ML19332C289

Forwards SECY-89-319,dtd 891017, Implementation of Us EPA High Level Waste Disposal Stds. Encl Paper Will Be Topic of Commission Briefing on 891121

ML19332C289
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/17/1989
From:	Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Bishop R NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT &
References
REF-WM-1 NUDOCS 8911270108
Download: ML19332C289 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:e rn 3 .c w m-o.. 3 /i;i t j+ ; Q/t, *

v; p 4 { 'i t f4 q fi c

^ ~ ls 4.. c !( Aw o. g gr ,n 4 bs; s j j j. A BISHOP-LETTER i ./ Q' 1 ~ ,i NOV 1719m r (h. nL bs'. ]o~f L : . Robert E Bishop, General Counsel and Secretary NUMARC 4 1776; Eye Street, N.W., Suite 350 Washington, D.C. 20006-2496, i

Dear Mr.' Bishop:

) 1 Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding a U.S.- Muclear Regulatory. Commission staff paper discussing implementation of the-Environmental. Protection Agency.'s standards for' disposal of high-level radioactive waste.. A copy of that paper is enclosed. As you may know..this paper will be the topic of a Commission briefing on November 21,:1989. The Commission meeting will be opcn o .to the public, if you should wish to-attend. ~ l' would be interested in any reactions you might have to the content of the enclosed paper. Sincerely, (Signed) Robed M. Burero . o Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards ~

Enclosure:

SECY-89-319, dated October 17, 1989 DISTRIBUTION: x < Central Files R. E. Browning B. J. Youngblood J. Bunting' Ot LSS J. Linehan R. Ballcrd ^- :: m,% ps + CNWRA. ?, HLPD R/F HMSS R/F NMSS DirL R/F LPDR. PDR ACNW D. Fehringer ' 3, IRGP 12[f 4 ,, +. 3 s ( } ~.3y 3 .1 l'SY, , if%,A~//) .b} , // _ l A l

HLC$/[i:DHL

DH NM

NMSS

~ __0FC :

HLGP k

] .[(.. W, 4 ; NAME:DF hriiiger:S en

RB Mafd :BY

' ood:RBr g :i ,~ riotto:RBernero .g. (BATE ((/fhb9- ((hhhh [kh)h89 :11/[hhh I[k/)h)89 :11//bb9I5k)hhhh d 4 - n 0FFICIAL' RECORD COPY i-K s-g t. ?i g ps ig,f.. t t, WM-1 PDC / [ i,

c i POLICY SSUE Octaber 17. 1989 (Notation Vote) s m 9-319 [Le: The Commissioners ) From: James M. Taylor-Acting Executive Director for Operations jfdett: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S HIGH-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL STANDARDS t

Purpose:

In response to Staff Requirements Memoranda,MB90711A of July 21 and MB907268 of August 8,1989, this paper informs the Commission of: (1) the status of the U. S. Environ-i mental Protection _ Agency's (EPA's) high-level waste (HLW) disposal standards development; (2) the U. S. Nuclear l Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's. reevaluation of its views on implementation of probabilistic standards;-and (3) the status of the staff's reeva hation of the use of such quantitative standards by development of procedures and rules that are, needed,for 1,ap1ementing the standards. To request Commission approval of staff plans to pursue a

ontinuing evaluation cf the EPA standards by way of rulemakings and interactions with EPA's staff.

Summary: EPA, pursuant to the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-425), is responsible for development of environmental radiation protection standards for disposal of HLW. NRC is responsible for 1dcensing the disposal repository, but its licensing, judgment must be b,' sed on compliance with the EPA standarris. EPA promulgated its standards in 1985, but the standards were vacated in l 1957 by the U. S. Court of Appeals. They are expected to l be reissued for public comment in late 1989, and some parts of the standards are expected to remain unchanged from those promulgated earlier. Specifically, the probabilistic nature of the " containment requirements" section, which was initially opposed by the Commission, is expected to be l roteined..The staff's reevaluation of its views on implementation of probatilistic standards in a HLW repository licensing review and the basis for the staff's CONTACT: Daniel Fehringer, 19455 l 492-0426 i ,YhYS.!

o L .The Comeissioners l t. I views are presanted in thiT paper.. This paper also (. discusses U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) plans for esmonstrating compliance with the standards and the NRC staff's plans for rulemakings related to implementation of the standaros. Before EPA issues revised standards for public comment, the staff will provide the Commission an evaluation of the technical basis from which.the revised standards.were derived, and any comments the staff considers should be l provided to EPA before publication of those standards. j Backaround: HLW (including spent nuclear fuel) is highly radiotoxic and l will remain hazardous for thousaeds of years. Projecting l the performance of the natural and man-made' components of a i repository over rec 5 a long time will involve uncertainties that spy be unpre ewnted 'n engineering and risk assessment practice. The challenge facing NRC and EPA is to develop a regulatory approach:that wil9 accommodate these uncertainties. Such a regulatory approach should allow licensing decisions to bei reached on acceptance of suitable sites and designs and reject. ion of' unsuitable ones, while avoiding reliance on overly conservative approaches that would excessively increase disposal costs _j or might eliminate suitable repositories from ~ consideration. t In the late 1970's, EPA began development of environmental radiation protection standards for disposal of HLW.- As the benchmark for overall repository system safety, those standards address: (1) the ti.as period after disposal for l which reposite*y performance must be projected (at least 10,000 years); (2) the conditions for which performance is to be assessed (both expected performance and pert'oreance fellowing-reasonably foreseeable disruptive processes and events); sad (3) the maximum allowable contamination of grouneseters, doses to incividuals, and population impacts. The standares reflect an unprecedented rocietal concern over the perceived long-tem hazards of HLW, and an apparent societal willint, ness to bear the cost of implementing the safest disposal technology that is reasonably achievable. On December 29, 1982, EPA published its proposed standards 4 (40 CFR Part 191, 47 FR 581*4) and solicited public comment on them. Of particular no* was the p.obabilistic nature of the standards, which endorsed a non-linear, inverse relationship between the allowable size of a release and the. Mhlihood that a release would occur. NRC's comments [

l The Commissioners ! (dated May 10 and 11, 1983) objected to the probabilistic n:ture of the standards, stating, in part, that "[t]he numerical probabilities in (the standards; would require a degree of precision which is unlikely to be achievable in 3 evaluating a real waste disposal system." The NRC comment went on to explain that "... identification of the relevant. { processes aM events affecting a particular site will require considerable judgment and will not be. amenable to i accurate quantification, by statittical analysis, of their probability of occurrence. ' 1 EPA retafned its numerical standard, but in response to NRC's comments, EPA added uording to the final star,dards which was virtually identical to the wording of Se: tion 101 of 10 CFR i Part 60. This text recognizs,d the long tiep involved and the l associated substantial uncertainties in projecting HLW repository performance, and emphasized that a " reasonable expectation," rather than absolute proof, is to be the test of compliance with the stancard. In an additional attempt to providie flexibility for implementation of the standards, EPA also provided that quantitative predictions of releases from a repository were to be incorporated into an overall probability distribution 4 only "to the extent practicable." This phrase appears to l allow at least some additional discretion for NRC to incorporate qualitative considerations into its decision-asking, rather than placing sole relistece on numerical projections of repository performance.. Sased on these changes in EPA's standards, the NRC staff l withdrew its objection to the standards. In SECY-85-472, dated October, 1985, the staff informed the Commis. ion that "(allthough the staff continues to believe t%t the probabilistic nature of the standards will pose a signifi-cant challenge, the staff considers that the standards, in the current fore, can be implemented in a licensing review." The Commission did not disagree with the staff's assessment and, on September 19, 1985 EPA promulgated t final environmental radiation protection standards for disposal of NLW (50 FR 38066). The final standards (40 CFR Part 191) included provisions for (1) groundwater protection; (2) individual protection; and (3)' total release of radioactive material to the environment for 10,000 years after waste disposal. The latter requirement, the " containment requirements," retained its probabilistic format, imposing more restrictive release limits for relatively likely releases than for those less likely to occur. Included in the er,ntainment requirements was the 9 ._,-.v, ..m.r .m .,,.__,,,,.,_.,_,_.m,..m. ,,._.__,.--__.y..,.. ,._,,.,.. 4

n . ~. j The Cassissioners - 4.- j l c I guelifying woesting re* erred to previously, recognizing the j need for non-guantitative censiderations when evaluating compliance with the probabilistic standarcs. The 1 requirements. for groundwater and-individsal protection were auch less encospassing, being limited to ' undisturbed parfemance" for only the first 1,000 years ofter waste i disposal. A 1987 Federal court decision remanded there standards for i further consideration by EPA. The basis for the romand i involved the procedures used to issue the groundwater and individual protec. tion requirements end inconsistencies between those requirements and other EPA standards. The probabilistic containment requirements were not found to be i defective. A recent internal EPA (working) draft of the revised EPA standards indicates that most, but not all, changes under consideration are related s.o.the court decision, and that the probabilistic portion of the standards is likely to be retained largely unchanged.1 i c EPA's pending revision and reissuance of its HLW standar1s

• I has provided an opportunity for the NRC staff to reexamine its earlier views on implementation of those standards.

In particular, the additional experience acquired by the staff ~ since 1985 in probabilistic risk assessments for power l l plants and application of NRC's safety goals will be drawn on to determine whether the staff still-retains its i: confidence that probabilisti standares can be implemente1 l in an NRC licensing review.. Discussio2: EPA hveloped its standards by evaluating the performar.co 1 of several hypothetical repositories and by considering the costs and benefi*,s associated with alternatives such as l improved engineered barriarc. In describing the standards, epa stated th.t "... the Agency (EPA) has been able to develop standards for the management and disposd of these i westas that a=e both reasonably achievable - with little, 4 ff ary, effort toyond that already planned for commercial westes - and that limit risks to levels that the Agency believes are clearly acceptably small" (50FR38070, September 19, 1985). EPA's stanoards are thus more a generic quantification of "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) than a safety limit based solely on consideration of acceptable levels of risk. A second working draft is expected later this fall. The staff plans to 3 provide specific written comments to EPA on the second working draft. The ) staff will infers the Commission of any prchloss and the staff's recom- ) mandations for resolving that prior to providing the comments to EPA. i

! y V,; The Commissiem es

• I --

L The probabilistic portion of the EPA HLW stantiards was derived so that population impacts would be restricted to i 1000 premature cancer deaths over 10,000 years for a ) repository inventery of 100,000 settic tonnes of spent fuel (the approximate inventory to be generated by all currently operating power plants in the U.S.). This average L population risk (10d/yr) is intermeditte between the population risk typically posed oy a single commercial l - nuclear power plant (10 a/yr) and that represented by all l comma?cial nuclear power plants in the U.S. (100/yr).

Thus, although the st udards represent something of a generic l

guantification of U. ARA, the level of impacts allowcd by t the standards does not. appear te be significantly different from that currently presented by opersting nuclear power i i plants. 1 However, it is important to re,ognize that the achievability of ?,his risk level by a real repository has not yet been tested by analysis and thus achievability by a real repository is uncertain. 00E's current efforts in developing performan'e issessment capabilities for the civilian { repository program may provide significant insights, as will DOE's experience in developing perfomance assessmentr, i ~ for the proposed repository for defense transursnic wastes, 1.e., the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The EPA has ~ proposed that the 00E publish the performance assessments for WIPP in a supplement to the Environmental Impa:t Statement for that facility, where all can see and comment on it. An effort by a team of staff from the Offices of Nuclear l Material Safety and Safeguards and Nuclear Regulatory Research to conduct pralisinary analyses of repository performance will be a further step in answering this question. Meanwhile, the staff intends to give substantial attention to the proposed revisions of the EPA HLW standmis. Prior to publicatien o." EPA's revised standards, the staff will provide the Commission an evaluation of the technical basis from which those standards were derived, and arty comments the staff considers should be provided to EPA before public comments are requested. The Nature of the P ),)1,g Differing views on implementation of the EPA HLW standards ultimately derive from different perceotions of the statistical rigor required for estimates of the probabilities of potentially disruptive events such as fault movement, volcanic activity and climate change. i >+-3-. v. v.--,- ,-....,.v, ,r-c -m.--..-,----- +.. - - -. _, - -, e

a The Commissioners j \\ A rigorous' application of EPA's numerical standards would require estimates of the probabilities of potentially disruptive events that are derived from a statistical data base of previous occurrences of those events at the res.esitory site. ions of the events of interest may be relatively rare compared to the length of the geologic-record for a repository site. A recent National Research Cour:cil reporta dealing with probabilistic seismic hazard analysis noted that the relatively short historical record of seismic activity requires reliance on other techniques when projectiv seismic activity for thousands of years into the fut.u' a. Moreover.some potential events may not even be evidenced in the geologic record (e.g., human-initiated events). Therefore, a rigorous application of 1 the EPA standards would lead to the conclusion that the standards cannot be implemented in a licensing review. Inosed, this interpretation was exactly NRC's view of *.he standards when EPA proposee them for public comment in 1982. i EPA retained the numerics 1 standard, but in ressionne to = NRC's concorr.s, EPA added text (previously mentioned), to j its probabilistic containment requirements, recognizing t the uncertaihties involved in projecting repository l performance over long time periods. Specifically EPA stated that "[niroof of the future performance of a disposal system is not to be had in the ordinary sense of the word in situations that deal with much shorter time frames. Instead, what is required is.a reasonsole expectation, on the easis of the record before the f implementing agency, that compliance... will be i achieved." In Appendix 8 of the standards, EPA elaborated i on its views on implementation of the standards. There, l EPA stated: i r Determining compliance with [the studards) will also l involve precicting the likelihood of events and processes that may disturb the disposal system. In L makhg these various predictions, it will be L appropriate for the implementing agencies to make use L of rather complex computational models, analytical l l theories, and prevalent expert judguent rplevant to the numerical predictions. Substantial uncertainties are likely to be encountered in making these s Panel on Seismic Hazard Analysis, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1984. t

?,,.. G.- 4 The Caseissioners ' predictions. In fact, sale relianca on these numerical predictions to determine compliance may not be appropriate; the implementing agencies may choose to supplement such predictions with qualitative judpents as well. This text indicates that EPA did not intend to require a that NLW repository licensing decisions be based solely-on numerical ptobability estimates. Rather, EPA recognitMt that other, more qualitative considerations, such as the multiple-barrier, defense-in-depth concept imbedded in Part 60, woule play a major role in evaluating the safety of a proposed repository. Although these statements by EPA characterize the use of non-quer.titative i factors as " supplemental to" the numerical standard and discuss flexibility in teres of treating uncertainties, i the detemination that must be made under EPA regulation is that there is a "reaso.ble expectation" that repository perfomance will comply with +he numerical standard.

Thus, while the~1anguage added by EPA to the rule and in the Supplementary Information tends to recognize gaalitative i

considerations, an acceptable approach to implementation is i I still-aebiguous aniJ the governing standard is still the l probabilistic numerical standard. r NRC Licensing Requirements Part 60 currently centains language in Section 60.101 l recognizing that " reasonable assurance" must have a i somewhat different interpretation in repository licensing than it has in other NRC licensing decisions dealing with ouch shorter time periods. However, Part 60 does not now directly address implementation of the EPA standards, because those standards had aat yet been developed when 3 part 60 was published. After promulgation of the EPA standards in 1985, the NRC published proposed "confoming j amendments" to inenrporate those standards into NRC's regulations (51 FA 22288, June 19, 1986). Those proposed amendeont9, which were withdrawn when the Court of Appeals remanded tise EPA standard, would have added, to Part 60, text nearly identical to that cited from EPA's Appendix B, previously mentioned. In addittor., a lengthy exposition on i: implementation of the EPA standards was presented in the Supplementary Inferretion for the proposed amendments. The conforming amendearits ware intended to establish, through rulemaking, the regulatory basis to ensure that the EPA i standards could be implemented in a workable manner in NRC's 11cer. sing process. As will be discussed later in this paper, the staff an+.icipates refnitiation of the i i I .-.-+.....-+..-_..w.-..,e.-,e ,m -,-,,.,,-m..,ww, .m,,,-..-.-,.-r.r,,,,.-v+-

bf I % The Commissioners ? confoming amendments rulemaking (and initiation of one or .more additional implementation rulemakings) when the EM 9 steneerds are reissued. The staff believes that the . conduct of these rulemakings can and will ensure that the application of probabilistic analyses in NRC's licensing process will remain carefully judgmental, as intended by EPA and NRC. I feebabilityEstimates i l As discussed previously, numerical probability estimates i are not intended to be the sole basis for repository licensing decisions. However, neither are purely. qualitat've considerations. In the NRC staff's view, the l EPA standards require a combination of the tw types of 1 information to be weighed when evaluating repository ~ safety. Thus, the question still remains as to wk ther probability estimates for very unlikely events can be eerived in any meaningful ww. i TM staff view is that probability estimates can be developed that are reasonably defensible ---at least for - sites that are not unusually cosplex or geologically l

active, (Current informatton is not adequate to determine whether the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site is so geologically complex and active as to preclude meaningful probability estiestes.

This is a major issue to be resolved as soon as practicable durin0 site characterization.) The basis for i this view consists, in part, of an important distinction t between the probability of occurrence'of a potentially disruptive event and the probability that a release of radioactive material to the accessiele environment will occur within the 10,000 year regulatory period addressed by the EPA standards. The very low probability contained in the standards -- one chance in 1,000, over 10,000 years -- refers to a release to the accessible environment rather i than the occurrence of an event that might lead to the i release. The probabilities of events and releases can be quite different because of three factors, referred to here t as the resiliency, geometric, and tfue factors. Resiliency factor. The nature of an NW repository is such that it may be partially or totally resistant'to some types ^ of events. As an example, vibratory ground motion associated with fault movement is likely to be relatively unimportant because for most mpository designs there are no components whose integrity is sensitive to vibratory ground motion. Staflarly, drilling into a repository during the first 300 to 1000 years, when waste canisters 1 w ~,,, - - w..,,,,,-mn.,,,,+,,e,,._,,.ng-.n .,n___n,,__.,,,,,., .,..,,,.w,.n.,,,,,.- ,.,-,,e

4'y 4 The Cosmissioners 9-s G' are required to be substantially intact, or drilling into an unsaturated zone repository, may cause little or no release unless the drilling directly strikes a canister, 1 If a repository sita were found with a grounowater travel time between the repository and the accessible environment approaching 10,000 ysars, that. site would be = resistant to - cost events other than those that could substantially shorten the groundwater travel time. The staff anticipates that, for some events, there will be no need for 4 probability estimates, when it can be shown that the repository system is resistant to ths disruptive effects of the events. j Geometric factor. Generally, the KRC and EPA regulations presume that a repository would be located within a larger, relatively homogeneous geologic setting. The geologic record of this 'arger area can provide the basis for estiesting quite small probabilities of occurrence at the repository site.- Consider, for example, a 10 km2 reposi-l i tory site located within a 10,000 km8 geologic setting. Events distributed randomly within the geologic setting, I and with a recurrence interval of 10,000 years, would have-a probability of occurrence at the repository site of only 10 7 per year.. To the extent that potentially disruptive l events can be considered randon, the staff anticipates that ~ this type of geometric consideration will be very signi- { ficant in developing probability estfeates. i i sine factor. The time at which an event is postulated to occur s very important in evaluating its significance. l First, radioactive d6 cay rapidly reduces the radioactive l inventory of some of the shorter-lived constituents of HLW. For events that disrupt only a vo y small fraction of a reposito w (e g., drilling that strikes a waste canister) releasec em not be significant unless the event occurs j within the first few hundred years after repository l closure. Second, the time lapse between the occurrence of l an evens and any resulting release may be quite long for a well-designed and sited repository. If, for example, the time for transport c,f aleased waste through the geosphere to the environment is 1,000 years, only those events that occur within the first 1000 years after repository closure would be of regulatory significance in applying a 10,000-year standard. In both cases, the staff expects estimates of event probabilities to be more meaningful over these j shorter time periods than they would be for 10,000 years. --pc .,..,99%g gg e ,e e.w e g g -.x,4p%gy.,n-py,up,,.w n%_,p-,_g,-e-w.,,..we-w y, y,--e w-,,,...w,v,w-w- ---g-ye-- w-w- w-v ww r w-wwc-- w- -- = a we- - ' "'Iv---- '--*w-=-

m t l The Cousissioners ' r t In summery, two may be a difference of orders of magni- ' tune between tne ::robability that an event will occur and tne probability that a release will result. Thus, in order to demonstrate that a release has a probability less than 1 cnance in 1,000 over 10,000 years, it might only be i necessary to show that the probability of an initiating - event is less than 1 chance in 100,000 per year -- a short enough recurrence interval so that the geologic record should provide useful information. The predominant staff l view is that asaringful, although not necessarily statistically rigorous, probabi'ity estimates can be made for repositaries located at well-chosen sites -- i.e., i sites-that.are not unusually complex or geologically j active. In fact, the ability to develop the required probability estimates is a de-facto siting criterion for evaluating how well the site is understood and thus, how confident one can be of its future performance as part of a repositary. As an exast,le, the staffs of both DOE and NRC have been working to develop methods for predicting the probability of future volcanic activity at the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site, based on studies of the record of past volcanism near the site. These methods have been used to develop numerical estimates of site performance. The i uncertainties in the +robabi11ty estimates reflect technical concerns with the site which must be resolved ~ before licensing, regardless of the stancard which must be implemented to evaluate the site, rather than concerns with the ability to develop these numerical values. The NRC L staff expressed its views in its comments on DOE's site i Characterization Plan (SCP), and additional diseussions are l planned for future meetings with 00E. It is aise possible to interpret the EPA standards to require a more rigorous statistical basis, in analyses incenerating significant conservatises, for licensing. The only way to produce the required probability estimates would be to have available a site-specific geologic record approaching the aos of the earth, and since such lengthy L geologic records can seldom be found, rigid implementation L of the EPA standards is likely to prove impossible.

Also, j'

the principal discussion has foc.ated on geological examples. However, the EPA standard is not limited to ~ geologic events but an entire spectrum of events that have the requisite likelihood. It can be extremely difficult to deal with the tail of a probability distribution of very Idrge events with mean probabilities on the order of 10 7 to 10.sfy,ar. In the context of the EPA standard, it may also be difficult to deal with such things as climatic changes caused or affected by human activity over thousands 1

1 q l l The Commissioners i 11 - l l-I i or years (e.g., greenhouse effect concerns resulting from f increased fossil f uel use in recent decades), i Where from Here? I While the basic principles reflected in the EPA 1985 l changes which recognited uncertainties and the need for i non quantifiable technical judgments in assuring repository performance remain valuable and important, additional l clarification and guidance is required in order to deal with these issues. Specifically, additional clarificatior, and guidance is needed to come to grips with how l non-quantifiable technical judgments are to be used in assessing " reasonable expectation" of compliance with the governing numerical standard. The NRC staff has identified two basic courses of action available to the Commission -- 2 (a) reaffim its earlier acceptance of the probabilistic nature of the EPA standards provided that clarification of l the treatment of key problem areas can be worked out (in l this connection the staff will werk closely with EPA to l develop wording which could be used in either revised EPA standards or in NRC regulations, as appropriate, to i minimize potential implementation problems and will remain j alert to developmente that could potentially alter this acceptance) or, (b) if the standards are now or subsequently judged not to be implementable, petition EPA to reissue the ) standards in an altered or non-probabilistic femat. Combining these two basic courses of action with the prospect of developing implementing amendments to Part 60 l has led the staff to identify the following four alternatives, j Alternative 1 -- Current EPA 2anslards and Part 60. In th's s'tornative, the probabiet'c portion of the EPA standards would be reissued with the same format as in 1995. The specific wording of the standards and of Part 60 would be revised only as necessary to resolve potential t-implementation problems and to ensure consistency between the two regulations. The main advantage of this alter-native is that a complete set of regulatory standards could be established quickly, providing guidance to DOE for its repository developaaent program. The main disadvantage of this alternative is that it might leave many cont.entious issues, such as acceptable methods for estimating the probabilities of disruptive events, to be resolved during a licensing review. The absence of clarification say make it virtually impossible to msolve difficult licensing issues within the three year statutory time frame. P y .n,- .s--a 4,.~, ,. ~, -~.. .e,,-m .,.,-.-..--.--,.,,-v,,,-an-.-.n,,w.,,,.-,--,w,

_-~ _____ - _-.,..___. _ _ _ _ ____. _._ _. - _ -_ _.-. _ _ _ l The Commissioners f L l L Alternative 2 -- Revisod EPA $tandards and Current Part 60 Severa possible revis'ons to the EPA standards have been considered as ways to make-the standards easier to imple-l l. ment. These include substitution of qualitative terms (likely, unlikely, etc.) for the numerical probabilities in I the standards, restating the numerical probabilities in a l 1ess precise way (e.g., combining the numerical proba-bilities with modifiers such as "on the order of"), and asking the standards consequence-based rather than risk - l based (i.e., completely removing all probabilistic aspects of the standards). Amendments of these types might allow more flexibility for implementation of the EPA standards, but would be accompanied by significant uncertainties about interpretation of the standards. These greater uncertain-ties raise a different obstacle for the licensing process, namely, the lack of a clear standard of acceptability. The predominant view of the staff is that the current wording of the EPA standards represents a reasonable compromise between the goal of precise statement of the regulatory t reavirements of the standards and the desire for i flexibility in implementing the standards. But, as discussed above, additional clarification and guidance is needed to address more clearly how non quantifiable technical judgment may be used in lieu of or to fulfill the numerical standard. $1nce the fundamental issue is one ~ of clarifying the EPA standard, this should be the ~ responsibility of EPA, with substantial input from NRC concerning the specific nature of such clarification. A1tornative 3 -a Current or Revised EPA Standards anel L Rev< sed Part 50. This alterM tive, which s current'y being pursued by the staff, involves two phases.

First, the staff will pursue an aggressive interaction with EPA during reissuance of its standards aimed at identification and resolution of potential implementation problems.

To the extent possible the staff seeks to have EPA expand on its interpretation of the EPA standard. Second, the staff will amend Part 60 before a licensing review so as to resolve, where practicable, arty remaining potentially contentious issues on teplementation.: The staff currently plans three rulemakings related to implementation of the EPA MLW standards (see SECY-88-285, October 5, 1988). One will provide the basis for making site-specifit determinations on the potentially disruptive events and 8 Development of techr.ical positions or regulatory guides, and interlocutory reviou by a licensing board for resolution of issues, are variations of this 01tarnative. --+- e --,p. .w-.w.,.,_,-.m.,,....m,,,__m,....,,,,m-e,-, m _..___,______m__,-m_--m- .,____-__,,_._.v-,---

The Casumissioners. processes that will need to be considered in developing HLW release scenaries. It will revise the current definitions of " anticipated" and " unanticipated" processes and events in Part 60. The revisions will specify a non-probabilistic method to be used for categorizing processes and events as " anticipated" or " unanticipated." The staff proposes this method because of its view that categorization on the basis of numerical probability estimates would be too uncertain to use as the primary basis for preliminary screening of events and processes. Asecondrulemaking,referredtoasthe"conforsinhallthe amendments," will incorporate directly into Part 6 substantive provisions of the EPA standards and will adopt l any changes in terminology necessary for conformance between the two regulations. An earlier cohfoming j rulemaking, previously discussed, was terminated when the EPA HLW standards were resended by a decision of a Federal Appeals Court. The amendments currently contemplated will serve the same purpose as those previously initiated -- 1.e., to reproduce within"Part 60 all of the substantive 1 requirements of the EPA standards and to eliminate any l differences in terminology that might otherwise cause-confusion during a licensing review. .t As discussed earlier, it.is the staff's intention to work closely with EPA during reissuance of its standards to reduce or eliminate, to the extent practicable, potential sources of confusion or contention about acceptable means i for implementing the EPA standards. Nevertheless, the l staff recognizes that.it likely will ret be possible for L EPA to resolve all issues regarding the standards, and that an additional initiative by the NRC may be necessary. Thus, the staff is planning to pursue a third rulemaking, L called the " implementing amendeonts," which is now only in L the initial scoping phase. Possible topics to be addressed by this rulemaking include:

1) identification of acceptable methods for validation of I

the models and computer codes to be used for projecting l repository parfonnance;

2) specification of acceptable methods for estimating the likel'ihood of potentially disruptive processes and events, either generically or on a site-specific basis;

- - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ " ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ~

i I' The Cameissioners l i

3) further elaboration, beyond that currently provided in i

Part 60, of the conditions for evaluating potential human-induced disruotions of a repository and of the need l for incorporation of human-initiated. releases into an I overall probabilistic distribution of releases from a repository; i

4) endorsement of an acceptable method for identifying potentially disruptive scenarios for analysis, and i

specification of criteria for screening out scenarios with i Iow likelihood or consequences; and

5) elaboration on the meaning of the Section 60,122 requirements for evaluation of "favorabla" and "potentially adverse" conditions -- especially the requirement to show that a potentially adverse condition does not compromise the ability of the geologic repository to meet the performance objectives relating to isolation of the waste.

l The advantage of this alternative is that it permits resolution of certain potentially contentious issues before a licensing review, so that those issues will not delay or prevent a licensing decision on repository acceptability. The disadvantage of this alternative is the significant - _i amount of time and staff resources required to develop and j promulgate the necessary amendments to Part 60. Since the pu mose and effect of these NRC rules is-the implementation of the EPA standards,-EPA endorsement of such NRC implementation would minimize the potential for protracted i litigation over whether such NRC rules are consistent with NRC's statutory obligation to be consistent with EPA standards. Preferably, EPA should clarify its standards or amplify the Supplementary Information accompanying its regulation in a manner consistent with the thrust of MRC's "isplementing regulations." l Alternativo 4 -- No EPA $tandards and Current or Revised Part 50. "his alternative is inclueed because of the Possibility that EPA might be significantly delayed in reissuing its standards, or that the standards might again be found legally inadequate by a court. If there should be no epa NW standards in place at the time a repository license application is received, NRC could still carry out its licensing review, relying on Sections 60.31 and 60.41 l as the criterion for overall system performance (no i unreasonable risk to public health and safety). Doing so I would, however, inject a significant uncertainty concerning l the level of risk that would be considered " unreasonable." 1 i i

.o l l The Casudssioners, t i To prevent this from occurring, NRC could add to Part 60 a l more precise criterion for overall system performance. The staff does not now favor this alternative, and assumes that i the EPA standards will be available when they are needed. The staff will monitor EPA's progress in reissuing its standards and, if significant delays become evident, will. reevalusta the desirability cf pursuing this alternativa. 1 The staff will also keep abreast of developments regarding implementation of the EPA standards for 00E's WIPP as part of its continuing evaluation of the standards. 1 Evaluation of Alternatives As previously discussed, the EPA standards,already contain wording allowing considerable flexibility for imple-mentation. Alternatives that further increase flexibility 5 suffer from a lack of precision in their statements of the-J safety levels to be achieved (e.g., replacing numerical probabilities with "likely," "unlikeiy," or " credible"). Additional flexibility might prove counterproductive because a licensing review would need to interpret the i meaning of the standards as well as consider whether-compliance with the standards has been achieved. What is ( needed.is clarif fication of.how the flexibility provided by some of the wording in the rule end in the Supplementary ~ Information accompanying the 1985. revision may be used in satisfying the governing numerical standard. Rather than 1 petition EPA for major revisions to the probabilistic format, the staff recommends an. aggressive effort to work closely with EPA to identify potential implementation problems in the standards and to develop solutions to those problems which can be incorporated by EPA-in the standards when they are reissued. To the extent that this strategy is successful, the breadth of issues needing NRC resolution as discussed in Alternative 3, above, will be minimized.

• The EPA standards also apply to facilities used for disposal of transuranic wastes -- the type of wastes to be emplaced at WIPP -- and DOE must prepara probabilistic analyses to demonstrate compliance of WIPP with the standards.

EPA's comments en a draft Supplemental Environmental !spect Statement (EIS) for WIPP urge 00E to publish an additional supplemental EIS or sinflar ccepliance document for public review and comment after the planned five year test phase and before init,iation of j the final disposal-phase of operations. NRC staff review of DOE's iterative performance assessments for WIPP, which will be necessary to support the compliance document, could provide additional valuable insights into the implementability of the EPA standards.

i 4 i The Commissioners. I The NRC staff recommends continueo pursuit of Alternative 3, and approval of this recommendation is requested. RE'sPlans I i The ICP for the Yucca Mountain site, recently reviewed by I NRC staff, describes in general terms 00E's plans for j implementing the EPA standards. These plans involve j! identification of potentially disruptive processes and events (several dozen are described in the SCP), grouping these into scenarios or " scenario classes," evaluating racionuclide releases to the environment for each scenario l or scanario class, and combination of.the resulting information into a " complementary cumulative distribution i function" (CCDF), for evaluation of compliance with the EPA i . standards. 00E's plans correspond well with the staff's i views-of the requirements of the EPA standards. It should be noted that the Technical Review Board's (TR8) Subcommittee on Performance Aasessment is reviewing DOE's i plans for implementing the EEA standards.. i i If the Standards Are Not 7mplementable Although EPA considers its standards to be' implementable, _l EPA recognizes that doubts continue to remain about implementation of the EPA standard. As a result, provisions l for development of alternative standards have been l incorporated. The Federal Reaister text (50 FR 38074, September 19, 1985) describing the alternative standards prevision, stated' There are several areas of uncertainty the Agency (EPA) is aware of that might cause suggested modifications of the standards in the future. One of i these concerns implementation of the containment requirements for mined geologic repositories. This will require collection of a great deal of data during site characterization, resolution of the inevitable uncertainties in such information, and adaptation of this information into probabilistic risk assessments. Although the Agency is currently confident that this will be successfully accomplished, such projections over thousands of years to determine compliance with i en environmental regulation are unprecedented. If -- after substantial experience with these analyses is acquired -- disposal systems that clearly provide good l 1 solation cannot reasonably be shown to comply with ) the containment requirements, the Agency would l (1

~ _ _ _ _ _ < x m; M' 3 y + l l$e Commissioners l .l consider whether modifications to (the standards) were- _ ({. _ _ appropriate. l:. Any NRC staff position that the EPA standards can be implemented depends upon.the flexibility for NRC to develop-5 B and apply non probabilistic criteria consistent with the: y Commission's= traditional multiple-barrier, defense-in-depth p licensing philosophy, and the ability to work with EPA to L fuentify and resolve potential issues regarding implementa-L tion. Tne staff anticipates that this' resolution will F consist of modifications to the EPA stand M s and NRC rulemakings. However if this stritegy should fail'to resolve ~open issues and if-isolementation of the EPA L standards should prove unworkable for a repository p that othenvise appears suitable, EPA appears to be committed to reexamine its. standards and, presumably, to modify those standards as needed to allow a reasoned licensing decision to be reached.~ Application of the standards:to WIPP will'be an: additional test of the standards ard should help to resolve questio.s about the standards, independent of a femal NRC licensing review.

== Conclusions:== The predominant view of the staff is that the technical L scope of a repository licensing review will be the same regardless of the way in which.the EPA standards are fomulated.. If one is to reevaluate the use of quanti-tative licensing standsrds for the HLW repositorv, such a u reevaluation cannot be done separately, but only by a thorough eve.luation of the procedures.and controls for use 4 of such standards in the regulatory process.- Thus.it.is the further view of the staff that resolution 07 implementation concerns through close interaction with EPA during reissuance of its standards, followed by the technical development and rulemaking process described in SECY 80-285 is the-essential path of such reevaluation. Regarding potential releases'from a repository, the far.damental purpose of the licensing review is to answer the questions: s --What can go wrong with a repository? --What cre the effects on public health and thy environment if these things happen? --How likely is it that they will occur? er o g _

g .} y The Commissioners l The likelihood.of potential repository ' disruptions must be evaluated'in same-manner, and EPA's approach of combining i numerical probabilities with wording allowing substantial reliance on qualitative considerations appears to be workable in'a licensing review. DOE bears the " burden of proof" of compliance with the standards..If NRC's or - DOE's experience in attempting to isplement EPA's standards demonstrates serious difficulties in implementing the standards, EPA appears to be committed to reexamine the standards and to modify them, as needed, to allow a reasonad licensing decision to be reached. NRC staff will ensure that EPA is promptly informed of any.such difficulties based on NBC's experience. Recommendation: That the Commission approve staff plans to pursue a long-ters, ongoing evaluation of the EPA standards by way of its implementing rulemakings and, as it does so, to maintain close contact with-EPA to identify and resolve, within the EPA standards, potential implementation issues to the extent practical.- i; a L Coordination: The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper L and has no legal objection. The Office of Nuclear. Regulatory Research has also reviewed and concurred in b this paper. The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste ~ (ACNW) and-its predecessor, the Waste Management Subcosmittee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) have expressed r:servations about the i isrJ1erentability and about the stringency of the EPA HLW standards. Partinaat correspondence is enclosed. %.[ f'. s M. Tay1 ing Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

,ACRS and ACNW Correspondence Reinted j to EPA HLW Pandares L L ~ L a

.i +

{

( ,a UNITED STAfts - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I A0vis0RY conamTTEE ON REACTOR sAPEGUAnce p g.... - July 17,1985 j Honorable Nunzio'J. Palladino Chairman. U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, D. C. 20555 i

Dear Dr. Palladinc:

1 SU8 JECT:. ACRS CDfMENTS ON EPA STANDARDS FOR HIGH-LEVEL RAD!0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL s During its. 303rd meeting. July 11-13. 1985, the Advisory Committee on Reactor ' Safeguards discussed the proposed " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards ~ for Renagement and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. High-Level and Transuranic-Radioact1 ve. Wastes" -(40 CFR 1g1).. being developed by the U. 5. Environmental. Protection: AgencyL(EPA). This was also the subject of a meetinq-of-our Waste-Management: Subcommittee on June 18. -1985. -during which discuss < ons were held with staff members from both the EPA and the-NRC. 'The Committee also. had the . benefit'of the-documents referenced. Although we-noted:a number of questions ' relating to the proposed standards, a-- - key issue: pertains. to the application of probabilistic conditions on the-proposed,radionuclide release limits. In this ' regard, we wish to call atten-tion to a particular recessendation made by the-High-Level Radicactive Waste Disposal..Subcosmittee a* the ' EPA Science Advisory Board, namely: "We recom.end. that use of-a quantitative probabilistic condition:on-the-modifiedL Table 2 release limits be made: dependent on! EPA's ability -to . provide convincing evidence that such a condition 1s practical to meet and will not lead to serious impediments legal or otherwise, to the licensing of. high-level-weste geologic - repositories. 'If such evidence cannot - be 'suggestto-sy the NRC." (Reference 2)pt qualitative criteria, such as those - provide 6 we recommend' that EPA ado It is our understanding that the NRC Staff ~has concurred with the proposed EPA

standards. including n the usen of a probabilistic approach on radionuclide release limits.

In view of the importance of the ability of the NRC to deter-t eine compliance with the. EPA stendards. in. licensing a high-level waste reposi-tory.~ ~ we recensend' that - the Corrission assure itself that the NRC Staff is correct in - endorsing this approe % We believe that demonstration of such compliance will be extremely dif% wit and that the proposed standards arn unduly restrictive. Dr. David Okrent. ACRS member, and Drs. k'onrad Krauskopf and Frank Parker. ACRS

consultants. who participated in the ACAS discussions on this matter, were

?.L -.?. -.... -...

a lc: - 1 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 17,1985 JalsY involved in the review conducted by the EPA Science Advisory Boerd of an earlier version of the proposed standards. Sincerely. David A. Ward Chairman

References:

i._ gra working Draft No. 6 -- Final 40 CFR 191. " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards-for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes," dated June 15, 1985 2. Letter from H. E. Collier Subcomittee Chairun, to W. O. Ruckelshaus. EPAAdministrator.datedkebruary 17,1984 forwarding. " Report on the. Review of Proposed Environmental Standards for the Management and Disp (osa of Spent Nuclear Fuel. High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes 40 l-l CFR 191)" by the High-Level Radioactive Weste Disposal Subcomittee. l Science Advisory Board. EPA dated January 1984 L3. SECY-84-320 for the Comissioners from W. J. 01rcks. EDO

Subject:

NRC t ' Staff Comme n to Environmental Protection Agency-(EPA) on-the Science - Advisory Board Report on Proposed EPA Standard for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. High-Level and Transuranic Weste (40 CFR Part 191).- dated August 9. 1984

4. :.

Letter from J. G. Davis NRC Staff, to EPA.

Subject:

Response to EPA's request for coments on their proposed. environmental standards for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes, dated May 10,1983 '5. Letter from N. J. Palladino Chairman, NRC. to L. Verstandig. Acting Administrator. EPA

Subject:

Comission's concerns about sections of the proposed standards that deal with means of implementation, dated May 11~. 1983 O w, -me ,,,~ews,n-,, ---e,w,-w,,e w-m,,-owe-- ,w,,w,---e ,-r,,.--w,n.-, ,,m,w.,,, um -,e,-~> y > se

q t j i 406.3.3/DJF/85/09/09 W 12 3 ! MEMORANDUM FOR: R. F. Fraley, Executive Director Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards t FROM: Robert E. Browning, Director Division of Waste Management

SUBJECT:

NRC STAFF VIEWS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EPA HLW STANDARDS Your memorandum of July 29, 1985 to William J. Dircks fomarded the ACRS 7 coments on the EPA standards for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. I-would like to provide you with additional infomation regarding the staff's views on EPA's standards and on implementation of those standards by the NRC. The'ACRS's concerns are capsulized in the following p ragraph from David A. Ward's July 17, 1985 memorandum to Chairman Palladino: It is our understanding that the NRC Staff has concurred with the proposed EPA standards, including the use of a probabilistic approach on t radionuclide release limits. In view of the importance of the ability of the NRC to determine compliance with tha EPA standards in licensing-a high-level waste repository, we recomend that the Commission assure itself that the NRC Staff is correct in endorsing this approach. We believe that demonstration of such compliance will be extremely difficult and that the proposed standards are unduly restrictive. The NR staff recognizes that use of numerical probabilities by EPA represents a novel approach for setting environmental.' standards.- NRC coments on the proposed standards stated ~"The numerical probabilities in (the proposed standards) would require a-degree of precision'which is unilkely to be achievable in evaluating a real waste disposal system." In discussions following publication of the proposed standards, the NRC staff explained to EPA the' difficulties foreseen in trying to implement a standard containing . numerical probabilities. As a result of these discussions, EPA has added a new paragraph to Section 191.13 of the standards whici. reads as fcilows: "Perftmance assessments need not provide complete assurance that the requirements of 191.13(a) will be met. Because of the long time period involved and the nature of the events and processes of interest, there will inevitably be substantial uncertainties in projecting disposal system performance. Proof of the future performance of a disposal system is:not to be had in the ordinary sense of the word in situations that h ~ hSI] M FC :WEP

WRP

WRP

W

W LAME ':DFehringer _ :Scoplan

HMiller

_ :MBell

RRronning L....:............:............:............:....g.... g g.y........:...........:..........

1 q

c. -

406.3.3/DJF/85/09/09 -2 1 1 deal with much shorter time frames. Instead, what is required is a reasonable expectation, on the basis' of the record before the implementing agency, that compliance with 191.13(a) will be achieved." ] The staff considers that this wording (which conforms closely to 160.101(a)(2) ) of the Consis11on's regulations) sets reasonable bounds on-tiis degree of J assurance required for estimates of the likelihood and consequences of -l potentially disruptive events and processes. The Commission will not need to place sole reliance on probabilistic analyses when evaluating repository J safety but, rather, will have considerable opportunity to employ its more traditional analytical-and engineering methods. The staff considers. that the specific performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 60, the detailed siting and other qualitative criteria of 10 CFR Parts 60 and-960, and the technical positions under development by the NRC staff will help assure that the appropriate balance is struck between use of. traditional analytical and engineering methods and probabilistic analyses in. making licensing findings. Although the staff continues to believe that the probabilistic nature of the ' standards will pose a significant challenge, the staff considers' that-the' standards, in the current form, can be implemented in a licensing review. ' I hope that this information proves helpful in explaining the staff's views regarding implementation of the EPA standards by the NRC. WM o= Robert E. Browning, Director Division of Waste Management 7 A[ b --....:p

W p :M UFC

' WRP m....:..-....-..-.:....- -n..........:.. 3... --:--.......-:--.- -.-.--.:------- --. ,IAME :DFehringer :SCoplan

Miller 11

RS ning

) ATE ::85/.09/06.

09/eiy85 _ :09A /85

09/11 /85

09/ll /85

m - s ,1p - )l;.I,' ih. ..; y - b 1 i P -1 e Distrioution_:. EDO 000881 WM File: 406.'3.3- .g WMRP r/f; NMSS r/f CF f

W ehringer & r/f

-JLinehan R8cyle ] Scoplan 0-

JKennedy

?-- . MHell-- ~ 8rowning: R JBunting MKnapp -JGreeves_ l HJMiller <JDavis 7 -DMausshardt-

JWol f

'EDO r/f EDQ.

• ED0 F116. 000891.

'JHoffman CCudd-JRoe l-iTRehm-VStello G unningham;' -l MTaylor t CHletemas JDircks ' Central Files I i 1 s u -? [l- ' '^ -,a ,t[

y ~ i f'#Ne\\j -C UNITED STATES f -{ j NUCl EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l e Advisory conesITTth ON REACTOR SAFEGUARD 8 t i wAsmwovon. o. c. asses 4 * *"* / l October 16, 1985 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino k Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington. D. C. 20555. 3

SUBJECT:

ADDITIONAL ACRS COP #iENTS ON THE E?A STANDARDS FOR A HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY j During its 306th meating, October 10-12, 1985, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards met with you and the other Comissioners to offer comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA) Standards for a High-Level Radioactive Weste (HLW) Repository, which was = the - l-subject of our_ report to you dated July 17,1985. In response to the request made during this meeting, we are pleased to submit the following-o additional coments on the EPA standards which were-published as.a final. rule on September 19,1985. These standards-will apply to the facili-ties being proposed by the Department of Energy and must be met in the - associated licensing review conducted by the NRC. Our purpose,in writing you at this time -is to highlight the fact that the standards being promulgated by-the EPA are unreasonably restrictive and; contain serious deficiencies. This will undoubtedly. introduce unnecessary obstacles into the licensing process for an HLW repository. l-with only minimal ber.efit to the public health and: safety. Our justifi-L cations for these consents are ou; lined below. Development' of these standards _ has been under way within the EPA since t December 1976.- During. this period, the ACRS: and' its Subcomittee on waste management were briefed periodically by EPA representatives, and t at each such meeting coments and suggestions were discussed on an informal basis. In early 1983 the EPA submitted the then-current draft of the proposed standards to its Science Advisory Board (SAB) for i review. Detailed comments by the High-Level Radioactive Wasta Disposal Subcomittee of the SA8 include 6 the following: ~ The Subcomittee recommended "that the release limits specified in the propos:.d standards be increased by a factor of ten, thereby causing a related tenfold relaxation of the proposed soci-etal objective (population risk of cancer)." The Subcommittee recomended "that use of a quantitative probabi-listic cendition on the... release limits ',e made dependent on EPA's ability to provide convincing evidence that such a condition is practical to meet and will not lead to ssrfous impediments, legal or otherwise, to the licensing of high-level-waste geologic 0'~

.~. v a --g .m;

r

? t 2 October 16, 1985 g Honorable Nunzio J. Pelladino. c repositories. If such avidence cannot be provided, we. recomend that EPA adopt-qualitatire criteria, such as those suggested by the 3 NRC." Of particular concern to the SA8 Subcomittee, in tems of. meeting the-1 conditions of the standards, was the fact that containment requirements should be such that the cumulative ' releases: of radionue.lides from a repository to the accessible environment--for 10,000 years after dis-posal, from ' all _ significant. processes and events that' may. affect the disposal system, shall: "have.a likelihood of less than one chance in 10'of exceeding" the i P quantities (given in an accompanying Table); and [. "have a-likelihood of. less than one chance in 1,000 of exceeding ten times" these same_ quantities.- i L The SAB. Subcommittee also - reconsnended specific changes in the probabi-listic aspects of tho' draft standa.ds to help make it more practical. for I an applicant to make a case that the quantitative probabilistic criteria L had:been met. w Although. the wording in the standards includes the statement' tfrat "perforinance assessments need not provide complete assurance" that these L requirements will be met..there remains the basic fact that> the 'stan-dards, as " published, are far too restrictive. In our opinion, the establishment 1of. overly restrictive standards, relieved by leniency in;

t their implementation is not an appropriate approach.

The proper approach would have been to develop reasonable standards that could have been more definitively enforced. m The problems > cited above were but a few of those observed and comented upon. by' the : SA8 - Subconunittee. Additional probl ses in Working Draft No. 6 of the EPA standards were discussed with an EPA representative during a meeting of the ACR$ Subcommittee on waste management on Jiine 18-and 19, 1985. These included the following: The standards, as published, do not appear to be internally consis-tent. Although the latest data were used for estimating the biclogical effects of various radionuclides, the associated dose limits for individual body organs were not based on appropriate risk' criteria. ' The ' health risks associated with the release limits specified in the standards are much lower (by factors of a thousand-or more) than the risks considere6 acceptable by the EPA for other environ-mental stresses, such as hazardous toxic chemicals. The overly restrict!ve standards may result in the rejection of some sites proposed for an HLW repository that othemise might be acceptable. y--g- -e 9 g 9 y,,,yw es y 9 9W,g g et-y .egw- ---ww-~ ey

• g ev= e w ww-T--~'u

-*w w'w'- 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - ^ - - - " ' - ' - ' - - ' - - ^ " ' " - - - - ^ - - - - - ~ ~ ^ ~ - ' ~ m

~ - - 2^.,, l i}* g >+ j Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino October 16,1985 ) L Art. indicated above, the standards will definitely complicate the O processes,'both technical and legal, of demonstrating that a given E' site.is acceptable. i We real.ize that both the NRC Staff-and the D0E Staff have accepted the 4 EPA standards. Although we can understand, to some degree, the desires-of both.. staffs to complete this ' step, we are troubled by the serious 4 L deficiencies that exist in the standards. The compromises 1that have been made' at this stage will leadito extended delays and, an uncertain outcome in the licensing process for an HLW repository, with only slight beaefit to the public health and safety. l b Although the ACRS could undertake a more. detailed review and critique of L-the EPA standards, we believe that the SA8 Subcomittee has already done + this in a professional manner. A copy of the Executive Sumery of their p report is attached for your information. We hope this letter is helpful. Although we realize that ' the EPA-h .tandards have hasn-published, we beliu e that they contain such serious deficiencies.ttat the NRC should'take prompt action to voice these con-. Cerns. ^ Sincerely, David A. Ward Chairman

Attachment:

Section II, " Executive Sunnary" of Report on the review of Proposed Environmental. Standards = for the Management and Disposal:of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR'191) by the SAB EPA, dated January 1984

References:

1. Letter from Herman E. Collier, Jr., Chairman, EFA High-Level Radio-activ6 Waste Disposal Subcosmittee, to Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus. Administrator, EPA, dated February 17, 1984 transmitting Report on the review of Proposed Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal'of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic-Radioactive Wastes by the High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 1 Subcommittee, Science Advisory Board EPA, dated Janaury.1984 2. SECY-84-320. "NRC Staff Comments to EPA on the SA8 Report on Pro-posed EPA Standard for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. High-Level and Transuranic Waste (40 CFR Part 191)," dated August 9, 1984, includir.g Working Draft No. 8. Final 40 CFR 191 Subchapter F - Radiation Protection Programs, dated July 19, 1985 -} c. ,.n-'.., .--.__.--------,.,.----.---,---,-,-~--n, ,-.--e,.-. -, ~, +,, .-~~e,-

s, s r+. .y ow i Honorable;Nunzio J. Palladino October 16, 1985 -j i 1.- SECY-85-272, " Report on the EPA's Environmental Standards for -l High-level Radioactive. Waste Disposal," dated August 13, 1985 1 4 Mer.orandum from R. E. Browning, Director, Division of Waste - Management, to R. F. Fraley, ACRS,-

Subject:

.NRC Staff Views on-Implementation of the EPA HLW Standards, dated September 11, 1985 l ) I .= .9 f l i 1 I [ d ..i

l.

p ^ d,' t w - i Y.. ( -y: a,,~ T ? NRC STAFF VIEWS-REGARDING THE' FINAL r. EPA HIGH-LEVEL WASTE STANDARDS OCTOBER 21, 1985 ? '}. %. J h i b >s:- - ie - m +, =,-,-.ziep-c... - ~- -,,,,,,., - = ~ .~.w... e-,-- r e.r,-- y--

g. .s ll^., mw :,.; - ? -' y 2 l'. ( a EPA HIGH-LEVEL WASTE STANDARDS ISSUES ARE THE~ EPA STANDARDS OVERLY CONSERVATIVE, ESPECIALLY COMPARED WITH. STANDARDS !N OTHER AREAS? s CAN.THE PROEABILISTIC FEATURES OF THE STANDARDS BE IMPLEMENTED IN A FORMAL LICENSING REVIEW? r l.- h f ',k. .I l; p,.,; -~.... -....

Q y ;Q.j ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~~7~~ '~ ~ l' y e 3 k P

SUMMARY

i e - NRC'WAS--lNTENSELY INVOLVED FOR NlNE YEARSIN REVlEWlNG LTHE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EPA HIGH-LEVEL - WASTE ST/.';DARDS. lNDEPENDENT NRC-STUDIES-HAVE SHOWN THE STANDARDS TO BE ACHIEVABLE. - EPA SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIED THE STANDARDS TO ALLOW QUALITAT

JUDGMENTS IN~ LICENSING REVIEWS.

y .AS"NOTEDLIN.SECY-85-272, EPA HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO NRC'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE ABILITY TO lMPLEMENT_THE STANDARDS. L, SINCE SECY-85-272, NO NEW ISSUES HAVE ARISEN WHICH WOULD ALTER -THF. CONCLUSIONS OF THAT. PAPER. cl' l-b 4 i [ .l 1 L N' _; l_ -t l.'s e + - _. -,

~ a: . 4l s-1 4 4 g L: i 4 L WHO nAS REVIEWED THE STANDARDS. 9 I NRC:-- REVIEWED THROUGHOUT EPA'S DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSION i -REVIEWED AND REVISED: STAFF COMMENTS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS. 1 ~ DOEE-- INTERACTED WITH EPA, PARALLEL 30 THE NRC'S REVIEWS. STATES AND TRIBES -- INTENSE SCRUTINY FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF' PROPOSED STANDAR,DS. ' UMB :-- S IGNI F I CANT SCRUTI NY OF T::1 PROPOSED STANDARDS PRIOR TO

PUBLICATION.

LESS INVOLVEMENT PRIOR TO FINAL PUBLICATION.

L EPA-SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD -- SUBCOMMITTEE WAS FORMED TO REVIEW

\\ PROPOSED STANDARDS.. SAB REPORT REVIEWED BY NRC STAFF, AND ~' --COMMENTS ~ FORWARDED TO COMMI SS ION (SECY-84-320). 'ACRS - 'ACRS AND ITS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE FERIODICALLY BRIEFED ON STANDARDS. A s 4 -5 m de ~ ,-wn w- ,e m. r-we ,-n o ev-,- e -,w.- w .-m-n e-

M.e,, c y I' 9> ti . i" . 5 a l BASES FOR NRC STAFF POSITIONS e -CONSERVATISM-i -- EPA HAS LEGAL'RESPONSIBlLiTY TO DETERMINE ALLOWABLE' LEVEL OF i - HEALTH EFFECTS.- - NRC STAFF' CONSIDERS STANDARDS TO BE ACHIEVABLE BASED ON - NUREG/CR-3235. ~ --STANDARDS CAN BE VIEWED AS A QUANTIFICATION OF "AS LOW AS REASOi4 ABLY : ACHI EVABLE," GlVEN CURRENT UNCERTAINTI ES. l L-1 1'

PROBASILISTIC FEATURES l.

l: - NRC STAFF PROPOSED WORDING TO PERMIT. QUALITATIVE LICENSING q, FINDINGSzWHERE NECESSARY. EPA INCORPORATED WORDING IN l

STANDARDS.

WORDING IS'NOT V;EWED AS COMPENSATION FOR. EXCESS CONSERVATISM lN THE STANDARDS., EPA _ RULE CONFORMS TO COMMISSION'S DISTINCTION BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND QUALITATIVE STATEMENTS REGARDING LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE (48 FR 28204). y f 4 t +- + = b +-w- + ---a n- --es av-s n-in-e=+.w m'*--sw=+= em e .= w e =*-- - - - - c =+-v- - - "=--

m_ lk [ ~ UNIT 80 87AT88 4 Dircks } NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N jg. P n,' R o g siRot .ew.. u. \\ 6 October 25, 1985 r<d.Q-Stello au g g 00: 30 P33. ~6'D canton - S'1,y - 7 Minogue ~ GCunningham MEM3RAN00M FOR: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary-M'Ifg %e p EDO R/F Ddet Ii[ -,...f ' ~ f < tag PDR~ " 1 FROM: Lando W. Zech, Jr. A/.

SUBJECT:

SECY.85-272 bd Reiu a i Vh 62hg 'f"? D ( I have reviewed and carefully considered the ACRS' advice that tfCEPAr- --- - standardt, in the opinion of the ACRS, are " unreasonably restrictive and contain serious deficiencies" together with their conclusion that the standards "will undoubtedly introduce unnecassary obs M as into the licensing process." _I have also considered the 00E innd EPA statements in support of the standards and their conc Nsion that the standards are reasonable and achievable. The NRC staff has concluded that the EPA standards are reasonable, achievable and flexible enough that'they can,be implemented. - L In view of the conflicting advice provided to the Consission 0GC has provided options which the Connission may exercise ard concl,ded that since u "theACRSconcerns[arelgovernedbythepolicyandtechnicalissueswe have described rather than any. strictly legal considerations, we make i no reconnendation on how the Commissior, should proceed, other than that-it snould'not act without hearing from the NRC staff and fully assessing all -l the factors we have described.".The staff has responded to the Commission at the October 21.-1985 public meeting and addressed the ACRS concerns. The staff has advised the Commission that the staff, as well as 00E 3r.d EPA, do not agree with the ACRS that the standards are overly restrictive i L and contain serious deficiencies. The staff stated that they believed, as did 00E and EPA, that the standards were flexible enough and could be exec 9ted. With all due respect to the advice of the ACRS, I reaffirm my approval of f SECV-85-272 in support of the 00E, EPA and staff recommendation. l However, I suggest that the staff be directed to address the ACRL' concerns when developing the package conforming Part 60 to the EPA standards. I understand they may do this by defining the basis for their assurance that adequate flexibility exists in the standards for them to be implemented. cc: Chairman Palladino Connissioner Roberts MMS Connissioner Asselstine i gpg;73 pCRS c="< "'== r z cn 3Acm ip / \\ p ' b rW a

.~ _ _._ $y. ,p) ' Me " * ^ UNITED STAT 98 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS - 1 ( _[S C.f ] wasmo m o,c.mes November 14, 1985 i '35 ;

• 5. " w;.

(

'. _/__

Honorablo Nunzio J. Palladino m 7-- Chairman LM J-U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission %g,g,.. y - Washington, D. C. 20555 ggg gg

Dear Dr. Palladino:

@9 Y %-@E MM 24 I s I / m'

SUBJECT:

ADDITIONAL ACRS COPMENTS ON EPA STAWDARDS FOR A HIGN-LEVE 7 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY t During itt 307th meeting, November 7-9, 1985, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards met with members of the NRC Staff and the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) for additional discussions on the nature and implementation of the EPA Standards for a High-Level Radioactive-Waste (HLW) Repository. This was also the subject of a meeting of the. NRC-Comissioners with the ACRS on October 10, 1985; of a reeting of the NRC Comissioners with reptasentatives of the NRC Staff, the Department of Energy (DOE) EPA, and the ACRS on October 21,1985;- and of a com-bined meeting of' our subcourittees on Waste Management and Metal Com-ponents on October 24-25, 1985. In addition, we reported to you on this subjt.ct -in our letters of July 17, 1985 and October 16, 1985. As a result of these meetings and associated ' discussions, we offer the following additional comments. L 1. It is generally recognized that there is essentially no prospect L that compliance with the. EPA' Standards can ever be demonstrated by i ac tual - observations. Determination of compliance will have to.be l' based on the results of calculations using some agreed-upon set of release-scenarios, environmental transport models, and their L underlying assumptions. As stated in our letter of October 16, 1985, we - believe - that this has the poJential for introducing obstacles in'the licensing process, and it was for this reason that we recomended in our letter of July 17, 1985, that the Comission assure itself-that the Staff's endorsement of this approach was correct. 2. We continue to believe that the EPA Standards contain deficiencies y and inconsistencies, e.9., that the dose limits for single organs E are not risk-based, and that different oose limits are being 1-applied to NRC-licensed HLW facilitics than to'similar DOE facil-ities. Although we understand that time constraints did not pemit the EPA Staff to correct these deficiencies, they nonetheless exist. In addition, there are errors in the recomended methods L for the analy:is and interpretation of data collected in the ) evaluation of the perforn:ance of a repository. l{2f0 St L N N =-- -- - - -- --

yy -. -- - =-~- - - - v' i x' ' ) e .s i 1 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino November 14, 1985 ) L i The NRC-Staff is proposing an approach that may I - Newever, we have no confidence that it will succeeo. prove successful. Our basic concern j continues to be whether a formal 'detemination can be made that a licensee f: complying with the EPA Standards. To help resolve - this j -problem, we Lencourage the -NRC Staff to accelerate their efforts to develop analytical methods. based on both deteministic and probabilistic - m.' appror.:hes - and we recomend that a consensus be sought-on these methods as-they are develcped. We also. encourage the NRC Staff to use rule-mak'ng as a mechanism for implementing these methods, and we support the cpproaches being developed-'by the NRC Staff to utilize outside experts to help identify relevant issues and information needs. .l Additional coments by ACRS Members Harold W. Lewis and' Dade W. Moeller are presented below. Sincerely. U David A. Ward Chaiman Additional Coments by ACR$ Member H&rold W Lewis It is worth-repeating and extendtog the statement in the ACRS letters of July 17, -1985 and October 16. - 1985, -that the EPA Standards are too -stringent. All: these problems of compliance detemination derive from the-fact that, the EPA risk limits are far> below any reasonable likeli-hood'or detection. It-is that that drives. the dependence on models and calculations. 1 I know of no rational basis (though-recognize the political constraints) for _ a standard involving one-tereth of a fatality' per - year for ten thousand years, beginning in a few hundred years. If one uses cost / ben-efit analysis with any reasonable estimate of the benefit of the repost-tory;Dif one uses reasonable discounting of future costs against current benefits, a procedure-understood by all surviving businesses and nations; if one compares with the risk or even the' radioactive effluents from coal burning, the only viable siternative to nuclear power; if ~one compares with cosmic rays or other natural radiation; however one makes the comparison, these are unreasonably stringent standards. I recogniz1 that they are the prodcct of EPA, and the result of a necessary political process, but think that the NRC should develop regulatory procedures in such a way as to nake the best of a bad set cf standards by moving the assessment of the risk in - the direction of realism. To add the usual regulatory conservatism to the implementation of standards which are already too stringent would not be in the na-tional interest. Jh

d Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino November 14, 1985 I know' of no risk issue (perhaps excepting UFOS) 'In which the discrep-ancy between parceived risk and actual risk is 'so high. That seems to be what has put us in this pesition, but it is still the responsibility of scientific advisors to remain. rational and to deal with real risk. That is extraordinarily small here.

1. dditional Remarks by ACRS Member Dade W. Moeller, I recognize ' that many of the issues associated with the EPA Standards-are centroversial and subject to a range _ of interpretations.

A primary example' is the estimation of_- the average' annual societal risk. to an individual as a consequence of the operation of an - HLW repository constructed and operated in accord with the "PA Standards. _ Depending on the number of. people assumed to be exposed, one can:" demonstrate" that the. Standards are either comparable to the risks' associated with some other existing radiation: standards, or that the risks are several orders of magnitude. lower. Since, at the present time, there appear to be no acceptable guides-for use by Federal agencies in making risk estimates for radionuclide sources that have-t*"e _ potential for exposing large numbers of people at extremely low dose. rates over-long periods ~of time. I_ would encourage the NRC to request that the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC) undertake to develop such guides. 'I' understand-that' the CIRRPC would be receptive to such a request. n L .. ~.

D "-\\* umTso sTAtas y, 7-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl8810N eks g wasumeron,ocaus Rehm -( Stello November 20,1985 wa g,d m ~ oppas op fue $d, 3.3 comemam men Docket,Q "" 7'-"W PJ ~ MEMORANDUM FOR: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary gion;. ?,[![ .~FROM: FrederickM.Bernthal[ .AQE f @[ Mft- -._ - _ _, gg, $UBJECT: REAFFIRMATION 0F V0TE ON SECY 5 7 ~ -U n extensive examination of the ACRS objections to the EPA standard ( cluding their most recent coments presented in a letter of 11/14/85)and of:the analysis of evilable Comission options presented by OGC, I reaffiru my approval of SECY-85-272. The ACR$ has cricized the EPA standard on the grounds that l

1. it is overly stringent, mandating a level of protection that is N r in exce:s of'that provided by other existing environmental standards, and

2. implementation _ of the s.tandard by NRC 'in licensihg a repository will be difficult if not impossible.

My review of the question-suggests that the momentary confusion over the EPA standard arose from imprecise wording on the part of EPA and Staff in attempting to explain the origin of the cumulative probability distribution function:of repository release upon which the interpretation of 40 CFR 191 is l based._ Nevertheless, I continue to have reservations, both as to the application of the EPA standard, and as to the reasonablenest and consistency l of the standard when viewed in light of other societal risks (cf. comments of ACR$ Members Dade Moeller and Hal Lewis). l' Be that.as it may, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act clearly assigns to the EPA l the responsibility for establishing the environmental standard. Given that L our-staff has repeatedly asserted that the standards as published can be L implemented, there-appears to be little basis on wnich to challenge a pblicy decision that is, strictly speaking, that'of EPA. But I agree with the suggestion of ACRS Member, Dr. Dade Moeller that the Commission request the Comittee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC) to develop guidelines for use by Federal agencies that would foster consistency in the risk estimates and risk management of low doses of radiation. I also agree with Connissioner Zech and the Chairm!in that any remaining ACRS concerns should be addressed to the fullest extent possible in the rulemeking tnat will be necessary to conform Part 60 to the EPA standard. In particular, care should be taken to avoid any ambiguity in the application of probabilistic conditions placed on the post-closure containment requirements. ]/ U O' '/U -i r n M S ~W, f i l c -.i i.

L L The application of these conditions should not impose any further conservatism

on an already highly conservative standard.

i. It is unfortunate that the ACR$ cossents on the EPA standards were made available at a time when Commission options to act without seriously delaying . the repository program had, for the most part, been foreclosed. -! would hope 't that in future reviews of NRC activities under the WPA the ACR$ could be ! involved at an earlier stage so that valuable technical advice and input Lcould be used to timely and best advantage by the Commisssion. i cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts .Cosmissioner Asselstine Commissioner Zech 0GC OPE. E00 L L... .i,, p g 4 G

A-. k '(w4 UNITED $Tdfas Action: Minogue,RES/ Davis, if NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Gs: Dircks-I WAS44elv0T006, D4. Stum WH00gQMNOL y,y), November 27, 1985 GCunningham Denton '"j',L'7' 85 - E -2 Pl2 C5 Kerr, SP LEshehger, NMSS Prichard, RES Philips MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive' Director for pqrations FROM: Samuel,J. Chilk, Seer g

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - NOTA I ION' VOTE ON O SECY-85-272 - REPORT Ol& TIE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S ENVIRONMENTAL JTANDARDS FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL l' On September 19, 1985, the Conunission (with all Conunissioners agreeing)' approved the proposed' letter to EPA, as attached. Immediately following Connaission-approval, the ACRS requested., that.this matter be discussed with the Conunittee.. On October 21, 1985, the Commissio'n met with the staff, ACRS and others to discuss conflicting views. Upon due-consideration-of the concerns expressed by the ACRS -and the responses by the. staff, the Commission reaffirmed releasing-the. letter to. EPA. The letter lias been forwarded to' the Chairstan for his i signature. In' addition, EDO is directed to-submit to the Commission the rulemaking package which conforms 10 CFR Part 60 with the EPA Standard. The Conunission also' stresses the importance for.the staff to clearly articulate, in the changes to Part 60, how we interpret the EPA's Standards and that the ACRS' concerns be acuressed by clearly defining the basis for the assurance that adequate flexibility exists in the standards for their implementation. In particular, care should be taken to avoid any ambiguity in the application of probabilistic conditions placed on the post-closure containment requirements. (RES) (EDO Suspense: 2/15/861 au D"t) E!3 %M Project w.3 h DaSet No. Aes*d Ch. E ^

j. /: ~ ^ x N

p9g _9 I 3- ...J.. tPDR - - n'.t'* * * * 'u&*** ) _f s.... g... &g oswM^ H?AW Orr.MRt rm - T Trm pf W a.0* W ~

":,t. a SM A-b.%....~.._.__-.... -..... _,.. _.,.. _. ~.. _ _. _

%.4

• 8,..

2-The Commission also agrees that-the st'aff and the ACRS~should- - interact with each other early in-the process-of developing the package on 10 CFR Part 60 as well as in future reviews of i NRC activities under the NWPA so that valuable technical 1 advice and input can be used in a timely-manner by the - Constission. 4 l Chairman'Palladino requested, in line with ACRS comments, that EDO accelerate its efforts to develop analytical methods to_be used'in making-a determination-that a licensee.is complying-with the EPA Standards.- These methods should receive as broad- ' an input and review as possible. (NMSS) J

Attachment:

- As stated cc Chairman Palladino ) Commissioner Roberts- ' l Constissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal.. j . 'toamissioner f.ech i g OPE .ACRS' i r F

1. --w r....

-...-.--,..~,-.-,--..---......-.-.w..m_.2-,w...w..--..-.-. ...--w.. we-.w.,--,. %.--,-,,,-r .-..#w+--.----,-w.e.~

k IIIIbo 5*& E Mg [jg/ j[ 6(h,#, t IMAGE EVALUATION k///7%f $h TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4N'N 4 &/ '%fg 1.0 l;m na yll EL3 I.l (l= M 18 1.25 I.4 1.6 4-150mm 4 6" 4 /<$ a////A ->,%cf>,)//m-s <>++% L o o V W -- a

Tk $ $? O T S, %k>/ ////f [.b*4 IMAGE EVALUATION k//f7%Y $7 TEST TARGET (MT-3) ~g f4

1. g :

ff hf4 ); \\+ r 1.0 gmim y @ ILL3 I I.I [* M l.8 j l.25 1.4 l 1.6 1 4 150mm 4 6" -= $?>% /+f4% f/h >,4y,y,,,,,77 <8g% h l; t ne a

8 %9*I/ E gy'@It ///// [kg IMAGE EVALUATION + rs 1.0 l# Bn m gg m u L" E I.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm 6"

1. 4 4 4

• P;f5f hg%

f 4 //// %u v u s

M>@ R Y@$ IMAGE EVALUATION ////gj $b gg)7 x! @ 4 %'$,l' %f[,4 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 I.0 ltM RE E,_

• ll!!E m

l,l $M lllN 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 150mm 4 6" ^ b 4 h +,f s/h

s,xxxp

,gf,3,ppp,-_ 7 ,4s o>p L <g>, e 1ec m:4 a

o a c. , [ "*" + UNITED 8TA788 [ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N 3: waanaNetow,o,c sones e d CHAIRMAN The Honorable Lee Thomas Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ] i' Washington, D.C. 20460 b L Dear'Mr.-Thomas lh y on May 10 and 11, 1982-the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission (NRC)' ? K submitted formal consnents on-the Environmental Protection l -- Agency's troposed environmental standards for taanagement and I disposal cif high-level radioactive wastes. Among other-l things,.we stated'our view that the proposed " assurance i . requirements" and " procedural requirements" contained in those t proposed standards involved matters of implementation and.'thus i p went beyond the limits of EPA's-jurisdiction. L -In letters. dated July 19 and August 15,.1984 Acting Chairman Roberts ari Former Adminis.trator. Ruckelshaus, respectively, agreed 1that the staffs of EPA and.NRC should attempt to i p develop modifications to 10 CFR Part 60'to incorporate the principles of-EPA's proposed assurance and-procedural requirements. EPA ~could then delete these requirements or make them applice.ble'only to facilities:not licensed by the NRC, eliminating any. potential problems of jurisdictional overlap. s The NRC staff race.ntly reported'to the Commission several proposed changes to Part 60 which have been worked out by the L. NRC. and -EPA staf f- (text enclosed). Consistent with the. k provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission i 1 ill propose these changes for' incorporation into Part 60 now r the final EPA high-level waste standards have beer! .pu hed.- The NRC staff anticipates submittal of a rule $s%fs9g-package, incorporating both these wording changes t ma and other conforming amendments, to the Commission within 120 The Comunission appreciates the cooperation shown by the EPA i staff in working to reach this agreement. 1 L Sincerely, Nunzio J. Palladino i

Enclosure:

p Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 60 i w.J,; .L ; --., . ~ - -.

_ _ _ _ __. ~. _ _. _ " (,- A j a s P EPA ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 60 i a i 1.a. EPA Assurance Reevirement: t (a) Active institutional controls over disposal sites should be mais;tained for as long a period of time as is practicable after disposal; however, perfomance assessments that assess isolation of the wastes from the accessible environment-shall not consider.any contributions from active institutional controls for more than 100. years after disposal. (In Working Draft No. 8 " active institutional control" meansi -(1) controlling access to a disposal site by any means other than passive institutional . - controls. (2) performing maintenance operations or remedial actions at a site. (3) controlling or cleaning up releases from a site, or (4) monitoring parameters rolated to disposal.. system perfomknce.)-

b. 40iscussion:

The Consiission's-existing provisions (560.52) related to license termination will determine the. length of time for which institutional controls should be maintained, and there is therefore no need to alter Part 60 based on the first'part of this assurance requirement. l The second part of this assurance requirement would require that active" ir.stitutional controls be excluded from consideration (after 100 years) when the Commission assesses the isolation characteristics of a repository. The NRG staff understands that remedial actions (or other active institutional controls) would not be relied upon under Part 60= to compensate for a poor site or inadequate engineered barriers._ However, in the definition of- ' " unanticipated events and processes," Part 60 expressly contemplates that, in assessing human intrusion scenarios, the Consiission would assume that " institutions are able to assess risk and to take remedial action at a level .of social organization and technological competence equivalent to, or superior Lto, that which was applied in initiating the processes or events concerned" (emphasisadded). Therefore, it might appear at first blush that Part'60 is at-odds with the draft EPA standards. was t w s~w>=r-=e w w, ww c, .e a-,,-,,..,-w-,,-,.,r-ww-,-v-,,v=e=r-we. amme,wm e-.wws==--ew--=--w ne-em-=-=

===am--==e-===--s ee m=<w-e--=+ --w=,-----== =- -ww- - - - - - - - = = = 'I

j L l L l L P L L 2.a. EPA Assurance Requirement: 1 (b) Disposal systems shall be monitored after disposal to detect any substantial and detrimental deviations from expected perfomance. This l monitoring shall be done with techniques that do not jeopardize the isolation L of the wastes and shall be conducted until there are no significant concerns j p to be addressed by further monitoring. ) b. Discussion: l 4 l-Part 60 currently requires completion of a perfomance confimation program prior to repository closure, but does not require monitoring during the period I following closure but prior to license temination. The Connission chose not l to require post-closure monitoring because of doubts about the usefulness of l such monitoring and because of fears that monitoring in or near a repository L 'after closure could degrade repository perfomance. The type of monitoring l envisioned by EPA does not involve direct monitoring of the repository.itself - ' (which'might degrade repository performance). Rather, EPAproposestmonitoring'

• of such parameters as regional groundwat'er flow characteristics. The NRC agrees that such monitoring may, in some cases, provide desirable information beyond that which would be obtained in the perfomance confirmation program which Fart 60 now requires to be continued until permanent closure.

The NRC l therefore proposes to require monitoring as an extension of performance -confirmation, as appropriate, when such monitoring can be conducted without L degradi.y repository performance. c. Proposed Changes to Part 60: 1 Add to 660.21(c) a new 1 (9) as follows: (9) A general description of the program for post-permanent closure L monitoring of the geologic reposis.ory. Renumberthecurrent1(9)through(15)accordingly. Revise 160.51(a)(1)toread: (1) A detailed description of the program for post-permanent closure monitoring-of the geologic repository in accordance with 560.144. As a minimum, this description shall: (1)) identify those parameters that 'will be monitored; indicate how each param (ii perfomance of the repository; and (iii) discuss the' length of time over which each parameter should be monitored to adequately confirm the expected performance of the repository.

4 4 o 'l t i i 3.a. EPA Assurance Requirement: (c) Disposal sites shall be designated by the most permanent markers, records, and other passive institutional controls practicable to indicate the dangers of the wastes and their location.- b. Discussion: No revisions to Part 60 are needed. 560.21(c)(8).60.51(a)(2),and60,121 contain equivalent provisions. s e a ' y e e

• 4 I

- - - - + +. -. + - ,,m..,.,, ,,,,,,,,,,w,- ,-m ,a

J ~. '* fr 5.a. EPA Assurance Recuirement: (e) Places where there has been mining for resources, or where there is a reasonable expectation of exploration for scarce or easily accessible-resources, or where there is a significant concentration of any material that j is not widely available from other sources, should be avoided in selecting disposal. sites. Resources to be considered shall' include minerals, petroleum i J or natural gas, valuable geologic formations, and ground waters that are either irreplaceable because there is no reasonable alternative source of drinking water available for substantial populations or that are vital to the preservation of unique and sensitive ecosystems. Such places shall not be used for disposal of the wastes covered by this Part unless the-favorable characteristics of such places compensate for their greater, likelihood of being disturbed'in the future. b. Discussion: Part 60 contains pravisions equivalent t6 this: assurance requirement in. 160,122(c)(17),(18)and(19). Part 60 does not, however, address "a = significant concentration of any material that is not widely available fran other sources." It is possible that the economic.value of materials could change in the future-in a way which might attract future exploration or-development detrimental to repository performance. The NRC proposes-to add an additional potentially ' adverse condition to Part 60 related to significant concentrations of material that is.not widely available from other sources. As with the other potentially 10 adverse conditions,'the presence of such a condition would require an evaluation of the effect of the condition on repository performance as specified in 560,122(a)(2)(11), but would not preclude selection of a site for repository construction. (It should be noted that DOE's siting guidelines ,L contain an identical provision in 10 CFR 960.4-2-8-1.) c. Prooosed Chances to Part 60: Add a new 1 (18) to $60,122(c) as follows: (18) The presence of significant concentrations of any naturally-occurring material that is not widely available from other sources. Renumber the current 1 (18) through (21) accordingly.

j 7 %.: 4 UNITED STATES M, f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i Rehm -g wasonsrom. o,c.seems Stallo i Mn ue cHamanam - December 2, 1985 Denton '85 [E0 -3 P3:13 8cunnigham The Honorable Lee Thomas Eehrincer. NMSS Administrator ED0 R/F ^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Mr. Thomas On May 10 and 11, 1982-the Nuclear Regulatory Comunission (NRC) submitted formal comuments on the Environmental Protection-p Agency's proposee environmental standards for management and L -disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. -Among other-things, we stated our view that the proposed " assurance requirements" and " procedural requirements" contained'in those j proposed standards involved matters of-implementation and thus went beyond the limits of EPA's jurisdiction. In letters dated July 19 and Augu'st 15, 1984 Acting Chairman Roberts and Former Administrator.Ruckelahaus,.. respect.itel agreed that the ' staffs of EPA'and NRC should attiempt 'to' y, I develop modifications to 10 CFR Part 60 to. incorporate the principles of EPA's proposed assurance and procedural requirements. EPA could then delete these requirements or make them applicable only to facilities not licensed by the NRC, eliminating any potential problems of jud sdictior.al p L overlap. The NRC staff recently reported to the Conunission several proposed changes to Part 60 which have been worked out by the NRC and~ EPA staff (text enclosed). Consistent with the .,) provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the. Commission wi'l.1 propose - these changes for incorporation into Part 60 now that the final. EPA high-level waste standards have been e puljlished. The NRC staff anticipates submittal of a- '- ;/. ruiemaking package, incorporating both these wording changes 1 and other conforming amendments, to the Conunission within 120 f N days. The Commission appreciates the cooperation shown by the EPA staff in working to reach this agreement. ,jy Sincerely, ' Q'1 ' ( l L *y /We.s (...- Nunzio J. lladino W< d le, WM Project ___._. Enclosures i Proposed changes to 's Docht flo. 10 CFR Part 60 PDR_. LPD (Originated by NMSS) f p p ,p, g pg. -- g Bratwr xmww

vo 1 EPA A$$URANCE REQUIREMENTS A40 PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 60 1.a. EPA Assurance Reevirement: 3 (a) Active institutional controls over disposal sites should be . maintained for as long a period of time as is practicable after disposal;_ however, performance assessments that assess isolation of the wastes from l the accessible environment shall not consider any contributions from active institutional controls for more than 100 years after disposal. (In Working Draft No. 4 " active institutional control" means: (1) controlling l access to a disposal site by any means other than passive institutional controls.-(2) performing maintenance operations or remedial actions at a site, t (3) controlling or cleaning up releases from a site, or (4) monitoring p4rameters elated to. disposal system performance.). ~ r

• b.

Ofscussion: The Consission's existing provisions (160.52) related to license termination will determine the length of time for which institutional controls should be maintained, and there is therefore no need to alter Part 60 based on the 1 first part of this assurance roteirement. 1 L The second part of this assurance requirement would require that " active" institutional controls be excluded from consideration (after 100 years) when 1 ?. the Commission assesses the isolation characteristics of a repository. The l staff understands that: remedial actions (or other active institutional controls) would not be relied upon under Part 60 to compensate for a poor site l or inadequate engineered barriers. However, in the-definition of l " unanticipated events and processes " Part 60 expressly contemplates that, in assessing human intrusion scenarios, the Commission would assume that i " institutions are able to assess risk and to take-remedial action at a level nf social organization and technological competence equivalent to, or superior to, that which was' applied in initiating the processes or events concerned * (emphasisadded). Therefore.it might appear at first blush that Part 60 is L at odds with the draft EPA standards. .em-., ..-.,,,,m._, ......--.. m-.. _..._--..,_...,..,,_.,...m__-.._

c: 9 l c i 2 l l The " remedial action" is not, however, the same in the two documents. The EPA-r standards have in mind a planned capability to maintain a ute and if necessary, to take remedial-action at a site in ~ order to assure that isolation is achieved..- The staff agrees that such a capability should not be relied upon. The extent to which corrective ection may be taken after an unanticipated intrusion occurs is an entirely different matter. The Commission may wish to consider, for amample, the extent to which the application of the limited- -societal response capability assumed by the rule (e.g., sealing boreholes consistent with current petroleum industry practice) could reduce the likelihood of releases exceeding the values specified in the EPA standards, or could eliminate certain hypothetical scenarios such as systematic and persistent intrusions into a site. 4 The NAC and EPA staffs are in substantive agreement that planned remedial capabilities should not be relied upon for repository safety, and agree that l the wording below should be proposed for public comment. The EPA staff may: provide connent on this wording to help clarify the distinction between expected soc.iet.al responses versus p}anned c.ap, abilities for remedial actions. c. proposed Chances to Part 60: Add definitions to 160.2 as follows: " Active institutional control" means: (1) controlling access to a site by any means other than passive institutional controls. (2) performing maintenance operations or remedial-actions at a site.-(3) controlling or cleaning up relsases from a site, or (4) monitoring parameters related to 1 geologic repository performance. " Passive institutional control" means: (1) permanent markers placed at a site. (2) public records and archives. (3) government ownership and regulations regarding land or resource use, and (4) other methods of preserving knowledge about the location, design, and contents of a geolggic repository. Add a new $60.114 as follows: 160,114 Institutional Controls ] 1 Neither active nor passive institutional controls shall be deemed to assure compliance with the overell performance objective set out at i 60.112 for more than 100 years after disposal. However, the effects of institutional controls may be considered in assessing, for purposes of that section, the likelihood and consequences of processes and events affecting the geologic setting. n-n,--,- u_,.,-w .,.n.m,,_we_m w,.,- ~ ,-v,--,- ,,w- - - +,,. w - w op,

_ _ _ _ _ = _. Wp j i p ~ 3 l .2.a. EPA Assurance Recuirement: (b) Disposal' systems shall be monitored after disposal to detect any substantial and detrimental deviations from expected performance. This monitoring shall be done with techniques that do not jeopardite the isolation of the wastes and shall be conducted until there are no significant concerns C to be addressed by further monitoring. 6. Discussion: Part 60 currently requires completion of a perfomance confirmation progree prior to repository closure, but does not require monitoring.during the period-i following closure but prior to license temination. The Commission chose not to' require post-closure monitoring because of doubts about the usefulness of such monitoring and because of fears that monitorin after closure could degrade repository performance.g in or near a repository The type of monitoring envisioned by EPA does not involve direct monitoring of the repository itssif. ^ -(which might degride repository peri,'ormance).- Rather, EPA preposes' monitoring, of such parameters as regional groundwater flow characteristics. The staff .. agrees that such monitoring may, in some cases.. provide desirable information a beyond that which would be obtained in the performance confirmation program which Part 60 now requires to be continued until permanent closure. The staff therefore proposes to require moni'toring as an extension of performance confirmation, as appropriate, when such monitoring can be conducted without degrading repository perfomance. c. Proposed Chances to part 60: Add to 160.21(c) a new 1 (9) as follows: (9)- A general description of the program for post-permanent closurt monitoring of the geologic repository. Renumber the current 1 (9) through (15) accordingly. Revise 560,51(a)(1) to read: (1)'A detailed description of the program for post-permanent closure monitoring of the geologic repository in accordance with 560.144. As a minimum, this description shall: (1) identify those parameters that will be monitored; (ii) inoicate how each parameter will be used to evaluate the expected performance of the repository; and (iii) discuss the length of time over which each parameter should be monitored to adequately confirm the expected performance of the repository.

• • t'w ww-+-ve-e-, -s v w-r ew-v +

r- +

m-~e

.n-eew,------*zr--w- -- ee--w.- ,.--- = - -- - --w- - - - -~ - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4

.1 ( m.- l ) Add to _l60.52(c) a new 1 (3) as follows: (3) That the results available from the post-permanent closure monitoring' i program confirm the expectation that the repository will comply with the L performance objectives set out at 160.112 and 160.113; and Renumber the current 1 (3) as 1 (4). Add a new 660.144 as follows: 160,144 Monitorine After Permanent Closure Ap Iram of monitoring shall.be conducted after permanent closure to monitor a repository characteristics which can reasonably'be expected to l-L provide material confimatory infomation regarding long-tam reNsitory performance, provided that the means for conducting such monitoring will not degrade repository perfomance. This program shall be continued until L"o termination of a license.'- ~ [ l Include in the Supplementary Information of the Federal Register notice proposing these changes the followjng paragraph: L L Part 60 currently requires DOE to carry out a perfomance confimation program which is to continue until repository closure. Part 60 does not now require monitoring after repository closure because of the likelihood that i post-closure monitoring of the underground facility would degrade repository-L performance. The Comission recognizes, however, that monitoring such parsmeters as regional groundwater flow characteristics may, in some cases. l provide desirable information beyond that which would be obtained in the performance i:onfirmation program. The proposed requirement for post-permanent closure monitoring requires that such monitoring be continued until termination.of a license. The Comission intends that a repository license not be terminated until such time as the Comission is convinced that there is i L no significant additional information to be obtained from such monitoring which would be material to a finding of reasonable assurance that long-tem repository performance would be in accordance with the established performance objectives. +- m m.- .m .m_,_. ,...m_~.,,,,w,,-#.

L 1 1. s-h ' e i 4 5- [ 3.a.. EPA Assurance Requirement: { (c) Disposal sites shall be designated by the most permanent markers, h t L records, and other passive institutional controls practicable to indicate the dangers of the wastes and their location. b. Discussion: No revisions to Part 60 are needed. 560.21(c)(8), 60.51(a)(2), and 60.121 contain equivalent provisions. L s e. I c 1 s W 4 i s E 9 r-, -,.... -,.... -.. _ g ._,,....-._..._...m.., ..m.... ..m.,y.,, -,,, .e. m

. __._ _. ~. _. -. _. _. _.. _ _.._ ~. j. 6-4.a. EPA' Assurance Reevirement: (d)' Disposal systems shall use several different types of barriers to isolate the wastes from the environment. Both engineered and natural barriers shall be included. b. Discussion: The staff considers that Part 60 already requires use of both-engineered and natural barriers. Nevertheless, in order to avoid any possible confusion regarding the provisions of 460.113(b), the staff proposes to add additional clarifying language to 160.113. c. Procosed Chances' to Part 60: s Add a new 1 (d) to 160.113 as follows: -(d). Notwithstanding the provisions of. (b) above, the geologic repository. l shall incorporate a system of mul'tiple barriers, both engi.ieered and natural. I. In the Supplementary Infomation of the Federal Register notice proposing these changes include the following: Questions might arise regarding the types of engineered or natural - materials or. structures which would be considered to constitute barriers. The Comission notes that 160.2 now contains the definition: "' Barrier' means - any material or structure that prevents or substantially delays movement of + 1 water or radionuclides." Thus, the Comission considers that the new p paragraph to be adoed to 160.113 will confim the Comission's comitment to a' l multiple barrier approach as contemplated by Section 121(b)(1)(B) of the Nuclear.Weste Policy Act. I e - g v w. g.. n r y f y ve

• sc

.~,-,e a-.-, ,. w vw,rw.w-. .,.w.,--w, %,e., v..,. m-, ---,-w,- e

9 } ] i-7 5.a. EPA Assurance Recuirement: ) (e) places where there has been mining for resources, or where there is a reasonable expectation of exploration for scarce or easily accessible resources, or where there is a significant concentration of any material that 1 is not widely available from other sources, should be avoided in selecting i disposal sites. Resources to be.onsidered shall include minerals petroleum or natural gas, valuable geologic formations, and ground waters that are either irreplaceable because there is no reasonable alternative source of drinking water available for substantial populations or that are vital to the preservation of unique and sensitive ecosystems. Such places shall not be used'for disposal of the wastes covered.by this part unless the favorable characteristics of such places compensate for their greater likelihood of being disturbed in the future. b. Discussion: g part 60 contains provisions equivalent to this assurance requirement in' 660,122(c)(17),(18).and(1g), part'60 coes not, however, address "a 1 significant concentration of any material that is not widely available from other sources." It is possible that the economic va'lue of materials c:uld change in the future in a way which might attract future exploration or development detrimental to repository perfomance. The staff proposes to add an additional potentially adverse condition to part 60 related to significant concentrations of material that is not widely available from other sources. As with the other potentially adverse conditions, the presence of such a condition would require an evaluation of the effect of the condition on repository performance as specified in 560,122(a)(2)(ii), but would not preclude selection of a site for-repository construction. (It should be noted that DOE's siting guidelines-contain an identical-provision in 10 CFR 960.4-2-8-1.) c. proposed Channes to part 60: Addanew1(18)to640.122(c)asfollows: (18)Thepresenceofsignificantconcentrationsofany i L naturally-occurring asterial that is not widely available from other sources. Renumber the current 1 (18) through (21) accordingly. 1

a.... 2.

i ft 3 6.a. EPA Assurance Reevirement: (f) Disposal systems shall be-selected so that removal of most of the wastes is not precluded for a reasonable period of time after disposal. b. 9)tggGLigQ,; EPA's concept of " removal" is significantly different from "retrievel" 1r.. Part 60. EPA wants to preclude disposal concepts such as deep well injection-for which it would be virtually impossible to remove or recover wastes regardless of the time and resources employed. For a mined geologic repository wastes could be located and recovered. albeit at great cost, even i after repository closure. EPA therefore considers that a repository complies with this absurance requirement, and no revision i.e Part 60 is needed. I 1 i ). l l s m v. m. ...m.. ..mc-.

• _m-. -......m,__.

. ~,. y. .,,w.

.c i ( DEC 23 m u [ L PEMORANDUM FOR: R. F. Fraley Executive Director Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards L FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations SimJECT: RESPONSE T0 ACPS COMMENTS ON EPA HLW STANDARDS (FOLLOW-VP ITEMS FROM 306th and 307th ACRS MEETINGS) In letters dated October 16 and November 14, 1985, David A. Ward transmitted to 4 Chairman Palladino the comments of the ACRS regarding the high-level radioactive waste standards published by the Environmental Protection Agency-(EPA) on. September 19, 1985. As the NRC staff understands, these coments can - be sumarized as follows: .1.- In comparison with other risks, the standards-are unduly restrictive. 2. Because the standards are so restrictive, and because of the probabilistic nature of the standards, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for the NRC to determine compliance with the standards in a licensing review. for anj actual repository. 3. The standards contain internal inconsistencies (e.g.. the dose limits during. repository operations are slightly different for licensed and unlicensed repositories) and the standards do not incorporate the latest ICRP recomendations regarding doses to individual organs. .Regarding the first item above, the ACRS has stated that the level of risk allowed by the EPA HLW standards is much lower than that allowed by other standards for radiological and non-radiological hazards. However, the staff has found that under certain reasonable. scenarios and assumptions 'fe.g., the size of the population at risk) the EPA standards can be shown-to be comparable to other standards now in place for other nuclear activities, as we discussed in our presentation to the ACR$ on November 8, 1985. Since the risks allowed by the EPA standards can be viewed in such widely different ways, the staff has concentrated on the achievability of the standards rather than on comparisons with the risks allowed by other standards. The ACRS is concerned that the low level of allowable risk, combined with the -probabilistic nature of the standards, will make the standards-difficult to implement in an actual repository licensing review. Previous NRC contractor __m-o fj/VcPfud/o g Y

~ - l I i i:' j studies (documented in NUREG/CR-3235) demonstrated (1) that analytical l techniques exist, or are under development, to evaluate potential. releases from a geologic repository, and (2) that repository sites can likely be found for l which repository performance can be demonstrated to be in compliance with the EPA HLW standards. The NRC staff will further develop its views regarding its ability to implement the EPA standards in the rulemaking package r:urrently being prepared to incorporate the EPA standards into Part 60. Regarding inconsistency within the standards, the NRC staff recognizes that EPA has, for pragmatic reasons, chosen to maintain consistency with other existing R EPA-standards including the uranium fuel cycle and drinking water standards. a This has resulted in internal inconsistencies within the EPA HLW standa ds which, while not desirable, do not appear to endanger public health and safety nor to pose inordinate costs or difficulties for implementation of the standards by the NRC. In the NRC staff's view, a general overhaul of EPA's radiation protection standards would be needed to adopt the revised ICRP recommendations and to promote consistency between (and within) standards..The NRC staff would support such an initiative by the EPA. The ACRS also recommended: (1) acceleration of NRC staff efforts to develop analytical methods for evaluating repository performance and (2) that a-consensus be sought, possibly through rulemakings, on these methods as they are developed. With respect to the first recommendation, we note that, in a meeting on October 24, 1985, we briefed the ACRS Subconsnittee on Waste Management on our HLW program plan and described how we have allocated resources to each major program element. As we described in this briefing, a major program element is development of licensing assessment methodologies; we believe this' represents an aggressive effort. We will continue to seek ways to accelerate licensing assessment methodology development and still meet other requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and Comission priorities. As stated in our October program briefing, we look forward to receiving Subcommittee comment on our program strategies and specific feedback on the tradeoffs we have made among program elements in allocating resources and setting schedules. With respect to the second recomendation, the staff agrees that rulemaking may prove to be an appropriate means of developing consensus regarding certain aspects of the staff's analytical methods. We note that the staff has an on-going effort to identify licensing

406.3.3/0F/85/12/03- -3 L~ ~ issues and to seek early resolution through such means as public review and comment on technical positions developed by the staff. We will continue to pursue early resolution of licensing issues using technical positions and. l as appropriate, rulemakings. As suggested by the staff requirements memorandum for SECY.85 27?, the staff t; would appreciate an opportunity to discuss the staff's proposed conforming L amendments relating to proposed implementation procedures with the ACRS in the i .near future. Isleme s.,,,,, William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations r EDO WJDircks

• See previous concurrence 12/ /85 FC

WMRP

WMRP

WMRP

DWM

DWM

NMSS.\\

....:-__......__.:. __...___..:..... __...:._______.__.:.....__....__..__... 1...:.NMSS ___.,.f..... AME-:DFehringer* :RBoyle*-

HJMiller*

MJBe11*

RBrnwning*

DMausshardt* :JGC'M s

....:.__.__......:............:.___....___.:___..___....:....______.:..__...____.:....j. ___.. BT L:12402L85.:

112/03L85 212L03/85

121 l85..

a12L165 a12L L65 1?L /85

7 i ~.h.h,* ace 9 Bernero for Appropriate Action; l ,fC Ja (EDOSignature) ' l \\*_ . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - Taylor UNITED STATES cys:: Stello f s - ADVISoAY COMMITTEE oN NUCLEAR WASTE Th pson WASHINGTON. o.C. 20085 3 Murley, NRR t Beckjord, RE! Jordan, AE00 May 3, 1989 Scinto,0GC! Central Filej 1 m a The' Honorable Lando.W. Zech, Jr. a Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s

SUBJECT:

- PROPOSED WASTE CONFIDENCE DECISION BY THE WASTE CONFIDENCE REVIEW GROUP During its. ninth meeting,' April 26-28, 1989, the Advisory Committee on-Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with members of the NRC Staff to discuss 'the preliminary draft of the proposed Waste Confidence Decision (see refer-ence) by the Waste Confidence Review Group. This matter was also ' a subject of discussion during a meeting held on April 19, 1989 by an-ACNW Working Group. On-August 31, 1984, the NRC issued a final decision on what has come to be known as its " Waste Confidence Proceeding." The current review is an update of that assessment, and a significant feature in this latest review is the incorporation of the changes brought about by-the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of December 1987. On the. basis of our discussions on this matter, we offer the following comments: 1. We believe the present report appears to be technically sound, and in this ascessment, we endorse both the expanded application of the generic-ap) roach to the majority of nuclear power plants and the incorporat< on into the proceedings of a mor,e realistic timetable for the availability of a licensed repository and an extended time interval for.the storage of spent fuel. 2. We continue to have concerns about'the ability of the NRC staff to confirm that the repository complies with the probabilistic stan-dards developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The explanations given in the proposed Waste Confidence Decision on how this is to be accomplished do not illuminate the process nor do they provide convincing arguments that it can be accomplished. h

l { , #. l,':., , p,; ' f l A - E p. The Honorable'Lando W. Zech, Jr.. ~2 - May 3, 1989 ' ~ : The report also needs organizational and' editorial changes to enhance the ease with which it can be read and assimilated. Sincerely, k Dade W. Moeller-Chairman

Reference:

Memorandum dated April 17, 1989 from Robert M. = Bernero, Director, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to Dade Moeller, Chairman, ACNW, l transmitting Preliminary Draft of Waste Confidence Review Group Proposed- [ Waste Confidence Decision (PREDECISIONAL) 5 i [ 1' { L e I ( e L L l -.. ~. -..... - - -. - -... -

umiso STAtss NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CDMMISSICN ^ ) aovisont comemse on mucuan casts wasmnovos, e.c. mas i. July 3,1983 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairmen. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ) i

SUBJECT:

' ACW REVIEW 0F NRC C0WENTS ON DOE $1TE CHARACTER!ZATION PLAN1 .During its twelfth meeting, June 28-30, Iges the Advisory Coumittee on Nuclear Waste (ACW)- completed its review of the $tte Characterization l Analysis (SCA) being prepared by the NRC staff on the Site Charac. terization Plan (SCP) developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (00E) for the proposed high-level weste (NLW) repository at Yucca Mountain. I During this meeting,- the' Committee had the benefit of'dfscussions with staff esebers from the NRC and 00E. This matter was also a subject for-discussion during the sixth through eleventh meetings of the ACW, as, well as during an ACM Working Group meeting on April 1g,1983. During the seventh meeting, February 21-23,198g, we had discussions and " interactions with representatives free the State of Nevade's Reclee? Waste Project Office. The Committee also had the benefit of the docu-monts referenced. In approaching this task, the Committee assigned the responsibility for i reviewing specific subject categories rin the SCA to ' individual ACM consultants. These consultants est with mesters of-the ERC staff for in-depth - discussions ' and then-served as leaders for reviews of the assigned subject categories during the eleventh and twelfth meetings of the Committee. Throughout our reviews, we have interacted with the NRC i staff on a continuing basis, and esmy of our comments are the culmina-tion of this iterative process. As a result of our review, we have reached certain conclusions and want to offer - cific recessendations concerning the SCP and/or the SCA. Our mere si ificant comments deal with: L the absence in the SCP of statements addressing the systematic-L and early identification and evaluation of potentially dis-qualifying features at the Yucca Mountain Sites the apparent lack of sufficient attention to the limitations and uncertainties in the Yucca Mountain data bases, and the associated difficulties in demonstrating that the repository L will comp (ly with the Environmental Protection Agency ( Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Auclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes'); and hh 0 Y ?f l

ggpy, w.

..W, i 'The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr July 3, 1933 -(QA)ys by DOE in implementing satisfactory quality assura Dela programs.- Our specific comments follow: 1.- Although the SCp is an action plan for site characteritation, we : believe that a auch stronger feces should be placed on early E l detection of potentially disqualifying feature $. The SCA is : not sufficiently emphatic in its critique of the lack of such a focus. = We believe that the SCA should point out the need in the SCp for en i integrated section of the plan that explicitly addresses the activ-L' ities leading to an eva'untion of characteristics of -the site directly related to disqualifying features (e.g., groundwater -travel ties) as stated in the regulaf,fons. I 2. Uncertainties and liettations in _the - data used to:, justify con-clusions will be the center of most contentions. Since the ability 1 to resolve' these uncertainties experimentally any 911 be beyond-I the practicality of. the program, planning for their annagement is - >r required. We recessend that the MC staff strengthen its treatment-1 i of this topic in the SCA. As was briefly discussed with the Consission durinq our meeting en' " IN9 we believe that the MC staff shou 'd encourage DOE April 27 assessment-(ptA) ping Level 2 (Release Estimate) probabilis to developas,cofor the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.- Such a ' PRA - should be useful. in defining those parameters that - are critical to the adequate performance of the proposed facility. and i would help to set priorities for the accompanying investigations.- Subsequent to our discussions with the Commission, we were pleased j to learn that DOE plans to begin conducting-in 1990 or Iggi proba-l .bilistic. system performance assessments for the proposed repost-tory. We recessend that the MC allocate resources sufficient to develop the expertise necessary to conduct an adequate, independent evaluation of the probabilistic system perforesace assessments that will be submitted by DOE as part of its application for a construc-tien permit for the proposed repository. The Cemeittee was told by the NRC staff (and this view was sup-ported by one of our consultants) that the DOE staff may have i considerable difficulties in ponerating a couplementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) 1or the sito and, if this is the case, they may not be able to demonstrate the required compliance with Tnis difficulty in demonstrating compliance the EPA standard. could represent a disqualifying feature for the proposed repository location. We urge that this concern be addressed in the SCA. We believe that the NRC staff has been extremely tolerant of the 3. delays by DOE in establishing a satisfactory QA process by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (0CRW) for

The Honorable' tenneth M.' Carr July-3, test - the Yucca Mountain project. Although one of the Objections in the . we l l$CA being prepared by the NRC staff addresses this matter lved believe that this troublesome issue should be promptly reso since continued absence of approvable QA systems will' increase the i burden on the participants in licensing processes when qualifica-- tion of data is at issue.

l 4.

Additional comments on selected topics. include: Because the Calice Hills formation is intended to serve as a a. barrier between the radioactive weste and the underlying saturated zone, some form of compromise must be reached between usintaining-this femation as a barrier and drilling t into or exploring within it to determine its critical charac. teristics. The NRC staff should-include in the SCA a recom-m mandstion that 00E be definitive on how they will _obtain the - i l data-necessary to determine the characteristics of the Calico-Wills formstton. Because of the significance of the weste package in the l b. containment of the associated radionuclides, it is important L that decisions be made soon on the materials to be used in-fabricating the weste packages and the manner in which they "' l~ are to be sealed.. Such information is essentist in consider. L ing possible interactions between the packages and the repos. i: itory esterials with which they will'be in contact.- Consid-erstion of these interactions will require determination of-the specific chemical composition of the repository water, and the SCA should reflect this concern. One of the key parameters in determining the adequacy of the c.. proposed site is the rate of groundwater flow. In this regard.the NRC staff should emphastae in the SCA the need to obtain information on whether matrix or fracture flow (or a combinationofthetwo)willgovernwatermovement. Current eencerns< with the location.of the Exploretory Shaft L' d. Facility (ESF) pertain to its distance from: faults end. the-appropriateness of the san >1es it will yield in providing data that sre representative e the proposed repository location. d We believe the SCA should emphasize the need for the applica.- tion of a comprehensive range of techniques (e.g., subsurface l mapping, geophysical surveys) to the stu4 of this problem. In the development of the Title I design for the ESF, the DOE staff was supposed to have provided a conceptual approach for construction of the facility. Reviews by the NRC staff (and The ACNW consultants) indicate that this was not the case. staff should ensure that the SCA states that before DOE proceeds further with the Title !! design, which will provide E L + e.~,--.----...-,..~.---w_,._~,-- ,e-- -..,, - - r n, -- -,,,,-.- .c, ,,we --,e,e

~.... -., - - .--..-.-----__-7

e. #

4: y* 'l 4s 4-- July 3,1983 j 3..; The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr-y 3 i additional details on the proposed.ESF, 00E shov1d promptly i address the errors and deficiencies in the Title ! design. j e. We believe that consideration should be Jiven to extendfag the geoscience (hydrology, geology, geophysics) investigations to a distance sufficient to provide data en eenditions within the region surrounding the snte. Sees of the entsting investiga. tions appear to be too limited in their geographical coverage. For example, because of the imporcance of the potential of volcanism, such an extension would appear mandatory to ensure that these studies have the potential for uncovering any disqualifying features. J e J i: f. A range of alternative conceptual models will be used -in conducting performance assessments for the re pository. In our opinion, there are two problems associated v'th these models, _g L' namely, they are incomplete and they are not -integrated. The L SCp should be constructed se as' to provide data that identi-I i H fies-the correct andel, rather than merely confituing the pre-ferred model. Since modeling.is-essential in-determining the performance of-' the--proposed repository and for uncovering potential disqualifying features, these deficiencies must be,, corrected. -Such determinations should be scheduled as early j' . as~ possible in the site ~ characteriaation process, and t6is should be reflected in the SCA. Yhe potential for natural resources in - the-area and the ( g. scenarios that are to be considered relative to possible human resources)(some of which are related to exploretten for su intrusten need to ' be given more attention. A such more thorough assessment of potential mineral resources. including potteleum,~ should be required _ in the SCp, and the SCA should indicate this need. the Connittee notes that With respect to human intrusion,ded 'in epa standard 40 CFR guidance on this setter is provi part 1g1. We support the NRC staff reconnendation that the 00E staff should consider this guidance in the development of the CCDF for the site. h. The NRC staff has apparently accepted the lack of dotat1s in the SCp on test procedures and schedules for various site analyses since these are to be provided in the Study plans being prepared by 00E. This places an increased burden for review <ng the Study plans on the NRC staff. We reconnend that the-NRC staff note this problem in the SCA and that enhanced details of the characterization program be included in the periodic progress reports that will be submitted by 00E to supplement the SCp. y =4 se as sr w---w w u-er e try wewwn--w*-ev-w-o w vw w w w w es e we ww-us v-r se --as m w eme--- w w r v rew en-e t-wwuimew w ww w m e-v-*www-wwemwtye e ent* B 9P Wt-W-9mW-sw NF e r'-'-*' M w

• 1 9rN*F--TW"w

Vy w L The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr - i l -1 - JulyL 3, Igg o*t t er >5. .The SCA methodology and-its basis are sharply focused on the indi-vidus) sections of the SCp. Nevertheless, it might-be useful if. the NRC staff would produce an addendue that..aeong other' items, For contains those comments related to global or generic matters. example.:we believe that a usefolicomment la such a section would .be to wrge DOE:to recognise that the Itsensing process and any Ne alas ' decisional activities ceanected with it are adversarial. believe that this characteristic of the.11eensing proceedings-should encourage DOE-to _ ensure that its technical arguments are as The auch beyond challenge by responsible: scientists as reasonable. content of the SCA should be responsive to this need. We trust these consents will be helpful in the development of the $1te In closine we want to ecknowledge and thank Character 1 ration Analysis. staff seabers of both the INtc and DOC,for their cooperation and support p L durine our review._ All the people with whom we have interacted have l been helpful and responsive to our questions. E Sincerely, 1 Dade W. Noeller Chairman L 1 1 Referencest 1 00E/RW-01gg, ' Site Character 1 ration .v.

3. Department of Energ,Decem6er 1308-1.

plan - Tucca Mountain Site,Cassission draft Site Characterization U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 2. Analysis. Sections i t, t, - and 3, received June 27. Iges: (Prede-cisional) i U. S. Department ef : Energy, 00E/RW-Of05, ;' Site Charactertration 3. plan - Public Neneeck, Tucca Neuntata, Nevade ' January 1989 U. S. Department of EnergyIto,' Secember ig80i-4. Overview facca Neuntain 5 i Procedures-for:M Staff Soview of 00I's: dm 8. S. Euclear= Regulatory Ceemissica 'A S. Censultation treft Site l Characterizatica Plan,' Seensber 10,;1987 -

• 0 reft Technical Review Plan U.- S. Auclear segulatory Coumissies 8.

for WC Staff Soview of DOE's $1te dharacterisatica Plans,* Seess- 'bor 10, 1307' 'Reviou plan for.RRC Staff U. S. Ruclear Repulatory Commission, plan

• December 7.

1300 Review of DOE's Sdto Characterization U. S. Ruclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4. 4. Format and Centent of-Site Characterisation Plans for i dard High-Level-Weste Geologic Repositories," March Ige 7 Prepared for S Ross,l LaboratorieDisposal Safety Ince[, rated'A first Survey of D 8. g. tiona SAE 05-71 Scenarios for a N h-Level-Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,' December 1 7

sv + - .'P' The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr..' July 3, 1989- .l l

10. Letter dated June 1, '1989 from John J. Kearney, Edison Electric 3

Institute, to C. P. Gerta Yucca Mountain Project Office. 00E, retarding 00E Site Characterization Plan f", 11. Letter dated May 3.1989 from R. Loux,. Nevada y for Nuclear. Weste Project Affairs, to C. Gert E' Yucca Mountain . Projects Projecthffice.'

Subject:

State of. Nevada Proficinary Comments on the Site Character 1 ration Plan for the Yucca Mountain Candidate High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Site {. s. ) o + L N'.-.....-...-..--..---....-....-....--.-... --..-......-..-..:.-}}