ML20009E290
| ML20009E290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/03/1981 |
| From: | Comella P, Costanzi F, Roberts I NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009E292 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107280012 | |
| Download: ML20009E290 (8) | |
Text
,
,=
WRITING STANDARDS FOR GE0 LOGIC DISPOSAL 0F HIGH-LEVEL WASTE I. Craig Roberts
- Patricia A. Comella F. A. Costanzi Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
'20555 Disposal of high-level radioactive waste has been and continues to be a matter of high national interest. The Congress, Federal agencies, the States, and public interest groups have all actively reflected the public's continuing concern over whether these wastes can be safely disposed.
Because of the long period of time over which the wastes remain potentially hazardous, their disposal presents formidable tech-nological and institutional problems -- many persons would argue that the latter will be more difficult to overcome than the former.
The purpose of this conference is not to continue the debate, but rather to get on with the problem-solving -- and from a perspective that may be quite different from your customary view of this problem.
We ask that during the next few days you view the problem of safe disposal of high-level radioactive waste from the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission's perspective.
What do I mean by "NRC perspective?" When Congress passed the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, establishing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Energy Research & Development Administration (ERDA) - the ancestor of the Department of Energy (DOE) - it gave ERDA/ DOE the job of solving the commercial high-level waste (HLW) disposal problem technolog-ically and NRC the job - in effect - of overseeing that problem-solving through the mechanism of licensing the disposal of HLW. The practical effect is that whatever solutions to the problem are decided on must not only be technologically acceptable, but also must be capable of effective regulatory oversight. The oversight is part and parcel of any technolog-ically AND institutionally acceptable solution. That is to say that, in order to succeed, the approach chosen must be sound technologically and be demonstrable in a way that is credible to the public that the public health and safety and the environment will be protected. Therefore, both the DOE and NRC have roles that require the exercise of leadership if this venture is to suceed; DOE must define the solution technically and NRC must establish the basis for assuring that the public health and safety will be protected.
- Present Address: NUS Corporation, 4 Research Place, Rockville, 4
Maryland 20850.
8107280012 810403 FDR MISC PDR
The problem of finding such an acceptable solution is confounded by the fact that we are dealing with a newly developing activity for which there is virtually no previous experience. We recognize that some people would take issue with that statement and argue thct relevant experience has been collected, in some instances over hundreds of years.
They cite for example mining research, archeological entombment, relics of Celtic age salt mines, Project Salt Vault, Canadian experiments at Chalk River, Swedish tests at STRIPA and the Oklo uranium site in the Republic of G&n.
However, remember that we are viewing the problem from NRC's perspective and there is no denying the fact that the pemanent disposal of HLW has never been licensed.
So how shall we go about it?
.0w shall we establish a regulatory framework within which licensing and regulation can be conducted and how are we going to establish criteria which will guide licensing decisions and regulatory actions? Again, how are we going to do it in a way credible to the public? The point is, given the high national interest and concern over safe disposal of HLW and lack of regulatory experience with this enterprise, how are we going to establish the framework and critaria in a manner that permits / allows /
encourages / demands ~ rigorous scrutin, of all that we do and active partici-pation by all interested parties - the Congress, State, local and tribal governments, industry and public interest groups and individual citizens -
the stakeholders in this venture?
It is quite clear that standards are needed; both for credibility and to give D0E's development program a target. When it comes to developing these standards we are clearly in a bootstrap mode - bootstrap because we usutlly accumulate our knowledge about criteria and procedure from licens-ing experience and codify it in the form of regulations, regulatory guides and other standards. These standards then provide the framework and criteria for licensing decisions and by which regulation can be accomplished, i
However, the usual practice of accumulation followed by codification will not work in the case of HLW disposal. First of all, there will not be many disposal facilities, so there will be little opportunity to accu-mulate licensing case experience.
Secondly, because the " operation" of a HLW repository begins af ter we walk away and extends over long periods of time, we will not be accumulating much " operational" experience either.
Third - and from the institutional aspect, perhaps most important of all -
the stakeholders will not pemit it:
the stakeholders want the regulator out there in front in this venture providing the framework and the criteria within and by which DOE can operate. A reactive NRC role is just not acceptable. Not only would the credibility of the disposal process be jeopardized, but chances of success for DOE's costly development program would be diminished as well.
Therefore, we are faced with the problem of developing the regulatory practice. through standards-setting in the absence of experience by cre-ating framework and criteria which in their application develop and estab-lish credible regulatory practice - "the bootstrap." Furthe-these standards, in particular the regulations portion of the framet;ork and criteria, must allow processes which expose the innards of the particular
F licensing decisions to the'stakeholders and invite their active partici-pation.
(We are reminded of the " strange loops" which form the theses of the best-seller, "Godel, Escher, and Bach.")
Stated differently, NRC must establish processes by which the issues which surround technological-ly and institutionally acceptable methods of safe geologic disposal can be identified, debated and understood; and that understanding provide the mechanism by which the uncertainties which inhere in these issues and solutions are identified and explored. This in turn is the process by which licensing decisions are made - to the satisfaction of the stakeholder.
I think the NRC has made significant progress in this area. We are attacking the problem in two basic pieces:
the licensing procedures and the technical criteria. We have further partitioned each piece so that we could deal with the issues and uncertainties. We have established the framework for licensing in the fom of a regulation which sets out a multi-stage licensing process which actively involves the stakeholders at each step and which keys the level of assurance embodied in each decision to the level of knowledge available at the time the decision is made.
Four stages in the "preoperational" life cycle of a geologic reposito-ry have been identified as warranting Commission review; site characteriza-tion, construction authorirtion, emplacement of wastes, and permanent closure. Although essentially the same features would be addressed at each stage, there would be a progressive increase in knowledge regarding these features and a corresponding increase in confidence in a decision whether HLW can be disposed of safely at a repository at the site. The t rocess is structured to key important decisions to the availability of information; accordingly, as information develops over time, decisions will rr.flect increasing levels of assurance of protection of the public healtn and safety and the environment.
But also the procedures require certain actions upon i
the part of DOE to assure that the information needed to make each decision will be available when the decision is to be made -- again, the bootstrap.
Thus, the licensing process reflects an underlying recognition of inherent uncertainties.
Further, the procedures provide for utive participation by the stakeholders. We would like to add parenthetically that the public and the final rule itself (February 1981 is a strange loop in itself.
Statement of Policy on Licensing Procedur)e,s for Geologic Disposal of HLW (November 1978), a proposed rule on the licensing Procedures (December 1979) i and the final rule itself (February 1981) i i
You received for the symposium a copy of the NRC final regulation on HLW licensing procedures which was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 1981. We trust that you all will read those procedures; however, let us provide you here with a brief description of the procedures.
In the first stage when the DOE h #ormulated plans for a prospective repository to the extent that it o aes to begin site characterization, it will be required to submit a sits.;naracterization report which contains, among other things, the progt om plan by which the DOE will investigate and 1
characterize sites.
The report will address the process by which the media and site (s) were chosen for characterization and the DOE's program fu further development of alternatives.
The report also will contain a
I description of the media and site (s) to be characterized and the site characterization program. The report will be reviewed by the NRC staff with opportunity for public comment on analysis of the report.
The NRC will notice the governors of interested States and local and tribal authorities of the availability of the report, will analyze the report, publish the results of that analysis, and obtain public comment, 1
both written and via local public forums in the vicinity of the site.
In keeping with the preliminary nature of information available, there will be no formal licensing approval, but NRC's Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards will issue an opinion either of "no objection" to the program of characterization planned or offer comment on weaknesses in terms of developing the information needed to license.
The second stage begins with the submission by the DOE of a license application for a particular site selected from among those characterized.
Subsequent to staff review and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, it is anticipated that a licensir.g board will be appointed and the license application will undergo the first formal review, including public hearings.
If the Commission finds after considering reasonable alternatives that the benefits of the proposal exceed the cost under NEPA and that there is reasonable assurance that the types and amounts of wastes described in the application can'be received, possessed, and disposed of in a repository of the design proposed M. the site without un-reascnable risk to the health and safety of the pub' 'c or being inimical to the common defense and security, construction of the repository will be authorized.
It is expected that sites selected will be from a slate of sites among the best that can reasonably be found and that there will be no obviously superior site to the one preferred. Many questions concern-ing the ability of the site to host a repository will have been answered and so the decision at this stage will reflect a greater degree of certainty. The decision will be based upon the record established in a mandatory hearing.
Stage three is a further review at the aplication prior to receipt of wastes at the repository. When constructinn of the repository is substan-tially complete, the waste emplacement decrsion can be made. The Commission will issue a license to the DOE if it finds, among other things, that the issuance of the license will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public. The findings would be based upon a review of an update of the application submitted for construction authorization and an updated environmental report if needed. Among items to be considered in the review will be additional data acquired during construction, conform-ance of construction with design, and resolution of questions not answered during the construction authorization review.
It is expected that adjudicatory hearings would be held to consider appropriate issues.
- Again, the waste emplacement decision would be based upon the greater information with respect to both scope and quality and the attendant reduction in uncertainties, that will have come from construction activities, completion of R&D activities, and in situ verification and validation (confirmatory assessment) programs.
It will reflect that confidence that indeed the step of waste emplacement can be undertaken.
I At-some point the DOE may submit an application to close the repository pennanently, and the final review of repository activities will begin. Additional geologic and hydrologic data acquired during the emplacement period as well as the results of test experiments on backfilling and a shaft sealing, along with the DOE's planned permanent closure program, will be considered by the Commission in determining whether the planned method for permanently closing is adequate.
In order to allow a decision to close the repository permanently to not inexorably follow a decision to emplace the waste, the procedures reflect a policy which allows for the temporal separation of these two decision points. As it will be discussed in a few moments, that policy is realized in the concept of retrievability - an important cornerstone of the technical criteria.
This concept is predicated on +J.e need to conduct performance verification and validation during the peric of waste emplacement to reduce further and to understand better the un-certainties.
Lastly, for completeness, the procedures include a license termi-nation stage.
It is expected that much thought will be given to this question in the years ahead.
Included also in the procedures are provisions whereby states and local governments and Indian Tribal entities may participate actively in the licensing process starting with the submission of the Site Characterization Report. They may submit proposals to the Director to do so.
Let us turn now to the second piece - the technical criteria.
Parallel with the development of the licensing procedures has been the development of the technical criteria against which individual licensing decisions will be made.
Many of you have been involved in that activi ty.
In late 1979, an early draft of the technical criteria was made publicly available and a series of peer reviews and meetings with experts was held to critique and refine the technical criteria.
For example, meetings were held with the Keystone Radioactive Waste Manage-ment Review Group, a group hosted by the University of Arizona, the U.S.G.S., DOE, and EPA.
In the spring of 1980, an Advance Notice of Rulemaking was published setting forth the approach the staff was taking in developing the criteria.
The Advance Notice also in:1uded a draft of the criteria that reflected the thinking available at that point in their development. Many public comments were received on both the approach and criteria and these have been considered in the further development of the technical criteria which the staff will l
be recommending that the Commission approve for publishing in the Federal Register as a proposed rule.
You have received a copy of the most recent draft of these criteria.
Just as with the procedures where we tried to lay out a process which allowed for approval of decisions at appropriate times according to the level of information available, to avoid premature decisions, to i
r n.
l not foraclose options, to expose the decision processes of the NRC to scrutiny - because this is the essence of licensing in an open society -
so we have tried in tFe technical criteria to look at the problem of waste disposal in a geclogic repository from the pe spective of not only what is necessary for such disposal in a repr.itory, but what is necessary for such disposal in a licensed repost.ory.
In licensing is embodied the concept of an independent entity's (the NRC) making the decision to pemit the action (disposal) based on review of the relevant infomation, and of independent scrutiny by others, including the Congress and the courts, of that decision, the relevance of the inforamtion and the appropriateness of the conclusions drawn therefrom.
The approach taken considered first what we were trying to do -
have confidence that the waste would be disposed of safely - and record how to do that - expose all the uncertainties upfront, see what they mean, and find a way around the lack of confidence spawned by these uncertainties. Obviously easier said than done.
But we think we have succeedeo by redefining geologic disposal of HLW into containment for a time and isolation thereafter.
Thereby, during the period when the heat and radiation from t' wastes are highest, disposal means contain-ment within the waste package; and confidence that the wastes remain within the waste packages.
Following the containment period, disposal means a controlled release of radionuclides to the environment in quan-tities and concentrations which meet applicable standards; and confidence means that the engineering is controlling the rate of release to the extent that, despite the uncertainties in the transport of nuclides through the geology, realistic calculations made with conservative assumptions will yield results within applicable standards.
Further, the engineering continues to control releases sufficiently long until the radioactivity within the repository is so diminished that the uncertain-ties in transport through the geology no longer need to be compensated by a controlled release calculated within prescribed bounds.
Ne are supplementing the developtrant of these two rulemakings with an active program of regulatory guide development and the development of other standards, some with national standards setting groups.
For example, the procedural rule will be supplemented by major regulatory guides which will provide the NRC staff position on the scope and content of the site characterization report and the environmental and safety analysis reports to be submitted by DOE in support of its application for a license.
These will be issued for public review and comment with the first, the site characterization guide, scheduled for publication shortly.
In summary, DOE and NRC have separate but interdependent objectives in the disposal of HLW.
Both must succeed if the overall problem is to be selved. NRC is charged with providing regulatory oversight; that is assuring that the public health and safety will be protected.
Assurance must be detennined before a geologic repository is allowed to begin i
construction and reconfirmed at key states in its development and operation. As long as the waste can be retrieved, the decisions are not irreversible.
Decisions which reach beyond the period of retrievability I
l
I o.
would be based on confirmation that the protective systems will perform as required.
Information needed to make the confirmation would be collected during the lifetime of the repository.
Standards are-required to give the endeavor direction and credibility.
We have organized this symposiun: to utilize the wisdom and expertise you bring to this subject. We ask that you share freely of your views in regard to these questions:
Have we identified the rig:1t aspects of the problems from the perspective of regulation?
- Have we identified the sources of uncertainty?
- How might the tools of r..aeling assist us in exploring, reducing, hence in overcoming uncertainttes in reach licensing decisions?
e i
I I
i
33 '
e J
f'k.y.\\,,~b*
s w i.
t JUL 141981*.
@h.u h="8MB j.
~~
LETTER OF ELEASE
?q" E
TITLE OF PAPER:
Writing Standarde for Ganinnic niennen1 nr m_u Symposium paper to be published in the Proceedings of the Symposium on Uncertainties Associated with the Regulation of the Geologic Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste, March 9-13, 1981, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States of America, sponsored by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The undersigned organization has no objections to and agrees to publication of the above paper in the Proceedings of the Symposium cited above.
The paper contains no restricted data or other classified matter and has no patent-sensitivity information.
Submitted by:
(Name and Position)
Patricia A. Comella, Chief Waste Management Standards Branch g,,1/inry eg 4 ssign Ad Organizatio :
_s_
nncinar p N
k Signature:
bRld k
~
g Date: April 3,1981 i
<