-8251. extensive review of the applicant's site sUPPt EMENTARY INFORMATION: Selection process and alternative site unless substantialinferior qualities were

1. Foreword identified at the applicant's proposed NEPA and NRC's environmental s te. However, the NRC has recently and regulations in to CFR Part 51 have many dramatically expanded its review of the NUCLEAR REGULATORY provisions that shape the NRC's applicant's site selection process and COMMISSION environmental reviews for. nuclear procedures as well as its review of the power plants, but the basic underlying scope and depth of the detailed 10 CFR Part 51 aspect is the consideration of investigation of alternative sites.

alternatives.There are four distinct and The NRC believes that the experience Licensing and Regulatory Policy and different areas of NRC decisionmaking gained in past and recent reviews of hat invoke ahemahes, as &sM nuclear power plant sites should permit j P ect n; le native S te views below: codification of the lessons learned into EGENCY:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. 1.One decision that must be made is an intelligible, intelligent, and Commission, whether additional baselo'ad generati '8 environmentally sensitive rule that ACTsoN: Proposed rule. Capacity need be proVided. In other governs the NRC review of alternativs words. NRC considered the "no action'* sites.While it is true that many of the summary:The Nuclear Regulatory alternative, which includes issues that would be addressed by a rule Commission is proposing to amend its consideration of conservation of energy. on alternative site reviews could also be regulation in 10 CFR Part 51 to provide

2. A second decision that must be addressed more informally by issuance procedures and performance criteria for made by the NRC is whether nuclear of regulatory guides and standard f

the review of alternative sites for fueled generation is an' acceptable review plans and litigated in individual nuclear power plants under the National choice or whether other types of energy cases, some issues, particularly issues EnvironmentalPolicy Act of1969 i sources, e.g., coal, are superior. relating to notice and timing of public (NEPA).The proposed rule provides for

3. A third NRC decision is whether the participation. can only be adequately (a)information requirements for proposed site is acceptable.This addressed by rule. In addition, a cpplying for an alternative site review particular decision involves the cornprehensive rule addressing review by the Commission. (b) timing of consideration of alternative sites; of alternstive sites will promote public Commission review. (c) region of consideration of reasonable major understanding of and parlicipation in interest to be considered in selecting mitigation measures that might be the NRC review of alternative sites.The mes. (dl criteria for the selection of employed to make environmental proposed rule would:

sites. (e) criteria for comparing a impact acceptable at the candidate sites.

1. Provide for more effectivdpub!!c proposed site with alternative sites,.and such as the type of cooling system that participation by implementing (f) requirements for reopening an should be employed at a particular site; procedural changes that: (a) restire citernative site decision. It is also and consideration of the costs of such early notifica' ion of the public of an proposed that minor amendments be major mitigation measures, as well as applicant's choice of a proposed site and made to 10 CFR Part 2 and to CFR Part any major costs that might be required its alternatives:(b) permit an early 50 to reflect the provisions of the to make the site n'eceptable from a review of the alternative site question proposed rule. Public comment is safety standpoint.

apart from other early site review

4. A fourth type of decision that is issues; and (c) provide explicitly for pos e n r]\\ uhs made involves whether other types of consideration of candidate sites emergency response capability should mitigation measures are warranted that proposed by other parties that meet be admitted as lasues in alternative site n rmally w uld be oflittle importance certain criteria and are proposed in a reviews, and on the value/ impact -

to site selection.but may still be timely fashion. statement supporting the proposed ru!e.- Important from the standpoint of

2. Provide for greater predictability in DATES: Comments are due on or befor8 minimlZing. to the extent reasonable.

the licensing process by (a) prescribing June 9.1980. any residual adverse environmental criteria for determining when a region of i A comessts: Interested persons are. impact that likely might be '.ncurred interest of sufficient size has been invited to submit written comments and ' during the construction or operation of considered:(b) prescribing criteria for suggestions to the Secretary of the the plant. Judging whether candidate sites are, Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory The proposed rulemaking focuses on ' among the best that could reasonably be Commission. Washington D.C. 20555, the third type of NRC's environmental found:(c) prescribing the basic Attention: Docketing and Service decisions--l.e., the question of standards for comparing the proposed Branch. Single copies of the value/ alternative sites. site to the alternative cites; and (d)

~ m 69 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 70 / Wednesday. April 9.1980 / Proposed Rules providing criteria for reopening the in accordance with an ongoing The NRC realizes that iruplementation alternative site question after a previous Commission review of siting policy will not, arid should not. remove the NRC decision has been rendered on this which willbe the subject of an advance controversy over the question of subject. notice of rulemaking in the immediate alternative sites. The question rightfully The basic forces motivating the future. is a controversial one that clicits high deselopment of the proposed rulemaking To assist in the Commission's public interest.The purpose of the rule are: consideration of this question on is not to eliminate this controversy. but 1.he necessily to protect the population and related questions and as to focus it on factors of critical environment from unduly adverse part of this proposed rulemaking on importance to the protection of the environmental impacts. recognizing that alternative sites, public comment is environment. the siting of a large.nuc! car generating requested at this time on whether safety II. Background facility will result in some adverse issues, including emergency response impact regardicas of where it is sited. capability should be admitted in the NEPA requires the study and Unduly adverse environmental impacts review and decisionmaking on development of alternatives to any are en undersirable cost'to society. alternativd sites and if so, how. At least major Federal action that would 2.The realization that (a) reasonable two alternatives exist with regard to this significantly affect the quality of the bounds may be placed on the search for question: human environment. ne procedure for alirmative sites without compromising

1. Establish. In a public rulemaking, doing this must be an integral part of the environmental protection. and (b) the exclusionary safety standards that must planning and decisionmaking processes NRC's informational needs require the be met in order to have an acceptable of Federal agencies.10 CFR Part 51 applicant to make a significant site. Safety issues would not be establishes the NRC's licensing and commitment of resources at the considered in subsequent review of regulatory policy and procedures under proposed site. As a general matter these alternative sites, since such standards NEPA and requires that each applicant costs are ultimately borne by the rate-would be set sufficiently conservative for a permit to construct a nuclear payer and the taxpayer, that the residual radiological risk to the power plant discuss in an

3. The fact that it is in the public environment would be small and would Environmental Report " Appropriate interest to attempt to develop written.

be sufficiently similar to the residual Alternatives to the proposed facility. understandable NRC review and risk st other reasonable sites in the ' Among the primary alternatives to be decisional criteria that provide for the region thtt an obviously superior considered once the need for a nuclear necessary protection of important alternative would likely not exist;i.e facility has been established, are environmental qualities;i.e criteria that these differences in residual radiological alternative sites for the facility, are sensitive to the factors that would impacts would not weigh heavily in a The assessment of alternative sites for significantly and adversely impact the NEPA-type cost. benefit balance. Such proposed nuclear power plants is a environment. yet still reasonably bound acceptance standards might include, for complex and difficult task. for the the considerction of alternatives to example, reasonable limits on applicant. the NRC staff, and all parties permit a rational and timely decision population density, distances to towns in the process. lssues related to about the sufficien of analysis. and citJes, distances to airporta and alternative siting have been a major Considering the a ove points.it other manmade hazards, and distances s urce of controversy in a number,of should be noted that the proposed rule to capable faulta. cases invohing construction permits for is environmentally based. but it does

2. Establish, in a public rulemaking, provide for other considerations (such exclusionary safety standards that must-nuclear power plants.The NRC has observed that there are some recurring as cost) to bound in a reasonable be met but also provide for inclusion of issues at the heart of the controversy.

manner the search for candidate sites. these safety issues in the consideration The Commission believes that these De NRC fully realizes that an applicant of alternative sites even when the sites recurnns issues can and should be does consider other factors in its site meet these criteria. Such criteria may or selection process.Dese factors are may not be the same numerically as resolved on a generic bas,s. i important to the applicant because they those addressed in 1 above.De An NRC study group seeking to affect the economica and technical rationale of this alternative rests on the identify ways to irnprove \\he merits of the project and because many view that even when a safety.related effectiveness of NRC nuclea, r power of these parameters affect reactor safety characteristic (e.g., population density) platu licensing procedures,f.- and thus must be reviewed and found does not render a site unacceptable in recommended in June 1977 (see NUREG-acceptable by the NRC during th'e safety any absolute sense. It may nevertheless 0292. " Nuclear Power Plant i.icensing: review process. ne NRC sees no basic involve sufficient residual risk to justify Opportunities for Improvement") that. incompatibility between the attempts to do better.De alternative among other measures. rulemaking environmentally. based rule proposed sites evaluation process is si.ited to a should be cocsidered for the generic here and the fact that the applicant must determination of how well one can resolution of certain issues presently realistically consider other, equally reasonably do in the particular area litigated in individuallicensing ) important parameters in its formulation under consideration, since the process Proceedings. An interim policy ' of a reasonable an.1 effective site would illuminate specific alternatives. statement on generic rulemaking was selection process. Also,it should be As an option, a second set of more published in the Federal Register on ( noted that the proposed rule (Section conservative criteria might also be December 14.1978. with a 90-day period VI.2.b.(7)) includes threshold population established which, if met, would not for public comment ending on March 12, criteria that are the same as the require that safety lesue to be included 1979. Additional technical detail on the numerical values for population density in the consideration of alternative sites. ten issues identified by the staff for contained in Regulatory Guide 4.7 With respect to population density, possible rulemaking was pruvirled in " General Site Suitability Criteria for alternative 1 above would seek to obtain NUREG-0499. " Preliminary Statement l Nuclear Power Stations." This is a similar result as alternative 2.1.e., on Ceneral Policy for Rulemaking to acceptance thresholds, set in light of Improve Nucient Power Plant I ref!cctive of past staff practice., population density and distribution. 1.icensing." However, these criteria may be changed \\

o Federn! Register / Vol. 45, No. 70 / $/ednesday. April 9,1980 / Proposed Rules 24170 One of the ten issues proposed by the the Commission's staffin a value/ of alternative sites in response to un staff for consideration in ;;eneric impact statement. actunt submittal for such a review. rutem.sking was alternative siting Ill.The Role of NRC and Others in the A. Information Requirements nwthodology and information Considerations of Alternative Sites requirements. Recognizing the need for A-L Notice offntent further clanfication of this issue, the. The NRC has the statutory -

1. Staten,ent of Rule. An upphcant is staff issued Supplement No.1 to responsibility to review applications for to provide the NRC staff with a notice of NUREG-Ot99 a staff report entitled the construction and operation of intent to tender an application int a

" Gene al Considerations and Issues of nuclear power plants. It must assure the - construction permit (CP) for a nuclear Significance on the Evaluation of accuracy and relevance of p wer plant either at least three months Alternative Sites for Nuclear Generating environmental information, perform the before tendering of a CP application Stations Under NEPA."The major environmental :nalyses and make the requesting an early review of the purpose of the report was to provide decision to accept or reject a site. In alternat, s s issue (purs ant o add.tional information to members of carrying out its responsibilities, the NRC p I the pubh,c. mdustry, and other does not select sites or participate with or 3 months prior to beginning the governmental agencies who intended to the applicant in selecting e oroposed detailed studies on the proposed site, comment by March 12.1979, on issues of site. However, the NRC h ie lead whichever comes first. The notice of Federal agency under NEPA for carrying intent will identify the location, cooling alternatis e siting. In addition, the NRC conducted a out the NEPA mandate that alternative water sources, and physiographic umt of workshop to actively seek out comments sites be considered in connection with the proposed and alternative sites, as on the alternative sites issue.nis nuclear power plant licensing. well as describe the anacipated workshop provided invited The NRC may give appropriate representatives from industry. State and deference to other Federal agency Sencratmg capacity, the number of Federal government, public interest expertise in the assessment of urtain generating units, and the types of groups and others the opportunity to impact. e.g., U.S. Environmental condenser cooling systems that would be used. scrutinize and comment on the NRC Protection Agency expertisein staff's most recent thinking on the issue evaluating aquatic impacts.The

2. Relationship to Present Procfice.

Commission has also stated that "the Present NRC rules do not require of alternative sites. Comments and feedback received fact that competent and responsible submittal of such a notice. and present from the workshop participants and State authority has approved the practice does not yield the information observers, and those received from the environmental acceptability of a site or on cooling systems or alternative sites public review of Supplement 1 to project after extensive and thorough at the times specified. NUREG-0499. have been considered in environmentally sensitive hearings is

3. Needfor Action. Early public the deselopment of the proposed rule on properly entitled to ' substantial weight

• notification is needed to allow the alternative sites.

in the conduct of our own NEPA pubhc to become aware of the project. This preposed rule sets forth the analysis." Public Service Company of to identify their concerns and to express resultant NRC policy regarding the New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook those concerns in advance of significant evaluation of alternative sites for Station. Units 1 & 2). 5 NRC 503 at 527 financial commitments by the applicant 1 - nuclear power plants under NEPA. The (1977). Additionally, consideration is and at a time when due consideration of proposed rul is intended to (1) fulfill the given to other information developed by their concerns would not result in i NEPA objectives of ensuring that State. regional, and local agencies (such unacceptable schedule delays. j environmental factors have been fully as land or water use plans).

4. Rationale andDiscussion. After considered in NRC decisionmaking: (2)

The proposed rulemaking represents receiving a notice of intent as required reduce uncertainty and delay in the no change in the above stated present by the rule. NRC would publish the ilecisionmaking process;(3) reduce practice'. information received in the Federal Register and in newspapers local to the Federal paperwork in NEPA statements: IV.The Prop sed Rula sites identified.This would assure that .ind (4) limit alternative site review to A' rule must address those elements of potential public participarru have relevant and ma'terialissues. The basic objective of this rule is to provide for a, the alternative siting process that are sufficient time prior to the NRC review meaningful, rationale, understandable, generic in nature and likely to recur in to prepare meaningfulinformation to be I end stable NRC review and all or many of the cases likely to be considered early in the licensing decisionmaking process that will both encountered. In formulating the process.This provision is in direct j reasonably protect environmental proposed rule, the staff idenlified siX response to a recommendation from values and yield a timely decision. major issues associated with alternative several workshop participants. The intent of this proposed rule is to site consideration.nese are (1) For situations where. on the effective establish procedural and performance. Information requirements. (2) timing. (3) date of this rule. a future applicant has criteria for the identification and region of interest. (4) selection of already begun or is about to begin evaluation of ulternative sites for . candidate sites. (5) comparison of the detailed.long. term investigations on a nuclear power plants. Controversy v4th proposed site with the alternative sites, site likely to be proposed subsequently regard to the issue of alternative sites and (6) reopening of the alternative sites to the NRC as a site for a nucleur power will not and should not be eliminated. decision. plant, such a future applicant must This proposed rule wi!! however. focus The following sections provide a provide a notice ofintent within three the controversy on whether criteria statement of each element of the months following the effective date of important to environmental protection - proposed rule, describe its relatten to this rule'. have indeed been met. present practice. and discuss the need A.2. Reconnoissance Leve/ Informotion De NRC has considered the values for the rule and rationale for each and impacts of rulemaking and of element of the rule.The elements of the

1. Statement ofRule. Reconnaissance alternative actions. Dese rule are organized to reflect the logic levelinformation.i.e information or considerations have been put forthby -

and chronology of a normal NRC review analyses that can be retrieved or I

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 'r0 / Wednesday. April 9,1980 / Proposed Rules M171 S.$ruteil without the performance of detuiled site. specific investigations and resourren to the proposed site. If n new. r.nmprehensive site specific annlyses on all enndidnte sites normally favornhfe derision is mmic im the investigations. is normally adequate as a would not be justified with respect to alternative site question, the applionnt basis for identifying candidate sites and any marginalimprovement in could then commit the funitu nercuary for selecting a proposed site. er -ironmental protection. There was to perform early site. specific studies of stantial discussion during the environmental and safety matters with a Analysis of the slate of candidate r sites may address other aspects of siting Ashop on the applicability of greater degree of confidence that the that are important to the opphcant's maissance levelinformation to proposed site will not subsequently be .s decision, but must address the followirn al. native site analyses.Many rejected in favor of an alternative. subjects that are important to the NEPrs woi4 shop participants emphasized that

4. Rationale andDiscussion. A two-reviews: hydrology. water quality and the term " reconnaissance level stage early site review process is availability, aquatic and terrestrial ir. formation" should not be interpreted permitted to provide incentive for an biological resources. land use, to mean the reliance on limited data and early review of the alternative site transmission requirements; subsequent superficial analyses. Such question. In this way an early decision socioeconomics. population distribution an interpretation is not intended. thus could be arrived at on alternative sites.

and density, facihty costs, institutional the proposed rule has been drafted to after which the applicant could expend, constraints. and public concerns where ensure that this misinterpretation will the necessary resources for detailed site specific studies and apply at a later such have been provided to the not occur. date for the remainder of a full early site applicant or NRC in writing. 8' U.**8 review. Thus. less c. the applicant's L Relationship to Present Practice. Present practice is that the analysis of

1. Statement of Rule. Under the resources would be placed at risk prior alternative sites is normally based upon proposed rule an appli: ant may submit to an NRC decision on alternative sites, readily available. reconnaissance level the proposed and alternative sites for and yet the applicant and the public information such as provided by NRC evaluation as part of a full would ultimately be able to m.hieve all scientific literature. reports of construction permit review either early of the ultimate benefits of an early site government and private research and separate from the review of plant review.

agencies. consultation with experts. and design (an early site review) or in All reviews and decisions would still brief field investigations.The scope of conjunction with the review of plant be performed within the effective period depth of the data and analysis required design. An early site review (ESR) of for the early site review decision. All are matched to the importance of alternative sites may be in conjunction that would be added would be the possible impacts and the degree of with or separate from consideration of opportunity to receive a regulatory certainty regardmg their magnitude. In other ESR issues.The applicant may decision on the question of alternative some cases, detailed investigations later submit other siting issues for an sites shortly after the applicant has related to specific issues may be early site review during the effective decided upon the proposed site, but required. period of the early alternative sites prior to the commitment of substantial While detailed site-specific baseline partial decision. funds at that proposed site. studies on the proposed site are required

2. Relationship to Present Practice. In C Rep.on of /nterest to support the remainder of the NRC's the past, the NRC's review of alternative environmental review, these data sites has generally occurred

1. Statement of Rule. The initial concurrently with the review of all other geographic area for determining the normally add little to NRC's determinations regarding alternative environmentalissues and at the same region ofinterest for NRC regulatory sites These detailed studies principally time as the CP safety review of facility review purposes may be either the State serve as a basis for decision-making design. However. NRC regulations do in which the proposed site is located or regarding mitigative measures to reduce provide for a single optional early site the service areas of the applicant The (on a practicable basis) any residual review, which may include any issues actual region of interest must'be larger adverse environmental impacts.

involving environmental impact or site in accordance with Section V.3 of the llowever, they also serve a secondary safety that the applicant desires to rule, or may be smaller in accordance purpose in that they confirm judgments address at a proposed site. While the with Section V.2 of the rule depending on likely adverse environmentalimpacts applicant must describe the site on the environmental diversi'y. that are made using reconnaissance selection process in an early site review. Institutional factors. and costi level data. On occasion these studies the review of specific alternative sites considerations set forth in those may not confirm such judgments, but. need not be addressed unless it is

sections, may lead to a finding that the proposed believed by the NRC that the For the purpose of determining the site is unacceptable.

consideration of otherissues could region ofinterest environmental The proposed rule on reconnaissance prejudice the full consideration of diversity refers to the types of water level information represents no change alternative sites at a later time. bodies available within the region in the above stated practice. The proposed rule on timing (upper or lower reaches oflarge rivers.

3. Needfor Action. Present practice is represents a change in the above stated small rivers. lakes. bays. and occuns) sufficiently well estabiished through practice in that early review of the full and the associated physiographic units.

licensing experience to permit question of alternative sites would be

2. Relationship to Pmsent Practice.

rulemaking on Information requirements permitted in advance of the other early. Past practice has normally been to for alternative site snelysis. site review issues, and a subsequent accept the applicant's proposed region

4. Rationale and Discussion. The early review would be allowed to ofinterest which commonly is the rationale for the rule on reconnaissance consider the detailed baseline studies at applicant's service areas. However, the levelinformation proceeds from the the proposed site, region of interest has been smaller in premise that major adverse 3.Needfor Action. The option for some situations, and in other situations environmental impacts can normally be early review of alternative sites is an expansion of the proposed region of identified using t!.is type ofinformation.

needed to permit a full consideration interest has been required.This rule Therefore, the added costs of requiring before the applicant commits substantial preserves that practice, but it adda

24172 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 70 / Wednesday. April 9,1980 / Proposed Rules specific criteria for expansion or considered. Under this concept. a river

2. Relationship to Present Pructice.

contraction of the initial geographic area having adequate water for a nuclear Present practice is to make a in determining the region of interest. power plant but that flows through a determinatmn that candidate sites

3. Needfor Action. The basic forces dedicated terrestrial area such as a identified by the applicant are ~umong motivating the development of this rule national park or national forest might the best that reasonably could have not qualify as an acceptable resource. it been found." Until recently, the NRC*a are:

a.The necessity to protect the is permissible. however, to designate review has focused primarily on the envirnnment from unduly adverse portions of a watershed for possible qualities of the proposed site [a product. environmental impacts by providing an siting while excluding other portions of oriented review). Iloweser, recently the adequate choice of candidate sites the same watershed. NRC has expanded its review and the representing reasonable environmental Different portions of a watershed or staff presently reviews the alternatives, and coastal zone may be considered to be demonstration of this "among ths Lst"

b. The realization that reasonable different physiographic units.if the standard by focusing on the adequacy of bounds may be placed on the search for environmentalimpacts of siting in these the applicant's site selection procedure alternative sites without compromising areas would be clearly different from (a process-oriented review). The rule environmental protection, one another. For example, the " head preserves the advantages of both the

4. Rationale and Discussion. The use waters" region of a' river watershed process-oriented and product. oriented of service areas coupled with would be designated as a physiographic approaches.The rule adds criteria for performance criteria for expansion or unit separate from the estuarine region implementing an adequate site selection

• f the same watershed, since the process demonstration and evaluation, contraction is judged to be sufficient to o

provide a substantial range of impacts on fisheries and other aspects and provides the option for a product-environmental alternatives from which of the environment would be clearly oriented review by specifying threshold to choose in making the final siting different in the two areas. The rule is criteria for evaluating the slate of decision. Unlimited expansion of the not intended to compel the candidate sites.Most of the workshop areas to be searched bkely would not consideration of water bodies that are in participants believed that the applicants yield significant additional new similar physiographic settings. since that should be given the option to seek either alternatives for limiting of would not add significantly to the range a process-oriented or a product-oriented environmentalimpacts that would of environmental choice. review of the slate of candidate sites. already be present in a reasonably in emphasizing the terrestrial

3. &edfor Action. He process-the staff intends that the bourded area. As a practical matter, components,tes should not be confined oriented approach codifies the elements search for si that govern NRC reviews of the site utilities may imtiate their searches within their service areas. In many to land areas immediately adiacent t selection process and provides guidance cases this willlead to the identification water bodies but should be expanded t for the ap;'icant's management of that of the required diversity of resources.

Include a reasonable corridor of search site selection process. The product-Where service areas are small the, around the water body. Sitmg up to oriented approach emphasizes the requirement could cause an expansion several miles from a suitable water environmental merits of the candidate that would extend the region ofinterest body may be desirable to avoid land use sites rather than the process that yielded beyond the service area boundaries. , conflicts that are often found adjacent to these sites, and will likely be a more However, in very large s,ervice areas, water bodies. environmentally sensitive approach. the required diversity might be found The workshop participants

4. Rotionale and discussion. The without exploring the entire service unanimously supported the concepts of rationale for codifying the process-area.

(1) environmental diversity as a Ofiented approach is to provide The requirements may impose a need determinant in bounding the region of for large regions of interest in water interest, and (2) water being the Smdance to all parties regarding the elements that govern NRC reviews of limited areas, particutriy in the western principal regional determinant of that process. The general rationale for regions of the nation.he rule is environmental diversity. the product-oriented approach is that intended to ensure in all cases that all a Selectw.n of Candidate Sites candidate sites that pass air of the reasonable alternatives have been considered. He analysis of remote

1. Stotement of Rule. An applicant proposed threshold standards would be alternatives need be carried only es far may submit a slate of candidate sites unlikely to have substantial as necessary to demonstrate the reasons based on either (1) e demonstration unidentified, adverse environmental (which include costs) for not considering (according to criteria for site selection impacts.nerefore, the rmiting state of them further. -

procedures set forth in the rule) that the candidate sites likely woulo be of ne rule is intended to apply to site selection methodologyis a comparable environmental quality and utilities having well defined service reasonable, environmentally sensitive should be environmentally acceptable to areas as well as those that do not. In sit % screening process that provides a the NRC. While there could be a situations where the State is asking the diligent search for sites that are among situation where the proposed site could review of the alternative sites issue or the be'st that could reasonably be found, be marginal with respect tr. several of where the service areas of the applicant or (2) a demonstration that the slate of the thresholds and thus might be inferior are not defined, the State in which the candidate sites meets the prescribed on a cumlative impact basis,it would be proposed site is located would be the environmentally sensitive threshold unlikely that all the candidate sites starting point for determining the region criteria [ set forth in the rule) and are would be similarly inferior. Thus the of interest. therefore among the best that could proposed site's inferiority would be When considering water sources that reasonably be found. ne rule states clearly displayed in the subsequent would provide adequate water that a slate of candidate sites should detailed comparison with the other availability, the staff intends that the contain et least four siten.ne rule also candidate sites. characteristica of the terrestrial provides criteria for acceptance of he rule provides that the slate of watershed (i.e. the physiographic candidate sites proposed by any party candidates sites should contain at least-characteristica) also be included and to the proceeding. four sites.ne reason for this is to

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 70 f Wednesday. April 9,1980 / Proposed Rules N173 cnsure that even in regions oflittle site is obviously superior to the application to construct n specific diversity, there is snme choice among proposed site, nuc! car power plant withimt reviewing the sites in the state. For nsore diverse

2. Re/otionship to Present Pmetice.

the alternative site question. ru:rpt on regions the criteria controlling how Present staff practice does consider the the basis of new information, as many sites would be necessary are ran8e of factors that would be provided above. oriented towards the diversity of eddressed by the proposed rule.

2. Relationship to Present Practice.

environmental qualities presented, so as

3. Needfor Action. His proposed The proposed rule is genernlly to give a meaningful environmental element of the rule will provide a more consistent with present criteria comparison of alternatives.ne stable structure for the procedural regarding treatment of new information candidate sites would be required to be aspects of bow environmental factors under the early-site review rule. and reasonably representative of all of the should receive consideration and how would result in censistent criteria for the major diverse environmental qualities these factors should be balanced with treatment of new information regaiding present in the region of interest, as non-environmental factors to determine alternative sites at the construction follows:

obvious superiority. permit and operating hcense stages.

a. Major types of water sources.

4. Rationale and Discussion. ne The treatment of forward costs

b. Major physiographic unita.

criteria fer testing the proposed site associated with moving to another site

c. Consideration of sites of existing against the alternative sites comes from (including costs of delay) prescribed in electric generating facilities as well as past practice, as reflected in individual this element of the proposed rule would new sites.

nuclear po$ver plant licensing reviews. generally codify a practice that has ev Ived, except that it would preclude ,As an example of acceptable F. Re. opening of the Alternative Site the consideration of costs of m< ving to diversity. if a new site on a lake.ma woodland area was already identified another site if the applicant dic. not seek as a candidate site, a woodland site on L Staten+nt of Rule. a. A reopening an early resolution of the alternative site another lake within the region of and reconsideration of the alternative question. interest would not be required. unless site decision after a finallimited work

3. Need for Action. This proposed that site also hosts an existing e!cetric authorization or construction permit element of the rule will provide for generating facility.

decision will be permitted only upon a consistent treatment of new information One of the positions adopted by the reasonable showing that there exists regarding alternative sites througout the public workshep on alternative sites is significant new information that could licensing process. that public participation in the siting substantially affect the earlier decision.

4. Rononole and Discussion. The process would be enhanced if parties Any decision to reconsider the rationale for this element of the other than the applicant were permitted alternative sites decision or not in these proposed rule is that after a decision has to propose additional candidate sites for instances will consider the reasonable been reached regarding the alternative consideration, but that the criteria costs of deloy and of moving to another site question during either an early site proposed for acceptance of such sites site compared with the _ adverse review or a CP review, the applicant (or should be no more stringent than those environmentalimpacts that might be licensee) willlogically begin committmg which the applicant's sites must meet..

avoided by moving to another site. greater resources to that site. While Criteria are proposed for the acceptance

b. For cases where the portion of the such commitments are clearly at the of such a site that are essentially the construction permit application applicant's risk. it is logical to allow the same criteria that the applicant's sites containing facility design is filed three inclusion of such costs in any must meet in establishing the original years or more after the effective date of subsequent cost benefit analyses, since slate of candiates.

this rule and where an application for an such investments would have been In addition the proposed rule imposes early review of alternative sites was made by the applicant in good faith. time limits for proposing additional tendered at least two and a half years nerefore, while it is possible that a candidate sites.De time limits are a prior to filing the portion of the CP reversal of the previous decision could key element in achieving a timely application containing detailed facility be made based on new information evaluation of the alternative sites issue design information. any reconsideration (which is a risk the applicant or licensee end. except upon a substantial showing of the alternative site decision will be must run). any reconsideration of the of good cause, will not be extended. permitted only upon a reasonable question of attemative sites and the showing that there exists significant cost. benefit analysis supporting any P # h# new ini rmat n that c,ould substantially reversed decision should normally 3 fi e S te affect the earber decision. even when permit the full accounting of all L Statement ofRule. A proposed site allowance is'made for reasonable costs reasonable forward costs to develop the tnat comes from a slate of candidate of delay and of moving to another site. If new site (including costs of delay) l sites that are among the best that could such an application was not made at compared to the reasonable forward reasonably be found wil! not be rejected least two and a half years prior to filing costs of completing the project at the by the NRC on the basis of the such portion of the CP application, costs previously approved site. attemative site review unless a of delay and of moving to another site At some point after innunnee of the comparison with the alternatave sites will not be considered in any decision to CP. the alternative of siting the nuclear l results in a determination that an reconsider the alternative site decision power plant elsewhere likely will no l obviously superior alternative exists. or not. or in any resulting decision that longer be a reasonable alternative for l Dere will be a two-part. sequential test there is or is not an obviously superior the purposes of NF.PA. net is, there is a l for obvious superiority.De first stage of site. point where comparative forward costs l the test will be to determine whether

c. lf two sites are reasonably within a and the temporal proximity to the.

there is an environmentally preferred - region ofInterest for a nuclear power provision of needed (or desirably site.The second stage of the test will plant site and both sites have received substitu s ble) power so favor the consider economics, technology. and an affirmative NRC partial decision in partially :.onstructed site that, there I institutional factors to determine an early review of alternative altes, an likely is io real possibility that the whether any environmentally preferred applicant may choose either site for an nonsafe;y.related considerations at an 1

Federal Register f Vol. 45, No. 70 / Wednesday. April 9.1980 / Propoacd Rules 24174

7. It is proposed that a nrw Appetulis alternative site would be obviously I 2.60$ ( Amended!

A be added to 10 CFR Part 51 to read as superior to the proposed site. At that

2. It is proposed that i 2.605(a) be point.the reconsideration of alternative amended by adding at the end thereof follows:

sites likely would not be required, the following: Appendix A.-Evaluation of Alternatisa Sites unless the proposed site has been (a) * *

• Where an application has for Nuclear Power Plants judged unsuitable for some safety or been filed pursuant to Appendix A of10 I I"*##" ""

F CFR Part 51 for an early alternative site This appendis sets forth procedures and environmental reason. evaluation separate from other early site Forward costs also could become review issues, the alternative site {','[rn e si nuct a o e pl nts substantial after an early site review evaluation shall not be considered a under NEpA. Specincally, this appendia decision, particularly as the time for a review forpurposes of this one review provides for (a) information requirements for CP decision approaches.This means limitation. applying for an alternative site review by the that a reevaluation of alternative sites Commission. (b) timing of Commission after an early site review decision likely Appendix Q [ Amended] nmwdc) wgi n Untenst t bunnsMned would not be justified o.n the basis of a 3.It is proposed that the numbered in selectmg sites. (d) cnteria for the sein finn of a'tes. (el enwria for mmparine a propa ed yugg cost-genefit analysis unless there is' ' paragraph 1.of Appendix Q of10 CFR 'd' "h 'I'"n"'i te s, and (f) for example a determination that the Pact 50 be amended by inserting

• aquiremets f r mpenmg an ahnnaine site actual use of the site (rating and number between the first and second sentence d# "-

of units) would be greater than had been there Dhe fell wm' s' The basic objectises of this appendix are:

1. To provide for more errectis e pubhc evaluated earlier, or that firm and maior "As a part of an early site review. eitherin participation by implementmg procedural changes in land or water use or changes conjunction with or separate from the changes that (al require early notification of in gegaj requirements involving the consideration of other early site review the public as to an applicant's choice of a protection of species or resources have 1: sues. a person may subinit a request for a proposed site and its alternativen ib) permit occurred since the previous evaluation.

review of the alternative site issue and for it is un!ikely that changes in the issuance of a Staff Site Report concluding an early review of the alternetise site that there is no obviously superior alternative que dian apart from other early site review is.ues. and,(c) prnvide explicitly for prediction of environmentalimpacts to the proposed site. If the person requests an consideration of candidate sites propoicd by would be so great as to warrant a re, early ahemauve aHe nview separate ir m other parties that meet certam cntens and review of the alterna'tive sites decision the consideration of other early site review are proposed in a timely fashion: and on that bas.is alone. Issues. the person may later submit other

2. To provide for greater predictability in The rationale for the third criterion of sitins issues for an early site review during the licensing process by codification of this portion of the proposed rule is that the effective period of the Staff Site Report on present practice that (a) presenbes criteria if two sites in the same general region of the alternative site issue, provided that any for determining when a region of interest of later early site review of otherissues shall sumcient size has been considered. (b) interest had been evaluated in separate nmain in effect only solong as the Inidal pccribes criteria for judging whether reviews and neither had been found to Staff Site Report on alternative sites remains candidate sites are among the best that could have an obviously superior alternative.

effective.. reasonably be found. (c) presenbes the basic than it is likely that neither would be 4.1t is proposed that the numbered tandards for comparing the proposed 'ite to s obviously superior to the other. paragraph 3. of Appendix Q of 10 CFR the alternatives sites, and (d) providen Parsuant to the Atomic Energy Act of Part 50 be amended by adding at the end enteria for reopening the alternative site thereof the following: question after a previous NRC decision has 1954. as amended, the Energy Reorganizat. ion Act of1974, and section been rendered on this subject. "Where a person has failed to file the The nuclear power plants referred to in this 553 of title 5 of the United States Code. notice ofintent required by Appendix A of10 appendix are those facihties which are notice is hereby given that adoption of CFR part 51. the request for review : hall be subject to i 51.5(a) of this chepter and are of the following amendments to 10 CFR upon in secordance we h pmmions the type specified in i Sol 1(b)(2) or (3) or Part 2.10 CFR Part 50. and 10 CFR Part s$atapp"d l 5022 or are testing facilities. The submittal for review and evaluation of alternative s,tes 51is comtemplated. Allinterested

5. It is proposed that the numbered shall be rude in the same manner and in the i

persons who desire to submit written paragraph 5 of Appendix Q of10 CFR

• • me num " of C P es as prowded in i

comments should send them to the Part 50 be amended by deleting the Iait i 50.30(a). (c)(1). and (c)(3) for IIcense Secretary of the Commission. IIS. sentence thereof and substituting the applications. i Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I0IIO*I"8 gg% i ( Attention: Docketing and Servics "Ite conclusions of the Staff Site Report As used in this appendix. Dranch. Washington, D.C. 20555 by June will be reexamined by the staff where fiva. t meg}on of intnest means the 9.1980. Copies of commenta received yens or m n have elapsed between the geographic areas considered in searching for will be available for public insEection at lesuance of the first Staf! Site Report and its candidate sitee. 1 the Comm.ission s Public Document incorporatiois by reference in a construction

2. " Candidate sitee" means those sites that Room at 1717 H Street. NW pumit applicauon are within the region ofinterest and are Wa shington. D.C.

6. !!Is proposed that the first septence considered in the comparative evaluation of l

l 2.603 (Amended] of the numbered paragraph 7. of sites for a nuclear power plant and are Appendix Q of 10 CFR Part 50 be judged to be among the best that can

1. It is proposed that i 2.603(a) be

[sonab y be found for the siting of a amended by adding at the end thereof {en ed y adding at the end thereof g,, f ^8' s.-proposed site means the candidate site l the fo!!owing: "However.lf a person. pursuant to submitted to the NRC by the applicant, or a (a) * *

• Where en app!! cant has failed Appendix A of 10 CHL part $1, has submitted person requesting an early review pursuant to file the notice of intent required by a request f r en early alternative site review to Appendix Q f1o CFR part 50, as the Appendix A of to CFR Part St.the separate from other early site review issues, proposed location for a nuc! car power plant.

application shall be docketed in the altemeuve site review shau not be

4. "Altunative sites

• means those accordance with the provisions of that considered a review for purposes of this one cand.date sites which are specifically appendix.

teview hmitat.on.' compared to the proposed site to determine

~ Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 70 / $ednesday. April 9,1980 / Proposed Rtiles 24175 ether thereis an obviously superior tendered. and typas of condenser cooling substantial questions exist repnfing whether alternaHve site. syrtems that would be used.' a large adverse impact wdl occur to en

5. " Slate of candidate sites" means the Upon receipt of the notice ofintent, the important aquatic species long term Isaaeline group of candidate altes comprisM d the NRC wiU publish the information received in studies wdl be conedered he NRC staff will proposed site and all alternative sites the Federal Register and in the newspapers advise the applicant of any aihtitmnal

6. " Environmentally preferred alternative local to the sites identined.

information requirements as early as site" means an alternative site for which the If an applicant fails to provide a notice of practic able. intent within the time specified, the NRC will

3. Where a party to a proceeding propn=es enstronmentallmpacts are sufficiently less nul dacket the tendered application for 3 for consideration (accordmg to Section VI 4.a adverse than for the proposed site that mon'.s where no detailed studies of the of this appendix) a rendidate site not environmental preference for the alternative proposed site have been performed or for 12 included in the applicant's slate of candidate site can be established.

months where such studies have been sites it is the responsibility of that party to

7. %te" means the geographic area needed performed. As soon as practicable after provide adequate information to support a for the construction and operation of a tendering. the NRC will publish the above decision to accept the site or not. If the site is nuclear power plant, including the associated speciDed information in the Federal Register responsil.ihty of the apphrant in the accepted as a candidate site,it is the transmission corndors to the first intert.ie.

and in the newspapers local to the sites

8. " Reconnaissance level information procecang to provide the information idenUned.

~ means any information or analyses that can

b. A person requesung an early review of necessary to make the final comparison of that site with the proposed site.

be retrieved or generated without the Se abernahve sites issue pursuant to

4. Alternative site analyses of both the performance of new, comprehensne site.

Appendix Q of 10 CFR Part 50 sha!! provide identification of the slate of randidate sites specific investigataons. Reconnaissance level ti e NRC staff with a notice ofintent to information includes relevant scientific "" "I'3* "O' "'"I "9" "'I" " * * " "I ' 3 * """" hterature, reports of goverrunent or private research agencies, consultation with experta. m nths before beginning detailed studies of

a. b> drology, water quahey, and water short.tarm field investigations, and anal ses the proposed site. whichever occurs earuer.

avadabihty fo d Die n tice ofintent shallidentify the b aquatic biological resources, including I cay n c ling water sources, and endangered species oun of re nei a Iinf rmation

c. terrestrial resources and land uses, and the extent of analyses conducted depend physiographic unit of the proposed and on (1) the importance and magnitude of the alternative sites, and shall describe the including endangered species potentialimpact under evaluation and (2) generating capacity, number and type of

d. transmission corndors (approaimate whether the decision is one of identifying a generating units, and types of condenser length and generallocation) and roources affected region of interest. identifying candidate sites, cooling systems anticipated or assurned to be

e. socioeconomica. including mesthetica.

or selectiris a proposed aita. used.

9. " Partial decision on alternative sitea" Upon receipt o' the notice of intent. the and archeolngical and historic preservation means a partial decision pur uant to i 2.101 NRC wdl publish the information received in L population distribution and density '

and Subpart F of to CFR part 2 that includes the Federal Register and in the newspapero

g. facihty costa

h. insututional constraints. as they affect a finding that there is or is not an obviously local to the sites identified.

supenor alternative to the proposed site. If the person requesting the review site availability

10. "Appheant" means a person who pursuant to Appendix Q to 10 CFR Part 50

1. public concerns in the above subject intends to apply. or who has applied, for a fails to provide a notice of intent within the areas. where such have been provided to the permit to construct a nuclear power plant.

time specified, the NRC will not initiate the applicant or NRC in writing.

11. "Modce of intent" means a notice that review for 3 months where no detailed

/E Timirg ofNRCReview an application wdl be tendered for a

• studies of the proposed site have been.

construction peruut for a nuclear power performed or for 12 montha where such

1. An apphcant may sulemit the proposed and alternauve sites for NRC evaluation as plant.

studies have been performed. As soon as

12. "NRC" means the Nuclear Regulatory practicable after receiving the request for part of a full CP review either pnor to and Commission the agency established by Title rsview, the NRC will pubhah the above separate from the review of plant design (en II of the & crgy Reorganization Act of 1974, specified information la the Federal Register early site review) or in conjunction with the as amen ed.

and in newspapers local to the sites review of plant design.

2. As part of an early site review. an

13. "NRC staf!" means any NRC oDicer or identified.

employee or his/her authorized

2. Reconnaissance levellnformation shall applicant that tenders an apphcation for an representauve, except a Commissioner, a normally be adequate to identify candidata alterneuve site review and requests a finding that there is not obviously superior member of a C,mmissioner's trnmediate staff, sites and to select a proposed site in an alternative to the proposed site may do ao an Atomic Sa.,ty and Ucensing Board, an alternative site analysis. In the identification either in conjunction with or separate from of candidate sites or selection of the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Board, a the consideration of other early site review presiding omcar, or an administrative law proposed site, the amount of data required issues. lf the applicant applies for an early and the extent of analyses conducted shall be alternative site evaluauon separate from the judge.

appropriate to support a reasoned decision. III. Information Requirussente In some cases, reconna. anm level consideration of other early site review 8 issues, the applicant reay later submit other 1.a. An applicant shall provide the NRC information may not be es cient to support staff with a notice of intent to tender en the analyses necessary to reach a reasoned-siting issues for an early site review during the effective period of the early alternative application for a construction permit (CP) for decision. In these situations, new site partial decision, provided that any later a nuclear power plant either at least 3 months comprehensive site. specific investisations early site review of other issues shall remain before tendering of a CP application must be corsidered. For example. if in effect only so long as the initial early site substantial questions exist regarding the review of alternative sites remains affective. requesting an early review (pursuant to likely acceptability of a site from a geologic i 2101 and Subpart F of 10 CM Part 2) of the alternative sitaa issue or at least 3 montha ' standpoint. substantial geotechnical E Rege'on offnterest before beginning detailed studies an investigations might be required. Also. If "'I"I" environmentalimpact and alta safety at Se I " Proposed site, whichever occure earlier. The ' For shabona whers on the effecuve data of this. M8ujM w purpms shan % (a) the notica ofintent shallidentify the location, rule. a future applicamp has alrendr begue or to State in which the proposed site is located or about to begia datatted tone ersa investissuona os (b) the service areas of the applicantMhe a cooling water sources, and physiographic unit a site likely to be proposed sobeequently to the NRC of the propneed and alternative sites, and ""* "P APP lcant muel provtdo a notica of' intent within %s requirement willlie modtfled as shall desch the anticipated I'nerati I l capacity and number and type of generating three months following the effective data of this appropriele to conform to revisions to to Cnt Part unita for whidi a CP application will be rule. 101 t 1 I

Federal Regisler / Vol. 45. No. 70 / Sednesday. April 9.1980 / Nroposed Rules 24U6 likely identify a site that would rnect thnse so tual region of interest must be larger than

b. Except as noted in 2.c.(1), a site must ISc initial gregraphic area according to 3.

meet the following entena to be accepted as same threshold crocris. below. or may lie smaller than the initial a candidate site without further review of the (:llf any candidee sne does not meet one r ographic area acrording to 2. below. site selection process. (Technically or mnre of the thrrahnid enteria prouded in

2. The irgion of interest may be smaller appropnete and economically reasonable VL2 h to amh an entent that arrinus mhrrae than the initial geographic area. II(a) cooling system mitigative measures may be envirnnmentalimpacts would result frun its environmental daersity is not substantiaI!y assumed for each candidate site.)

use, that sine ohnuld be rejected as a reduced rind candidate sites within the region (1) Consumptive use of water would not candidate site.

3. If the approach of VI.1 a. abose is triicd of interest meet threshold enteria described cause significant adverse effects on other upon demonstratsun niust be mnde that the in Section VI: b. of this appendix. or (b) w ater users, (2) nere w'uld not likely be any further site selection process incorpo-ated the cmts of generating electncity would be o

e=orbitant for sees located in those areas not endangerment of a State or Federally listed following cnteria: a.The overall objectives of tre siting study Included. or (c) siting in those areas not threatened or endangered plant or animal and all initial constraints and limitations included would be in violation of State laws species. (including the geographic area. i A. region of governing nonradiological health and safety (3) nere would not likely be any interest, which is the subrect of the study) aircts of unlity mting. or (d) the costs would significant impacts to spawning grounds or shall be explicitly stated giving the basis and be exorb. tant of deseloping information to nursery areas of significance in the rationale for all bices. demonstrate whrther sites within those areas maintenance of populations ofimportant

b. ne proposed ways of meeting.hc stated not included would likely be acceptable frorn aquatic species.

objectives shall be described inclading the ine standpoint of safety. (4) Discharges of effluents into waterways general approach to the site selection

3. The reg:on of interest must be greater would hkely be in accordance with State or than the initial geographic area if Federal regulations (e.g. avoidance of Process.

c.The study shall emphcitly st.ite factors environmental diversity would likely be discharges to waters of the highest State (e g aquatic biology) undct conaideration. subslantidly increased and if la) candidate quality designation) and would not likely parameters (e g. spawning grounds and sites within the initial geographic area meet adversely affect efforta of State or Federal nursery areas) by which these factors were the threshnid enteria in Section VL2.b. of this agencies to implement water quality measured. and cntena (e g.. no signincant appendix. and the development of sites in the objectives (e g.. additional discharges to impact) that define levels of achievement. added geographic areas would likely not waters of currently unacceptable quality as

d. The s.te selection study shall be substantially increase costs. or (b) candidate determined by a State).

interdisciplinary and shallinclude natural, sites within the initial geographic areas do (5)nere would be no preemption or likely social and environmenial sciences. De not meet threshold enteria in Section Vilb, adverse impacts on land uses stecia!!y range of the responsibihties rf the study team and the development of sites in the added designated for environmental at recreational shall be clearly defined and the methods geographic areas would not require pwposes such as parks. wildlife preserves, empayed in res51ving differences within the exorbitant costs. State and National forests, wilderness areas. 8rous or of arriving at the consensus shall be 4 For the purpose of determining the region flood plains. Wild and Scenic rivers, or areas expk dy stated. of interest environmental diversity refers to on the National Register of Historic Places.-

e. b process that led to the identification the types of waler bodies available within *

(e) nere would not hkely be any of canda'ste sites including all s,,ecific the region (upper or lower reaches oflarge significant impact on terrestrial and aquatic methodologies shall be explicitly stod in rivers. small nvers. Takes, bays, and oceans) ecosystems, including wetlands, which are detail. and the asociated physiographic units. A unique to the resource area. D) Where preemptive streening is used. all substantial increase or decrease in diversity p) The population density. Including limiting or exclusionary criteria employed would occur whether the region of interest weighted transient population, projected at shall be explicitly stated, the bases for each includes or excludes such a water body.In the time of initial operation of a nuclear cnterion given, and the ways in which they areas of critical water supply. ground water power plant would not exceed 500 persons are applied explained. and waste water are also appropriate water per square mile averaged over any radial (2) Where comparative analysis is used. all j sources for diversity considerations. distance out to 30 miles from the site (cumulative populauon at a distance divided methodologies used involving importance factors, preference functions. utility W Selection of Candidote Sites by the area at that distance), and the functions, weighting factors ranking scales.

1. The candidate sites used in the projected population density over the lifetime subsequent site.specdle comparison of of the nuclear power plant would not exceed scoring schemes. and rating systems shall be alternatives must be one of the following:

1.000 persons per square mile (simularly explictily described; the basis for the aelection of each methodology given: and the

s. Be identified through the use of a site weighted and measured).*

ways in which each is applied explained. selection methodology that (1) includes an (8)ne a te is not in an area where

f. The study shall contain detailed environmentally sensitive site screenin4 additionel safety considerations (geology; de8cription of administrative rocans used to

) process li e, considers the same seismology; hydrology: meteorology and support the site selection study, including any environmental parameters that are addressed Indastrial, military, and transportation by the criteria in VI.2.b, although not facilities) or environmental considerations for quality assurance program commensurate j with the cbjectives of the study and a data necessanly in the same way) resulting in a one site ampared to other reasonable sitee management system for handling technical state of candidate sites that are among the within the region ofInterest would result in best that could reasonably be found and (2) the reasonable likelihood of having to expend files, maps, and other information. meets the criteria presented in VI.3. belowt or substantial additional sums of money

g. Definitions of terms used in the study shall be included.

b. Meet the criteria presented in VL2.

(cumulative expenditures in excess of about

4. Any intervening party and the NRC staff below,in which case there shall be no furthe 5% of total project capital costs) to make the may propose one or more additional sites for review of the site selection process.

project licensable from a safety standpoint or consideration as candidate sites provided

2. a A sufficient number of candidate sitee, to mitigate unduly adverse environmental that the following conditions are met:

which should include at least four sites shall ' mpacts.

a. The additional sites are prnpnsed for i

i - be selected from the region of interest to c.(1)If a site does not meet one or more of review within 30 days ater the first special diversity ofland and water resources within site may be acceptable as a candideae if gg prehearing conference (i.e., the conference f provide reasonable representation of the the threshold criteria provided in VL2.b, the held pursuant to i 2.751a of 10 CFR part 2.). the region ofinterest.One or more of thes* can be reasonably shown that further

b. ne proposal contains a reasonable sites should be associated with each type of examinst on of that particular type of water watet source and phyelographic unit source and physiographic unit would not showing that the additinnal sites are comparable to the applicant's slate of reasonably available within the defined candidate sites in their ability to meet the region of interest, and one alternative site

• This requirement wit! be modmed as criteria specified in VI 2.b. and VI.2 c. and must have the same water source as the appropriate to conform to revisions to to CTR part would add,to the diversity which is exhibiled proposed site.

ton l

Federal Register / Vol. A5. No. 70 / Wednesday. April 9.1980 / Proposed Rules 24177 1sy the n;.phrant's state of candidate sites; or a.'the environmental and safety

• comparabic to the obviously supenur sites in w',ere the apphcanre candidate sites do not considecations in terms of technology and its abshty to meet the criteria specifn d in rvet all t'ie criteria specified in VI.2.b. and costs of construction and operation of nuclear Section VI.2.b. Where a new site is propmed.

VI : i.. the proposal contains a reasonable power plants at the sites. appropriate pubhc notice ofintent is ..ra mg that the additsonal sites wul meet b.1he forward costs' at the proposed site provided, and a showing of comparaliitity iri the e enteria. compared to the alternative sites. meeting the criteria is made, the NRC wdl

c. Where a party identifies more than one

c. Other considerations, such as possible only require that the sequential two.part tdditional site. each additional site must institutional barriers. The applicant s analytical test for obvious superionty be mret one of the tests specified in VI.4 b.

p!oposed site will be rejected solely based on performed on the new propowd site and on NRC review of alternative sites only when ab, w the NRC determines that, considering both the sites found obuously superior in the d l'he additional sites have no physical featurre that would likely create substantial parts of the test there is an environmentally earlier proceeding. D"4 O O Md* p r t ng u ear p epa a tt e pe o e the R sc n ni that e Ci8iO8 applicant's proposed site should be rejected. cdditional sites compared with the 2 a. If an obsiously superior alternative site

1. A reopening and reconsideralian of the apphe ant's propused site, unless there is a is identified and the proposed site is rejected alternative site decision after a finallimited rersonable showing that the additional sites by the NRC, and if the applicant submits a work authonzation or construction permit rnect a criternen *pecified in VI 2.b. that is not new application naming the toetified decision wdi be permitted only upon a met by the apphcant's proposed site.

obviously superior site as the newly proposed reasonable showmg that t! cre esists

e. Multiple parties to NRC proceedings site, the NRC will not require review of the should consult with one another prior to sigmficant new information that could subsetially affect the earlier decision. Any proposing additional sites for consideration rop s d i d a e pr aus to candidate sites m order to reasonably limit slate of candidate sites had been determined decisian to reconsider the alternative site the total number submitted.

tu be acceptab!e by the criteria established in decision or not in these instances will take Bo:rd (ASGI may on !c Safety and I.icensing

5. A presiding Atom this rule.

into account preliminary estimates of the its own initiative

b. !! more than one obviously superior reasonable costs of delay and of moving to proposed one or more additional sites for alternative site is identified and the proposed another site compared with the adverse c:nsideration as candidate sites up to 30 site is rejected by the NRC. the applicant maY environmental impacts that might be avoided drys after t e issuance of raft request that a further finding be made in that "8

Env.rnnmental Statement (DES). On or after proceeding to determine whether one of those

2. For ca=es where the portion of the the issuance of the DES. additional sites may sites is obviously supenor to the others. If c nstruct,on permit containing facility design i

be introduced by the ASW. only after a that finding is made and one of those sites is is filed three years or more after the effective b: lancing of the cost of delaying the obviously superior to tne othere and the date of this rule and where an applicant proceeding against the hkelihood that applicant submits the obviously superior site utdizatirn of the additional site would avoid as the new proposed site, the NRC will not submits the proposed and alternative sites fur sigmfkant environmental harm. require review of the alternative sites NRC evaluation as part of a full construction n The 30-day time hmits in VI.4.a. and V11 question for the newly proposed site, permit review at least 2% 3 ears pnor to fihng sbove shall not be extended except upon a provided that the previous slate of candidate the portion of the construction permit substantial showing of good cause. sites had been determined to be acceptable application containing detailed pl. int design. Vl/ Componson ofProposedSite With by the criteria established in this rule. If that any reconsideration of the alternatne site findmg is made and none of those sites is decision will be permitted only upon a Altemouve Sites bviously supuior to the othus, the reasonable showing that there exists L After it is determined by either of the a ive si(s fw significant new information that could P P chove approaches that the proposed e.te e up oae substantially affect the earlier decision. as comes from a state of candidate site,that are permitted ac ording to 2 a. above, described in VII!1 above. lf the proposed among the best that could reasonal.ly be

c. If one or more obviously superior sites and alternative sites were not submitted for found. the NRC wdl not reject the proposed are identified and the proposed site is sita solely based on its review of the rejected by the NRC. the applicant may NRC evaluation as part of a full construction citernative sites unless a comparision with submit a new proposed site that la permit review at lest 2% years prior to fihng the remaining candidate sites results in a the portion of the construction permit de'mninetion that an abviously superior

'There are some site safety issues for which a application containing the plant design, costs citemasive exists. The NRC wdl determine -ust-ehve mens for smM etion is not of delay and of moving to another' site will cbvious superiority among the candidata state-of-the-art engmeenna. For '.he purposes of not be considered in any decision tp' sitis by a sequentsal two-part analytical test. alternettve site analysis. these site safety issues are reconsider the alternative site decision er not The first part gives primary consideration to considered in terms of ette acceptability. l.e where or in any resulting decision that there is or is by drology, water quality, aquatic biological successful mitigation to considered outside the state re sources. terrestrial rescuces. w ster and of the art. the site would be considered not an obviously superior site. 1:nd use. socioeconouncs, and population

• to unacceptable. However, where the m6ttgotion of the 3.If two sites are reasonably within a I

safety issues er, considmd to be wtthin the state region ofinterest for a nuc! car power plant determine whether any attemative sites are site and both sites have received an "'j' 'P' snvironmentally preferred to the proposed bds r eg a t i sita. The second part overlays consideration includes the impact of the m.tianuon on overall affirmative NRC partial decision on an early of project ernnomics. technology, and project coet, toJf etermine whether there le en review of alternative sites. Im applicant may institutional factors to determine whether. lf obv6ously supenor eherneuve. Even though the choose either site for an application to such a environmentally preferred site exists, proposed site successfully passes the early - construct a specific nuclear power plant such a site is,in fact. an obvioulay superior evolusuon of shemative sites. It could still be found without reviewing the alternutne site sita

• The following factors are considered in "a*cceptable in the later detailed safety review of qun6on; except on the basis of new that eaa.

this second part of the test: 'For cases where the portion of the construction information as provided in Vill 2. above. permit application conta ning facility design is filed (Sec.161 h,I., o Pub. L 83JO3. NI Stat. 948

• This requirement will b. modified as 3 years or more after the effecuve date of this rule.

(42 U.S C. 2201 (h). (1) and (o)); Sec.102. Pub. g ppropstets to conform to revie.one to 10 Olt Part and an early site review application for the review N of attemauve sites had not been filed et least tw L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S C. 4132). Sec. l 'In applying both parts of Ihe test, the NRC will yeere eerlier. the costs of moving to another site. 201, as amehded. Pub. L 93-43a. na Stat.1242; l stws rnneederation to the inherent ancertelaties of includm3 costs of delay will be given no weight in Pub. L 94-79. 89 Stat. 413 (42 U.S C. 241)) l cost benefit snelysia techniques and where any considereteon of attemettve sites or in any Dated at Washington, D C., this 4th day of (pplicable te. Cee dispanry in the data base decision whether to reopen a previous decision os between the proposed and alternauwe etten, this subject. April 1980.

= 28178 ' rederal Register / Vol. 45. No. 70 / Nednesdny.' April 9,1NIO / Prcpess d Rules ~_, _ M ~ - -_ _ Mr- - - - I..r the %de ar Pigulatory Commission. l Famuel I. Chilk, . Sars t.2ry of the Commission. os :=. a.i e r.w e es g j - nsams coot neo.es-m E i a h 4 3 i 2 k -, a i i i f f i f I A J a k d f. f f j ---..,..-+m~ v .m,-. .m..,.-,. -e.-.

WORKSHOP ON ALTERN ATIVE SITE I RULEMAKING Summary Report t l Roberto Pagano i May 1979 l I i i ~ i I contract sconsor: offten n' - ~ ~ ~ - 1 The MITRE Corporation Metrek Division 1 1820 Ocliey Macison Boulevara ) DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Met.ean. virginia 221c2 -i Entire document Previously I t i entered into system under: virng reenn,cai aecen F. MTR 79WCO'.12 k ANo [q .? .- 1 No. -of _P,,,agg r i

.- gq g, g 7.wc e =- = ; g y. m.;.. w a.m y ;,:., ;;g g. .;g u g.,., q,,, g g. g, f ..._ _ _ ___._.i s -1 r 3 ^ U.S. DE7MTMENT OF C""ERE ~, Mathaalledaiedtr:xsaati.w Se.h i NUREG-0625 Report of the Siting Policy Task Force ~ 2 (U.S.) Nudoor Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC ' i . l I i 4 J rn 1 '4 l tt

1 i

?l . -) Aug 79 3 s _ _. :e 2 h j DUPLICATE DOCUMENT = 7 Entire document pr3viously i ^ i entered into system under: ANO [dO[O No. of pages: [ g =}}