ML20003E607
| ML20003E607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/24/1981 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Randolph J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003E608 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR61372, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 NUDOCS 8104070097 | |
| Download: ML20003E607 (42) | |
Text
.
[pa %qjo UNITED STATES y p
.#. ~ 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g '
~.
- k.
y#
March 24, 1981 c,,
o CHA 1 N Q
-Dayc3 The Honorable Jennings Randolph D
MS Committee on Environment and Public Works 9-b Q
- %g%g/Sg United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Randolph:
d I am pleased to respond to your letter in which you /t 9
information on the impact S. 2189 as passed by the Senate on July 30, 1980 would have, if it were to become law, on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's current radioactive waste management activitias. We have delayed providing our comments until the Commission completed action on the Part 60 procedural rule for licensing a high level and radioactive waste disposal facility.
Your questions and the Commission responses are presented below:
Question 1:
S. 2189 directs the Secretary of Energy within one year after enactment, to submit to Congress a specific proposal for a long-term retrievable storage facility that would be managed and monitored for an indefinite period of time.
s-Would this provision affect the Commission's development of regulations for waste storage and disposal activities, particularly with respect to requirements for monitoring and management? Please explain.
The Commission has promulgated regulations codified as 10 CFR Part 72 for temporary, away-from-reactor storage of commercial spent fuel.
These regulations might require some amendments to be applicable to facilities for long-term retrievable. storage, but such amendments probably would not be extensive because Part 72 already requires the renewal of Commission licenses every 20 years and periodic overall assessments of the facility's impact on public health and safety.
It appears that the Commission could assure under -10 CFR Part 72 that appropriate monitoring and management
-measures could be required and enforced at a retrievable long-term storage facility for spent fuel.
However, 10 CFR Part 72 does not address the long-term retrievable storage of high-level radioactive reprocessing waste. _ Thus, additional efforts would probably be required to develop i
regulations for the receipt and emplacement of commercial high-level radioactive reprocesse f waste in a long-term retrievable storage facility.
These regulations could be promulgated as amendrents to Part 72'by extending its scope to include facilities for the retrievable stcrage of reprocessed waste.
Some modifications to 10 CFR Part 72 (or possibly new regulations) would be required if reprocessed waste were to be licensed in a retrievable facility.
81040700 Q
e The Honorable Jennings Randolph.
Question 2:
In its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, dated May 5, 1980, the Commission included a requirement of retrievability for a deep geologic disposal facility.
Question 2(A):
Please describe and analyze the feasibility of any proposed methods for retrieving radioactive wastes from such a facility. How long does the Commission assume these wastes would be retrievable?
In the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on May 13, 1980, the staff indicated that the selection cf a suitable site for a geologic repository for HLW disposal and the design, construction, and operation of a repository is a new human enterprise involving some 40-50 years from the time of design approval to filling the repository to capacity.
The care exercised and the use of state-of-the-art techniques should make the need to retrieve emplaced wastes unlikely.
During.the time the repository is being filled, operational data would be obtained and an assessment of repository performance made, up to the time the r.te is to be decommissioned.
If operational data indicated a problem during this period, corrective action, including removing some or all of the waste, may be necess ry to protect the public health and safety.
For this reason, the sta ( believes that it is prudent to maintain the option to retrieve the wastes for a period of time after the last wastes are emplaced and before the repository is. deconmissioned.
While we recognize that there will be impacts on repository design and waste emplacement frem retrievability requirements, the staff is developing criteria to require that a repository be designed to preserve the option to retrieve wastes for i period of time after the last wastes are emplaced.
In its advance notice of-proposed rulemaking, the staff suggested that this period be about the same'as that in which the waste were emplaced in the repository, or about 50 years after emplacement of all wastes.
Consistent with the regulatory approach of establishing performance requirements rather than prescribing design specifications, staff believes that the specific method chosen to ' achieve the objective should be left to DOE. : The staff is presently evaluating the comments received by theLCommission on this
. proposed requirement, and will consider this issue before the proposed 10 CFR Part 60 -(Subparts E-1) --' Technical Criteria for Reculating Geologic Disposal High-Level Radioactive Waste -- is published for public comment in early 1981.
r The Honorable Jennings Randolph Question 2(B): Please forward any comments the Commission has nceived on the proposed retrievability requirement.
Enclosed are comments the Comission has received from both its Waste Confidence Rulemaking Proceeding and the advance notice of proposed rule-making (10 CFR Part 60) relating to the proposed retrievability requirement.
Question 2(C):
Please compare the feasibility and costs of retrieving wastes from a surface or subsurface storage facility with the feasibility and costs of retrieving radioactive wastes from a deep geologic storage or disposal facility.
The staff has not undertaken any studies in this area.
It would appear that waste retrievability could be made equally feasible for either: (1) a deep geologic storage or disposal facility or (2) a surface or a subsurface storage facility if easy retrievability were designed hto the project at the outset. However, the costs could be significantly different depending on the specific design concepts used.
We know of no conceptual designs which have been developed which could serve as the basis of such a. comparison.
We would estimate, however, that retrievable deep geologic disposal would be more costly than retrievable surface or near-surface storage.
Question 3(A): How does the Commission interpret its licensing authority under S. 2189?
Section 914(a) of S. 2189 provides:
Nothing in this Act shall affect the authority of the Nuclear Regulation Commission to license and regulate high-level or transuranic contaminated waste or spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal pursuant to Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 or byproduct, source of special nuclear material pursuant to Section 201(f) of such Act.
Because S. 2189 is not intended to affect the Comission's licensing or regulatory authority, the Commission believes that S. 2189 preserves the Commission's previous interpretations of NRC authority as described below.
Currently, Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 provides specific authority for NRClicensing of certain DOE facilities pursuant to Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.
Since Chapter'10 Af the AEA applies only to licensing of utilization and production facilities, the DOE facilities described in Section 202(3) would be regula_ted pursuant to the Commission's materials licensing authority.
as set out in Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the AEA. As a technical natter, i
l' c
The Honorable Jennings Randolph - therefore, the NRC would be licensing DOE's possession of source, special nucicar and byproduct material rather than the facilities themselves.
In.
order to license those LOE activities effectively, the Commission has determined that it must regulate DOE's construction of a facility for such disposal.
These regulations are contained in the recently promulgated rule, 10 CFR Part 60.
The Commission has taken the position that for purporos of S3ction 202(3), spent fuel from commercial power' reactors is a #sem of high-level waste, whether or not reprocessing is intended, and that DOE interim storage facilities for such spent fuel would be subject to NRC regulatory authority.
It is also the Commission's position that DOE storage or disposal of foreign high-level waste resulting from a licensing activity would be licensable.
That is, if either the foreign reactor or the fuel used in it were exported under a license issued by NRC (or AEC), the storage of the spent fuel wculd be subject to Section 202(3) undar. existing law.
Section 310 of S. 2189 would explicitly confirm these interpretations of current NRC authority.
A full discussion of the Commission's view of the scope if its authority is contained in its Report to Congress on " Regulation of-Federal Radioactive haste Activities," NUREG-0526, 1979.
- Although the Commission's current authority would be preserved by S. 2189, in the case of long-term 3torage facilities the Commission's discretion
- wauld be narrowed by barring the consideration under GEDA nr the Atomic Energy Act of any alternative to the design criteria set forth in Sections 402 or 405.
I In obr opinion,:the state-review provisions of S. 2189-(Title IX) would
-not alter the' Commiss'o^'s authority, because Section '901(c) explicitly provides that any coop % ive agreement between DOE and-a State "shall not affect the Nuclear * < alatory Commission's authority under law."
Incidently, as we interpret Title IX, it applies only to mined repositories (requiring completion of-" site characterization" activities to determine-the. suitability for a " geologic repository" and involving construction of a " main shaft") and not_to other repusitories.
1 Although the Commission believes that 'S. 2189 is intended'to preserve current.NRC licensing authority, we would like to point.out a potential Oroblet with. certain terminology;which could create uncertainty as to NRC's authority to license DOE repositories for ultimate' disposal-of
. high-level waste.
Currently, we-believe NRC has such authority under.
~
Sections 20?(3) Land 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act 'of 1974. Those
- sections' authorize the NRC to license D0E. facilities for:the~ storage of.
high-level waste; and the legislative history of those sections clearly
- indicates that the~ term " storage" was. intended to include " disposal."
E
+.a.,
y
-,e-
,.e.
a
.m
t The Honorable Jennings Randolph However, S. 2189 would explicitly define " storage" te mean the retention of nuclear waste with the intent to recover such material (Section 201(7))
and would seoarately cefine " disposal" to mean long-terr isolation including monitored retrievable storage.
Section 310 of S. 2189 would amend Section 202(3) of the ERA to explicitly refer to spent fuel, but would not alter the current language which refers expressly only to storage.
Thus, by explicitly defining " storage" to exclude disposal and by retaining the term " storage" in the ERA, S. 2189 could be interpreted as precluding NRC from licensing DOE disposal facilities.
Such an interpretation also appears inconsistent with Section 405(c).
That section is clearly intended to provide for NRC licensing of disposal facilities established by DOE pursuant to Title IV of S. 2189.
This intention could not be realized if the definition of " storage" in S. 2189 is interpreted as limiting the NRC's authority regarding DOE disposal facilities because Section 405(c) is explicitly based on Section 20?(3) of.the ERA. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to conclude that Congress intends NRC to license storage facilities but not more hazardous disposal facilities. Therefore, we suggest the following addition:
Amend 310 of the bill to read as follows:
Sec. 310.
Section 202(3) of the Energ3 Peorganization Act of 1974 is amended to read:
" Facilities used primarily for the receipt and ' storage or-disposal of high-level radioactive waste or spent fuel resulting _ from activities licensed under such Act or spent fuel _from foreign reactors transferred under a subsequent arrangement authorized under such Act."
Question 3(B):
In particular, what type of facilities and what categories of radioactive waste would the Comission license?
Under existing law, the following DOE facilities contemplated by S. 2189 would fall within NRC jurisdiction:
1.
Away-from-reactor facilities for the interic storage of spent fuel from civilian nuclear power plants.
Section 306(a).
2.
Facilities for the.long-term monitored storage of high-level radioactive waste resulting from civilian nuclear activities, as described in Section 402.
3.
Mined repositories, as described in Section 406(a).
~
The Honoracle Jennings Randolph The categories of waste subject to licensing would be source, special nuclear and byproduct naterial at any such facility, whether in the form of spent fuel or other high-level waste, as defined in Section 201 or othenlise.
Question 3(C):
Would the Commission's licensing authority under S. 2189 differ from its current licensing authority over radio-active waste management?
For the reasons discussed above in response to Question 3(A), the Commission believes that S. 2189, with the addition we propose for Section 310, preserves the NRC's current licensing authority.
S. 2189 would also provide the Commission with the following new authority.
Section 310 would amend Section 202(3) of the ERA to extend the Comm current' authority to spent fuel transferred pursuant to a subsequent arrangement under Section 131(a)(2)(E) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, even if neither the foreign reactor nor foreign fuel were of United States origin.
Section 311 of S. 2189 would extend the Commission's licensing authority to cover DOE's transportation of spent fuel to federally owned away-from-reactor storage facilities.
of NRC authority provided by_ S. 2189.
These are the only extensio;.s I hope that the above information on the impact of S. 2189 on the Commission's current waste management activities will be of use to you and the Committee.
Finally, I believe that passage of a waste bill is an important step in
~ setting in place the federal procedures that will be necessary to resolve the high-level waste problem.
'5incerely, i
\\:
/ k.
hL
>Q ksJoseph M. Hendrie
Enclosure:
Comments received by the Commission on the proposed retrievability requirements cc: Sen. Robert T. Stafford Sen. Alan K. Simpson
- Sen. Gary Hart -
4 e
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON RETRIEVABILITY REQUIREMENTS PRESENTED IN THE ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 10 CFR PART 60, " TECHNICAL CP,ITERIA FOR REGULATING GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL IN HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE" s
ENCLOSURE 1
i.
l,-
AFFENDIX
- D9 Nc.
Auc: :r 1
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, ;xelrad and Tcli 2
U.S. Arms Centrol and Disarmament Agency 3
Hon. Jon Hinson M.C. (ccedents on preposed 10CFR50 procedural ruie) 4 National Aeronautics & Space Acministration (NASA) 5 U.S. Department of Energy (c:: ents on preposed 10CFR50 prececurel rule) b Arvin S. Quist 7
A. E. Wassertach 8
B. R. McElmur y 9
J. G. McCray (University of Arizona) 10 G. H. Dyer 11 Robert Abrams, Attorney General, State of New York 12 U. S. Geological Survey 13 5echtel National, Inc, la Atomic IndJstrial Forum 15 Exxon Nuclear Corp.
15 American Institute of Chemical Engineers 17 Lazlo Toth 18 U. S. Department of Energy and enciesed comments by R. Ellisen (O' Appolonia)
I. Remson (Stanford University)
H. Ross (university cf Utah Research Institute)
G. Pinder (Princeton University)
N F. Parker (Vanderbilt University)
N. Cook (University of California)
J. Bird (Cornell University) 19 Bechtel National, Inc. (duplicate of #13) 1 t
1
~.
y-
.s
^D
- 'o. s. *a..,...~ s e. ': a_ "... i - r..-
4 4a
- .. sause & M.
- m. a=
- ...e_,.:.e s. u.. =. = "..-. s e. v c-.4.... =.. -. e < e..... a... ~. '. s.t i...
23 Envi cr. ental ?r::ecti n Agency 4-
- e.. _:..cnns:n 25 Duke PO<er C.
25 Sureau of Land Management (3'.3
- 27 A. T. Hee:ner, Ce;: art =en: Of Envirc..= ental P-::e::icn, State Of C:nnecticut 28 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axeirad & Toli (23) with enc 1:sec c =ents by The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC)
W 6
6
?
9 4
O
'b
m Qr stions c:ncerning tne sc :e anc c:nten: cf performance-cetericrating scenaries are n:* -eil rec ;nizec; :ne NRC must fund a -ay := ceal effectively witr tner.
W :n res:ect c this functi:n, we Offer the felicwing ceservatiens:
The repository ccesn't knew if water intrusien is tne result of natural processes, numan action, re:csitory-incucec' phen:mena, er cc::inatiens Of these.
Tne scenaries anc
- ne cerformance assessment results may ce:en: str:ngly, 4
nc=ever, on the cna acteristics anc relative frecuency (i.e.,
probability) of these alternative pctential causes of performance ceterioratien.
A hign-level of NRC effort en scenario definitien and analysis would pay dividencs with respect tc "... the validity of... licensing finding (s)...".
~
Aside frem catastr:phic external events, physical prcperty changes that can precuce safety perfer=anca deterioration are rather constrained:
nature's proclivity to minimize free energy is pervasive.
Hcw much change (performance deterioration) can there really be as a result of realistic scenaries, especially with res:ec to the margin of safety built into the repository?
D.
The above discussion leads to the cbservation-that judgment has
.two cistinct roles relative to use of =cdeling in NRC's dispcsal licensing responsibilities:
with respect to selection and use of mathe=atical models, and with respect to selection and use of performance-affecting scenaries.
Need for judgment vis a-vis use of =cdels can be minimized; the need vis-a-vis scenarios can be directed se as to maximi:e confidence in results.
(5) RETRIEVA5ILITY Comment S1:
G. H. Dyer-(10)
The requirenent that radicactive waste "... can be reterieved for a period of 50 years.after termination of waste ecplacement c;erations, if tne geologic i
repository cperations area has act been cecommissioned" and that they be able to be retrieved "... in about the same period of time as that during which they
~
were emplaced" is a good general concept but likely will lead to problems as l
specifically werded.
(a)
It is possible that a decision might be cace to retrieve only a portion c' the wastes, since ever the e: placement. eriod differing =aterials anc tec. icues are likely to evolve.
(b)
If the repcsitory is decommissicned immediately after the placement cf the first waste package, then there is r.c retrieval requirement.
- Further, if it is intended to accomplish sucn early decommissioning, then the require =ent to design and construct a retrievability capability c:uld be construed to not be required.
This logic could be further extencec all the way cut to just shert of the 50 year period.
e
.~
~~
~
P00R ORlGlNJu (c) This recuirement makes more difficult the backfiiling of emolacement tunnels immediately after em:,facement -
say, with salt beinc excavated in other portiens of ne facility.
(d) I ce not have facts, but I suspect iemoval will be con H cerably more com-plicated than placament and will require more time, etjecially if racKfilling is concuc.ec prior to decommissioning.
(e) To wnat extent must retrievability be acnieved? Shoulc there be a specifica-tion _on reridual radioactivity in the event of a waste package failure?
(f) -What minimum conditions would lead to a requirement to concuct a retrieval cperation, and who decides, etc.?
i (g) In summary, while agreeing with the retrievability conceot, I believe it important to recognize the dynamic nature of the emplacement operations, and to couple the retrievability requirement to them, rather than have a single simple 53 year _ rule.
Comment 82:
Bechtel National, Inc. (13)
Retrievability - The likelihood 'f having to retrieve nuclear waste once a license has been granted and the waste has been emplaced in the geologic medium should be extremely small.
In fact, it is difficult to foresee any circumstances where this would be required.
Paragrapns 60.111(a)(3), 60.132(b)(2), 60.132(c)(3),
and 60.135 define design requirements for a retrievability period which extends I
50 years beyond ' termination of waste emplacement operations, and require that the wastes be retrieved in about the same period of time as that curing which they were emplaced. -These requirements are much too conservative, have no aoparent justification, are extremely costly with little or no bentfit in terms cf risk reduction to the public and, fe: some geologic media, are p obably. tot cbtainable.
In the case of a salt repository, wnere creep allowance would be required, mining of a much larger cavity at greatly increased ;ost would be required, and maintenance of the mined cpening to per=it retriWability might be impossible.
Furthermore,.the adoitional excavation required ould diminish the future isolation integrity of the repository.
The 50 year rquirement would probably rule out all soft rocks such as salt and shale which otherwise might serve as excellent repository media.
As an alternative, a 10 year retrievability period is suggested.
Comment 83:
Atomic Industrial Forum (14)
While we are in agreement with the conceot of retrievability as a general design criteria, we believe that careful evaluation and trade offs need to be ccnsidered before this concept is quantified or broadened extensively.
We sugcest that retrievability be required only curing the emplacement ped ed and until all or a cart of the waste disposal facility is defined as a' permanent repository.
Comment 84:- American Institute of Chemical Engineers- (15)
Although the concept of retrievability for a period cf 50 years after ' filling cf the geologic repository seems attractive, we believe that this is illusory.
.Our view assumes that retrievability is to be achieved by not backfilling the repository rooms and!not sealing the-' shafts into the repository for 50 years 23 e
after was s nas been em:Ta:ed.
Firs: of aii, 2:ecialis:: are cucicus ina a cru m:ergr:une structure wi:n :niy :arnai intarnal su:: r: can :aintair its integr.y for nis len; a pericc.
Se::ncly, failure te m i :ne snafts as s::n as ::ssitie si :iy en::urages i.-flux cf wa.er :: :ne re::;it:ry, su:vertin;
.ne ::reful :n ice Of a f: cati:n :na: ::ner-ise coes n:: aliow easy influx.
Further cre, with ne backfill of the recms, One hea:-fiew patterns will re, cist:r:ed :: ::nce:: ::re heat cownward :y means cf an increasec tem:erature gracient.
These ::nciticas are no truly re:resenu.:ive of inese ina: :no easte
-iii enc: enter curing ne remainder cf the peri:d curing wnien
'ssien procu::
heating precominates.
Finally, the retrievacility period will ene at accut 1050, at which time cur grandchilcren =ust su=en :ne capital to finisn the job in pr:per fashien; it seems more crudent for cur generation to c: plete the pr: ject.
In constrast, the unaveicable waste esclacement perice of 10 t= 15 years shouic previce satisfac: cry monitoring of the same aspects of repository behavier as woulc be revealed by the 50 year period. The early expiacements coulc be
=enitored curing the decade or so of filling.
5ecause technical flaws in systems design usually cause failure early in life, the 10 to 15 year e= placements should reveal the potential for failure nearly as well as would the 50 year peried.
The design criterion for the package is a 1000 year life, so that all we can ce:ect is early failure.
5 placement coulc readily be s:cpped at any time before filling is c:=pletec, and the waste rr.:reived.
Tc su=ari:e:
if "retrievability" it to be previced at the expense of early backfilling and shaft sealing, we suggest that it be deleted frc= these criteria.
Ccement 85:
U. 5. Department of Energy (18)
Paragra::hs 50.111(a)(3) and 50.125 require tnat the repcsitcry be cesigned so.
that the c: ion remains cpen to retrieve the waste for :: :: 50 years after ter=ination of waste emplacement.
The basis for this :eriod cf time is not presentec.
In fact, ne meaning of :ne werd "retrievacility" is not clear.
We certainly agree that a specific time pericd, curing which retrievability er recoveracility will have to be maintained, shculd be specified.
"Retrievabil-ity" implies that canisters can be retrieved as easily as they were emplaced, whereas "receverability" implies tnat waste ce-isters may be recoverec intact although requiring re=cval of backfilled =att :al do so.
The exact period of time curing which retrievability or re: veracility sneuld be maintained should not be specified new but. should be established only after more infor:ation is available en the phenc=ena of concern.
h =ay very well be nat the recuired perioc of retrievability will depend upon anc vary ace:rding to ne geclogic l
l mecium and environment in which a repcsitory will be placed.-
We are not sure what the present rule intends c:ncerning backfilling cf the rc:=s.
We acce:: the premise that containers shoulc be placed so that the are recoverable intact.
However, the rule shoulc nct preclude early backfil-ling of the repository rec =s.
We believe that sufficient irler:ation is net yet available to specify the exact time at which backfilling of repository passages should take place.
Backfilling would provice i rovec c:nditiens fer maintaining cperational safety.
Also, the lesser amount of waste rock during cperation wculd reduce the environmental impac cf any speiis pile on the surface.
Maintaining the rec =s in an cpen, ventilatec condition for long periccs wculd e
P00R ORM amoe-- :: storage and would, in effect, pass ins res; nsi::ility for dispcsal to fut.:re generations.
Several initial c :iens exist in a:creacning backfilling.
- Or enmple, one c::icn wcuid be :: tackfill a re resentative num::er cf recms after 1:aci:g :nem with easte.
This -cule alics a precuctive m:nitoring program to begin.
After :ne initial monitoring pericc, backfilling c:uic be cone for ai; cf ne recms as tney are fillec witn waste.
Therefore we believe tnat specific time perieds for maintaining retHevacility er recovera::ility showic not be srecifiec at this time.
Ratner, the Ccemission sncule consider stating that sucn s::ecific time periccs will be esta::lished at.he time Of repcsit::ry licensing cepencing upon the concitions at t v proposed site.
The Supclementary Information states.ha.: "it might be desirable to postcone any irreversible (cr not easily reversible) decisions until the maximum amount of reasonably cetainable information aoout how well tne repository is functioning and can be expected to function and centain and isolate the waste for perices of time required is at hand".
However, there is no ciscussion of how this leads to 50 years after termination of waste emplacement nor is there any discussion of negative aspects of postponing this decision.
Ccmment 86:
Westinghouse Electric Corp. (20)
Retrievability - The time period for retrievability cf 50 years after decem-missioning seems excessively long. When coupled with up to a 40 year repository operational period, it could require that some mined portiens of the repository remain fully cperational for 90 years.
To design and construct the repository cpenings for this period of time and to maintain them for this period of time could add very considerable expense to the repositcry.
It would seem appropriate anc reasonable to require a shorter retrievability period after start of waste emplacement (10 to 15 years) in which the major concerns about long term effects are reasonably answered and confirmed.
After this point in time, going back in for retrieval for having to perform those operations is quite small.
It would be better to face the small potential of these costly cperaticns than to recuire the ex;ensive, very 1cng retrieval period be designed int:: every reposit::ry.
Co.: ment 87:
Tauke and Adam (21)
Retrievability.
Is 'is possible to pinpoint a safe date for sealing the repository.
Comment 88:
Duke Power Co. (25)
In the discussion on retrievability, the implication is made that one reascn i
for retaining retrievability might be the expectation of future, " improved technolegies..., better designs..., cperational pr::cedures improved." We strongly suggest the regulations specify that retrievability need be maintained for only that period required for performance check:ut.
In the case of dispcsal of spent fuel, further retrievability for resource recovery ccuid be. maintained based on an assessment of economic viability, but should not be mandated'b" regulations.
We have long maintained that the waste ultimately disposed of should be high level waste frem reprocessing, rather than spent fuel with its enormous energy c::ntent, and we continue to take that position.
Mcwever, frcm tne stancpoint 35
~
~
~
~
P00R OR11NAL cf the S amission's regulatien. We hcic that reccsitory cesign: f.cule b,e recuire: to incercorate retrievacility caly c :ne exten. enc for :ne period necessa y.c c0:ain meaningful cata reia.ing ic icng tem safety of :ne repesitory.
Cc ment 89:
Department cf Environmental Protection, State of Cennecticut (27)
I was pleased :: see that priority consiceratien is being given :: re.rievability.
Cem ent 90:
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Tell (28)
Retrievability of emplaced wastes is specified for a period of time that could be as long as 100 years from the start of repository cperations. While it is recognizec :nat a repository sio woulc have to be abandoned whenever critically acverse circumstances micht e..ae, the likeliheed of sucn circumstances evolving is vanishinglv
....l.
Acdordingly, the prevision for retrievacility for such extensive periods is an excessive and unrealistic requirement.
As its recogni:ed in the discussion of this subject in the Advance Notice, such a requirement has a significant undesirable impact en repository design, construc-tien and operation, particularly as it relates to potential occupational radiation exposure of werkers in the repository.
It also is counter to a ratienal systems approach and quita cenceivably could complicate the use of salt, a generally acceptable repository formation, as a host rcck, on a very weak and tenuous basis.
In our view, the period of retrievability is more icgically and realistically related to the a= cunt of time (likely less than 10 years) during wnich useful in situ repository perfomance related information can be acquired.
In any case, cecause of the large potential negative impacts and nighly questionable benefits of such a long retrievability requirement, a
= ore convincing rationale would have to be provided to justify any such requirement.
(7) HUMAN INTRUSION PROBLEM Cc= ment 91:
A. E. Wasserbach (7)
Section (7) Human Intrusion Problem.
" Simply stated, human intrusion cannot be prevented;" If you canNOT keep humans frcm intruding, HOW can ycu possibly guarantee the stability of the geologic fermation, or the expected behavice of a repository, or the waste / rock interaction?
If humans, subject to will and reason, cannot be controlled, how do you expect a human to be able to control an inanimate rock formation?
High level wastes should be kept, as stated above, in retrievable storage facil-ities,'until a genuine discosal method is found, not a " disposal" that is siecly one of "Out of sight, anc (nopefully) out of mind".
A genuine " disposal" method is' one that would render the nuclear wastes completely harmless to man and his environment.
Cciment 92: Attorney General Abrams, State of New York (11)
The cuestion is raised whether attemots should be made "to protect future generations from the.celiberate intruder."
P. 3139S. col. 2.
The answer, of course, is yes.
Future generations should not be exposed to deadly raciation precuced by cur generation, even if one or more members of future generatiens act celiberately.
36
DOE /NE-0007, SUPP.1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
l PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
)
THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
)
PR-50,51 OF NUCLEAR WASTE
)
(44 FR61372)
)
l (Waste Confidence Rulemaking)
)
9 w
6
.g CROSS-STATEMENT OFTHE l
UNITED STATES
. DEPART. MEN...a,T,..,.O. F. :.ENERG.Y <.
- s *= &. w.q' R J.e - g. -
- s...
,i wyw'.s.i
..eu.v t w Wa."..a % -i.-..r.,c.,. p
- Fa.,.dg..>,
'. ^ *
- we.. ?.u;*W"h' *'dOh*e.-Z.,'*JW.W?'"
,:rs')
. W *,Y:."c. '-)kii ** jr,* *hn.Y WY*i * *.4,%'7.-.t.o u.
y~r.v-.,_ c u m,~::._...,,
. p..-
L-
.m.
- u = =%
y,..,,.Q.g.
t y=
t.a.
- m. p._. n., p
'?
_f..'i.
' ' j%;* b.% * $** ^
w.'G A-[. rY,':
- - - e.= m m'e -:
'p l
A-n.s,'
\\t
.;9
.. g...s.,.w. n. ytpa..
. m.3.
. >..,. - ~.
, _,1.
l.... = -. g.m m.. ~. e.~.,...
k h
g; cgm %;c'sm:ae:wmmwti,F8ww"g.[
- M h
@:sm,k, MMiWHAMmL.., dwa
~
1
-w
- qux.ed M c n u m m.5En&#sSW.% #k, A.
\\
.Mqnyg 4 sm m m g w +sJ@ W wcd WMf8sW2M:; %w'rl.?;4tf9F83p+'IMrsBN?MWi%d#$p.:i4Mwf8~&A$i&y%5d8,,.E 6
CEW a.::r&]~
V %:t-m *n.r* n * ~~~~
Mc rg p;;4
-p-
--c:8.a ;?,W:dk/5WE.T %u. x.n.c e
. n i+..4,%.-;%;.-
- e >~- c. -. m
%.*D. Z J T.nG,rd.
^
Q: ~~ ep*te'
- i+3
- w. e.s
'y y.*.+
w.
.. ~ :c.. -
.e.4,. n.
n
.n...:..
h(
- s:.3.,kh',ip. 9.yg.ws,wpz.y%ws-[.=::,:mt.s=
2 I
.,/
wa 2 nw a
m~.e.o.r.t x,,. a n..g.y-n.
w., ?g.ep;]... ft3,. ~m;g_. vgr ~m -~', :,9...
x
.=cp
,; ;;;r.;. a.;. 9 y-7
.a
- e
.w n,
- r.,~.
- >..~,..l ;.3z- ::-- -
-r
~
. q4 4 s; :s < 3~,.
~:.r.
,. q f.?d r -J.
M 3. %.. '.4 e c....
e, ~,l.'.. <
. - f 7. ;
.v.,
- 3t*
g y
, a- [
"-Y- [f gf*{
k].*.
~ *. ; e.I.*[wi -. wj;,- h
- &','s I,,
4 jay jf _
'T.'-
~ *
?'
- N U MNY'TTEM Q50%E
" #NN;di'M'.',y~;.'r;.,'t.@M=.,.V M*M5 *~M.4/-E@$,TI'E/MWM'i"~'#N&#fMn4%wce.k=@M" dd,ZN,-jy%'&-Q' r
-.21 rg **:.wi.gTT.,.
BotvwA
% rp4<M r,1 b *.w Q:-
m:.A C iw Xss w w-.ss.
~Tr.=fnyg~~,pesgugy-[^- y q q-M M }?
Q:-w-y. s-y:.ca= 3 e
Lw-e these characteristics are in progress.
The Depart lent, in its position
{
"T~
1 rent, presented a sur,ary of these data and tests unde various tempera-and fluid conditions.
DDE PS at 11-148 to II-149.
.T r
One Participant contends that locating exist' ; boreholes has yu e to be considered.
NRDC at 56.
This contention completely ignores the
,f'
- dure specifically discussed by the Department in its initial statement
..cy-
.ch has been successfully employed at the Los Medanos site in southeastern bid 8 Mexico (50).
DOE PS at II-181.
In summary, the suggestions about the inadequacy of technical ta on sealing of repositories are based on improper assumptions that totally W,.,2 s _..
Dervious seals are essential to the successful performance of a repositorv i 2.%
weseg stem.
Such suggestions ignore the body of data available from current partment of Energy programs and completely discount the results that are
- i t
ing obtained from current research programs.
q' g
~
l
.B.5.3 Retrieval t-I
- g; Several Participants suggest that the Department's Position atement has not adequately addressed possible retrieval of waste from a re-tt sitory.
The State of New York asserts, "A methodology for assuring retriev-M ility of the wastes has not been developed."
NY PS at 96.
New York also h ff.Ai scusses potential hazards from retrieval to both the workers and the pub-yg c.
NY PS at 62n.
The Department has described a general methodology for b
'IGG 1 em; M'
rtrieval in its Position Statement.
DOE PS at 11-281 to 11-283.
The Depart- @
h ]l int is committed to maintaining waste retrievability both to fulfill its own quirement to use a conservative stepwise. approach; DOE PS at 11-15, Objec-j ',f ve 5; and to comply with whatever NRC and EPA regulations may eventually be t.r, t abli shed.
[
ly The Department is closely monitoring the NRC and EPA regulation
}
. L mz 3
celognent efforts, DOE PS at II-5, and is structuring its program to meet
%P Dse agencies' regulations once they are adopted into law.
DOE PS at II-IdM p^c
- 2. Repository and waste package development efforts are consistent with the 4
ntent of the draft NRC retrievability requirements, i.e., maintaining the f
a I
apability to safely retrieve wastes throughout the operational phase and for NilN.
w.
i d
11-109 CEEP e
- WWk
+
' Mh s
f;$Mj
an amount of time thereaf te appropriate for the f;RC to grant the necessary permissior for decommissioning the repository.
The issue of what constitutes an appropriate amount of time requires resolution, but coes not present an obstacle to tne conduct of the fMS Program as described in the Decar:9ent's Position Statement.
See II. A.7, suora (concerning the use of draf t criteria in this proceeding).
A soecific retrieval procedure will be developed prior
- emplacing wastes when the detailed design of the engineering features of both the repository structure and 'aste package ;s complete.
As noted in the Department's Statement, design features will be provided to allow for retriev-al of emplaced canisters throughout the operating phase.
DOE PS at II-281.
The nature of retrieval operations makes potential risks to the public extremely low.
DOE PS at II-2S3, Item 5.
For example, source terms would be limited by individual canister contents and there would be a low driving force for release of radioactive materials.
It will be necessary to design the repository, waste package, handling equipment, and retrieval procedures to protect repository personnel from potential exposure to local-ized contamination and direct exposure.
Such design provisions are within the state of the art, requiring technology and methods presently employed in pro-viding in-plant radiation protection for existing nuclear facilities and those used by the Department to recover radioactive materials, including broken packages (55-57).
DOE PS, Refs. -II-772 and II-773.
Efforts are ongoing to define the requirements for safe retrieval for subsequent implementation in repository design.
- t./
Two Participants quote an EPA report; NRDC PS, Ref. ?5: which questioned the capability to retrieve because of canister corrosion.
RRDC PS_
P at 25. 31 "
fG PS, Abrahamson at 8.
The Department discusses the currently l
applicable waste package requirements in its Position Statement and states, "The waste package must preserve the ability to retrieve the waste safely l
throughout the required repository demonstration period."
DOE PS at II-135.
l-In 1978, when the EPA report was prepared, the waste isolation concept on long-term radionuclide retention was based on the natt.ral system.
Ine canis-l ter was intended to contain the wastes during handling and emplacement ortly, i
and longlived canisters were not factored into conceptual design studies.
The EPA report appropriately evaluated the predominant canister design at the 4
i e
II-110
time.
Rc;ults of the studies made more recently, which were not considered in the EF* studies, would have led to a different conclusion.
Two Participants address retrieval cperations af ter recository cic;ure.
Tna New England Coalition on Nu: lear Pcilution states, "DDE sh:;1c i
evaluate retrieval from a completely filled reposi tory afte-a sufficient, I
period of time that temperature and exa:: location would make retrieval and handling of the fuel a more uncertain operation." #ECNP PS at 55.
The Cali-l f ornia Department of Conservation states, ".
. the design of backfill ma-teri al and penetration seals should allow for safe re-entry, maintaining the integrity of the repository."
CDC PS at 22-23.
Section II.F.3 cf the Depart-7 ment's Position Statement considers the need for retrieval during and at the completion of the operational phase.
Waste packages will be designed, at a minimum, to contain the wastes throughout the planned retrieval contingency period (approximately two times the planned duration of the operating phase) in order to f acilitate retrieval and reduce operator risks.
Once the NRC has authorized isolation and the repository has been sealed, retrieval will con-tinue to be possible at an increased degree of difficulty, cost, and perhaps operator risk.
It should be noted that such authorization by the NRC would be indicative of its confidence in the safety of the repository thereby making the need for subsequent retrieval, for safety reasons, highly unlikely.
Waste packages will retain a high degree of integrity for a considerable period of time beyond repository closure.
For example, the Department's proposed Per-formance Objective 1 would require containment throughout the period dominated by fission-product decay.
DOE PS at II-7.
See also II.B.1., supra.
There-fore, although retrieval after isolation is not anticipated, the este package and repository design features will allow retrieval after closure at a higher cost and degree of difficulty.
It should be noted that if a decision were made to retrieve waste and to abandon the repository, long-term integrity of the host rock would be unimportant. See DOE PS at II-282.
h Two participants contend that salt and shale are unacceptable midia if re'.rievability is a design consideration.
NRDC PS at 37; NY PS at 85
~
to 90 and 98. They base this contentien.on four considerations:
1.
The corrosive effects of salt brine.
i II-111 iI
~h 2.
Possible movement of waste by brine mig-ation.
3.
Tendency for caniscers to migrate downward in dry s al t.
4.
P.oon closure rates.
Th-first two effects can be avoided by proper design and selection or pack-aging materials, e.g., use of an absorbent to prevent the brine from contact-ing the canister.
The Department's Statement of Fosition describes the brine migration phenomenon.
DOE PS at II-58 to II-61.
It notes that, for a typical emplacement configuration, "... the total a: cumulated influx of brine 1,500 years af ter emplacement is about 6 liters."
DOE PS at II-59.
The waste package system is discussed in the Department's Posi-tion Statement.
DOE PS at II-129 to 11-160.
This discussion notes that in-cursion of fluid is one of the principal phenomena of concern to waste package decision.
DOE PS at Il-131.
It also states, "The waste package will consist of various components, each of which can mitigate the inputs of these phenom-ena on package perfomance."
DOE PS at II-132.
Movement of waste packages in dry salt has been studied over a wide range of conditions.
Although the migration of canisters in dry salt is th:oretically possible, the rate of movement is extremely low and inconsequen-tial relative to the ability to retrieve over the several decades when retriev-al may be required.
For example, one study has shown that the total movement over a period of 150 years would be less than 1 millimeter (58).
The room closure rates for salt and shale repositories could r; quire " supports," as suggested by the State of New York, if it were decided to prevent the rooms from closing.
NY PS at 93.
On the other hand, the rooms mcy be backfilled and closed by design, and if retrieval were to become neces-s ary, reopened using conventional mining techniques coupled with radiation protection measures.
Either option is within the state of the art.
The subject of creep is also discussed in II.B.5.1 of this Cross-Statement.
}
e j
The State of Wisconsin has stated that the Department of Energy:
.. should consider a " worst case" scenario.
Reli-ance on a second repository would be impossible if the first repository would entail or suffer engin-eering problems prior to the second repository's -
e 11-112
compl etion.
Broad contingency plans need to be de-velcped in order that an established procedure can be implecented t de al with potentially hazardous sit-uations.
W'i PS, Leverance at 1.
The Depart:nent's Position Statement notes:
waste removed from the repository could be transf erred to temporary surf ace storage rather than to another repository.
00E PS at II-283.
Also, as previously noted, Retrieval probably will not be based on an imediate threat to the repository, but rather loss of confidence in long-term containment.
DOE PS at II-282.
The Department is committed to following a careful step-wise r.pproach in developing, designing, and operating waste disposal systems.
Retrievability is a planned contingency provided in implementation of that approach.
DOE PS at II-23.
Detailed retrievability plans must, of necessity, be addressed on a site-specific, design-specific basis.
However, the Depart-ment in its Position Statement, DOE PS at II-281, and in this Cross-Statement affims its commitment to maintain waste retrivability throughout the opsrat-ing phase.
Both the material and technical requirements for a safe retrieval system can be provided using current technology.
No Participant has raised a substantative retrievability issue precluding a finding of confidence in this proceeding.
II.B.5.4 Reclamation of Site /Decommissionino The State of Wisconsin raises concerns regarding the reclama-tion of a repository site and particularly of surf ace disturbances.
WN PS, Mudrey at 5.
Dr. Mudrey questions the f ate of a shaft sunk at a site which is later abandoned, and he also expresses concern about the disposition of rock tailinos.
Id.
All sites investigated or utilized by the Department will be r; stored.
This includes backfilling shaf ts, removing.or stabilizing wa'ste rcck in a manner which meets applicable Department, EPA, NRC, and NEPA re-quirements, and restoring vegetative cover, as appropriate.
See DOE PS at i
II-284 to II-285.
{
i II-113 I
/d 4
g.-.
,,,_==.
.... 4.*.. n. a.:
w~
r.'.:.... = n g-,..
.=
.mmmy
.. ge.. e - m g.
.s w w -
- sJ'.
.".J.w A.. "
..O G w.s
_x
~.u.e
.u.a e_
a
- - (,=,>
- v...=.. c..~. ~, ~ )
- u. u.. c 0,
C.
.? ::: sed R ler.akine en 5 :: ace and Disposal cf Nuclear Waste, 10 CTR Pa.r:s 50 and 51 (Waste C=nf:.dence R ler&.ine)
.g t.
$ ~.n~ ~v_ss_vu.m. cv o. c.e. _ _ ~ v.. cv.
- sM.
v g.
-.a ns.
- a.. w.u... v.
.,...s G3r.aL 0r...e.r
.e..a..e.
- e. c
.!vi
- .U
~
v.
NI r7 YCRK
.. s.
- i.
i
.s.r..
\\,'...
92 __ y
' ~ '/N
,,./_
.. f
~
?C_a _:... ns?a,d"c e..er.,.. _e
.w n. _... e,f w e
State cf New Yc k 2 Wceld "rade Center New Yerk, New Y: k 10047 I
(212) 488-3474 l
(212) 488-7565 i
.. ARC'A J.
f** "VT* 2C w
J JOEN W. CORh3
..O Mm m.
Assis ant'Atter:eys General i
l l
l
f., R C +.
fI I
[
j
'.e4..
t
~
El f
j ;!
.hh. k j
>Ie
.s.m v
-w
...e e.s.=,___e
._.w
<r a..
ta..*.
Ae..
e.
a.e.e.
.. s i
o
- \\t
- u.., _.
- e. _t
.a..e._......
.. e.
a.. n
.a.
9.. :
....e.,
e, 1
g..
_e w".
- b. a -' a. _*" _# * #.
~.#
wa_"~.'.-e".*..'..'.~~"_~...a..'.'.
7
.'"c.'__.#.*.'.'.'..'..#'_d*-*'
l
'"2
.% g w _e J., gm
.b.a
.e b.=4.,s.*
_. b..* e.""' c **#*'. "'.e
"_#.e
"'a*'.
.b,e y
i r..
a...
l j
_.:._..._ a_,
_ _s g._.._ u.,__,,._e g_._z___e,
_i.
ue necesse.rv to remove seme er all of the wastes alreaf.v e==. laced and ~..~ v e
- k. e.. to,
- k. e
.. e.c.e. _#...'. e s.
'.'.'. a _ e.#
.. e,
_3. #
s..e esas.v.
to have additional repositeries available fer such contingencies.
(See above, c.. 13, footnote).
It is consecuently necessa y
.'a. _#-- e a.". - a_
e s _'. -.v "__'. #...a.c ' v,
.t e e d. e d_, s e ". a.. a.'...".t.
b._ se. e,_e an.
_4 s _4....
,s.:.
a as a ;.-.e..
c
., e eye s :.., _ 4.,.s will be needed, several decen candidate sites will have to
.ue
.ea-.e>.,
Unter unate.:.v
=
y e s... s1 _4
, w i,_, re _r:. eval cf the wastes in case a recesiter--
_4s
_4.s e_3 _<
.a..a. #.
u s, -
.'..., '. _he v..x#e_ s a J.c" the public.
For exa=ple, as h*RC staff has peinted cut, canisters
=av be cc-eded, damaged er stuck, creatine. a risk of exposure to re rival werkers.
Overcering,could result in radioactive dust to which werkers would be exposed.
In addition, retrieval creates a risk of esca e of radienuclides to the bicse.here if the integri y of seals separating =ain airways frc= st= rage rec =s has net been maintained.
(Ref. 7, pp. 3-14, 3-15).
threatening =ine stability; silt is adversely affected by anc caspe sa_ c,.
1...nec.
heat salt is vulnera.le
= :.:actures; c
salt poses an environmental ha:ard.
Salt aisc carries with it the pctential dangers of " focusing" and breccia pipes.
Each of these liabilities of salt is briefly described below.
First, salt is highly scluble in water (Ref.
2, p.
7.2.4; Ref. 1, p. 3.1.32).
This sclubility constitutes a sericus defect for several reasons.
As DOE has acknowledged,
" trapped brine can be released with considerable energy when heated and can fracture the rock."
(Ref.
2, p. 7.2.12).
"The protective metal canisters and sleeves will certain1v.
degrade quickly in the streng brine environment, and leaching cf the wastes will be enhanced."
(Ref.
4, p. 5).
Interstitial brine is known to reduce the mechanical strength of the salt.
(I _d. )
Also, as DOE recogni:es, brine tends to migrate towards heat sources, such as radioactive waste (Statement, pp. II-175, II-252; see also Ref.
8, p. 11); migration in volume "is likely to be deleterious and must be accounted for when considering long-term isolation. "
( Ref. 11, p. 6 5 ).
Brine can also be l
expected to decrease the serptive preperties of the salt t
l (Ref. 15, p. 4 5) ; "the capacity of the salt to fix or adsorb _
the nuclides from the waste in insoluble form is apparently lew."
(Ref. 4, p. 5).
Solubility affects =ine operations and retrievability of the wastes.
As USGS has said:
l If relatively s=all ancunts of brine can cause substantial decrease of me-i L.
I 1
chani=cl strength and pensible neve-1 nent cf waste during a relatively I
short sine, special eff:::s will OL 1i surely be necessary
- ins
-a
-a-trievasta_, v. _ren a saat reo0 site rv.
for periods as short as 10-25 years.
The question Of whether the w rhings of a =ine in salt can be predicted to sta.v drv. vill have :: be faced.
(Ref.
4, p. 12).
Secend, as DOE recogni=es, salt creeps.
Creep is the visceus flow of the medium under constant stress.
Creep ecrurs in three stages.
The first stage is shert and occurs at the time of initial stress.
Then there is a longer " steady state creep," during which there is a gradual increase in stress.
Most i=portant is the third stage, which lasts less than a dav. and leads rapidly to failure.
(Ref. 2, p. 7. 2.15).
Thus, a salt formation can ec11 apse literally overnigh' Experiments in the laboratory have yielded empirical equations t= describe the creep behavior of salt.
- Hewever, as DOE has ad=itted:
These equations are c== plex and no agreement has been reached as to which is the best one.
The in-portant point, however, is that salt does creep and a re=ository cannot be rationally cesienet unless
- ne creep menavier uncer :ne a==rocriate conc :1ons c: pressure and re=cerature is properly uncers: cod.
(I d. )
(emphasis supplied).
9
Pl]Ui UniblIUy.
I y c..c y.: _
.e s a _n
_es a _:. z.e. __t a_s n y l u
..u._ _ a_,. u.o p.u.y s _: a _.
j affe::ed by te=peratr e."
'Ref.
2, p. T. 2.12 ).
The ka=-
\\
crittef by the wastes "nay cause===plen mechanica'. and cha i cal changes. Increa ed temperatures in sal: veuld further decrease nechanical strength cf the sal:-brine =ixuures... and would k
inrrease the creep rate cf dry salt."
(Ref.
4,
- p. 6).
7
'Fouruh, as NRC staff has observed, while it is eften claimed that salt's plastic properties a d
'eal
-a anv. c=. enine., it "may net be realistic to depend en this
'self-healing behavier' to produce an impermeable seal artend the reposit:ry....
Water under great press =e "could keep (ther= ally er =echanically induced] fractures open and increase the dimensions of the fractures as a result of the flow."
(Ref. 7, p. 3-29).
Fifth, bedded sal: may be plagued by the c.resence of vertical st'ructures known as breccia r.i=.es, which extend vertically through several geologic strata.
l l
such a r. ic. e. is permeable, and near a u.rce.c. sed re=.csiterv.
l
~#
i 1
site, it "could =revide a shcrtened path to the biosphere...
I
[and] previde a sufficient reason to preclude construction I
cf a recositerv.."
(Ref. 11, =.=. 66-67).
Sixth, in a dry salt de=e.he caniste s containing the waste "would tend
= =igrate downward," perhaps c==-
plicating future atte= pts to retrieve.
(Ref. 5, p. 20).
l j
It is net known whether the sinking would " focus" the l
canisters - i. e., draw the= closer together.
If so, the I
l L.
result coulf be further sinking and focusing, producing very high c=peratures id.
If this occurred, the ther.al loading criteria limiting :ne density of waste in each rcpesi::ry eculd be viciated.
These uestiens still need Because of the =any proble=s listed above, a salt fo= nation may becc=e unstable after place =ent of high-level waste (Ref. 16, p.
- 17), er the waste containment could be breached (Ref. 1, p. 3.1. 3 2 ; Ref. 7, p. 3-9).
.u.o r e information is.needed to deter =ine whether the potential danger of a salt repository f ailure can be avoided.
The rate and extent of waste dissolution in brine are unknown.
(Ref. 11, p. 65).
"How ion exchange rate, reaction to radio-activity, and other associated potential chemical reactions of salt deposits and related rock type affect isolation are not adequately understood at present."
(Ref. 2, p. 7. 2. 4).
These potential chemical reactions include explosion of un-l stable species f,otmed by radiolysis; for=ation of explosive hydrogen-oxygen mixtures near the waste or in an unventilated storage roc =; and formation of volatile che=ical co= pounds fro = the combination of fission products and brine (Ref. 9, vol. 7, p.
2-5).
All of these "petentially significant t= pics" should be investigated = ore extensivelv (Id).
The "most l
In ace tion, salt for=ations are located in areas where oil and gas are frequently found, but hydrogen sulfide, a l
deadly gas, is often found near oil and gas.
This poses problems to waste recesitory co. erations.
(Ref. 16, c. 17).
j 1
l i
i 88
~
- hC # CV C.'. *p'*.*. 3- **. '.
w-.
y. * #.*. *.".# *
- e. a *y' d #.'.# * '/
.. e. 4. a.i a s D, O.
- w.
i i
.l.e
. %.a y m
.e. y.. a. g.a.
g g a e.
t..
a.t g.gy A.gge
- e. ~..,. o....m.'
s 77 behavier," yet:
1* C zm.a 4. aie c... k. ae saie..b..J o b.
EXn.O * *. 01.ne-Ce=entent O e f O *"na t*.O n a.
.e..
a..
n.
a.,. n. e. e. _. n e.
Ce
.,Ite n-
... s.e.
a.
.,a_a.
eea w.
as adecuate Ov a.:._
wc r.ers *n :.e
- .e t a t :=ct =ecnan:. c s.
D e = o s :. ~.= v
~
..=..,..i_v.
da-s
._ a ' s.a_ __' _*.v, pendent upon these ti.te-dependent
.a.e 4 a.
.u.a
,C..
4.s.:.s C,..s.e naterial.
(Re.'.
- o., Vc'.
4,.
4 e.. '*.a s ' s.'.. c *, '..a.' ).
ar 'c~.'a:,
r a satisfactory nethed of neasuring the stress state around an opening to the mine is unknown at this **me.
(
d.,
- p. 4-22).
Mereover, : c= clesure rates nay be high in an unsuppcrted salt reposite f'.
The cost cf engineered support depends en the
.o..
c_es" =.
.a.e, w.b.'-k.
_ s " a..
. e s w _' v e
.e c'.._3 a _' _ss~e.
(3..e.e.
_3,
. _. 3.1 ).
c Finallv., of c=urse, '.in._ situ cria.1 excavatiens and l
=enitorine. are essential =rerec.uisites to final rec.esiterv.
design.
(Ref.
9, Vol. 7, p. 2-6; See aise _id.,
Vol.
4, p. 7-14).
The p chle=s raised bv..i_n situ testine. have been described above at e.c. 63-64.
l l.
In addition to all the p =ble=s with a salt re-l pository :e: se significant envir=== ental issues affecting l
pla=t life and soil aroductivity are =. resented bv. the==re r
than 30 million tons of mined salt which will be re==ved and 8 0.
i
=
100R DTI M laOQd On *h3 surfaOQ abOVO a sinc.le TOOCs': r'*
(Eef. 1,
......*.).
".*. ' -' a..*..
~,_ ~ ~ ~ e ' - a s
- ' ' ' e,. = e ' a '
cr.
- reduce :-1: dispersal at least zw: Or'ers of magnitude ::
se.....
.,..:__e.'.~. c~.~.c=..._= -'
...c c.
=- ' * ' ' % +_ _' - '-. ~.~. '
' =. v =_ ' c.
The.:: ential aise exists fer salt de=csited as dust en I
the land
- Le transported by run-cf f :: nearby surface waters," which could receive "a==unts of salt sufficient to da=ac.e indic.ences ac.ua ic clants and animals".
(Ref. 1,
- p. 3.1.121).
Less of vegetatien because of the effects of sal "would reduce cover and feed supplies for na==als a d n
birds and' result in their displacenent er elimination."
(na. ).
(b)
Shale Numerous drawbacks t the designation of shale repositories have been identified.
Considerable water is :=
be f=und in shale deposits.
(Ref. 5, p.
9.).
As DOE acknowledges, heating and subsequent dewatering in shales can produce fractures.
(S tatement, p. II-175).
Shales are subject to " slaking," which is deterioration and less in strength due to drying and wetting.
(Ref. 1, s.. 3.1. 3 0).
The =inine..crocess itself would be difficult, sRef. 11, p. 74).
Shale is believed :
weaken and be=ene =cre ductile with increased ta=perat'.'.re.
(Ref.
2, p. 7. 2.23).
Swelling clays resulting fre= the presence ef water =an create pressures great enough to cause buckling cf steel suee. erts.
(I_d. )
Shales are susceptible to mineralegi=al alterations which could weaken the physical structure and p_-==cte i-cracking and disintegration at the pressures anticipated in a
r l
4.
Ncn-Doctructive Excavation Technology Eas Not Boen Develoced.
n$M l2 l.
~ ~
d.I,a The first step in actually builfing a repesitory will be :: encavate the site.
Like _i_n situ testine (see above, p.
63 ), however, excavatien itself will produce fractures which could breach the integrity of the site and render it unsuitable for use as a reposit=ry.
ERC staff has said that the mining process will fracture the rock and create a series of joints near the excavation point, and is likely to increase hydraulic conductivity of the rock = ass.
(Ref. 7, pp. 3-23, 3-25).
NRC staff has also said that the effect of the excavation process on "the important and c== plex problem of groundwater mass transport" and, more generally, on icng-ter= repository performance, needs to be addressed (Id., c.
3-25).
DOE acknowledges that fracturing "must bc considered," and that fracturing, if extensive, "=ay provide a potential c.athway fer groundwater."
(S tatenen:, e..
II-161).
A sy=posium of DOE's National Waste Ter=inal St= rage Progra= observed that the permeability of fractures and of :ne overall rock mass is " extremely important," yet techniques for mini =i ing da= age to the host rock during excavatien are "poorly developed".
(Ref. 15, p. 109).
5.
A Methodology For Assuring Retrievability Of The Wastes Has Not 3een Developed.
DOE has identified =any i=portant reasons requiring that wastes be placed in the reposit= ries in a way which assures
700R ORIGIN!1 their retrievability: (1) te previde a period for ebserving waste-reek intera:tiens and reposit:ry operatiens, (?.af.
2, p.
- 1. 5. 5 ) ; (2) := allow exa.ina:icn cf the entire host reek 1
for=atica before the wastes becene ir e_rievable (id. ) ;
'I (3) to allev re== val of wastes "if tests and acquired data show that a sufficient degree of confidence c=uld not be provided" (S tatement,' p. II-251) ; (4) to c=rrect defective waste packages whi=h have already been e=placed (M.) ; and (5) to allow relocation of wastes if a =.crtion cf a ree.csiterv.
were found to be unceitable (id.).
DOE states that retrievability is needed throughout the co.eratine. =hase of a ree.csitorv..
(S tatementr =.. II-251).
Because selection and construction of repositories constitute "a new h :an enterprise," says NRC staff, it is "reascrable to J
expect that, whatever the care exercised and however advanced the techniques, mistakes will occur... "
45 Fed. Reg. 31398 (Mav. 13, 1980).
Acceedinc.i.v, preposed NRC re=.ulations would require DOE to design each repesitory "so that the radioactive waste stored there can be retrieved for a ceriod of 50 v. ears after termination of waste e= placement operations, if the geologic repository operations area has not been dece==issioned."
(Id at 31400; see also Ref. 9, Vol. 4, p. C-3).
l 1
l i
l l
t No finsi decision has bocn =ade as to how many years' retrievability is necessary, and thus the extent cf the capability which must be developed is unkncvn.
- Yet, sericus er blems have been identified, at leas: fer sal:
M c:*.'.C and shale.
- 30 staff believes that maintaining retrievability
%E3l
==
=
in salt is " c.uestionable", even fer five vears:
E3=
There is significant evidence that O
salt rock behavier under thermal and mechanical stress is such that 03 l rarid closure rates can be ex=ected.
CCC)
It'may be impossible to =aintain C::)
integrity of seals under such C3.,
elesure rates.
(Ref.
7, pp. 3-9, 3-15).
And a repository in shale would entail
" massive support requirements" to keep all ccrridors and.
storage rooms open and maintain retrievability.
(Id., p. 3-15) ;
Ancther unresolved ted.nical proble= with retrievability is that as long as the roc =s and passages of the repository remain open, flooding is possible.
(Ref. 12, p. 83).
The IRG has found that:
Fure.: definition of the retriev-an;_ity concect, :ne circumstances in wnicn waste wouic ce retrievec, 1
anc tne tecnnical ascects (inclucine cevelccment of waste =act.acine, con-tainers anc nantilnc) is necessary, t
I (Ref. 10, p. 62).
(emphasis in criginal).
6 Adequate Sealing Methods Have Not Been Develooed.
Dor recognices that " repository seals must retain their integrity for much lenger periods ef.ti=e e.an those 0,,
w
f' u
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON THE
)
PR-50,51 STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF
)
NUCLEAR WASTE
)
)
q* I (c (Waste Confidence Rulemaking )
)
4
)
2 Dcon.m3 1
N L'3NA
-f 2-JUL e 1980 >
f.![.f.f((['j 7 STATEMENT OF POSITION OF THE t'l jas,\\ \\9 NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
~#
i
./ l j
/'
l Inadecuate Considera:icn of Retrieval l
e The DOE Statement of Posi: ion contains a des-crip: ion of waste i= placement and retrieval
-~~
- - ~ ~
~
considerations. 3_,,/
Three retrieval cases have been considered.
The most difficult retrieval i
case considers the retrieval of waste and aban-donment of the repository that could be required if tests and acquired data show that a sufficient degree of confidence (of long-term acceptability) could not be provided. El Unfortunately, this. retrieval case is assumed to cecur near the end of the repository operational phase and thus is not the worst case since all of the repository would not have been ba:kfilled and facilities and experienced personnel would still DOE should evaluate retrieval from be in place.
a co=pletely filled repository after a sufficient location period of time that temperature and exact would make retrieval and hanlling of the fuel a more uncertain cperation.
This would then be followed by ';urface handling of the fuel, presumably etc.
in water-filled storage pools, trans-shipment,
-l-20-)
+w-*
e-eam m-eg.p w. meg 9eyf r--
m i
l 3 /ai cc:xm, f
/
!.4 w
up\\
vom:
n n-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'U-01530 g FL
>d.
M CE:: d:, YN[ N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION iA
'#M
/
IN THE MATTER OF
)
ef
,\\
/ 61 \\ W
)
PROPOSED ROLEMAF.ING ON ThE STORAGE)
AND DISPOSAL OF UUCLEAR WASTE
)
PR-50, 51 (44 F.R.
61372)
)
(Waste Confidence RulemaKing)
)
STATEMENT OF POSITION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA I.
INTRODUCTION The State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") and its Attorney General hereby files its Statement of Position in the above-captioned proceeding.
This Statement of Position is filed pursuant to the Order issued by the Presiding Officer on May 29, 1980, in which July 7, 1980, was established as the date upon which all' participants were required to file their Statements of Position.
II.
IDENTITY AND INTEREST The MPCA is an agency of the State of Minnesota.
It is comprised of a nine-member citizen board appointed by the Governor.
Its staff of 320 persons is headed by an Executive Director.
It is charged with regulatory responsibilities. in tue environmental a eas of air quality, water quality, solid and hazardous waste, ans noise pollution.
As such, the two nuclear power, plants located in Minnesota, Northern States Power Company's Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear generating plants, are sub-l ject to MPCA regulation for all non-radioactive discharges and for all radica'ctive air emissions.
5) i sQ w
6
/ ' M g.j.s jA' V,\\
/**
- ~ y Vp
[
L'OM:
bk
.IUL ClC5~ y C!l::: c.' t' - '[38[
"d C:29;-
Y i AI C0!EEliTS O!i PROPOSED RULE!GKiriG ON THE
'*f c...:-'~~-
N"'
STORAGE A!iD DISPOSAL OF fiUCLEAR WASTE (Waste Confidence Rulemaking)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission by Dean Abrahamson, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Public Affairs Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 2 July 1980 r
e f
e
" Retrieval may only be feasible se long as an a:tive crew is kept at the repository site, perhaps then for only a relatively short nur.ber of years, 5 to 10, while the repository is beinc filled." s/
"Retrievability of HLW in other rock types [other than salt where tnere would also be migration of the canisters]
is not so much a question of locating the canisters because they have bodily moved elsewhere, but being able tc collect all of the waste because corrosion and leaching might so disintegrate the canisters that much of it is dispersed.
".1_q/
On the question of.ma'ntaining the integrity of the waste package the EPA panel observed:
~
"It is unlikely, however, that the integrities of the canister, its contents, and its imediate stirroundings will last very long, whether or not reprocessing is carried out.
We have seen no evidence of survivals longer than a decade." lif
(.
In its program plan, the DOE discusses retrievability in only l
the most general way, emphasizing that is is very unlikely that it would be necessary anyway -- and so by implication is not a significar.t issue:
"E th limited and total retrieval are unlikely events,
- the latter being least.likely." R/
DOE does not claim that the ability to retrieve the waste
has been demonstrated, nor does their program picn provide convincing evidence that they take seriously the potential need for retrieval
)
nor that their program w 11 pr: vide prcof of retrievability in the forseeable future.
Containment of all fission oroducts The t4RC draft criteria specify:
" Containment of all r'adionuclides for the first 1,000 years after decommissioning of the geologic reposity operations..." 13/
In this example, not only has the DOE not claimed that such containrent has either been proved possible or that their program will demonstrate such containment, but the DOE " program objectives" are fundamentally at variance with the proposed NRC requirements.
DOE suggests that exposures of tens or more millirem per year would be permissible:
" Radiological consequences should be maintained within the level of variations in natural background radiation associated with geographic location and domestic activities." is/
and then later
" Background radiation variations due to geographic location differences range fr:m approximately 100 to 250 mrem /yr within presently populated areas
. in the United States." 15/
DOE further imposes an economic standard to govern the operation of a repository:
O
l '[ Q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFS.!SSION IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
)
PR-50,5' THE STORAGE OF DISPOSAL.
)
( ",, F R 6 ^' ' 2 )
OF NUCLEAR WASTE
)
)
(1!aste Confidence Rulemaking)
)
oIS 4
9 E00.%
.71 JUL
~'
c!c gg~o80 5
-1[.
STATEMENT OF POSITION 9
O' 8';'$
'47
?-
OF THE p'
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 4
.Li\\ W s
- 7. July 1980 e
e
-y
ne r
.s Finally, in. March 1979, a federal interagency review grcup grepared a cc=prehensive reper: for sub=ission 10 the President, reviewing the nuclear' waste dispcsal progra= and recc==endin,e changes to improve it.
The final report, entitief Re Ort Oc the President by the Interagency Review Group cn Nuclear Waste 1
Management, 7 / stated:
[T]he =anage=ent of radioactive wastes for the past three decades can be characterized by inadequate integration of waste manage =ent R&D
[research and development) efforts.
. caused in art by inadequate percentions of the addi-e tional technological and scientific capabilities needed to develop an acceptable disposal progra=
The federal government has now begun again the search fer a geological formation that might serve as a per=anent waste repository.
In addition to the unresolved technical problems, serious political and social resistance to the siting of a disposal facility continues t'o mount throughout the country.
Against the backdrop of past =istakes, abandoned programs and growine..colitical o.c.oosition, there is substantial question whether the federal govern =ent ever will develop and implement a safe method for the permanent disposal of radioactive wastes.
Confidence in DOE's progra= =ust be judged in light of its past efforts, for they illustrate the ac.ene.v's cc==itment to the task, its organicational abilitv and its perception of the t
l obstacles to implementation.
DOE has made little real progress towards its goal of a safe, readily implemented waste disposal method.
The issues facing the agenev today are l7 TID-29442 (March 1978).
j_/
e-them can c: will be met at the sane site.
Insteaf the DOE progra is geared te vague and flexible "chjectives."
As c::anples, the NRC require =ents for retrievability, centain=en of fission products, and preventien of human intrusien are examined in detail.
- a.
Retriavability - The NRC draft repository perfor=ance criteria include the requirement that The De'partment of Energy.
. design the geologic repository operations area so that the radioactive waste stored there can be retrieved for a period of 50 years after termination of waste emplace =ent operations.
There is no evidence in the DOE program that 50 year retriev-ability can be accomplished.
The 1978 _a_d hoc IPA review i
panel concluded that:
Retrieval may only be feasible so long as an active crew is kept at the repository site, perhaps then for only a relatively short number of years, 5 to 10, while the repository is being filled. _24/
Retrievability of HLW in other rock ' types
[other than salt where there would also be migration of the canisters) is not so much a question of locating the canisters because they have bodily moved elsewhere, but being able to collect all of the waste because corrosion and leaching might so disintegrate the canisters that much of it is dispersed.
25/
Gn the question of maintaining the integrity of the waste
~
package, the panel observe,d:
l 24/
EPA /520/4-78-004, opo cit., p. 3.
25/
Id., p. 4 3.
s
- It is unlikely.
that the integrities of the canister, its. contents, and its i==ediate sur-roundings will last very long, whether or not reprocessing is carried out.
We have seen no evidence'of survivals longer than a decade.Jj/
Even if there were evidence from which to conclude that.
50 year retrievability was possible, i.e.,
could be acccm,lished, there is nothing to indicate. that DOE will provide for it.
DOE does not appear to take seriously the NRC requirement on the need for retrievability.
Retrievability is discussed in only the most general way in the Statement of Position, and DOE dismisses it by stating:
Both limited and total retrieval are unlikely events, the lotter being least likely. 22/
DOE has presented no evidence that it can and will meet the NRC retrievability criterion.
Without confidence in this component of DOE's program, the NRC has insufficient assurance of the achievement of a safe disposal plan.
b.
Containment of all fission products - The NRC draft criteria require containment of all radionuclides (within the waste package] for the first 1,000 years after decommissioning of the geologic repository operations.
There is no evidence that the DOE programs can or will l
meet this criteria.
In fact, DOE's program " objectives" are l
l fundamentally at varitnce with this proposed requirement.
The l
l DOE objectives call only for containment to be " virtually l
l complete during the period when radiation and thermal output l
l 26/
Id., p. 44.
l 27/
DOE Statement of Position, p. II-283.
p
.3.,.
s 37 else identified a -hos: rock unit c' adequate volume and appropriate depth that-also meets NRC draft technical criteria.
1.
Salt Draft NRC waste disposal criteria appear to rule out the use of salt as a host medium for a high-level nuclear waste repository.
Salt has been, is, and will continue to be a valuable resource.
It is often associated with other valuable resources, e.c.,
oil, gas, and potash.
Mining of salt and exploration of other resources in and near salt deposits has
-occurred, and will continue to. occur, probably at an accelerated rate.
Thus salt can be eliminated generically under NRC criteria designed to avoid siting of repositories in areas where human activities could adversely affect the stability o' the site, increase the migration of radionuclides from the repository, or provide pathways to the accessible environment.
Salt is plastic and highly corrosive.
Consequently, salt also appears to be eliminated generically on the basis of the need to assure retrievability for a period of 50 years after termination of waste emplacement operations.
Finally, because of,the human intrusion problem, the corrosive nature of brine and its migration, salt appears to be eliminated on the basis of overall performance of the engineered system, that is, the ability to provide for total containment for 1,000 years and 5
an annual' release rate of one'part in 10 of.the total activity thereafter.
Clearly, the NRC 'does not have assurance now, on the basis of what is known about salt,that a repository.can be built in
-y+,
c
-~,
,,,n g-,
,,-p y.
s
-e,,
..m.-.
m---
- -.