ML20046A983
| ML20046A983 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308020194 | |
| Download: ML20046A983 (8) | |
Text
~
.u.u uo..
RELEASED TO THE PDR NOTATION V0TEj gp 4
j het i.* b RESPONSE SHEET
.~..~~.......d4.....:
T0:
sal 4UEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COff4ISSION FROM:
C0l14ISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-144 - CLARIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITING CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES-PROPOSED RULEMAKING i
X/with APPROVED edits DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0ffiENTS:
See attached edits.
I l
i 188 88AM %#8e MuwR 54 CDRetESPONDENCE PDR ggg RELEASE VOTE
/X/
June 3, 1993 DATE I
WImHOLD VOTE
./___/
l ENTERED ON "AS" YES x
No 1
184150 i
x o
,,ss g-y-
[7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 60 IN 3150-AE40 Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories Investigation and Evaluation of Potentially Adverse Conditions AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
y1LW h
ify regvfdims
SUMMARY
The proposesfrule.;cul8 clarifyJeo==1ccion policy with I
respect to the consideration of certain defined geologic and other conditions that, if present, are potentially adverse to the ability of a geologic repository to meet the prescribed performance objectives with respect to isolation of high-level radioactive waste.
The primary rearen for t d proposed revision $
dg"$c-h> rvio Kc ClW t
r-larify4that the adequacy of a license applicant's en will investigations and evaluations mmt be judged in terras of their 6 ( orw p hm wsA po5 t'-clos v%
significance of-inforedian that har beerr ubtainea or mignu be c>bt-a4med in--rahtdon-to--these performance objectives.
In
- addition, provisions that deal with t4m--wah information M e
wr% &
.be present d in the license application would be w wed'from the arb mo/CA technical criteria to the section that defines the required 3
contents of the license application.
~
~
- muur, 6
Each of these terms gives rise to a regulatory uncertainty.
issue concerns the standard by which the Specifically, the investigation and evaluation is to be measured:
" adequacy" of the Is the proper standard that which is relevant and material to judging whether the performance objectives relating to isolation is it some other standard, (and if of the waste have been met, or so, what standard)? In addition, the CNWRA*d interpret pfV 2
The full text of the pertinent regulation, 10 CFR 60.122 (a),
2 reads as follows:
(a) (1)
A geologic setting shall exhibit an appropriate combination of the conditions specified in paragraph (b) of this section so that, together with the engineered barriers [ sic] [ barrier) system, the favorable conditions present are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the performance objectives relating to isolation of the waste will be met.
(2) If any of the potentially adverse conditions specified in paragraph (c) of this section is present, it may compromise the ability of the geologic repository to meet the performance objectives relating to isolation of In order to show that a potentially adverse the waste.
condition does not so compromise the performance of the geologic repository the following must be demonstrated:
(i)
The potentially adverse human activity or natural condition has been adequately investicated, including the extent to which the condition may be and still be undetected taking into account the present degree of resolution achieved by the investigations; and (ii) The effect of the potentially adverse human activity or natural condition has been adeauately evaluated using analyses which are sensitive to the potentially human activity or natural condition and assumptions which are not likely to underestimate its effect; and (iii) ( A) The potentially adverse human activity or natural condition is shown by analysis pursuant to (a) (2) (ii) of this section not to affect paragraph significantly the ability of the geologic repository to meet the performance objectives relating to isolation of the waste, or (B) The effect of the potentially adverse human activity or natural condition is compensated by the presence of a
combination of the favorable l
l r
h 8
In particular, proof of the general standard that is required.
future performance of engineered barrier systems and the geologic setting over time periods of many hundreds or many thousands of (Md 15 l
in the ordinary sense of the word, w g is not to be had, years assurance that the outcome will t5 regwi-r# reasonable (not complete)
~
a,.M
_s# " TE"in'conformance with those objectives and criteria.
i Qm has shctis %d wc have st*Aywill inwelve the us?
]~c(em$v3sicrnfemonstration of compliancer j
M data from accelerated tests and predictive models that are supported by such measures as field and laboratory tests, 10 CFR 60.101(a) (2) and natural analog studies.
monitoring data, M 1rded d easonable assurance that the outcome When
a in conformance with the stated objectives and criteria, will be 9
i ve-haC in mi d a judgment b 4 u A. - 2 U 2 teaavneblm uaaut axiceT that refrvseds d the the overall_ performance of the geologic repository, an performance of particular subsystems, would achieve specifiedic/ wa on v
l that levels of radionuclide containment and isolation, coF p
certain design and quality assurance features would be incorporated so as to enhance confidence that such performance Detr (goncern with potentially adverse
/1 would be achieved.
it was to assure that they conditions was spelled out clearly:
order to assure that they will not would be "... assessed its to meet the of the aeolooic repository pompromise the ability (relating to isolation of the waste]."
performance obiectives 48 FR 28194, 28201, June 21, 1983 (final (Emphasis added.)
- /
/
7 5 % W'y hof each potentially adverse condition on h (t3 thst.Athe offect f4e:-bf (10 CFR 60.122 (a) (2) and therefore, c a l l er1 performance was was a separate regulatory requirement w sau.
10 CFR 60,12 2 (a) (2)
CFR 60,112 and 10 independent of the performance objectives in 10 The CNWRA concluded that even if compliance was CFR 60.113.
additional demonstrated with 10 CFR 60.112 and 10 CFR 60.113, ddress the demonstration of compliance would be necessary to a in 10 CFR 60.122(c).
potentially adverse conditions listed Discussion its intention has been The Commission believes that The and manifest throughout the rulemaking process.
consistent l1q5 tncusucwe) to establish a set of Ccam m t5SIcm alu fanti,pi-ssue-ha c f makin
- judgment, a
regulations that would facilitate t W tasx oof whether the proposed in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, i
would disposal of high-level waste in a geologic repos tory d safety of the create any unreasonable risk to the health an in Although certain requirements may be stated public.
noted that we do not expect that unqualified terms, we have A
they will be met can be presented.
complete assurance that on the basis of the record before the reasonable assurance, is the the objectives and criteria will be met, Commission, that performance objectives so that the characteristicsrelating to isolation of the waste are met, or activity or adverse human (C)
The potentially (Emphasis added.)
natural condition can be remedied.
I
, y..
9 b
rulemaking).
This is the test that we had in mind then and that J
we will continue to apply in the future.
Ths--source-ef e regulatory uncertainty identified by CNWRA fh,1$ r inclusion in the technical criteria of provisions that relate not to the performance of the repository, but to Gb&mN 4 g}
AVG methodology for demonstrating that performanceg Su@ch matters are h
ordinarily dealt with in procedural sections of the regulations, in particular these sections that define the requirements for and the content of license applications, and thefshould have been l'Ku treated in t-his manner in 10 CFR Part 60, &c "all S' Had this been done, there would be no uncertainty.
The rule would then have njkc% of th (cinnsMh's Infortf.
a DOE would need to demonstrate that the beenjstraightforward) performance objectives would be met, taking into account the presence of potentially adverse conditions.
DOE would not have to demonstrate, as well, that there had been an " adequate investigation" or " adequate evaluation" above and beyond what might be needed to show, with reasonable assurance, that the performance objectives related to isolation of the waste would be cet.
We do, in fact, anticipate that quite thorough investigations will be undertaken and that very sophisticated evaluations will be needed, but the measure to be applied is tied E o nl3 dituuLli te'that which is relevant and material to a finding that the perforrance objectives have been satisfied.
10 n m olSo Clf P'*P n A WT alser-t,We-eit-oppeu Luuit[ to clarif y our expectation shouIr) that the evaluation of potentially adverse conditions Ste44 take such conditions.
Indeed, it into account the interaction of inapprooriate to attempt to evaluate a condition such as would be evidence of dissclutioning ( 60,122 (c) (10) ) without considering, the potential for changes in hydrologic conditions as well, resulting from reasonably foreseeable climatic: changesM6 ir i mted-abov&, Thegeason.for a
Afts all, ss (60.122(c)(6)).
requiring-co6 sideration of potentially~ adverse conditions wM the performance objectives "^"'M be met and this to ensure that M" not taken' Q
Cannok ec1d
- d1? be accomplished if combined ~; effects (D M be saset the regulation does refer to
'into account.
-TO evaluating the significance of each of the potentially adverse t
thbrs'wasintendedtomeanthattheevaluationmus conditionsj is demonstrate how the potentially adverse condition wacStaken into in meeting the performance objectives-(i.e., the account f
application would need to describe the presence of the condition and consider that condition in the evaluation of performance).
Mc7Evssffheruledoesnotandwasneverintendedtoexcludethe whether favorable or consideration of other conditions, that would have a bearing upon performance potentially adverse, and the sensitivity of such performance to the potentially condition in question.
That is exactly what is called adverse which Tequires3the applicant's f or by 10 CFR 60.21(c) (1) (ii) (B),
among other safety Analysis Report to include an assessment;that, analyzes "... the extent to which it contributes or
- things,
)
i
11 ttc%
l Although we r-ocogn+se that the wording detracts from isolation."
vawkl of the existing rule mtght be read to call for a more the analysis of potentially compartmentalized approach to i te.
adverse conditions, we view that construction as inappropr a J
is M proposed, therefore, v
The first prvpused change that is to remove from the technical criteria that portion of the text as contrasted with the physical that deals with methodology, Section 60.122 will still include a characteristics of the site.
favorable conditions and potentially adverse conditions.
list of will continue to require that the geologic Section 60.122 (a) (1) setting exhibit an appropriate combination of favorable conditions to provide reasonable assurance that the performance l
(clarified by objectives relating to isolation of the waste and 10 CFR incorporating specific reference to 10 CFR 60.112 the treatment of potentially 60.113) will be met.
- However, j
Instead of setting out a adverse conditions would be modified.
methodology for demonstrating that a potentia 21y adverse i
condition does not compromise the geologic repository's abil ty to meet the performance objectives relating to isolation of the this. portion of the rule would simply declare that the
- waste, i
presence of potentially adverse conditions must not so comprom se j
the f,nder-$ -sev 21(c) (1)..(ii) (B),
u repository performance.
~
i applicant would still be required to carry out the investigat ons needed to determine whether or not a potentially adverse,
j l
condition may be present.-
\\
\\