ML20091D161
| ML20091D161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/31/1991 |
| From: | Bunting J, Gupta D, Peshel J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1439, NUDOCS 9108130271 | |
| Download: ML20091D161 (50) | |
Text
,
-=
Sta:?:? Tec:anical Position on Regula~:ory Consic erations 1
in t ae Design' and Cons':ruction
~
0:? t:ae Ex;pioratory S:aa:?t Facility U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards D Gupta, J. Peshel, J. Bunting p** **%
k,
)
P4 )
. (?
yn
- M-AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availabihty of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents' cited in NRC publications will be available from one of _the following
' sources:
I' The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC l
20555--
l
- 2. : The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Govemment Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC -20013-7082 3.
The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memorandal NRC Office of
- Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investi-
- gation notices! Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence: Commission
. papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.
~
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: ' formal NRC staff and contractor _ reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceed-ings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regula-7 tions in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory _ Commission issuances.
- Documents available from the National Technical information Service include NUREG series -
reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by.
- the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, joumal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained
.from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the o_rganization sponsoring the publication cited, Single copics of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Office of Information Resources Management, Distribution Section, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies c' industry codes and standards used in a substantive marner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copy-righted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
L 1
I
NUREG-1439 Staff Technical Position on Regulatory Considerations in the Design and Construction of the Exploratory Shaft Facility Manuscript Completed: April 1991 Date Published: July 1991 D. Gupta, J. Peshel, J. Ilunting Division of High-Level Waste Management OITice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
,p* *'*%,
,\\
AllST!!ACT
'Ihc staff of tbc U.S. Nuclear llegulatory Comn41ssion has the " exploratory studict, facility." Doll's change in termi-prepared this staff technical position for the purpose of nology does not affect the positions taken in this guid-compilhig and further clarifying previous staff positions ance.) This document lists the key regulations in 10 CFit on regulatory condderations in the design and construc.
Part 60 that should be considered in the design and con-tion of the exploratory shaft facility (llSF). (ihe U.S.
struction of the 11SF and presenti the staff position state-Department of IInctgy (DOE) now refers to the 1.SF as ments and corresponding discussions.
\\
l iii NURI!G-143?
l
.J
i i
CONTEM'S l' age Abstract..............................................................
iii Acknowl edgtn c n t s........................................................................
vii 1.0 I n t rod u ct ion..........................................................................
1 2.0 It egula t ory 1:ra m ewor k...................................................................
3 3.0 Sta f f Tech nical Positions..................................................................
4.0 Discussion..............
7 5.0 R e f e r e n c e s............................................................................
11 APPliNDIX A: Glossary APPIINDIX II: Applicable 10 CFR Part 60 Regulations APPliNDIX C: list of 10 CFR Part 60 Requirements to be Considered in the Design of the lixploratory Shaft Facility (liSF)
APPIINDiX D: Disposition (.' Public Comments APP 11MDIX II: Disposition of ACNW Uomments v
N URiiG-143')
)
1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4
'Ihis staff technical position was prepared under the tech.
IILWM staff and staff from the Center for Nuclear Waste nical direction of Mysorc S. Nataraja Division of liigh-llegulatory Analyses. In this regard, James R. Wolf, Of.
level Waste Managernent (llLWM). 'Ihc authors ac.
fice of the General Counsel, and Michael P. lee, knowledge the sut stantial contributions inade by other llLWM, deserve special recognition.
1 t
vii NUlti!G-1439 l
)
i I
LO INTRODUCTION
'!he Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as capabihty of the site, to the extent practical, and will amended, and 10 CFil Part 60 require that the U.S.
facilitate site characteri/ation activities.
Department of linergy (Doll) conduct a program of site characterimtion to obtain the data necessary to deter.
As previously note 1, the data collected from the !!SF mine the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a during site characterization are to be used to both cvalu-geologic repository for high level radioactive waste ate the suitability of the site for a ill>W repository and to (III.W). As part of its site characterization program, Doli design the GitOA.'lherefore, the design of the !!SF must will construct an exploratory shaf t facility (IISF), the pur.
be completed on the basis of only very limited subsurface pose of which is to facilitate site characteriration activi-information, in situ testing, and exploration. Conse-ties. The !!SF is expected to consist of surface-support quently, uncertaintics associated wah the available, lim-facilities, shafts / ramps, a main underground test area, ited site data should be accounted for in the design of the and exploratory drifts. (DOli now refcrs to the liSF as the
!!SF,
- ' exploratory studies facility." DOli's change in terminol-ogy does not affect the positions taken in this guidance.)
lloth NWPA and the U.S. Nuc! car llegulatory Commis-sion's (NilC's) geologic repository disposal regulation (10
)Ryu ' that DM subndt a Qc Garacteriza.
- lhe need for the collection of sulficien t data to deln.nine don I lan (
)
om proceeding to smk lexploratory]
site suitability, and later to support a license application shafts at a site and to defer sinking of shafts until such to construct and operate a potentiallil.W repository, is time as there has been an opportunity for Comm,ission the main issue for DOli to consider during site characteri-commenu to h6 en soMed anhnWere@y DN zation. Ilowever, this staff technical position (STP) does On December 28, 1988, DOE submitted the statutory not deal primarily with the need for DOli to collect sufh.-
SCP for the Yucca Mountain Site (Doll,1988b)includ-cient data from its site characterization program llather, ing plans f' r the !!SF. NRC's regulations do not require o
this STP focuses on the need for DOli to demonstrate licensing of the liSF or approval of its design.'lhe regula-that an approach har. been used, to design and construct t:ons, however, do require NitC to state its specific objec-the !!SF, that considers the applicabic 10 CFit Part 60 tions to the SCP and to provide an analysis of the plan.
regulatory requirements, should any componen's of the NitC prepared such an analysis and issued it on July 31, llSF become part of (i.e., become " collocated with) the 1989 (see NitC,1989a), it should be noted that NitC does future geolope reposttory operations area (GROA)..a not undertake, in the pre-licensing phase, the responsibil.
doing so, doi!'s design needs to establish that the investi-i for ensuring that DOli designs are adequate to obtain gations conducted in the liSF wi!! obtam the necessary all data necessary for characterization, or for ensuring site characterization data and will be conducted m such a that the liSF design is adequate to limit adverse effects on manner as to limit, to the (xtent practical, any adverse waste isolation and containment. Ilowever, during the effects of the !!SF on the h ng-term performance of th pre-licensing phase, the staff is concerned with ascertain-geologic repository. (For the purpose of demonstratmg ng that DOli's programs, as described in its SCP, ade-compliance with 10 LFil Part 60 requirements, the term quately reficct consideration of all 10 CFit Part 60 regula-liSF' refer to only the permanent components of the tory requirements. 'lherefore, the objective of providing
!!SF that may become a part of an eventual GROA.)
guidance to DOli on liSF design and construction during the pre-licensing phase is to identify, at an early time, the in the !!SF and the GRO A, the surface and the under-potential for significant problems in the future, so that ground facility will be connected by shafts or ramps. (For they can be avoided.
- he purposes of this Kl'P, the term
- shaft," as used in 10 CFil 60.2, is understood to include both shafts and lly cooperating on the use of informal methods such as ramps.) DOlicurrently plans tocolkicate the permanent the submission of reports, technical meetings, the oppor-components of the llSF with tne GRO A(DOli,1988a, p.
tunity for onsite visits, or quality assurance (OA) audits, 8.4.2-216). Therefore, the GROA design requirements DOli can assist the staff in its review when and if DOli would constrain, somewhat, the degrees of freedom for submits a license application. 'Ihc Commission recog-the design of the !!SF and thus activities within the liSI' nizes and has stated in this regard,it " cannot direct the durmg site characterization. Such a constmint ireplies Department to comply with the provisions for involving it that the liSF design would also have to meet the same 10 during site characteri7ation activities"(44 i R 70409). Al-CFR Part 60 regulatory requirements regarding contain-though the Commission cannot direct the Department to ment and isolation that are applicsble to the GROA com;dy with the provisions for involving it during site design. l' roper coordinetion between llSF design and characterization activities, the Commission also noted GROA design is essential to ensure that the liSF, as that ". any failute to do so is likcly to tesult in impr udent constructed, will not interfere with the waste isolation expenditures and subsequent delays. and ultimately could i
N U RI.G -1439
1.0 Intnx!uction result in the denial of w application for the proposed in reviewing Doll's work on the llSF design and related site" (44 Fit 70409).
documents, NRC used the following two general guide-lines: (1) the !!SF design, construction, and operation in reviewing Doll's 11SF Title I design snd related docu-should facilitate the collection of needed site data; and ments (DOli,1989), the NRC staff noted that several 10 (2) the !!SF design, construction, and operation should CFR Part 60 requirements applicable to OROA design limit adverse impacts on waste isolation capabilitics of the were not considered (NRC,1989a, pp. 41-4 3). More-site, to the extent practical.1his Sf1' gives specific guide-over, the NRC staff has had several interactions with lines by which DOli can approach the 11SF design; these DOE and provided DOI! with written comments on this guidelines are the technical position statements listed in subject that represent,in fact, defacto staff positions.*Ihis Section 3.0.
511'is a compilation of these previous staff positions, and includes further clarification of the specific staff positions on regulatory considerations in the design and cordruc-Section 2.0 of this document focuses on the key 10 CFR tion of the liSF, Part 60 requirements that relate to the design and the construction of Ihe G RO A and, t herefor e, are considered
'Ihis Nil' also describes an appnuch acceptahic to the by the staff to be applicab!c to the design and construction NRC staff forimplementation of applicable 10 CFR Part of the liSF.'lhe technical position statements are listed in 60 requirements related to the liSF. It covers topics that Section 3.0. Section 4.0 provides a discussion of the sup include certain aspects of the design control process, co-porting rationale behind the technical positions stated in ordination of liSF design with GROA design, considera-Section 3.0. Appendix D contains the staff's response to tion of alternatives, excavation methods, test interfer-the public commer!s received on an earlier draft SI'P ence, and site characterization.1hc positions and noticed in the Federal Register on August 14, 1990 (55 discussions in this Fil' arc based on the premise that the FH33193).
permanent components of the ESF may eventually be-come a pmt of the GROA (see DOli,1988a, p.
8.4.2-216), and the guidance in this STP is intended only STPs are issued to describe and make available to the for that case where DOliintends to incorporate the per-public methods acceptable to the NRC staff for imple-manent components of the IISP into the final GROA menting specific parts of the Commission's regulations, design. Under these circumstances, all 10 CFR Part 60 or to provide guidance to DOli. Moreover, Sil's are not requirements applicable to the GRO A design are consid-substitutes for regulations, and cornpliance with them is cred applicab!c to the !!SF design. Figure 1 gives an not required. Methods and solutions different from those example of an appmach that DOE can use to achieve given in the 511' will be acceptable if they provide a basis compliance of the liSF design with 10 CFR Part 60 re-for the findings requisite to the issuancc or continuanec of quirements.
an authorization or license by the Commission.
NURiiG-1439 2
--. ----a
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
' Die 10 CFR Part 60 requirements to be considered in the the release of radioactive material to the environ-design and construction of the ESP are listed in Appendix ment.'lhe analysis shall also include a comparative C of this document.'lhese requirements would be appli-evaluation of alternatives to the major design fea-cable for those permanent components of the !!SF that tures that are irnportant to waste isolation.
may eventual become part of the GROA Although the list has been eseloped to provide general guidance, it is Section 60.112 states the requirements for selecting e
recognized that some of the requirements may not, in the geologic setting and design of the engineered fact, impact the design of the ESF. Some of the key barrier system and the shafts, botcholes, and their seals, to meet the overall system performance objec-regulatione are discussed next, and their texts are pro-vided in Appendix 11 of this document. For the texts of tivcs for the geologie repository aft er perrr.anent ch)-
other applicab;c 10 CFR Part 60 requirements, refer to sure, oith respect to both anticipated and unantici-U.S. Code o/TcdcrulRegulations, Title 10, *linergy." Defi.
pated processes and events.
Section 60.ll3(a)(2) states the subsystem perform, nitions of some of the relevant regulatory terms are pro-vided in Appendix A.
ance requirement for the geologic setting. It speci-fics that the geologic repository shall be so h>cated Section 60.15(c) addresses site characterization re-that pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel e
quirernents.These requirements state that: (1)the time along the fastest "ath of likely radionuclide investigations should be conducted so as to limit ad-travel from the disturbet.. ne to the accessible envi-verse effects on the long-term performance of the ronment shall be at least 1,000 years, or such other geologic repository, to the extent practical; (2) the travel time as may be approved or specified by the nurrber of exploratory boreholes and shafts should Commission.
be limited, to the extent practical, consistent with obtaming the required information;(3) to the extent Sections 60.131 and 60.133 specify certain minimum e
practical, the exploratory boreholes and shafts design criteria for the geologic repository opera-should be hicated where shafts are planned for un-tions area. (For the text of these regulatory require-ments, refer to 10 CFR Part 60.)
derground ftcility construction and operation, or where large unexcavated pillars for the geologic te-Section 60.134 specifies criteria for the design of pository are planned; and (4) subsurface explorato y seals and the selection of materials and placement drilling, excavation, and in-situ testing before and methods.
during construction should be planned and coordi-Sections 60.151 and 60.152 require doi! to imple-m te with the design and construction of the ment a QA program based on the criteria of Appen-dix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as applicable,if the compo-Section 60.16 requires DOli to submit an SCP to nents of the 11SF are determined to be important to e
NRC;in accordance with 10 CFR 60.17(c), the SCP safety or waste isolation, they and the activities that must contain a conceptual design for the GROA affect their performance should be covered by the that takes into account likely site-specific require-applicable QA program.
ments.
The NRC staff has issued STPs to provide guidance in the Section 60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D) requires DOli, in its li-following related areas: design information needs in the e
cense application, to assess the effectiveness of en-SCP (NRC,1985a), in-situ testing (NRC,1985b), and gineered and natural barrie rs, including barriers that borehole and shaft scaling (NRC,1989b). DOli should may not be themselves a part of the GROA, against consider these earlier STPs in conjunction with this STP.
I 3
3.0 STAFF TECllNICAL POSITIONS 1hc following technical position statements relate to the features should be considered, with particular at-design and construction of the ESF. They apply to that tention to the alternatives that would provide case where DOE intends to incorporate the permanent longer rr.dionuclide containment and isolation.
components of the ESF into the final GROA design. All Such major design features include the follcwing:
there tecimical positions should be considered important; (a) waste emplacement depth: (b) underground fa-no particular significance should be attributed to the or-cility boundary; (c) location, number, and size of der in which they are given.
shafts or ramps; (d) excavation methods; (c) drain-age design; and (f) sealing methods.
(1) Approach for Compliance with 10 CFR Part 60 Requirements (5)
Excavation Methods A defensible approach should be developed to con-sider and implement 10 CFR Part 60 GRO A design To the extent practical, the methods of constructing requirements applicable to the ESF design. An the ESF should be selected to limit, rather than example of an acceptable approach is given m hgure1.
attempt io account for, rncchanical. hydrological. or chemical damage to rock, and to limit the creation of potential pathways for radionuclide migration (2) QA around the shafts, ramps, and the undergrou'id items and activities of the llSF that are potentially openings. 'the excavation methods should be important to safety and waste isolation should be selected to provide confidence that the ESF will identified in accordance with the NRC staff guid-facilitate site characterization while not adversely ance in NUREG-1318 (NRC,1988).The identified mp cling We waste datmn capaMty of the ste.
structures, systems, and comp (ments should be de-signed, constructed, and eperatc d under the appro-(6) Test Interference pnate parts of the QA program. fhe QA program, including the design control process, should be es-tablished m accordance with the NRC staff posi-To the extent practical, the ESF should be designed tions identified in the Review Plan for liigh Level so as to limit or avoid the potential effects of inter.
Maste Repository Quality Assurance Prograrn fcrence of ESF actiutics with those of site charac-Descriptions (NRC,1989c).
terization testing. It is preferable to obviate the consequences of these effects at the ESF design stage rather than to account for them later. In this (3)
Planning and Coordination of the ESl Design and Construction with the GROA Des {ign regard, special attention should be given to those aspects of the ESF design such as test layout, test A conceptual design of the GROA should be con.
sequencing, and/or separation between the test sidered in the design of the ESF. For example, to area and proposed future GROA.
the ext ent practical, the shafts, ramps, and drifts for the ESF should be selected in h> cations where these features are planned for the GROA, unless a need (7) Establishment of Ranges of Site Parameters for different design can be justified, and their im-pact on the waste isolation capability of the site and The orientation, spacing, and extent of ESF design impact on data collected from site characterization features (such as shafts, ramps, drifts, boreholes, are acceptable.
and test area) should facilitat e the collection of data on the entire range of parameters that are likely to (4) Consideration of Alternatives for Design Features be important to repository performance, GROA design, and site characterizmion.The data collected For the design of the llSF, a comparative evalu-should also include information on the distribution ation of alternatives to major GROA design of these parameters.
5 NUR'iG-1439
l 3.0 Staff Technical Positions CONSDER EXISTIN3 CRITCAL OEOLOGC, HfDROLOGIC, AND ENONEERING NFORMAT10N P
DEVELOP GROA DE SON CRITER1A COMPLYNG WITH10 CFR PART 60 REQUIREMENTS DEVELOP PRELIMHARY GROA DESIGN CONCEPTS ARE GROjDE GN REVISE GROA DESIGN CONCEPTS p ER MET?
YES U
IDENTIFY DESIGN FEATURES POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT TO WASTE ISOLATION U
PERFORM COMPARATIVE EVALUATION U
SELECT PREFERRED GROA DESIGN CONCEPT (S) l AND DEVELOP GROA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN l
U Eh E
E G C ITERIA REQui WEN S J TO LitAT WASTE ISOLATON IMPACTS U
DEVELOP ESF DESGN CONCEPT 8 BASED ON NG NE GN6 m
S h
y ARE SITE CHARACTERIZATION REVISE ESF OR OROA DESIGN CONCEPTS
" m#
AE c IS I
IMPACTS LIMITED?
YES Y
SELECT ESF DESIGN CONCEPTS AND DEVELOP ESF CONCEPTUAL DEC ON FIGURE 1 - An example of an acceptable approach to achieve Compliance of the ESF design with 10 CFR Part 60 requirements. Refer i
to the text in Section 4.0 (Technical Position No.1) for a discussion of this approach.
NUREO-1439 6
4.0 DISCUSSION 1he staff technical positions outlined in Section 3.0 are for the 11SF is given in Figure 1.1his approach is motivated by several primary purposes, which include:
acceptable because it encompasses a systematic ap-proach to: (1) determining applicable regulatory (1)
That DOli management and its supporting requirements; and (2) applying those requirements contractors know well in advance those regula-in a coordinated and htegrated design of the two tory requirements applicabic to an ESF collo-facilitics. For exam ple,it also includes specific steps cated with the repository, and that those re-to identify design features potentially important to quirements be reflected in the design control containtncnt and waste isolation, to conduct com-process and the designs themselves:
parative evaluations of those important design fea-(2)
That DOE management has a methodology to tures, and to integrate the design of the ESF with evaluate how well such regulatory require-Wat of the repository,'lhese are all included in 10 Ian asappHca n'gulatory rcquirements.
ments have been integrated into the design requirements for the 11SF and GI(OA and (3)
That although 10 CFit Part 60 requirements do ayus steps illustrated in the example should n t be mterpreted as an N1(C staff suggestion that not require DOE to submit certain liSF/
DOE should develop separate evaluation docu.
GitOA design decision making information to NRC until the time of license application, ments copespondmg to the particular steps in thu pm ctured pnicm MW and th DOE management is aware that certain deci-mannc@w Esa s
w e ch sions made during the design of the collocated ESF will be binding on the GROA design.
thncWat pnem am N managment pm Therefore, at such time in the future that DOE
- E *
may elect to submit a license application for a in the NRC exampic approach, the staff elected to repository that includes a collocated Gl(OA, begin by considering critical geologic, hydrologic, documentation of ESF design decisions will and engineering information as a first step in the then be required to show that they were de-GROA design and then using this information for rived through a process that is in compliance developing the GROA design criteria. llased on with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 60, these design criteria, which are influenced by 10 an ng nwnu, a number of prelimi-The order of discussion below follows the order of the technical position statements given in Section 3.0.
nary design concepts are developed. Next, these design concepts are reviewed to verify that the re-quired design criteria identified in the second step (1) Approach for Compliance with 10 CFR Part 60 are met. If not, the GROA design concepts arc Requirements revised until all required design criteria are met.
To achieve the purposesjust outlined,it is essential The next step is to identify which GROA design that an appmach to meet the applicable GROA features are potentially important to containment design requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 60 and waste isolation. (Such an analysis is required to be developed to guide supporting contmctor activi-comply with 10 CFR 60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D). For exam-ties and to paride a lescline for management plc, see NUREG-1318 for guidance.) For those evaluation of those activities. It would be prudent design features so identified (e.g., construction for such an approach to have as its underlying phi-method, number of openings, shafts vs. ramps, losophy two pneral principles: (1) the bSF design etc.), comparative evaluations are performed to facilitatcs the gathering af sufficient data to demon-identify those alternatives to the major design fea-strate site suitability and to design the GROA and tures that provide for longer radionuclide c(mtain-(2) this design limits adverse effects on the long-ment and isolation. Ilased on these evaluations, term performance of the geologic repository, to the preferred GROA design concepts would be se-extent practical. These principles are derived from lected, and a GROA conceptual design would be 10 CFR Part 60, which conveys bot h the purposes of developed.
an ESF and caution regarding the potential adverse impact of the ESF on the long-term performance of in the example, attention is now Acused on the the repository.
requirements for site characterization. In this step, these requirements are developed v.ith a view to.
An example of one approach that would be accept-ward identifying those alternatives that limit ad.
able to the NRC staff for implemetation of the verse impact on long term repository performance.
applicable 10 CFR Part 60 regulatory requirements This step leads to the development of I!SF design 7
-I o
4.0 Discussion i
r-I' concepts. In selecting a preferred design concept, ties, related to design control, that represent solu-there is a need to consider what are the critical tions and approaches acceptable to the NRC staff.
geologic, hydrologic, and engineering information As previously noted. NUREG-1318 provides guid-needs during site characterization, ai.cc on how to identify items and activities impor.
At this point, an evaluation is made to determine tant to safety and important to waste isolation.
whether the site characterization requirements DOli should review all the structures, systems, and have been met and the ESP waste isolation impacts components associated with the ESF, using the limited in making this determination, the design methodology described in NUREG-1318 to iden-concepts for the GROA and the ESF are coordi-tify those that may be potentially important to nated and iterated, if necessary, to optimize those safety or waste isolation.1hc identified structures, site characterhation activities providing the critical systems, and components should then be designed, information needs, whde at the same time limiting, constructed, and operated under an appropriate
~
to the extent practical, long term impacts to the QA program. Those aspects of design that may containment and waste isolation of the repository.
affect waste isolation should be translated into re-If the requirements for site characterizat!on have quirernents that consider the need to meet the per-not been met and the ESF waste isolation impacts formance objectives for the geologic repository.
are not limited, revisions to the GROA and/or the Moreover, the design control process should en.
ESF design concepts may be necessary. Ilaving this suie that 10 CFR Part 60 requiremenis are incorpo-information in hand, the designer is now in a posi-rated into the various stages of design.
tion to make an informed decision on the selection For those components of the ESF that may become of a preferred ESFdesign concept and the develop-part of a future repository, an adequate design con-ment of the ESF conceptual design.
trol process will take into account 10 CFR Part 60 For the purposes of illustration only, we have requirements that deal with site characterization, shown the two design efforts (repository and ESF) retrieval, containment, and long-term waste isola-as proceeding sequentially. However, we recognize tion. As previously noted, Appendix I? of this docu.
that there is some possibility that DOE may choose ment lists those 10 CFR Part 60 raquirements that to undertake the two design efforts simultaneously, should be considered in,hc ESP design. An ade-provided that DOE begiris with a good understand.
quate design control process will establish n corre-ing of all applicable regulatory requirements, that lation between NRC's regulatory requirements and the on. going design efforts are well. integrated, and the proposed design. It would be prudent to clearly that the design concepts are coordinated and iter.
and systematically document how each of the rele-ated to get good integration of the two designs be.
vant 10 CFR Part 60 requirements has been trans-fore selecting a final design concept for either facil, lated into design requirements, drawings, specifica-
-- ity.
tions, and procedures, as stated in Criterion 111 of Appendix 13 to 10 CFR Part 50 (applicable by virtue
.lhe example com eys the necessity for a structured of 10 CFR 60,152). An adequate design control approach, to cifect a thorough and careful coordi-pmcess would incit'de the control of design inter-natan and iteration of the engineering designs for faces, design verification, con trol of design changes, the ESI and GROA facilities, to determme their and use of appropriate standards.'Ihc staffintends compliance with npplicable regulatory require-to monitor changes made to the ESF design during ments and compatibility with each other, before the constrection through site visits, staff reviews of ESF is constructed. There are Tnany other ways hl DOE's semiannual pmgress reports of site charac-which compliance could be demonstrated. DOI:
terization activities, and through observation of needs to select an approach suitable to its own gag,s QA audits in the implementation of the needs.
ESF and GROA design control process.
@ OA (3)
Planning and Coordination of the ESF Design and Construction with the GROA Design 10 CFR 60.151 and 60.152 require that any portions of the ESF design process related to items impor-
'1his technical position is based on the require-tant to safety or waste isolation be subjected to ments of 10 CFR 60.15. Section 60.15(c)(4) reqvires prescribed (or definedi QA programs. Adequate that the " Subsurface exploratory drilling, excava-implementation of the QA program is considered tion, and in situ testing before and during construe.
vital to successful coordination of the ESF design tion shall be planned and coordinated with geologic with the GROA design. Section 3.0 of the NRC repository operations area design and construc-
" Review Plan for High-Leve! Waste Repository tion." Also,10 CFR 60.15(c)(3) requires that "To i
Quality Assurance Program Descriptions,"(NRC, the extent practicrd, exploratory borcholes and 1989c) provides acceptance criteria for those activi-shafts in the geologic repository operations area NUREG-1439 8'
i t
h l
l 4.0 Discussion shall be located wh cre shafis are planned for under -
logic setting. Such penetrations could become pref-ground facility construction and operation or where crential pathways fer water inflow into the large unexcavated pillars are planned." One way to repository, or for gaseous radionuclide releases meet these regulatory requirements is to establish a from the repository. It is recognized that at the time systematic approach to ensure the coordination and of I!SF construction, considerable uncertainties integration of the collocated IISP and GROA con-will likely remain about the dominant radionuclide ccptual designs.'this implies that attention must be flow paths. 'lherefore, a prudent approach to the given to such G ROA functions as tetrieval.contain-design and construction of the collocated IISP ment, and waste isolation, as well as site characteri-would carefully consider alternatives to avoid or zation, at the time the design of the colkrated IISF minimize the creation of additional uncertaintics.
1 is undertaken. As previously noted, Appendix 11 of
'Ihis could include, for example, such considera-this document lists those 10 CFR Fart 60 require-tions as ccmscrvatism in kicating openings to mini-ments that are considered applicabic to the design mize uncertainties regarding flooding; and conser-of a collocated !!SF.
vative designs of shafts and ramps, to accommodate "E ""
it would be prudent to establish a correlation be-tween regulatory requirements and the manner 1r; (4) Consideration of Altermitives for Design l'eatures which these regulatory requirements were trans-lated into design requirements for the collocated As required by 10 CFR 60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D), a com-liSF and the GROA, as well as into relevant draw' parative evaluation of several lmssible alternatives ings, specifications, and procedures. (1 or refer' to the major design features should be performed at ence, see 10 ( Fit 60.152 and Critenon til of Ap-the initial stages of the GRO A design. For example, pendix 11 to 10 CFR Fart 50.) A design control this comparative evtduation could include a study of process that provides for this capability as well as possible variations in the depth of the waste em-for the capability to control design mterfaces, de-placement area and its boundary, the hication and sign verification, design changes,nnd use of appro.
number of shaft (s) and/or ramp (s), the excavation praate standards would facilitate both doi! s man-methods, and other major design and construction aCement of these activitics as well as NRC's timely features. Preliminary design concept (s) for the evaluatum of the extent to which DOli s license GROA would be developed from these compara-application complies with the appropriate regula' tive evaluations of alternative design features, with tory reqturements.
particular attention to those alternatives that pm-It is recognized that at the time of liSF design, only videlongerradionuclidecontainmen andisolation.
a limited amount of information would be asailable On the basis of the selected preliminary design for the devc:opment of a conceptual design of the concept (s), reference conceptual design (s) for the GROA. A final GROA design will not be devel.
GRO A would be developed. 'lhe liSF design would oped by DOli until after the needed site characteri.
be planned and coordinated with the reference zation data are collected. Ilowever,10 CFR GROA design (s).
60.17(c) requires that at the time of SCP submittal, It is recognized that in 10 CFR Part 60, the require.
DOI! develop a conceptual design of the GROA ments of 10 CFR 60.21 are applicable to the sub-based on current knowledge / estimates of the site at mission of a licer.se application for a construction that time. As site characterization proceeds, the authorization. 'lhis requirement becomes applica-staff expects that revisions to the original GROA ble to the !!SF only if the F.SF is planned to be conceptual design will emerge. 'lhe need for coor-collocated with the repository. Ilowever, the pur-dination stated in this technical position addresses pose of this technical position is to call attention to the coordination of the !!SF design with the GROA the fact that, at the time of that submittal DOI!will conceptual design available before the start of liSF be required to demonstrate that the IISF design construction 4 decisions made years carlier were made under a p m c ss meets k qukenwnts M M N
'the thermal effects of emIilaced waste (e.g., uplift, 60.21. Ihis is so because, at the time of the license subsidence), as well as fault movement and tec-submittal, those permanent components of the tonics, could pose potentially acute engineering liSF become an integral part of the GROA.
challenges. ihese factors must be carefully consid-cred in selecting the location of shafts and ramps of (5) I'xcavation Methods i
the colhicated liSF, to minimize uncertainties re-garding long term repository performance.
'ihc methods for const ructing the underground fea-tures of the colkrated liSF will become an impor-
'lhe colh>cated ilSF shafts and/or ramps will be-tant consideration in NRC's license :cview of the come the first major penetrations through the geo-long-term performance of the repository. It would 9
NURiiG-1439
4.0 Discussion therefore be prudent to consider alternative limited or no actual data, the resulting additional methods for constructing the 11SF, and their likely uncertaintics could potentially reduce confidente effects on tesidual uncertainties regarding long-significantly, and thereby jeopardize a timely licens-1erm repository performance, before a final design ing decision. Therefore, the prudent course of ac-for the liSF is selected.
tion would be to avoid uncertamties, to the extent P"
"" W ""
in addition to i rgulatory concerns raised by possiNe excavation methods on long.terrn repository per-In some instances, it may be desirable for certain formance, those concerns also extend to safety and in. situ performance confirmation tests to begin site characteri/ation activities. 'Ihc degree of dam-during site characteri/ation. It would be prudent to age to the rock surrounding the openings and the assess such potential requirements that could have extent of the damage zone will be important factors an impact on the design requirements of the collo-to NitC staff in assessing uncertainties regarding cated ilSF and GilOA, before these designs are induced mechanical, hydrological or chemical u.n-selected. Such analyses and coordination of designs tammation of site characterization data. It would he could minimize the likelihood of interference be-prudent to assess the extent to which foreign sub-tween such long term tests and construction and stances such as construction water and blasting operation of the GitOA.
fumes from chemical explosives would add uncer-taintics to site charactcitzat;on data.
(7)
I'.stablishment of Flanges of Site Parameters (6) Test Inteiference Confidence in the adequacy of the design of the GitOA depends on many factors. Of these, it is As previously noted, the primary purpose of the essential that site parameters represent a credib!c ESF is to support the collection of site characteriza-basis for design. An important element in establish-tion data. Ilowever,because of the manner in which ing that credibility is a demonstration that the range the data are collected (e.g., the physical layout and/
of site parameters likely to be encountered is re-i or timosequenemg of the tests themselves), test flected in the data that are pathered during site interference,if not avoided, could affect the quality characterization. Questions about data credibihty of the data collected and thus confidence in its at the time of' license application submittal will reliability,llecognizing that the NitC staff will con-create potential problems concerning licensability sider the issuc of data reliability at the time of a becausc of the uncertaintiesintroducedflherefore, license application submittal, the staff has begun to it would be prudent to plan the site characteriration scrutinize the implementation of DOli's plans and activitics so as to provide a sufficient range and procedures for the collection of site specific data, distribution of data for designing the GitOA and in this regard, as available, the sta f will evaluate analyzing likely site performance. 'lhe liSF design f
those design factors, pertinent to a collocated I!SF, and surface-based testing are key elements for en-that may have adverse impacts on the validity of site suring that data collected credibly represent the characterization data. 'lhe staff will also consider range of conditions and processes throughout the those design factors of a collocated liSF that con-
- site, tribute to maintaining confidence in the reliabihty of test data collected. Of particular concern will be it is recogni/cd that site characterization is an itera-the identification of uncertainties in the validity of tive procedure. Understanding developed as a re-site characteritation data introduced as a result of sult of initial testing will lead to requirements for the designs. For example, the designs will be evalu-additional testing. For this reastm,it would be pru-ated to ascertain the extent to which tests could dent to build in considerable flexibility in the liSF interfere with each other as well as with construc-design, to allow modifications and expansion of the tion activities of the liSF and/or repositoryJlhere-site characteri/ation efforts.
fore, it would be prudent for DOli, during the de-sign of the liSF, to consider the need to avoid or Various techniques are available to help gain an minimite the uncertaintics asrociated with the reli-understanding of the geologic setting. Ilowever, ability of site charheterization data; for example, drifting remins onc of the most promising methods with respect to the potential effects of test interfer-to resolve uncertainties. It also represents one of the more dtfficult challenges for coonanating the ence' ilSF design with the GROA design. Optimun ESF An alternative course would be to a: tempt to ac-dnft orientation and length may not necessarily count for such test interference in the design of the coincide with the preferred GROA layout. A care-repository. This will likely involve making certain
! !! halancmp of s:te charatterimtion needs wdh assumptions and conducting analyses. If such as-i colm repitory performance objectres will be sumptions and ana!yses were to be bwed on very esse ntial.
NUlt FG-1439 10
r
5.0 REFERENCES
U.S. Code of federal Ref;ulations, " Domestic Licensing of Characterization Plan," Division of Iligh level Waste Production and Utilization Facilities," Part 50, CNgter 1, Management, December 1985a.
Title 10. " Energy."
U.S. Nuclear llegulatory Commission, " Generic Techni-U.S. Code of federal Regidations,
- Disposal of liigh-Ixvel cal Position on in-Situ Testing during Site Characteriza-l(adioactive Wastes in Geologic llepositories " Part 60, tion for liigh level Nuclear Waste l<epositotics," Divi-Chapter I, Title 10, "Ehergy "
sion of Iligh.1xvel Waste Management, December 1985b.
U.S. Department of Energy, " Chapter 8, Section 8.4.2, Description and location of Characterization Opera.
l1.S. Nuc! car llegulatory Commission. " Technical Posi-
- t. ion on items and Activitics in the liigh-level Waste tion," in
- Site Characterization Plan, Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada Itcscarch and Development Area Nevada "
Geologic ljepository Program Subject to Quality Assur-Vol. Vill, Part 11, DOli/RW-0199, December 1988a.
ance Requirements," NURl!G-1318, April 19"8.
S. Nucyar itegulatory Commission,"NRC Staff Site U.S. Department of Energy," Site Characterization Plan, Characterization Analysisof the Department oflinergy s Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada llescarch and Develop-Site Characternation Ilan, Yacca Mountam Site, Nc-ment Area Nevada," 9 Vols., DOE /RW-0199, Decem-vada, NURl!G-1347, August 1989a.
ber 1988b.
U.S. Nuclear Regulate,, Commission, " Technic:d Posi-U.S. Department of linergy,
- Review Record Memoran-tion on Postclosure Scals, Ilarriers, and Drainage System dum-lixploratory Shaft Facility (ESF) Title i Design in an Unsaturated Medium," NUREG-1373, August Acceptability Analysis and Comparative Evaluation of 1989b.
Alternative USF Locations," Nevada Operatior s Officc/
Yucca Mountain Project Office, Nevada, YMP/89-3,4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Review Plan for Vols., February 3,1989.
liigh Ixvel Waste Repository Quality Assurance Pro-gram Descriptions (Revision 2)," Division of Iligh-1xvel U.S. Nuclear R egulatory Commission, " Disposal of liigh-Waste Management, March 1989c.
level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories; Pro-posed Licensing Proccoures," fcdcral Register, Vol. 44, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Availability of No. 236, December 6,1979, pp. 70408-70421.
Draft Staff Technical Position on Regulatory Considera-tions in the Design and Construction of the Expkiratory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Generic Techni-Shaft Facility," Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 157, cal Position on Design Information Needs in the Site Aegust 14,1990,p.33193.
11 N U RI.G-1439
~ -
l Appendix A APPENDIX A GLOSSARY *
" Geologic repository" means a system which is intended the procedures under this part. Site characterization in-to be used for, or may be used for, the disposal of radioac-cludes borings, surface excavations, excavation of ex-tiec wastes in excavated geologic media. A geologic re-ploratory shafts, limited subsurface lateral excavations pository includes: (1)'Ihc geologic repository operations and borings, and in-situ testing at depth needed to deter-arcs, and (2) the portion of the geologic setting that mine the suitability of the site for a geologic repository, provides isolation of the radioactive waste.
but does not include preliminary borings and geophysical testing needed to decide whether site characterization
" Geologic repository operations arca" means a high-level should be undertaken.
radioactive waste facility that is part of a geologic reposi-tory, including both surface and subsurface arcas, where For definitions of other relevant terms, see 10 CFil 60.2.
waste handling activitics are conducted.
" Site characterization" means the program of exploration and research, both in the laboratory and in the field, US. Codc offedera/ Regulations, " Disposal of liigh Level undertaken to establish the geologic conditions and the Itadioactive Wastes in Geologic Itcpositories," part 60, ranges of those pararacters of a particular site relevant to Chapter I, Title 10, "linergy."
%usce: 10 CFR (k2, "Dermitkwa*
A-1 NUltEG-1439
l Appendix 11 API'ENDIX 11 APPLICAllLE 10 CFR PART 60 REGULATIONS f60.15(c) Site characterization.
not be themselves a part of the geologic repository opera-tions area, against the release of radioactive material to (c) The program of site charactecization shall be con.
the environment. 'lhe analysis shall also include a com-ducted in accordance with the fo!'owing:
parative evaluation of alternatives to the major design features that are important to waste isolation, with par-(1) Investigations to obtain the required information ticular attention to the alternatives that would provide shall be conducted in such a manner as to limit longer radionuclide containment and isolation.
adverse effects on the long term performance of the geologic repository to the extent practical, s60.112
()verall systeni perforntance objec.
(2) The number of exploratory boreholcs and shafts tim for the gedogic repositog ak shall be limited to the extent practical consistent perinanent closure, with obtaining the information needed for site char-acterization.
.lhe geologic setting shall be selected and the engineered barrier system and the shafts, boreholcs and their seals (3) To the extent practical, exploratory borcholes and shall be designed to assure that releases of radioactive shafts in the geologic repository operations area rnatcrials to thc accessibic environment following perma-shall be located where shafts are planned for under-nent closure conform to such generally applicable envi-ground facility construction and operation or where ronmental standards for radioactivity as may have been large unexcavated pillars vre planned.
cstablished by the 1:nvironmental Protection Agency with respect to both anticipated processes and events and un-(4) Subsurface exploratory drilling, excavation, and in, anticipated processes and events.
situ testing before and during construction shall be planned and coordinated with geologic repository
{60.113(a)(2) Performance of particular barri-operations area design and construction.
ers after permanent closure.
[ General Provisions]
60.16 Site characterization plan required.
(2) Geologic Setting. 'lhe geologic repository shall be Before proceeding to sink shafts at any area which has h>cated so that pre-waste-emplacement ground-been approved by the President for sitc characterization, water travel time along the fastest path of likely
~
DOli shall submit to the Director, for review and com, radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the ment, a site characterization plan for such area. DOli accessible environment shall be at least 1,000 years shall defer the sinking of such shafts until such time as or such other travel time as may be approved or there has been an opportunity for Commission comments specified by the Commission.
thereon to have been solicited and considered by DOli
@60,134 Design of seals for shafts and Q60.17(c) Contents site characterization plan.
boreholes.
'Ihe site characterization plan shall contain-(a) General design criteria. Scals for shafts and borcholes shall be designed so that following per.
(c) A conceptual design for the geologie repository op.
manent closure they do not become pathways that crations area that takes into account likely site-spe.
compronuse the geologic repository's ability to cific requirements.
meet the performance objectives or the period fol-lowing permaaent closure.
60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D)
(b) Selection of materials and placement methods, Ma-terials and placement methods for seals shall be
[lte assessment of the site at which the proposed geo-selected to reduce, to the extent practicable: (1) logic repository operations area is to be kicated. that is to The potential for creating a preferential pathway be included in the Safety Analysis Report of the license for groundwater to contact the waste packages or application, shall include:](D) The effectiveness of engi-(2) For radionuclide migrr. tion through existing neered and natural barricts including barriers that may pathways.
11-1 NURiiG-1439
Appendix 11 Q60.151 Applicability.
permanent closure, and decontamination and disman-tling of surface facilitics.
'the quality assurance tvogram applies to all systems,
{60.152 Implementation.
structures and components important to safety, to design and characterization of barriers irnportant to waste isola.
DOli shall implement a quality assurance program based lion and to aethities related thereto. These activitics in-on the criteria of Appendix 11 'i 10 CFit Part 50 as clude: site characterization, facility and equipment con-applicable, and appropriately supplemen; d by addi-struction, facility operation, performance confirmation, tional criteria as required by %60,151.
NUltlIG-1439 11 - 2
Appendix C
{
. APPENDIX C LIST OF 10 CFR PART 60 REQUIREMENTS TO IIE CONSIDERED IN TIIE DESIGN OF Tile EXPLORATORY SIIAFI' FACIIIIT (ESF)
- this appendix lists requirements in 10 Cllt Part 60 that establish needed background information related to the pertain to the ponions of the geological repository opern-suitability of the site, thcse requirements must also be tions area that incorporate or may be affected by the ESF.
considered.
These requirements should, therefore, be considered in the design of the IISF.
Although the list has been developed to provide general guidance, it is recognized that some of the requirements The appendix also includes requirennents of 10 CFR may not in fact impact the design of the ESF and that 1 art 60 that pertain to site characterization. As the IISFis other requirements may have relevance even though not to be used as part of the site characterization program, to listed below.
Subpart A-General Provisions 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in EnluirenleD1 the ESF Desien*
60.1 60.2 A
60.3 60.4 60.5 60.6 60.7 60.8 60.9 60.10 Subpart 11-Licenses 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in El_qtirement thn_ESF Design
- 60.15(a) 60.15(b)
A 60.15(c)
A 60.16 A
60.17(a)
A 60.17(b)
A 60.17(c)
A 60.18 60.21(a) 60.21(b)(1)
- Re letier "A" appearing m this column intheates that the 10 Cllt part 60 reqmremtnt hsted in the fust column shoukt be considered in the FSF deugn C-1 NUiti!G-1439
- - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - ~ ~ ~ - ' - - - - '
Appendix C Subpart U-Licenses (continued) 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in Requirement the ESF Design
- 60.21(bX2) 60.21(b 3) 60.21(b 4) 60.21(b 5) 60.21 cXIXi) 60.21 cXIXiiXA-CXF) 60.21 cXIXiiXD)
^
60.21(cX1Xii)(E)
A 60.21(cX2) 60.21(cX3) 60.21(cX4) 60.21(cX5) 60.21(cX6) 60.21(cX7) 60.2i(cX8) 60.21(cX9) 60.21(cX10) 60.21(cX11)
A 60.21(cX12) 60.21(cX13)
(4.21(cX14) 60.21(cX15)
(0.22 60.23 60.24(a)
A 60.31 60.32 (0.33 60.41 60.42 60.43 60.44 60.45 60.46 60.51 60.52 Subpart C-Participation by State Governments and Affected Indian Tribes 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in Requirement the ESF Design
- 60.62 60.63 60.64 60.65
'The letter "A" appearing in this column indsates that the 10 CFR Part 60 requirement hsted in the first column should be considered in the ESF design.
NUREG-1439 C-2
Appendix C Subpart D-Records, Reports, Tests, and Inspections 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in Requirement the ESF Design
- 60.71 60.72(a)
A 60.72(b)
A 60.73 60.74 A
60.75 Subpart E-Technical Criteria 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in Requirement the EST Design
- 60.101 60.102 60.111(a)
A 60.111(bX1)
A 60.111(bX2) 60,111(bX3)
A 60.112 A
60,113(aX1)(i)
A 60,113(aX1)(ii)
A 60.113(aX2)
A
~
60.113(bXI) 60.113(bX2)
A 60.113(bX3)
A 60,113mX4)
A 60.113(c) 60.121 60,122(aX1)
A 60.122(aX2)
A 60.122(b)
A 60,122(c)
A 60,130 A
60,131(a)
A 60.131(aX1) 60.131(aX2) 60.131(aX3) 60.131(aX4) 60,131(aX5) 60,131(aX6) 60.131(bX1)
A 60.131(bX2)
A 60,131(bX3)
A 60.131(bX4)(i)
A 60.131(bX4)(ii)
A
- 1ge letter "A" agrating in this column indicates that the 10 CrR Part 60 requirement hsted in the first column shoull be considered in the 13F C-3 NUREG-1439
.~
--..=-_. -.
Appendix C
)
Subpart E-Technical Criteria (continued) 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in Recuirement the ESF Design
- 60.131(bX5) 60.131(bX6)
A 60.131(bX7) 60.131(bX8)
A 60.131(bX9)
A 60.131(b)(10)
A 60.132(a) 60,132(b) 60.13?.(c) 60,132(d) 60,132(e) 60.133(a)
A 60.133(b)
A 60.133(c)
A 60.133 d)
A 60,133 e)(1)
A 60.133 eX2)
A 60.133(f)
A 60,133(g)
A (4.133(h)
A tiO.133(i)
A 60.134(a)
A 60.134(b)
A 60.135(a) 60,135(b) 60.135(c) 60,135(d) 60.137 A
Subpart F-Performr.nce Confirmation Program 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in Reauirement the ESF Design
- 60,140(a) 60.140(b)
A 60.140(c)
A 60,140 XI)
A 60.140 dX2) 60.140 dX3) 60.140(dX4) 60.141(a)
A 60.141(b)
A
'He letter "A" appearing in this column indicates that the 10 CFR Part 60 requirement listed in the fint column should be considered in the 15F
- design, l
NUlmO-1439 C-4
Appendix C Subpart F-Performance Confirmation Program (continued) 10 CFR Requirement to Pra: 60 be Considered in Requirement the ESF Design
- 60.141(c)
A 60.141 A
60,141 A
60.142 A
60.142(b)
A 60.142(c)
A 60.142(d)
A 60.143(a)
A 60.143(b)
A 60.143(c)
A 60.143(d)
A Subpart G-Quality Assurance 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in Requirement the ESF Design
- 60.150 60.151-A 60.152 A
Subpart II-Training and Certification of Personnel 10 CFR Requirement to Part 60 be Considered in Requirement the ESF Design
- 60.160 60.161 60.162 4
'The letter"A" apgrating in this mlumn irvlicates that the 10 CIT Part 60 requirement listed in the first column should be considered in the 13F design.
C-5 NUREG-1439
---.-.~
~
Appendix D APPENDIX D i
DISPOSITION OF PUllLIC COMMENTS Note:'throughout this appendix,"rP" refers to the pub-
"In general, the requircrrents for the ESF should lic comment draft technical position noticed in the Federal not unnecessarily inctcase the number of the re-Register on August 14,1990 (55 FR 33193), and "S11'"
pository shafts or ramps."
refers to the current staff technical position, 1
"Ihe location of ESF shafts or ramps should take into account possible uplif t or subsidence caused by the thermal effects of waste emplacement, fault movement, and tectonics."
Department of Energy (DOE) Comments
" Potential effects of fault movements caused by thermal or tectonic effects should also be consid-1.
Section 3.0 and Section 4.0 cred when selecting the hxations for the ESF ac-cess openings."
On page 2 the 'll' states:"The technical position statements are listed in Section 3.0. Scction 4.0 of "the shaft or ramp h> cations, construction meth-this paper provides a discussion of the supporting ods, and liner material for the access openings rationale behind the stated technical positions."
should accommodate future needs for seahng and drainage."
Section 4.0 provides very little supporting rationale "Ihe approach to the selection, design, and con-for the technical positions stated in Section 3.0. In struction of the ESF shafts and/or ramps should fact, Section 4.0 actually presents additional techni-account for uncertainties in the likely dominant cal positions.11ased on our review, over three-flowpaths into or out of the repository."
quarters of all of the technical positions are found in Section 4.0.
" Suitable provisions should be made for proper drainage from the underground openings and the
'lhe following are some examples of technicai posi-design should facilitate future scaling options."
tions for " Planning and Coordination of ESF De.
sign with GROA Design," Item (3)in Section 3.0 We suggest that all technical positions be placed in and Section 4.0, Section 3.0 and that Section 4.0 be rewritten to provide the supporting rationale for the technical Technical Positions in Section 3.0 (p. 5):
positions, for DOE review and comment prior to finalization of this Fl.
"A conceptual design of the GROA should be con-Resolution sidered in the design of the ESF."
'lhe staff agrees with most of this comment and has re-
"For example, the shafts, ramps, and drifts for the written the discussion in Section 4.0 to provide additional ESF should be selected in locatiors where these supporting rationale for the techm, cal position statements features are planned for the GROA unless a need cited in Section 3.0.110 wever, the staff does not intend to for different design can be justified and their impact provide the supporting rationale section (Section 4.0) to on the waste isolation capability of the site and DOE for its review and comment prior to finalization of impact on data collection from site characterization the S'IT.
are acceptable."
2.
Page 1,1st Paragraph, Last sentence Additicnal technical positions in Section 4.0 (pp.
The TP states: "llowever, since the ESF may be-10-11):
come part of an eventual g;ologic repository opera-tions area (GRO A). the ESF design will be required
"'lhe ESF test area and exploratory drifts should be to satisfy applicable GROA design requirements."
at the same depth as that proposed for waste em-(emphasis added) placement, and the shafts or ramps designed for the ESF should be selected for those planned for the We agree with the statement, but would like to GROA, to the extent piactical."
clarify that only the permanent components of the D-1 NUREG-1439
Appendix D l
ESF would be incorporated into the repository, We Resolution suggest, therefore, that "the ESF" be replaced with
" permanent components of the ESF."
The statement in the technical position regarding the need for justification of different designs does not reier to modification of the ESF design to account for in-situ Rdun conditions encountered at the site or to new site charac-terization data obtained. Rather, the position staternent
'lhe staff agrees with this comment in so far that only the refers to a case where DOE might consider a need for permanent components of the ESF would be ESF design in which the shaft (s), ramp (s), and drift (s) are incorporated into the repository and thus the second sen-selected in locations that are different frorn those where tence of the third paragraph of Section 1.0 of the STP now these features are planned for the GitOA in the current reads as follows:
conceptual design.
Technical Position No. 3 attempts to note the need for
" DOE currently plans to collocate the pt.rmanent co rdination of the ESF design and construction with components of the ESP with the GitOA (DOE, GitO A design in order to ensure that the construction of 1988a, p 8A.2-216)..,
the ESF does not adversely impact the waste isolation capability of the geologic repository, Section 60.15(c)(4) in addition, the last sentence of the second paragraph in requires that the " Subsurface exploratory drilling, exca-Section 1.0 now reads as follows:
vation, and in situ testing before and durinE construction shall be planned and coot dinated with geologic repository
'(For the purpose of demonstrating compliance operations area design and construction." Moreover,10 with 10 CFit Part 60 requirements, the term *ESF" CFil 60.15(c)(3) requires that "To the extent practical, refers to only ti,e permanent components of the exploratory boreholes and shtits in the geologic repost-ESF that may become a part of an eventual tory operations area shall be located where shafts are GitOA.)"
planned for underground facility construction and opera-tion or where large unexcavated pillars are planned." To meet these requirements, it is necessary that a conceptual 3.
Page 5, item (3), Planning and Coordination of design of the GitOA be developed so that the exploratory ESF Design with GitOA Design shaft (s) can be kicated where shaft (s) or unexcavated pillars for the GltO A are planned, to the extent practical.
This technical position suggests that if DOE proposes The TI' states : *For example, the shafts, ramps, that there is need for a different design in which shafts, and drifts for the ESF should be selected where rarnps, and drifts for tbc ES14 are not selected in locations these features are planned for the GitO A unless a where these feattares are planned for the GitOA, it need for diEcrent design can be justified and their should justify this need and determme that the impact of impact or, the waste isolation capability of the site these features on the waste isolation capability of the site and the impact on data collected from characteriza-and impact on data collected from site cl.aractertration tion are acceptable " (emphasis added) are acceptable.
With respect to the statement regarding the justifi-The staff agrees with the portion of DOE's comment that cation for different designs;it is logical to expect states it is logical to expect that the design of subsurface that the design of subsurface penetrations may penetrations may need to be modified as ESF construc-need to be modified as ESF constniction proceeds, tion proceeds. As stated in the last sentence of the second to take into account conditions encountered at the paragraph of the discussion behind Technical Position site, as well as new data obtained. Such modifica-No. 7 (see Section 4.0), the staff suggests that ".. it would tions in the design would need to be approved inter-be prudent to build-in considerable flexibility in the ESF nally by DOE as part of our design control process, design, to allow modifications and expansion of the site and would take mto consideration impacts on waste characterization efforts." The staff agrees with DOE that isolation and the ability to obtain the needed site changes or modifications to the ESF design during con-characterization data. The actual level of control struction, to take into account conditions encountered at required would be dependent on the extent of the the site, as well as new data obtained, should be per-modification. We believe that it is not necessary, formed under the requirements of DOE's design control nor would it be efficient, for the DOE to justify to process. The staff intends to monitor any changes to the the NitC every change made to the design, as long ESF design during construction through site visits, the as our design control process is acceptable. We staff review of DOli's semiannual progress reports of the suggest that the TP statement be clarified accord-site characterization activities, and through observations ingly.
of DOE's QA audits of the ESF design control process.
NURl!G-1439 D-2
Appendix D I
To clatify this position, as suggested by DOli, the staff has preferential pathway for groundwater to contact the adJed the following sentence to the end of the discussion waste packages or radionuclide migration to the accessi-(in Section 4.0) behind Technical Position No. 2:
ble environment." llowever, the staff believes that the position, as stated in the STP, does conform with the "Ihe staff intends to monitor changes made to the intent of 10 CFR 60.133(f).
ESF design during construction through site visits, staff reviews of DOE's semiannual progress reports
'lhe comment appears to imply that the staff is overstat-of site characterization activities, and through ing the requirements of 10 CFR 60.133(f) because: (1) observation of DOE's OA audits in the implemen.
the position states that, to the extent practical, the meth-tation of the ESF and GROA design control proc.
ods of constructing the ESF should be selected to limit, ess."
rather than attempt to account for, damage to rock; and (2) the position specifies the types of damage to the rock that the excavation method should limit. The staff has 4.
Page 6, ltem (5), Excavation Methods provided these statements m the STP not to overstate the The guidance states that excavation methods "..
requirements of 10 CFR 60.133(f), rather, they have been should be selected to limit, rather than attempt to added m order to provide guidance to DOE on a way to account for, mechanical, hydrological, or chemical meet the requirements of the regulation.1hc staff does damage to rock and to limit the creation of potential not believe there is much value m restating the require-pathways for radionuclide migration around the inents of 10 CFR 60.133(f). Doing so will r.ot provide any shafts, ramps, and the underground openings."
meanmgful guidance to DOE on how the requirements of this regulation can be met.
The TP overstates the requirements in 10 CFR 1hc use of the phrase ". limit, rather than.. account for 60.133(f)which only states that: "'lhe design of the
.. damage"is based on the staff consideration that,in the underground facility shall incorporate excavation initial stages of site characterization, there may be large methods that will limit the potential for creating a uncertainties present with respect to consequences of any preferential pathway for groundwater to contact damage done to the site. Since the requirements for im-the waste packages or radionuclide migration to the pact on the site must be considered for a long period of accessible environment.,
time (10,000 years),.'the staff considers that it may be inappropriate to assume that certain magnitudes or types lhe phrase ". limit, rather than attempt to account of damage would be inconsequential without adequate for.. "is overly restrictive. I'here may be situations support Of in-situ information from site characterization, where the DOE is faced with some perceptible but
'lherefore, the staff takes the position that it is appropri.
mconsequential damage to rock where avoidmg ate to limit excavation damage rather than attempt to such damage would involve extraordmary costs t account for it, to the extent practical.1hc staff considers the program. In these situations, the DOh would that the phrase "to the extent practical" in the technical account for that mconsequential damage and pro-position statement provides the needed flexibility to ceed. Th,s would be consistent with the require-DOE,in interpreting the staff position, i
ment of 10 CFR 60.133(f).
The NRC staff does not agree with DOE that specifica-The above phrase also appears in Item (6), Test tion of the types of damage to 1,c limited in the position Interference. Our comment applies there as well.
statement (mechanical, hydrological, or chernical) would constrain the selection of excavation method in a way that Also, the TP statement specifies the types of dam-is not needed. 'lhe staff considers that giving particular ages to the rock that the excavation method should attention to the need for limiting these types of possible lim!, which could constrain DOE's selection of the damaces in its selection of the excavation methods would appropnate method of exesvation.We suggest that help 60E in demonstrating compliance with the require-the TP be revised to conform more closely with the ments of 10 CFR 60.133(f) at the licensing stage.
intent of 10 CFR 60.133(f) and the sentence con-taining the phrase ". limit, nither than attempt to The comment also suggests that the phrase ".. limit or account for..." be deleted from items (5) and (6),
avoid, rather than attempt to account for.. " is overly restrictive for selecting ESF design features for the po-Resolution tential for interference with site characterization. The staff disagrees with DOE's assertion.The staff considers We agree with DOE that the technical position on excava-that the phrase "to the extent practical"in the technical tion methods should be consistent with the requirements position statement allows sufficient flexibility in meeting of 10 CIR 60.133(f).1his regulation requires that "The the intent of the regulation.1he staff believes that if design of an underground fc ility shall incorporate exca-testing interference is not limited or avoided, there are j
vation methods that will limit the potential for creating a likely to be large unce tainties in the potential effects of I
D-3 NUREG-1439
Appendix D test interference on data adequacy, at least during the Resolution initial stages of r.ite characterization.Therefore, to main-tain confidence in the reliability'of data collected from in consideration of DOE's comment, the staff has deleted site characterization, the tests should be conducted in the following sentence in paragraph two of the discussion such a manner that they do not interfere with each other (in Section 4.0), behind Technical Position No.1:
or with construction activities, rather than attempt to account for such interference when interpreting site char.
"Ihe ESF design and construction should also per-mit flexibility to modify,if necessary, the reference acterization data, conceptual design of th. GRO A based on data col-lected during site characterization."
S.
Page 7, item (1), Second paragraph In addition, the staff has also deleted the following two sentences from paragraph one of the discussion (in Sec-The TP states that the logic used to comp!y with 10 tion 4.0), behind Technical Position No. 4:
CFR 60 requirements should be based on two gen-eral principles: "(1)The ESF design limits adverse "Ihe reference GROA design (s) may require impacts on the waste isolation capability of the geo-change as a result of data gathered during site char-logic repository, and (2) this design does not pre-acterization. Therefore, to the extent practical, the clude the gathering of sufficient data necessary to selected ESF design should allow sufficient flexibil-demonstrate site suitability and for the design of the ity to revise the reference G RO A design (s) to allow GROA."
adjustments where necessary to accommodate spe-cific site conditions iden tified during site characteri-The TP should recognize that principles (1) and (2) could conflict and the tradcoffs may be necessary.
The staff does not believe that combining the two general For example, principtc (1) implies that we should principles stated in the discussion (in Section 4.0) behind limit our underground drifting and thereby limit Technical Position No. I would further clarify the intent adverse impacts on waste isolation. At the same of this technical position, By stating these as two separate time, principle (2) implies and the TP recommends, principles, it can be readily seen that in order to comply
" Extensive drifting may be the most promising ap-with both of them, some balancing of design requirements proach to reduce certain data uncertainties" (page may be necessary. DOE has recognized this point by stat-14).
ing that ".. (general) principles (nos.) (1) and (2) could conflict and the tradcofis may be necessary." However, to further clarify the staff's intent behind this technical posi-We suggest that, for clarity, the TP combine the two tion, the following sentence has been added to the end of principles into the following single statement: "Ihe the first paragraph of the discussion (in Section 4.0), be-ESF must be designed to obtain the data necessary hind Techmcal Position No.1:
to determine the suitability of the site and to design the GROA and, to the extent practicabic, limit "These principles are derived from 10 CFR Part 60, adverse effects on the repository s long term per-which conveys both the purposes of an ESF and formance. Ihts statement better reflects the ac-caution regarding the potential adverse impact of tual requirement in 10 CFR 60.15(c)(1)'
the ESF on the long-term performance of the re-pository."
The same paragraph of the draft TP closes with the statement, "Ihe ESF design and construction In addition, the staff has reversed the order of the two should also permit flexibility to modify,if necessary, general principles.1he staff has also added the phrase "to the reference conceptual design of the GROA the extent practical" to general princip!c no. (2), to make based on data collected during site characteriza.
it consistent with the language of 10 CFR 60.15(c)(1).
tion." The TP makes a similar statement on page General principle no. (2) now reads as follows:
12, item (4), first paragraph, last sentence.
. (2) this design limits adverse effects on the long-term performance of the geologic repository, to the With regard to such flexibility, the ESF will be extent practical."
designed based on the GROA conceptual design and site characterization data needs. The detailed 6.
Page 11, item (4), Consideration of Alternatives design of the GROA will be based on the results of for Design Features,1st sentence the site characterization program. We suggest that the TP statement be deleted or revised to more The TP states: "As required by 10 CFR closely reflect this situation.
60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D). a comparative raluation of NUREG-1439 D-4
Appendix D I
several possible alternatives to the major design Resolution featur es should be performed at the initial stages of the GROA design." Figure 1 of the TP illustrates an approach the NRC staff considers acceptab!c for The staff considers that the exploratory shaft facility the ESF to achieve compliance with 10 CFR 60 (ESP) shaft (s), ramp (s), and/or drtfts will become the first requirements, major penetrations through the geological barrier.R fore, the staff agrees with DOE's understanding, as i The TP indicates that GROA design features po.
in the comment above, that "... since the permanent a tentially important to waste isolation should be ponents d the ESF are crpected to be eventually incu identified, and a comparative evaluation of such porated into the repository, and the ESF will be con-features be performed (consistent with 10 CFR structed prior to designing the repository, an early 60.21(cXIXiiXD)), prior to selection of the GROA comparative evaluation of the major design features of design concept (s) and development of the concep.
the ESF that are potentially important to waste isolation tual design. While the DOE acknowledges that needs to be conducted, using data currently available."
such an evaluation is needed to support the license However, the staff does not believe that the proposed application, we believe that this comparative evalu.
revision to Figure 1 (Figure D1), as recommended by ation at such an early stage of the design, prior to DOE in this comment, is consistent with this understand-obtaining site-specific information from the site tng. 'Ile comment states that an early comparative evalu-characterization program, would not provide a ation of major ESF design features needs to be con.
meaningful basis upon which decisions could be ducted, but the suggested revision to Figure 1 (Figure D1) made with regard to a preferred design concept or indicates that an early comparative evaluation of major set of concepts.
ESF design features is not necessary.
Prior to developing ESF design concepts, it is im-DOE's comment further states that "While DOE ac-portant that the appropriate ESF criteria be estab-knowledges that such an evaluation (comparative evalu-lished for both waste tsolation and site characteriza-ation of major GROA design features)is needed to sup-tion needs. It is also useful to have at least a port the license application, we believe that this preliminary understanding of which GROA design comparative evaluation at such an early stage of the de-features are potentially important to waste tsola-sign, prior to obtaining site-specificinformation from the tion, using the GROA conceptual design as a basis.
site characterization program, would not provide a mean.
ingful basis upon which decisions could be made with The DOE understands that since the permanent regard to a preferred design concept or set of concepts."
components of the ESF are expected to be eventu-In this regard, the Commission's statement of considera-ally incorporated into the repository, and the ESF tions sets forth those requirements applicable to DOE will be constructed prior to designing the reposi-when submitting site characterization plans, and it clari-tory, an early comparative evaluation of the major fies 10 CFR 60.21(cXIXiiXD) with respect to a compara-design features of the ESF that are potentially im-tive evaluation of the major design features. It states that portant to waste isolation needs to be conducted, "The Commission has stressed the importance of evalu-using data currently available. Enclosed is a recom-ating alternatives to major {GROA) design features that mended revision to Figure 1 [see Figure Dl] in the are important to waste isolatior., see 10 CFR 60.21(cX1) draft TP which incorporates the process discussed (ii)(D), and in the case of the design and location of the shafts above.'Ihe actual comparative evaluation of major this can only be doneprior to their sinking. (emphasis added)
G RO A design features important to waste isolation it is important to the Commission that the comments would be conducted af ter site characterization data which it may provide to DOE with respect to shaft sinking are available, and hence is not shown on the figure, be taken into account as the Department proceeds" (51 As required by 10 CFR 60.21(cXIXii)(D), that FR 27159).
evaluation will be included in the license applica-tion.
'Iterefore, the NRC staff does not agree with DOE's Figurr 1 of the TP also introduces the concept of assertion that a comparative evaluation of the major
" minimizing" waste isolation impacts. which we be-GROA design features would not provide a meaningful lieve is beyond the intent of the regulations.10 basis upon which decisions could be made on a preferred CFR 60.15(cXI) indicates that such impacts should design concept or set of concepts, because site-specific be limited "to the extent practical," which implies information from the site characterization program is not that they be acceptable. The revised Figure 1 [ Fig-available. 'The opportunity to use the results of a com-ute Dl] also provides recommended changes to p'trative evaluation for the major GROA design features this.
exists only before the ESF is constructed. Although an D-5 NUREG-1439
Appendix D DEVELOP GROA DESGN CRITERIA COMPLYING WITH 10 CFR PART 60 REQUIREMENTS U
DEVELOP PREllWINARY GROA DESGN CONCEPTS
[ARE]
g GROA DESIGN REVISE GROA DESIGN CONCEPTS
=
CRITERIA MET?
/res U
PERFORM EVALUATK)N OF ORCM DESGN CONCEPTS U
SELECT DESIGN CONCEPT (S) AND DEVELOP REFERENCE GROA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN U
'* E YE"Ew'EEIs*SE EEAYe*
REFERENCE GROA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 1I DEVELOP ESF DESION CRITERLA FOR WASTE ISOLATION NPACTS DEVFLOP trrE CHARACTE IZATION REOUIRCMENTS U
IDENTI N
DESI TUPES POTENTW1Y tMPORT ANT TO WASTE ISOLATION 1I PERFORM COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
- o (ARE)ES WASTE ISoLATON M
NPAcTS ACCEPTABLE 7 REVISE ESF DESIGN CONCEPTS
=
AND [ARE] SITE CHARACTER 1ZATON REoulREMENTS MET?
YES U
SELECT ESF DESIGN CONCEPTS AND DEVELOP ESF DESIGN FIGURE D1 - DOE-proposed example of an acceptable approach to achieve compliance of the ESF design with 10 CFR Part 60 requirements.
1 NURiiG-1439 D-6
Appendix D cnalysis may be conducted on a morc informed basis, once Edison Electric Institute /Ulility Nuclear the ESF is constructed, it may be too late to use the Waste and Transportation Program results of such an analy' is for incorporation in the design.
(eel /UWASTE) Comments s
The staff agrecs with the comment that the waste isota-General Comments tion impacts should be limited "to the extent ptactical" and they need not N, minimized, llowever, should a de-1.
Recognition of Need for Flesible Approach sign feature be acceptable and, based on existinginforma-tion, an alternative to this feature is known to have signifi-
"Ihe appropriate approach to lixplomtory Shaft Fa-cant advantages, the alternative design feature should not cility (11SF) design is that outlined on page 14 of the be dismissed merely because the original design feature draf tTP under number 7 wherein NRC emphasizes was nacptable. In this context, the staff has revised the flexibility in approach, the need to obtain a suffi-phrase in the proecss block in Figure 1 reading " Develop cient ranr.c of data, and an iterative approach to site ESF Design Criteria to Minimize Waste Isolation Im-characterization. This approach is also consistent pacts" with the phrase"... Develop ESF Design Critcria to with th-t outlined in the Department of Energy's ljmit Waste Isolation impacts "
(DOH) Site Characterization Plan (SCP), which recognizes that due to the limited amount of infor-mation available prior to site characterization, Also, in the same figure, the process block reading"ESF plans must be flexible and incremental to permit Waste Isolation impacts Minimized and Site Characteri-modification as new information becomes avail-zation Requirements M et?" now reads " Arc Site Charac-able. [SCP at 8.4.2-2.) llowever, because this dis-terization Requirements Met? and Are ESF Waste isola-cussion does not appear until the very end of the tion impacts ljmited?" The discussion (in Section 4.0) draft TP, it seems to be more of an afterthought behind Technical Position No.1, has been revised accord' than a guiding principle for liSF design. We urge ingly, to track with these chanECS-that this approach be adopted by the NRC.
There are severpt additional points in the draft TP 7.
Page 14, Item (7),1st Paragraph, Last sentenre that appropriately recognize the need for flexibility in liSF design. Unfortunately, however, these statements are overshadowed by other provisions The TP states: "lherefore, the ESF design should in, and the general tone of, the draft TP. For exam-ensure that the data collected will provide the plc, an evaluation of alternative designs for the ESF ranges of condi; ions and processes throughout the may indicate that the preferred ESF design and site."
location for purposes of data collection and site characterization is not optimal for purposes of radionuclide containment and isolation. The draft Surface-based testing as well as the ESF will pro-TP belatedly recognizes this fact at page 12, but vide such data. We suggest that the quoted sen" ndicates that, in such a case, the ESF design should tence be revised to state, "Ihcrefore, the ESF de-be justified and itsLQoct on waste isolation of the sign, in conjunction with the surface-based testing geologic repository studied, liowever, this state-program, should ensure that data will be collected ment is at odds with the discussion on page 8 of the to evaluate the ranges of conditions and processes TP, which appears to indicate that waste isolation throughout the sitc."
should be given priority in repository design and, therefore,in planning and design of the ESF.
Resoludon Similarly, page 7 of the draft TP, paragraph 2 ac-knowledges that the ESF design and construction should permit ficxibility to modify the design of the The staff agrees with this comment. Per DOH's sugges.
geologic repository operations area (GROA) based tion, the last sentence in the first paragraph of the discus.
on data collected during site characterization. Ilow-sion (in Section 4.0), behind Technical Position No. 7, has ever, this critical assumption does not appear to be been revised to read as follows :
reflected through the remainder of the d(v:ument.
Accordingly, we urge the NRC to reorganize the "Ihc liSF design and surface-based testing are key draft TP, using the discussion on page 14 as guid-clements for ensuring that data collected credibly ance for both the approach to ESF design and the represent the range of conditions and processes relationship between the ESF design and the throughout the site."
GRO A design.
l D-7 NURiiG-1439
fa Appendix D JJ
\\ f.hi. y n
f' Won 2.
NRC Role in ESr Design 7y, S'
h[ i A,
N~
M The dra't TP is based on the premise that, because g ] % p. y h gees with t':at part of the eel /UWARU:.
the ESF may eventually become part of the GROA, q
a 3 states tnat the appropn, ate approach t.,
p,z.f g [e the ESF design "will be required to satisfy applica-f
. the ESF ts & scribed in the STP, where ble GROA design requirements" speciited in 10 p.4@y a.ation are emphau HowcVer,we do not DOE has not even made t n assessment of site suit-3f M
te approach, the need to obtam a sufficient CFR Part 6"). [ Draft TPat 1.] 1lewever, at this early e
,.nd e iterahve app 'ch to [ design during]
stage in the repository development pregram, when
.t p dp]id yh nyhg' pNg acar the end, it seems to be an afterthought, and yf4 yw y conecrn that becauut the techmcal position ability, the possibility that the ESF will not become latt 6 the GROA still exists. It is important that 5
pceds to be modifica to further emphasize inese
( je - ? W-y he reason for the order in which % _ wion ap-NRC p.ays a role in reviewing the design and con-struction of the ESF; however, it is not clear that jh.: *WQ ac to the !ogic m which various technical posi-e crganized. The order of discussion dees not NRC has a statutory or regulatcry basis to license s
g g@gff' g.[6 s that a given technical position is any more or less the ESFdesign as an independent facility. Any such licensing authority would strise if and when the ESF ystant than the another. In additsor,, aa suggested by is incorporated into the reposituy.
yj Unomment, there are several addit;onal points in the
.iW that appropriately recognize the need for flexibility The Nuclear Regulato y Commission's (NRC) ap-in ESF design, flowever, to clarif the point that the propriate role in the site characterization process f
technical positions themselves are not rank-ordered, the consuts of commenting on the DOE's Site Charac-yg tollowing statement has been added at the beF'.naing of terization Plan as it has already done, overseeing 4, '
Section 3.0:
DOE's quality assurance program, specifying gen-eral guidelines for the conduct of site characteriza-
The following technie 3sition statements relate tion activities (as it has done in 10 CFR 60.15), and to the design and const. aion of the ESF. They ap-to facilitate a ~micnions between DOE and oly to thm case where DOE intends to incorporate NRC such nm me
.re no " surprises" during the the permanent co'nponents of the ESF into the fi.
licensing pr n. tue extent that the draft TP nal GROA design. All these technical pitions attempts e m.beyond this appropriate role, and should be considered important; no particular sig.
regular l'm ' SF on the assun ption that it may nificance should be attributed to the ord:r in w hich becomt m of the GROA, EEUUWASTF sub-they are given."
mits IP a t ae draft TP is inappiopriate.
Resolution With respect to the eel /UWASTE comment on the pes-sibility that data-collection, ctivities and site characten-The staif agrees that the STP is applicable only if DOE ration needa rnay be at odds with wastr holation require-decides that permanent components of the tiSF are in-ments, the staff has recognized the importance of both, tended to become a part of the GROA. Based on DOE's when reviewing DOE's werk relatcd to site charactc.ua-current position, as stated in Section t,.4.2.3.6.3 of the tion and waste isolanou amdysis However, in view of the SCP (DOE,1938, pp. 8.4.2-216-8.4.2017). "the ESF was EEUUWASTE comment, the staff has added the follow-des @ned to maintain compatibility with the repository in3 sentcNe to the end of the first paragraph to th layout and vrations." Paragraph cipht of the"Introduc-discussion (in Section 4.0), behind Technical Pesitian Mo.
tion" sectix (Section 1.0) of the STP cleatiy states the 1, to indicate that some tradeoffs in MF &sdgn may be premise for development of the STP.To further varify necess try to meet the two requiremen'.s:
the premise of this STP, the staff has rewritten the third rentence of paragraph eight in Section 1.0 to read as
' Fhese principles are derised from 10 CFR Part 60.
foll0*S:
p which conveys both Ge purposes of an ESF and caution regarding the potertial adverse impact of
,'The positions a ad discussions in this STP are based the ESF on the long. term performance of the re-g 7
pository.
the ESF may eventually become a part of the GROA (see DOE,1988a, p. 8.4.2-216), and the guidance in tuis STP is intended only fcr that case The staff does, however, consider that waste isolation where DOE intends to incorporate the permanent impacts chould be consitiered '. emely t.nportant while components of the ESF into the final GROA de-planning the ESF design, beca if the site is adversely sign."
impacted by site characterization, DOE nught find it im.
possible to demonstrate that the requ rements of 10 GR Timefore, the NRC staff considers it appropriate to pro-f Part 60 have been met dur ng tue licensing process.
vida guidance to DOE at this time in such areas as ESF NUREO-1439 D-d
Appendix D l
design and construction. because the ESF is currently NRC 1.as subordinm the ESF's chief role of data intended by DOE to become a prt of % cventual collection to that of ensuring that the ESF (1) will GROA.The staff will consider re"
,,.a existing STP not interfere with the v.aste isolation capabilny of or developing additional guidance if and when DOE the site and (2) will become a part of the repository, changes its current position to incorporate part of the This is done in several ways.
ESF into a future GROA.
First, throughout the draft TP the NRC lists two However, to further clarify the NRC staff's role during
" guidelines" for ESF design,'Iypically, the need for the site characterimtion phase, the fifth paragraph of the data collectici is secondary to limiting adverse im-
" Introduction" section (Section 1.0) has been revised to pacts on the waste isolation capabilities of the site, read as follows:
For example, the first page of the draftTP states:
"Both NWPA and the U.S. " vicar Regulatory
" Proper coordination between ESF design Commission's (NRCh geolog_
)ository disposal and GROA design is essential to ensure that regulation (10 CFR 60.16) r%uire that DOE the ESP, as constructed, will not interfere submit a Site Characterization Plan (SCP) before with the waste isolation capability of the site, proceeding to sink [ exploratory] shafts at a site and and will facilitate site characterization at.ivi-to defer sinking of shafts until such time as there ties."
has been an opportunity for Commission comments to have been solicited and considered by DOE. On
[ Draft TP at 1, para. 3.] This inversion of the rela-December 28,1988, DOE submitted the statutory tive priorities is reflected at several other points in SCP for the _ Yucca Mount tin Site (DOE,1988b) the draft TP, as noted in the specific comments including plans for the ESF. NRC's regulations do below.
not require licensing of the ESF or approval of its des gn. The rep ions, howc ecr, do require NRC Second, the N RC repeatedly states the purposes of i
to state its spew. objections to the SCP and to pro-data collection in the negative rather than the posi-vide an analysis of the plan. NRC prepared such an tive. In other words, wh;le the purpose of the ESF analysis and issued it on July 31,1989 (see NRC, should be to facilitate data collection, the draft TP 1989a). It should be noted that NRC does not un-speaks in terms of not precluding data collection.
dertake,in the pre-licensing phase, the responsi iil-For example,on pace 2 of the draft TP, NRC words
~
ity for ensuring that DOE designs are adequate to the second of its two general guidelines as follows:
obtain all data necessary for characterization, or for ensuring that the ESF design is adequate to limit
"(1) the ESF design, construction and opera-Edverse effects on waste isolation and containment.
tion should not preciude the collection of However, during the pre-licensing phase, the staff needed site data."
is conct.rced with ascertaining that DOFs pro-grams, as described in its SCP, adequate efleet Thus, in addition to subordinating the role of data consideration of all 10 CFR Part 60 regulawry re-coll:.etion to a secondary consideration in ESF de-qmrements. Therefore, the objechve of providing sign, the draft TP denigrates the importance of gmdance to DOE on ESF design and construca,on designing and kicating the ESF so as to facilitate the during the pre-liccusing chase is to identify, at an collection of sufficient and representative data con-early time, the potentia! f or significant problems tn cerning the site characteristics, the future, so that they can be avoided.,
Thi*d, the draft TP is based on the assumption that 3.
Purpose of the ESF the ESF "... will eventually become a part of a future GROA." [ Draft TP at p. 2, para.1. See also The purpose of the ESF is to provide a means for page 9, para. 3 (". the ESF is likely to become a the DOE to access the subsurface and proposed part of a future repository").] As a result of this repository host-rock.This would allow DOE to ob-assumption, 'he NRC would require that the ESF tain the data necessary "to establish the geologic design meet all applicable GROA design require-condition and the ntnges of the parameters of [the ments. This requirement is premature. DOE has Yucca Mountain sitel relevant to the location of a net yet even begun the scientific investigations de.
repository...and the suitability of [the site] for the scribed in the Site Characterization Plan to deter-location cf a repository... " [42 U.S.C.
mine whether the site is suitable for a repository.
10101(21)(B)] Although the draft TP appears to Until those investigations are underway, it is not recognize this fact at several points, the draft TP possible to determine whether thc ESF will Mcome taken as a whole creates the impression that the part of the GROA. Although the NRC appears to D-9 NUREG-1439
Appendix D n recognize this fact at certain points in the draft Tl",
should be a major con. sideration in the design of the ESP."
it nevertheless would require a high level of cer-l tainty with respect to the design of the GROA and the placement of the ESF in that design. The net However, in order to avoid the impression that the role of result of this requirement is to overemphasize the the ESF in data collection is considered by the NRC staff need for design compatibility at the expense of data to be secondary to the requirement to limit the adverse collection and site cha.acterization, impacts on the waste isolation capabilities of the site, the language of the STP has been modified, as appropriate, to NRC has previously recognized the need to recon-suggest that the ESF's primary role in site characteriza.
cile the com}cting concerns of data collection and tion has not been subordinated to waste isolation con-waste isolation capability. In adopting the regula-cerns. In this regard, the language of the STP has also tion that is now 10 CFR 60,15, the Commission felt been modified to reflect the function of the ESF in the itself obligated to clarify the rule describing the site
- positive," rather than in the " negative," as clso recom-characterization process. 'Ihe NRC noted that:
mended by EEI/UWASTE in its comment.
The orig' 11anguage could have been con.
Finally, the EEI/UWASTE comment notes that "-. the strued to n..un that the purpose of the [ site NRC would require that the ESFdesign meet all applict -
charactenzation] investigations was to limit ble G RO A design requirements. This requirement is pre-
[ adverse] effects."
mature." In this regard, as previously noted, DOE's SCP states that the permanent components of the ESF will The final rule modified the proposed rule so that it become part of the GROA, Therefore, it is not consid-was clear that the primary purpose of the investiga-cred premature by the NRC staff that DOE needs to tions was to collect site characterization data, not to consider GROA design requirements in the design of the protect the site:
ESF, at this time.
'The provision calling, as a minimum, for the 4.
Overemphasis on GROA Design Certairty selection of borehole locations to limit sub-utface penetrations was said to be confusing:
As noted above, the NRC's assumption that the the revision, which expresses the Commis-ESF eventuatly will become part of the GROA has sion s mtention more clearly, includes a led it to rcquire a high level of certainty with respect phrase that emphastzes that the number of to the GROA desir : at the very early stages of site penetrations must be adequate to obtain characterization. Thu approach creates a signifi-needed site charactenzation data.,
cant dilemma for DOE. Prior to designing the ESF,
[48 Red, Reg. 28195,28206 (1983).] Unfortunately, DOE must have a relatively complete GROA de-because of the subordinate role data collection sign. However, final G RO A design can not be com.
takes relative to limiting adverse impacts in the pleted until the host rock is characterized.
language of the draft TP, the draft Tp is not consis-fiEI/UWASTE, agrees that mmimizmg adverse im-tent with the Commission's position as stated in 10 pacts and maintaining the mtegrity of th-ite CFR 60.15.
should be a major consideration in the design a she ESF. However, NRC and DOE must kecp in mind Resolution that the nrkary purpose of the ESFis to character-ize the host i,ck, tf DOE finds the site suitable and The staff docs not consider that the STP implies that data collection is a suhordinate role of the ESF.The staff has then decides to make the ESF part of the GROA, 1
clearly. noted that "... the purpose of [the ESF] is to the ESF must eventually meet the GROA require-
.l facilitate site characterization activities" (see the first ments. Ultimately. DOE may need to take steps to paragraph of Section 1.0). However, the staff considers, alter or modify the ESF in order to brina it into and the STP acknowledgo. that site characterization ac.
compliance; it is imperative that DOE keep this in tivities chould be performed in such a way that the process mind as they design the ESF, However, it is not does not adversely impcct the waste isolation capability of necessary for NRC to take regulatory steps 'o ensure the site. EE!/UWASTE's Comment No. 4 on "overem.
such compliance until DOE determines that the phasis on GROA design certainty" notes this point by ESF should be part of the GROA.
stating that " eel /UWMTE agrees that minimizing ad-This prob!cm is perhaps best illustrated by the verse impacts and maintaining the integrity v >ic site NRC's indication on page 11 under paragraph (4) that, in order to plan the ESF design, the DOE must tmdertake a comparative evaluation of several
'see. e.., pge 1. r,ra.1 (the ISF "may" twcome part of the GROA);
page, para.1 (d" the ESF becomes part of the repository).
possible alternatives to the major design features l
NUREG-1439 D-10
~
Appendix D l~_
Lh for the GROA as required by 10 CFR nize the priority of data collection during the site 60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D). %at regulation specifies the re-characterization process.
quired content of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) to be submitted with the DOE's application for a Resolution -
mnstructica authorization for the repository. To prepare a SAR, however, DOE must first conduct the detailed site characterization effort, of which ne staff does not believe that the STP unduly empha-the ESF is a major component.The point is that the sizes GROA design certainty when designing the ESF.
design of the GROA should be based on the data flowever,10 CFR Part 60 requires that the ESF design be gathered through site characterization and the planned and coordinated with the G ROA design. There-ESF. Although the GROA design should be consid-fore, it is necessary for DOE to develop preliminary de-cred, it should not be the prime consideration in sign concepts for the GROA at the time ESF design is ESF location and design.
developed.10 CFR Part 60 requires DOE to submit such design concepts with the SCP for review, if it is intended that the ESF will become a part of the repository, it is The draft ' ifs undue emphasis on GROA design considered essential by the staff that DOE evaluate alter.
certainty when designing the ESF is a vivid example natives to major design features of the GROA that are of the concern expressed by the Nat:onal Research important to waste isolation, with particular attention to Council's Board on Radioactive Waste Manage-the alternatives that would provide longer radionuclide ment (Board) in its July 1990 Position Statement containment and isolation. In this regard, it is important entitled " Rethinking High-Level Radioactive to note that NRC is referring to the preliminary design
. Waste Disposal." In that Statement, the Board concepts or conceptual design of the GROA. The staff enticizes the Nuclear Waste Policy Act program recognizes that the final design of the GROA and the and its regulatory structure for placing too much final selection of alternatives to majordesign features will emphasts on certaiaty and not enough errphasis on not be made until a significant amount of site charactcri.
the need to maintain sufficient flexibility to modify zation is performed.
the program asit develops: "[t]his ' perfect knowl-edge' approach is unrealistic, given the inherent Finally, the Commission's statement of. considerations uncertaintics of this unprecedented undertaking, sets forth those requirements applicable to DOE when and it runs the risk of encountering 'show-stopping, submittmg site charactenzation plans, and it clarifies 10 problems and delays that could lead to a further CFR 60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D) with respect to a comparative deterioration of public and scientific trust."
evaluation of the major design features. It states that "The _ Commission has stressed the importance of evaluating alternatives to major [GROA] design features The NRC's overemphasis on the GROA design and that are important to waste isolation, see 10 rFR-the role of the ESF in the repository will not only 60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D). and in the case of the design and location unduly complicate the ESP design process and de.
of the shafts this can only be dou prior to their sinking"
-q lay site characterization, but is inconsistent in cer.
(emphasis added)(51 FR 271591This technical position 1
tain regards with the DOE's approach as outlined in is consistent with the Commissmn's statement.
the Site Characterization Plan (SCP), and analyzed in the NRC's Site Characterization Analysis (SCA).
1 or example, m Volume Vill of the SCP, L)OE Specific Comments explains that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 60 must be ccmsidered during site characterization ".
1.
Section 1.0, Page 1, Paragraph 1 i --
to ensure that the proposed characterization. < tivi-ties will not only allow the DOE to obtain the neces-
'ntis language appropriately recognizes that the sary data for a license application, but also to ensure
" primary purpose" of the ESF is to support site that the activities are carried out in a manner con-sistent with meeting licensing requirements for characterization activities. it also appropriately rec-ognizes that it is not a certainty that ESF will be-maintaming site integrity and consistency with the come part of GROA. In light of this uncertainty, repository design." [SCP at 8.4.1-3.] In connection the NRC shoald not require that the ESF design with the rock characterization program, the NRC sa tisfy a pplicable G RO A design requirements. lf in expressed concern in the SCA over the extent to fact the ESi does become part of the GROA, DOE which the ".. [ESF) combined with the surface-will bear the risk of demonstrating to the NRC that based test program, may not yield data representa-the GROA m.:ets applicable licensing criteria. It is tive of conditions and processes throughout the also inappropriate to ase the word
- require" in a repository block." [SCA at 2-2.] Thus, DOE and-TP, As noted subsequently in the document, a TP within the ccmtexts of th'e SCA-the NRC, recog-only provides guidance.
D-11 NUREG-1439
=1 Appendix D Resolutloa statement in the technical position on the need to ensure i
that the ESF, as constructed, will not interfere with the The recommended guidance in this technical position is waste isolation capability of the site, a.nd to make it consis-applicable for the case where the ESF is intended to tent with 10 CFR 60,15(c)(1), the words "to the extent
. become a part of the GROA. As noted earlier, DOE has practical" have been added to the sentenc;.
- indicated that the permanent comp (ments of the ESF are designed to become a part of the GROA (see DOE,1988, 3.
Section 1.0, Page 2, Carryover paragraph
- p. 8.4.2-216). In view of DOE's intention, the staff has The NRC should not base the TP on the assump-modified the language after the first sentence in para-tion that t'.e ESF will eventually become a part of graph three of the " Introduction, section of the STP t the GROA.
read as follows:
Resolution
" DOE currently plans to collocate the permanent components of the ESF with the GROA (DOE, The staff does not agree with the suggestion made in this 198Sa, p. 8.4.2-216). Ther efore, the GROA design comment. As noted earlier, DOE has indicated that it requirements would constrain, somewhat, the de.
intends to design the permanent components of the ESF grees of freedom for the design of the ESF and thus to become a part of the GROA.
activities within the ESF during site characteriza-4.
Section 1.0, Page 2, First full paragraph tion. Such a constraint implies that the ESF design would also have to meet the same 10 CFR Part 60 The general guidelines are stated in inverse order.
regulatory requirements regarding contamment In addition, the first guideline should track the lan-2 and isolation that are applicable to the GROA de-guage of 10 CFR-60.15(c)(1) by including the sign._
phrase "to the extent practical." 'Ihe second guide-I line should be rewritten to be stated in a positive The eel /UWASTE comment also states that it is inap-manner (e.g., the ESF design, construct' in, and propriate to use the word " require"in an STP.The staff operation should facilitate the collection of needed does not agree with this comment. The staff considers site data).
that it is entirely appropriate to use the word " require" in an STP or in any ot her document if it refers to the require-Resolution ments of 10 CFR Part 60. However, the STP has not used the word " require" for instances w here specific guidance The staff considers that all guidelines applicable to the is provided on an acceptable methodology to meet the ESF design are important and should be considered as requirements of 10 CFR Part 60.
such. However, the staff agrees with the recommenda-tions nude by EEI/UWASTE with regard to the subject If DOE elects to use alteraative approacnes, the staff will paragraph. Paragraph nine of Section 1.0 now reads as follows:
review and provide comments on such approaches. The approach discussed in the STP is only one of several -
"In reviewing DOE's work on the ESF design and possible acceptable approaches.
related documents, NRC used the following two general guidelines: (1) the ESF design, construc-2.
Section 1.0, Page 1, Paragraph 3 tion, and operation should facilitate the collection of needed site data; and (2) the ESF design, con-The draft inappropriately reverses the priority o-struction, and operation should limit adverse im-the guidelines applicable to ESF design. In addi-pacts on waste isolation capabilities of the site, to tion, tile statement of the need to ensure that the the extent practical. This STP gives the specific ESF "will not interfere with the waste isolation guidelines by which DOE can approach the ESF de-t capability of the site" is inconsistent with the lan-sign; these guidelines are the technical position guage of 10 CFR 60.15(c)(1), which states that site statements listed in Section 3.0."
characterization should be conducted so as "to limit
.advecse effects on the long-term performance of 5.
Section 1.0, Page 2, Second full paragraph the geologic repository to the extent practical."
M d @ W"%
Resolution ary" or " chief." The last sentence is too vague.
The NRC should indicate an acceptable approach The staff considers that all guidelines applicable to the to accounting for such uncertainties.
USF design are importent and should be considened as llesolution
= such. However,in response to this comment, the staff has reversed the order of the geocral guidelines cited in Sec-This comment is noted.The staff considers that the pur-tion 1.0. In addition, to further clarify the intent of the pose of the ESF is to collect site data for two reasons: (1)
NUREG-1439 D-12 l
Appendix D to evaluate if the site is suitable for rologic repository; 8.
Section 2.0, Page 3, Introde m graph and (2) to use the data for GROA
- As stated bter ir the STP, the staff consiocrs that artant purpec The first two sentences are inconsistent. The lan-6the ESF is to collect si'e characten.
3 data for usein guage should be clanfied to indicate clearly that the designing the GROA." 'Ih' use of the word " primary"or list provided in Appendix 11 is preliminary.
" chief" instead of "important" m this context is not con-Resolution sidered appropriate by the staff, because data are also needed to evaluate the suitability of the candidate site under investigation. However, in view of the eel /
.Ihc staff does not agree with this comment that the n..rst two sentences of Section 2.0 are inconsistent. For exam-UWASTI! comment, the staff has deleted the sentence containing the word "important" from the STP.
plc, the last sentence on page 18 of the public comment draft cleanly states that "While the list has beca devel-With respect to an acceptable approach to accounting for oped to, provide general guidance, it is recognized that data uncertaintics, the staff considers that an appropriate some on the requ'rements may not m fact impact the method to account for data uneenaintics would have to be design of the ESF and that other requirements may have developed and justified by DOE on a case-by-case basis.
relevance even though not listed below."
Development of a generic and/or prescriptive guidance in 11 wever, m. order to avoid confusion regarding the apph,-
this area by the staff is beyond the scope of this STP.
cability of 10 CFR Part 60 requirements to the design and construction of the ESF, the following sentence has been 6.
Sect.mn 1.0, Page 2, Last paragraph added to the introduction of Section 2.0;"These require-ments wouM be apphcaW for dose pnanent compm It should not be taken as a given that 10 CFR Part nents of the ESF that becomc part of the GROA.,
60 requirements relating to GROA design are ap-plicable to the ESF design.
9.
Sectm.n 2.0, Page 3, Ilulleted paragraph Resolution Tbc language should track the provision of 10 CFR This comment is noted. "Itc guidance provided by this 60.15(c). For example, the phrase "" the extent STP is based on DOE's decision that the permanent com-practical" should be added to (1), and (4) shot'Id be ponents of the ESF will eventually become a part of a niodified to be consistent with 10 CFR 60.15(c)(4).
S future GROA. Therefore, all 10 CFR Part 60 require-ments applic;ble to the GROA design are considered applicable to the permanent components of the ESF de' The STP has been modified as suggested t-this com.
S'E"-
ment.
7.
C,..I t.. 0, ta, 3 first paragraph 10.
Section 2.0, Page 4,10 CFR 60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D)
Altng 'hc TP is essentially a guidance docu-To be consistent with Part 60, the word "not" ment, i: aeverthclcss will play an important role in should be inserted in the second line after the word DOE's site characterization activities.Thus, the TP "may." The alternatives analysis can only be prop-should properly reflect the role of the NRC in the erly donc follewing site characterization, when the regulatory scheme and the purpose of the site char-required data to perform the analysis will be avail-acterization program. In particular, the TP should able. This is evidcoced by the fact that this regula-not imply that the NRC has licensing authority over tion describes the contents of the SAR to support the ESF design as a prerequisite to site characteri-the repository license application. To camduct such zation. Nor should it obscure the purpose of the an analysis prior to site characterization would re-ESF.
quire reliance on too many assumptions, thereby distorting the value of the analysis. There is no Resolution regulatory basis for performing the alternatives The staff agrees with this comment. NiiC's licensing authority does not start until after DOE has submitted a Resolution license application for the geologic repository. Ilowever, DOli needs to plan the design of the ESF in such a The staff has noted this comment and the word "not" has manner that if any or all of it does become part of an been inserted in the second line after the word "may."
eventual geologic repository,.t can demonstrate compli-ance with relevant regulations at the license apphcation Ttus comment also states that the alternatives analysis stage.The STP provides guidance based on this premise.
can only be properly done following site characterization.
D ~ 13 NUREG-1439
- Appendix D Although it is obvious that a final and detailed alterna.
sary data to perform site assessments and to design the tives analysis can be performed on a more informed basis GROA. Section 2.0 has identified those requirements in only after the data from site characterization become 10 CFR Part 60 that need to be considered in the design available,it is possible to perform a preliminary alterna-and construction of the ESF,includmg the requirements tives analysis with amilable data and reasonable assump-set forth in 10 CFR 60,131 and 60.133, it is not intended tions. Opportunity to utilize the results of a comparative that final assessment for meeting these requirements evaluation for major design features and for these results needs to bc donc before site characterization. Rather, to be factored irito the ESF design does exist only before DOE needs to consider that these requirements have to the ESF is constructed. To wait until the license applica-be met at the time it submits a license application.
E tion stage to conduct an alternatives analysis might result in an irreversible and unmitigable design that may not be 13.
Section 2.0, Page 4,10 CFR 60.152 in mmpliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 60.
"Iherciere, DOE should perform a comparative evalu.
It is not possible at this preliminary point in the ation cf r.lternatives to the major design features at this repository development process to determine stage in the ESF design process.
which components are important to safety or waste isolation. Ilowever, the entire site characterization In this regard the Commission's statement of considera-process will be subject to an approved quality assur.
tions sets forth those requirements applicable to DOE ance program. In any event, the language should be when submitting site characterization plans, and it clari-modified to track the language of 10 CFR 60,151, fics 10 CFR 60.21(c)(1)(ii)(D) with respect to a compara-particularly with cespec. to waste isolation.
tive evaluat on of the major design features. It states that i
"Ihc Commission has stressed the importance of evaluat-Resolution ing alternatives to major [GROA] design features that at e important to waste isolation, see 10 CFR 60.21(c)(1)
This comment is noted. The intent of Section 2.0 is to (ii)(D), and in the rase ofthe design and location of the shafts identify the pertinent regulations that form the basis for this can only be donc prior to theirsinAing (e m phasis add ed) the technical positions stated in Section 3.0, Appendix IT (51 FR 27159). This technical position is consistent with of the SI'P contains the full texts of the regulatory re-the Commission's statement.
quirements referenced in Section 2.0.
11.
Section 2.0, Page 4,10 CFR 60.112 Moreover, it should be noted that DOE has already iden-tified those structures, systems, and components that it This is another example of the type of assessmeat considers to be important to safety and important to waste that should be donc after site characterization.
isolation (see DOE,1990).
Roolution 14.
Section 3.0, Paragraph (1)
Tnis comment is noted.The referencing of the require-This st tement, as well as Figure 1, implies that a ments of 10 CFR 60.112 in the subject paragraph was not GROA conceptual design has not yet been devel-intended to suggest that DOE undertake a final perform-oped by DOE. In fact, the SCP includes a GROA ance assessment before the commencement of site char-concep.ual design as required by the NWPA and 10 acterization. Rather, DOE needs to consider that this CFR 6117(c). See SCP, Vol. VI. Figure 1 provides requirement has to be met at the time it submits a license a graphic confirmation of the inverted priority as-application.
signed by the TP to the purpose of the !!SF by totally sabordinating it to the GROA design. A 12.
Section 2.0, Page 4,10 CFit 60.131 and 10 CFR more fur.damental problem with Figure 1 is that it 60.133 assumes tue necessity for compliance of the HSF design sh 10 CFR Part 60, when there is no basis Again, this is the type of analysis that should be for such an assumption.
4 L
donc after site characterization. Indeed, the pur-pose of site characterization is to obtain the neces-Resn'm %m sary information to determine the appropriate de-sign criteria for the underground facility in the The need for the ESF design to comply with relevant 10
- GROA, CFR Part 60 requirements stems from the premise that the permanent components of the ESF may become a Resolution part rf v eventual G RO A. DOE has elected to collocate the ESF with the planned GROA.Therefore, the staff i
This comment is noted. The staff recognizes that the does not agree with the comment that the role of the ESF purposc of the site characterization is to collect the neces-is being subordinated to the GROA design and the NURl!G-1439 D-14 l
Appendix D comment that Figure 1 of the draft STP implies that a Resolution GROA conceptual design has not been developed by DOE.
See staff response to !!E!/UWASTE Specific Comment
- 14.
. Moreover,10 CFR 60.15(c)(4) sets forth the !cquirement for DOE to plan and coordinate the subsurface explora.
- 18. Section 3.0, Paragraph (5) tory drilling, excavation, and in situ testing, before and during construction, with the GROA design and con.
The first sentence indicates an approach dominated struction. Accordingly, the staff does not agree with eel /
by the avoidance of presumed problems, rathcr UWASTTPs comment.
than optimization of site chpractenzation activities that may identify means of accommodating prob.
lems. This type of approach will hinder data collec-15.
Section 3.0, Paragraph (2) tion efforts and, given the range of uncertainties and likely problems, make it extremely difficult to See previous comments regarding quality assurance excavate the ESF, Moreover, there is no indication requirements during site characterization.
of why it is inherently undesirable to compensate for certain rock damage or other problems created Resolution by the ESF. The last sentence provides another example of the reversal of priorities for the ESF, This comment is noted. The staff has provided guidance ResoluM.n to DOE in NURI!G-1318 (NRC,1988) for identifying items and activities of the ESF that are potentially impor-
'Ih s comment is noted. The staff considers that in the tant to safety and waste isohtion.
initial stages si site characterization, there may be large uncertamties present with respect to consequences of any 16.
Section 3.0, Paragraph (3) damage done to the site. Since the requirements for im-pact on the site must be considered for a long period of The primary criteria for ESF design and location time (10,000 years), the staff considers that it may be should be to optimize data collection and site char-nappropnate to assume that certain magnitudes or types
.acterization activities. The language of this para-of damages would be inconsequential without adequate graph fails to recognize this fact by making consis.
backup of in-situ information from site charac;crization.
tency of the ESF design with GROA design the Therefore, the staff takes the position that it is appropn-predominant concern. In addition, the language of ate to limit excavation damage rather than attempt to this paragraph is inconsistent with the require, account for it, to the extent practical, The staff considers ments of 10 CFR 60.15(c)and should be modified to that the phrase "to the extent practical"in the position track the regulation ("to the extent practical").
statement provides the needed flexibility to DOE in inter-
~
preting the staff position.
Resolution The staff does not consider that the last sentence of the position assigns priorities to any aspe:ts of ESF design This comment is noted. The need for ESF design and and construction.-
hration to optimize data collection is addressed in Tech-nycal Position No.7 of the STP. The staff does not con-19.
Section 3.0, Paragraph (6) sider that it is necessary to repeat that objective in other technical positions as well.
This paragraph suffer rrom the same infirmity as that discussed above.in it suggests an approach The staff has no objection to the revision proposed by to ESFdesign geared tor.ds avoiding interference EEI/UWASIT! in its comment. Accordingly, the words with site characterization when some interference "to the extent practical" have been added to the second may be necessary to optimize data collection.
- sentence of the subject technical position, to resolve the concern expressed in this comment.
Resolution This comment is noted. The staff recognizes that there
- 17. 1 ection 3.0, Paragraph (4) are certain interferences associated with site characteri-zation that are unavoidable and thert are others that may This type of comparative evaluation is not necessary have minimal impact. The staff also differentiates be-or appropriate when designing an ESF. Rather, it tween such interferences that are absolutely necessary in should be applied after site characterization, as rec-order to optimize data ollection, and the ones that can be ognized by the provisions of 10 CFR 60.21.
avoided with due unsideration to the regulatory D-15 NUREG-1439
Appendix D y
requirements that need to be complied with, llowever.
for DOE to keep this ultimate objective in perspective the staff believes that test interference should be limited during ESF design and construction.
cr avoided whenever possible, rather than an attempt be made to account for its impact.
As suggested by the comment, the staff has reversed the order of the two general guidelines, and the general i
guideline related to data gathering has been rewritten to
- 20. Section 4.0 read as follows:
As a general comment, if subsections (1) through
"(1) the ESF design facilitates the gathent.g of suf-(7) are intended to be listed according to priority, ficient data to demonstrate site suitability and to de-with the most important first, then the list should be sign the GROA..."
reversed. The top priority should be accorded to subsection (7), which discusses the primary need to 22.
Section 4.0, Page 8, Paragraphs 2 and 3 gather site-specific data during the site characteri-zation process, and to ensure that the ESF design is This approach to ESF design, by requiring coordi-sufficient to facilitate adequate cata collection. In nation with GROA design, may result in inappro-fact, the discussion under subsection (7) should pro.
priate emphasis being placed on waste isolation vide the guiding principles for the TP, On the other during ESF design. Given the chief purpose of the hand, subsection (1), which defines an approach to ESF to facilitate data collection, the preferred ESF inceting the requirements in 10 CFR Part 60 appli.
design may not be the optimal design with respect cable to GROA design, should be accorded lesser to waste isolation. The approach to ESF design priority in ESF design.
must provide for an appropriate balancing of the need to collect adequate and representative data and to provide for waste isolation.
Resolution Resolution his comment is noted. All technical positions in the STP are considered important by the staff. Hey are not rank-The staff disagrecs with the first portion of this comment.
ordered to suggest any relative priority and should not be 10 CFR 60.15(c)(4) requires that the subsurface explora-interpreted as such.
tory drilling, excavation, and in-situ testing before and during constructior, shall be planned and coordinated with GROA desigr and construction.%crefore, the STP 21, Section 4.0, Page 7, Part (1) provides an acceptable approach for DOE to meet this requirement.
This entire section indicates tha' the draft TP is placing unduc emphasis on compliance with Part 60 The staff agrees with thelast portion of the comment that requirements and repository licensing during ESl',
the approach to ESF design must prmide for an appropri-design, when the emphasis should be on site charac-ate balancing of the need to collect adequate and repre-tenzatior.. The second sentence m the first para-sentative data and to provide for waste isolation.To clar-graph appropriately recognizes that it is not a cer-ify this point, though, the staff has added the following tainty that the ESF will become part of a future sentence after stating the two principles in the first para-repository, graph of the discussion (in Section 4.0), behind Technical Position No.1:
The second paragraph provides another extmple of the reversal of priorit;cs for the ESF. Mercover, "These principles are derived from 10 CFR Part 60, number (2)is stated in the negative and should be which conveys both the purposes of an ESF and rewritten to r atac<. toe words "does not preclude" caution regarding the potential adverse impact of
)
with "should tacilitate." The last sentence of the the ESF on the long-term performance of the re-second paragraph appropriately recognizes the pository."
need fer flexibility in the ESF and GROA designs.
23.
Section 4.0, Page 8, Last paragraph l
s Resolution
.This paragraph appropriately recognizes the possi-ty mat tk Mpgn may need m N mMM His comment is noted. As stated in the introduction, nng mnsnumon process, although the primary purpose of the ESF is to support site enaracterization actiCties, the ESF des;gn will be Resolution regt' ired to satisfy applicable 10 CFR Part 60 require-ments because it may become a part of an eventual The staff agrees with this comment. No modification of G ROA. Therefore, the staff considers that it is important the STP is called fr j
1 NUREG-1439 D 16
Appendix D
- 04. - Section 4.0, Page 9, Last paragraph imposition of such a restriction on DOE's site char-acterization activities. There is no technical reason i
- The NRC should not assume that it islikely that the why shafts, drifts, and ramps that are used during ESF will become a part of a future repository.
site characterization but not incorporated in the GROA cannot be backfilled and scaled or other.
Resolution wise rendered benign.
See staff response to EE!/UWASTE General Comment Resolution
- 2.
This comment is noted. %e staff agrees that the shafts, drifis, and ramps that are used during site characteriza-
- 25. Section 4.0, Page 10, (3), Paragraph 1 tion, but not incorporated in the GROA can be backfilled and sealed. In this' regard,10 CFR 60,15(c)(3) requires This paragraph suggests that the ESF design and that "To the extent practical, exploratory boreholes and site characterization activities should be dictated by shafts in the geologic repository operations area shall be the GROA design, when in fact the GROA design I cated where shafts are planned for underground facility should reflect the information and data gathered during site characterization. Although the ESF de-cgnstruction and operation or where large unexcavated -
p liars are planned,,
sign and the GROA design should be coordinated to the extent practical, coordination is not desirable flowever, the potential issues related to long term effec-to the cxtent that it would hinder data collection tiveness of seals and backfills as barriers have not been activit,es during site characterization. The last sen-fully resolved. Until the issues related to effective scaling i
tence of the preagraph should be revised to read as of the shafts, ramps, drifts, and other openings are re-follows: "Also, the ESF test area aad exploratory solved, the staff considers that it would be prudent for drifts should be at least as deep as the depth pro-DOE to assume that openings within the geologic reposi-1
- posed for waste emplacement.... It may be neces-tory boundary could be potential pathways for i
sary for DOE to assess the geologic conditions be-radionuclide migration to the accessible environment; low the proposed depth of waste emplacement to therefore, its potential adverse impacts on the future make a complete assessment of repository perform-performance should be taken into account in limiting the ance.
impact of the ESF on the GROA design.
~
Resolution 27.
Section 4.0, Page 11, Paragraph 1 In consideration of the first portion of this comment, the
.lhis paragraph assumes both that DOE will have a staff has added the following sentence to the first para-considerable amount of knowledge concerning the graph of the discussion m Section 4.0, behind Technical geologic conditions at the site when it conducts site Position No.1:
characterization activities, and that the ESF will eventually become a part of the GROA. The pur-
"I'hese principles are derived from 10 CFR Part 60, p se of the ESF and site qharacterization is to as-which conveys both the purposes of an ESF and sess the site and to determmc whether the types of caution regarding potential adverse impact of the pr blem areas identified in this paragraph exist.
ESF on the long.terin performance of the reposi-Whether tne ESF wi!! be optimally located with tmy.,,
respect to the GROA remains to be seen. Hus, while DOE should attempt to avoid these problem In response to the second wwl of the comment, the areas to the extent practical m excavating the ESF, staff has modified the fire omcaph of the discussion in it should also have wide discretion to locate the ESF -
Section 4.0, behind Technh Position No. 3 so that it so as tg obtain a broad and sufficient range of repre-does not imply that exploration imd testing at depths sentatin data.
other than that where wastes would be emplaced may not be performed Resolution 26.
Section 4.0, Page 10, (3), Paragraph 2 The staff agrees with the statement in the comment that
"... DOE should also have wide discretion to locate the This paragraph suggests that DOE should elimi-ESF so a= to obtain a broad and sufficient range of repre-nate ESF shafts, ramps, and drifts or otherwise sentative data." However, DOE has already stated that restrict its site characterization activities if it will the permanent components of the ESF will become part not be possible to integrate such excavations into of the GROA. Accordingly, in its ESF design, DOE the GROA design. There is no justification for the should consider the need to demonstrate compliance with D-17 NUREG-1439
Appendix D the applicable regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Part 60 terization to that of repository waste isolation." The staff at the time of a license application submittal.
considers that both site characterization needs as well as the potential unpact of ESF on long term performance of 28.
Section 4.0, Page 11, Paragraph 2 the site should be considered in the design and construe-tion of the ESF. As previously indicated, the staff has The third sentence of this paragraph requires DOE modified the STP in a number of places, as appropriate, to account for " considerable uncertainties" in de-to suggest that the ESF'sprimary role in site characteriza-signing and constructing the ESF.There is no indi-tion has not been subordinated to waste isolation con-cation of how DOE should account for these uncer.
cerns.
tainties. While this is a desirable goal in the abstract, given the range of uncertainties, it simply 31.
Section 4.0, Pages 12-13, Carryover paragraph may not be possible to account for all such uncer.
tainties consistent with optimization of the site This paragraph provides a good example of a ge-characterization program.
neric problem with the draft TP. Although the paragraph is titled " Excavation Methods," it dis-Resolution cusses the " construction and operation"of the ESF.
An ESF is not a typical constniction project or This comment is noted. Consideration of uncertainties is operating facility, in technical terms, it is "exca-essential for reliable data gathering as well as for properly vated" rather than " constructed." By consistently estimating the impact of ESF construction on GROA referring to the ESF as a constructed facility, the performance. It is beyond the scope of this STP to provide draft TP overemphasizes the role of the ESF as a guidance to DOE on how it should account for the consid-potential element in the GROA and detracts from eration of uncertainties in the design and construction of the fact that its primary function is one of explora-the ESF. However, DOE needs to recognize and allow for tion.
flexibility in its design, to accommodate any site-specific data that may deviate from the current design bases. In In the carryover sentence, the word "should" addition to this recognition, DOE should adopt conserva-should be replaced with the word "must." The chief tive design parameters and procedures until site-specific purpose of the ESF is to facilitate data collection, data become available.
not to provide a repository shaft.
29.
Section 4.0, Page 12, Paragraph 1 Resolution This paragraph appropriately recognizes that the This comment is noted. The term " construction" of the reference GROA design may require changes as a ESFincludes excavating the rock and providing necessary result of the data gathered during site characteriza.
roof and wall support (e.g., rock bolts, lining, etc.). Simi-tion and, therefore, that flexibility in design is es.
larly, " operation" of the ESF refers to activities necessary
- sential, to support testing of the underground facility.Therefore, the staff does not consider that by referring to the ESF as I esolution a constructed facility, it detracts from its role in si'c char-acterization.
The staff agrees with the comment. No modification of the STP is called for.
In response to the second part of the EEUUWASTTI comment, the staff has revised the text of the discussion in 30.
Section 4.0, Page 12, Paragraph 2 Section 4.0.
'lhis paragraph provides another example of the 32.
Section 4.0, Page 14,(7) draft TP s subordination of the goal of site charac-terization to that of repository waste isolation. The As noted above, the discussion under this subsec-paragraph appropriately recognizes that there may tion should provide the guiding principles for the be justification for an ESF design for site charac.
TP. This section recognizes the primary purpose of terization pucposes that is not within the con-the ESF-data collection-and the need for flexi-straints of the GROA design (including location).
biFty in both ESFand GROA design to ensure the ability to modify designs as dictated by the site char-Resolution acterization results. Moreover, the last sentence of this section recognizes the need for a balancing of The staff disagrees with the conclucion reached in this site characterization needs with geologic repository comment that "This paragraph provides another example performance objectives, rather than a subordina-of the draft TP's subordination of the goal o site charac-tion of site characterization needs to repository r
l NUREG-1439 D-18
Appendix D design. Unfortunately, becam this section is 10-the safe design and construction m 13F, and the cated at the end of the drafi i ?, it appears as nn presumption of future incorporation of no ESFinto af terthought. It is not sufficient to override the tone a geologic repository.
of the previous sections of the draft TP, which places an undue emphasis on the liSF's role in the The example scheme in the draft TP of an accept-repository design. The approach outlined in this able approach to achieve compliance of the ESF subsection should be explained at the beginning of design with 10 CFR Part 60 requirements (page 16) the TP, and should be followed throughout the points up the fundamental problem with the pre-document.
sumption that the ESF will become part of the repository. Such a presumption requires the devel-Resolution opment of repository conceptual designs and iden-ttfication of features potentially important to waste The staff disagrecs with the conclusion reached in this isolation prior to the development of the liSF con-comment that the STP places".. undue emphasis on the ceptual design. Ilackfitting the ESF conceptual de-ESF's role in the repository design." As noted in the sign to the GROA conceptual design is fundamen-staff's response to EEI/UWASTE General Comment #4, tally incompatible with the stated primary purpose the language of the STP has been modified, as app.opri.
of the ESF, which is to support site characterization ate, to suggest that the ESF's primary role m site charac-activities. And the first and most important goal of terization has not been subordinated to waste isolation site characterization is to determine whether the concerns.
site itself provides acceptable waste isolation per-formance characteristics.
STATE OF NEVADA COMMENTS One of the many other purposes of the ESF during site characterization is to collect data to facilitate the design of the GROA, yet it is some of these The purpose of the TP is to provide regulatory same data that are necessary to design, construct guidance to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and operate the ESFin a manner t hat complies with on an approach acceptable to the NRC staff for the 10 CFR Part 60 requirements for the GROA.
consideration of the requirements of 10 CFR Part As such, it can;be argued that the ESF cannot be 60 related to the exploratory shaft facility (ESP) for designed, constructed and operated with confi-a potential high-level nuclear waste repository Tlie dence t hat it is in accord with all applicable require-TP addresses the design control process, coordina-ments of 10 CFR Part 60. The NRC staff responsc tion of riSF design with the design of the geologic to ths appaent " catch-22" is that while the ESF repositog operations area (GROA), consideration design will be required to meet applicah!c GROA of alternatives, excavation methods, test interfer-requirements, uncertaintics associated with the ence, and site characterization.
limited data available should be accounted for in the design ot the ESF itself.
The TP is stated to be based on the premise that the ESF will eventually become part of a future From a conceptual standpoint, the ESF is intended GROA, although it is also acknowledged that the to facilitate subsurface site characterization.
pnmary purpose of the ESF is to support site char-Hence, the design objective of the ESF should not acterization activitics. As a result of this prcraise, be to conform to the location ar.d conceptual design all 10 CFR Part 60 requirements applicable to the of the GROA, but rather the GROA should be G ROA design are considered applicabic to the ESF desigacd to incorporate the existing ESF,if the site design.
is de' ermined to be acceptable and the 1 SF meets, or san meet the appliedle 10 CFR Part 60 require-In order to meet the objectives of 10 CFR Part 60 ments to be included in the GROn.
two general guidelines are employed by the NRC staff relative to their considerations of an ESF: (1)
The TP places considerable emphasis on the use of the liSF design, construction, and operation should the ESF to assist future desgo of the GROA, limit adverse impacts on waste isolation capabihties rather than on the design of the ESF itself. Net-of the site; and (2) the ESF design, construction, withstandmg the NRC staffs apparent interprcta-and operation should not preclude the collection of tion that the GROA concep,ual design should be needed site data.
the dnver for ESF conceptual design, we behese more appropnate guidance for ESF considerations in previous comments ta the DOEN repery shm!d be: (1)the i SF should be designed to faciU-conccptual design, !!SF Titic I design.
> _S I -
tale data coUcetion necessary to meet site charac-Mternatiu loations we have indicated n-m lor tent tor, purposes: and (2) the ESF should be D-lu N U R FG-1439
Appendix D designed so as not to preclude advantageous loca-necessary data collection, can then be coordinated tion and design options for the GROA.
with these options, to the extent possible during the site characterization period, eventually leading to With respect to the excavation methods, drifting, the determination of a preferred GROA design, if and overall layout of an ESF, the TP points out the appropriate for the site.
need for ensuring the waste isolation capabilities of the site are not compromised bv the excavation Resolution methods and construction techniqacs employed.
Yet it offers little in resolving the problem of maxi-In its November 1990 review of the draft STP, the State of mizing necessary data collection by sufficient drift-Nevada made several comments, as just noted. In its first ing to demonstrate representative data have been comment, the State of Nevada said that there is a "
collected, versus the risk of drifting and drift layout fundamental problem with the presumption that the ESF cpmpromising the waste isolation capabditics of the will become part of the repository." This presuraption is sac.
based on the decision made by DOE to collocate the ESF and the GROA.The staff believes that the prima *y pur-The TP acknowledges that extensive drifting may pose of the ESF is to facilitate site characterization. Ilow.
be the best approach to reducing uncertainty re-ever, in the matter of the CSF and its relationship to the garding such matte-s as fault movements, thermal GROA, admittedly there is no regulatory requirement behavior, tectonic activity, etc. Yet it also states that that the ESF must be colk)cated with the GROA. That it ". presents one of the more difficult challenges option is at the programmatic discretion of DOE. In fact, for coordination of the ESF design with the GRO A DOE has elected to collocate the ESF with the planned design." This difficulty may be considerably miti-geologic repository (see DOE,1988, p. 8.4.2-216).There-gated if the design objective were not presumed to fore, the result of this decision is to constrain both the be the necessity to fit the ESF to a premature design of the ESF and the way in which site characteriza-GROA conceptual design, but rather to preserve tion data can be obtained from within the ESF, so as to what may be advantageous GROA design options, meet the same regulatory requirements regarding con-if possible.
tainment and isolation that are applicable to the GRO 4.
The TP further notes: " Optimum d-ift oricatation The State of Nevada's first comment also goes on to note and length may not necessarily coincide with pre-that "Backfitting the ESF conceptual design to the ferred GROA layout. A careful balancing of th GRO A conceptual design is fundamentally incompatible site characterization needs with the geologic repon with the stated purpose of the ESF.. " The staff does not tory performance objectives will be essential" Un-consider that the need for coordination of the ESF and til the site is fully characterized, it is difficult to GRO A designs is " fundamentally incompatible" with the coaccis e a " preferred GRO A !ayout," especially at stated purpose of the ESF. Section 60.15(c)(4) requires a site with highly variable geologic conditions. Opti-that " Subsurface exploratory drilling, excavation, and in mum access for subsurface data collection should situ testing before and dunng construction shaP be not be traded against, or balanced with repository planned and coot dinated with geologic repository opera-performance objectives in an effort to preserve a tions area design and construction." The need for this so-called " preferred GROA layout" when thr.t coordination is necessary because the investigations to preference is largely based upon speculation about obtain the required information for determining site suit-the site's geologic characteristics. Instead, the ob.
ability must be conducted so as to limit adverse effcets on jectives should be first the collection of all neces-the long-term performance of the geologic repository, to sary data for site characterization purposes, and the extent practical.
then, if possible, the preservation of advantageous GROA design options-In the second comment, the State of Nevada noted that the staff has apparently interpreted '. that the GROA In conclusion, it appears that the NRC staff in this conceptual design should be the driver for ESF concep-TP has committed itself to an interpretation that tual ocsign." The NRC staff does not agree with the the ESF must be backfit to a GROA conceptual State's comment.The critical issue to the NRC staff is not design and the features potentially important to that the GRO A conceptual design drive the ESF concep-waste isolatian relative to that design.This does not t ual design. Rather, the critical issue is that the designs for appear to be the only option for meeting tne re-the ESF and GROA facilities be coordinated and iterated quirements of 10 CFR Part 60. A number of poten-before construction of the ESF proceeds. The staff ha;
- ially advantageous conceptual GROA designs can furthcr clarified this point in the STP by adding the fol-be generated, based upon initial site data. ESF de-lowing sentences to the last paragraph of the discussion sign, construction and operation, with a priority on On Section 4 0). behind Technical Position No.1
NUREG-1439 D-20
- -~ ~. - -., - -.-.
u Appendix D -
1"The example conveys the necessity for a structured ferred layout" that exists at the time of the GROA con-approach, to effect a thorough and careful coordi-ceptual design. To further clarify this point in the STP, nation and iteration of the engineering designs for the staff has added the following sentences after the third
- the ESF and GROA facilities, to determine their paragraph of the discussion (in Section 4.0), behind Tech-compliance with-applicable regulato:y require-nical Position No. 3:
ments and campatibility with each other, before the
'ESF is constructed. There :.te many ways in which "It is recognized that at the time of ESF design, only
- complianct i ' : be d:monstrated. DOE needs to a limited amount of information would be available select nn ap!.o. h suitable to its own needs."
for the development of a conceptual design of the GROA. A final GROA design will not be devel-oped by DOE until after the needed site characteri. -
In its' next comment, the State of Nevada noted that the zation data are collected. However,10 CFR STP "... offers little in resolving the 9blem of maximiz-60.17(c) requires that at the time of SCP submittal,
- ing necessary data collection by suffiuent drifting to dem.
DOE develop a conceptual design of the GROA onstrate representauve data have been collected, versus based on current knowledge / estimates of the site at the r!A of driftir.g and drift layout compromising the that time. As site characterization proceeds, the waste isolation capabilities of the site." The staff consid-staff expects that revisians to the original GROA crs that a defensible logie be used in developing the ap-conceptual design will emerge. The need for coor-proach to demonstrate compliance with applicable 10 dination stated in this technical position addresses CFR Part 60 requirements. As stated in the STP (para-the coordination of the ESFdesign with the GROA graph one cf the discussion forTechnical Position No.1 in conceptual design available before the start of ESF Section 4.0), this logic should be based on two general construction."
principles: (1) the ESF design facilitates the gathering of sufficient data to demonstrate site suitability and to de-The staff considers that the data. collection needs for the sign the GROA, and (2) this design limits adverse effects site and the ESF design must take into account prelimi-
' on the long-term performance of the geologic repository, nary concepts for the GROA design._ Accordingly,10 to the extent practical. The staff considers i % these CFR 60.17(c) requires that the site characterization plan -
principles to be important. As noted earlier, the principal shall ccmtain a conceptual design for the GROA that focus of the STP is the need for coordination of the ESF takes into account likely site-specific requirements. This and GROA designs and not the subject of the extent to concept is essential to accomplish a focused site charac.
which site characterization data are representative of terization program.The staff believes that any conceptual processes, conditions, or events taking place at the site.
design of the GROA developed before the completion of The NRC staff has addressed this issue of data represen-site characterization data collection is subject to revision, tativeness in its analysis of the SCP (see NRC,1989, pp.
and the ESF design and construction should permit flexi-4-36-4-37). The NRC staff agrecs that attempts to maxi-bility to modify, if necessary, the reference conceptual
'mize data collection are necessary, and some adverse design of the GROA, based on data collected during site impact on the site in this regard may be unavoidable; characterization.
however, ESF construction and data-collection activities should be conducted so as to limit the impacts of such As stated in pamgraph eight of the " Introduction"section activities on waste isolation characteristics of the site, to of the STP (Section 1.0), the technical positions and dis-
' the extent practical, cussion are based on the premise that the ESF will even-tually become a part of a future GROA.This premise is -
based on the fact that the DOE has elected to collocate as stated m. paragraph one of this c6mment resolution, the ESF with the planned GROA. The result of this-the staff basically agrees with the State of Nevada com-decision is to constrain the ESF design, and to constrain ment that the objectives of the ESF design should be first the way in which site characterization data can be ob--
. the collection of all necessary data for site characteriza-tained within the ESF, so as to meet the same regulatory tion purposes.1;10 wever, the staff considers that the issue requirements regarding containment and isolation that here is one of tiraing.The staff also agrees with the State are applicable to the repository. Some of the technical p
of Nevada assertion that the " preferred layout" of the positions in the STP may not be applicable if DOE de-GROA will not be fina!!y determined until all site charac-cides not to collocate the ESF and the GROA.
terization data are collected. However,10 CFR 60.17(c)
- requires that at the time the SCP is submitted, the SCP The State of Nevada's final comment noted that "It ap-contain a conceptual design of the GROA that includes pears that the NRC staff in this technical position has
- the " preferred layout," based on knowledge / estimates of committed itself to an interpretation that the ESF must the site at that time. As site characterization proceeds, be backfit to a GROA conceptual design." As noted the staff expects that other " preferred layouts" are likely above, DOE has previously stated that its current plan-
- to emerge. Recognizing this, the STP speaks to the need ning assumptions call for the permanent components of
- for etx>rdinating the design of the ESF with the " pre-
_ the ESF to become a part of the GROA. Such a decision D-21 NUREG-1439
1 Appendix D -
- by DOE constrains, somewhat, the degrees of freedom Ileferences for the design of the ESF, and for those activities con-tained within the ESF during site characterization. Once U.S. Department of Energy, Chapter 8, Section 8.4.2, decisions are made and implemented in the construction
" Description and location of Characterization Opera-of the collocated ESF, they become fact-of. life design tion," in " Site Characterization Plan, Yucca Mountain features for the GROA,if and when a license application Site, Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada,"
is submitted.
Vol. Vill, Part B, DOE /RW-0199, December 1988, U.S. Department of Energy, " Yucca Mountain Project Q-List, Quality Activities List (QAL),[andj Project Re.
The STP should not be interpreted to suggest that the quirements List (PRL)," Nevada Operations Office /
designof theESFortheconceptualdesignof theGROA Yucca Mountain Project Office, Newda, YMP/90-55, are " frozen" and that changes cannot be made. As a YMP/90-56, and YMP/90-57, Juiy 1990.
matterof fact, the K.tff believes that DOE needs to main-tain flexibility and the ability to char.ge the design as more U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Disposal of Iligh-information becomes available from site characterization level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repos..ones; data Amendments to Licensing Procedures," FederalRegister, Vol. 51, No.146, July 30,1986, p, 27158-27165.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Technical Posi-Also, the STP (paragraph 11 of the " Introduction"(Sec.
tion on items and Activities in the fligh-Level Waste tion 1.0)) clearly states tliat ", STPs are not substitutes Geologic Repository Program Subject to Quality Assur-for regulations, and compliance with them is not re-nce Requirements " NUREG-1318, April 1988.
quired." It further states that " Methods and solutions different from those given in the STP will be acceptable if U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "NRC Staff Site
- hey provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issu.
Characterization Analysis of the Department of Energy's Site Characterization Plan, Yucca Mountain Site, Ne-ance of an authorization or license by the Commission."
vada," NUREG-1347, August 1989.
If DOE decides to use a method different from that given in the technical position, DOE bcars the burden to con-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Availability of vincingly demonstrate that the logic of its approach is Draft Staff Technical Position on Regulatory Considera-sound and complete, is consistent with the intent of 10 tions in the Design and Construction of the Exploratory CFR Part 60, and is defensible on the basis of merits of Shaft Facility," FederalRegister, Vol. 55, No.157, August the available data.
14,1990,p.33193.
4
(
NUREG-1439 D -22
b Appendix E APPENDIX E DISPOSITION OF ACNW COMMENTS Note: The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 10 CFR Part 60 requtrements, the term "ESF" re-
)
(ACNW) comments listed in this appendix were made on fers to only the permanent components of the ESF the final draft of the subject staff technical position (STP),
that may become a part of an eventual GROA.)
dated February 1991.
In addition, the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of Section 1.0 has been revised to now read as follows:
ACNW COMMENT #1 "As previously noted, the data collected from the We believe the STP needs a clear introductory ESF durmg site characterization are to be used to statement that the singular purpose of the ESFis to both evaluate the suitability of the site for a HLW facilitate the characterization of the proposed high-repository and to design the GROA.,
level waste repository. However, the STP should then focus on the requirements as stated in 10 CFR ACNW CGMMENT #2 60.15(cX1), " Investigations to obtam the required information (on site characterization) shall be con-We recommend that the staff issue a clariGcation, ducted m such a manner as to limit adverse effects eitherin thisSrPorasastaff position,of thephrase on the long-term performance of the geologic re-
"to the extent practical."
pository to the extent practical.,
Response
Response This comment is noted The language in 10 CFR The staff ogrees with this comment and has replaced the 60.15(c)(1-4) reflects the fact that the site characteriza-second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 1.0 with tion program must address the characteristics of the par-the following sentence:
ticular site and the conceptual design of the repository.
The site characterization program must provide a sound "As part of its site characterization program, DOE docume sted basis for describing and assessing site charac-will construct an exploratory shaft facility (ESF),
teristics of the repository, but it is desirable that DOE the purpose of which is to facilitate site chameteri-should try to avoid actions that might compromise the zation activities,"
ability of the repository to meet 10 CFR Part 60 perform-ance objectives.There must be a balance between these and has added the following paragraph:
two policies that may very well give rise to some conflict.
"The need for the collection of sufficient data to Because of site-and design-specific considerations, the determine site suitability, and later to support a cited regulation is intentionally non-prescriptive; that is, license application to cor struct and operate a po-it leaves to DOE in the first instance the opportunity and tential HLW repository, is the main issue for DOE responsibility to determine how the site characterization to consider during site characterization. However, program should be developed that takes these policies this staff technical position (STP) does not deal into account. Of course, it is DOE's responsibility to de-primarily with the need for DOE to collect suffi-scribe, or an iterative basis, how it is addressing these cient data from its site characterization program.
concerns. Similarly, NRC (an't other interested parties)
Rather, this STP focuses on the need for DOE to will have an opportunity to review how DOE is meeting demonstrate that an approach has been used to this c tponsibility, and NRC can then apply its own judg-design and construct the ESF that considers the ment and provide more specific guidance to DOE.
applicable 10 CFR Part 60 regulatory re<1uire-ments, should any components of the ESF become In addition, the staff considers that it may not be feasible i
part of (i.e., become " collocated" with) the future to provide generic guidance for the phrase "to the extent geologic repository operations area (GROA). In practical," to cover a rather unlimited range of possible doing so, DOE's design needs to establish that the scenarios. The staff considers that a clarification of this investigatiot.s conducted in the ESF will obtain the phrase can be best provided to DOE, if needed, on a necessary site characterization data and will be con.
case-by-case basis, to suit the particular situation under ducted in such a manner as to limit, to the extent consideration. In fact, the staff has provided such guid-practical, any adverse effects of the ESF on the ance to DOE, in the past, for specific cases. For examplc, long term performance of the geolcgic repository, when DOE had proposed to excavate the ESF using a drill (For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with and blast method of construction (DOE,1988, p. 8.4-24 E-1 NUREG-1439
I Appendix E and 8.4-27), the NRC staff provided a recommendation in revising the STP, as noted in Appendix D, the staff has to DOE (Browning,1988, p.139) to consider a smooth revised Section 1.0 to further clarify the NRC staff's role wall blasting technique, so as to limit adverse effects on relative to the design of the ESF. during the site charac-the long-term performance of the geologic repository, to terization phase, the extent practical' As regards the ACNW's comments on the modification of The staff considers that providing guidance on a case-by-the flow chart presented in Figure 1, the staff has modi-case basis would be the most appropriate and effective fied the figure and the text in item (1) of Section 4.0, way to provide the needed guidance to DOE in this area, acco. ding 1y. Four ACNW-recommended changes were in the future.The staff believes that this approach, involv-made to h, gure 1: (1) The addition of a new process block ing a dialogue on specific activities and issues, will result entitled " Consider Existing Critical Geologic, Hydro.
in a more appropriate balance of policies ar.d concerns I gic, and Engineering Information" at the beginning of than could be accomplished by a more prescriptive state-the example approach; (2) changing of the title of the ment in advance of what may be required.
process block entitled " Develop ESF Design Concepts to " Develop ESF Design Concepts Based on Critical For those reasons, the staff considers the regulatory lan-Geologic, Hydrologic, and Engineerin; Information guage "to the extent practical" to be appropriate and also Needs"; (3) the connection of the t,wo process blocks considers it appropriate for guidance at this time to be entitled " Revise ESF or GROA Design Concepts" and limited to the more general kinds of principles that are set
" Develop Preliminary GROA Design Concepts" by an out in the final STP.
activity line (through an "Or" gate); and (4) the shiftmg of an activity line from the " Revise ESF or GROA Design ACNW COMMENT #3 Concepts" process block to a new position (through an
- Or" gate) as input to the process block entitled " Develop We urge that the staff include an additional state-ESF Design Concepts" from an original position that was ment that the principal focus of this STPis the need between " Develop ESF Design Concepts" process block for DOE to demonstrate that an approach has been "nd the decision block entitled, "Are Site Charactenza-used to design and construct the ESF that will avoid tion Requirements Met? and Are ESF Waste Isolation adverse impacts on the site should the ESF be collo-Imp cts IJmited?
cated with the geologic repository operations area.
Finally,in response to the ACNW's comment on expan.
sion of Technical Position No. 7 (Establishment of
Response
Ranges of Site Parameters)in Section 3.0, this technical position has been rewritten as follows:
'Dr staff agrees with thi? comment. See staff response to AJV CommenUj "The orientation, spacing. and extent of ESF design features (such as shafts, rampa, drifts, boreholes, ACNW COMMENT E4 and test area) should facilitate the collection of data on the entire range of parameters that are likely to Severai otner revisionuuggested during our discur.,
be important to repository nerformance, GROA sionc with the NMSS staffiridude remov ' of word.
design, and site characte rization.The data collected ing in the STP that could be consideret..s adver, should also include information on the distribution sarial, modificatlon of the flow chart presented in i these paramuers."
Figure L and expansion of liem (7)(Establishment ACNW COMMENT #5 (pages 25-27 of the ACNW/ staff of Rnnps rJ Site Parameters)[in Section 3.0].
meeting transcript) l
Response
In describing the role of the ESF and its relation-ship to the site characterization program, several With rcard to the ACNW's first comment on the word.
terms are used such as " primary," "important," and l
ing in the STP (in Sectiort 1.0) that could be regarded as
" major." What is the role of the ESF in the overall l-adversarial, the staff notes the ACNW's concern and has repository program and how should one accurately l
removed the language that appears to have prompted this describe it?
l comment. However, the staff considers it important to include in the document some explanation of the basis for providing guidance to DOE, with respect to its conduct of See staff response to ACNW Comment #1.
site characterization activities, bearing in mind that NRC has no direct licensing role in that phase of the repository ACNW COMMENT #6 (pages 25 and 109 of the ACNW/ staff meetmg transcript) project. Thus, some of the remaining language that ap-pears in Section 1.0 reflects the Commission's previously There might be some point in having some remarks stated position on this matter.
in the STP about what (the STP)is not trying to NUREG-1439 F-2 t
i l
Appendix E accomplish. For instance, data collection is an issue "However, we recognize that there is some possibil-for DOE and secondary to what we're trying to ity that DOE may choose to undertake the two acccmplish in this technical position, design efforts simultaneously, provided that DOE begins with a good undcastanun., of all applicable
Response
regulatory requirements.. "
See staff response to ACNW Comment #1.
ACNW COMMENT #9 (page 118 of the ACNW/ staff meeting transcript)
ACNW COMMENT #7 (page 43 of the ACNW/ staff meeting transcript)
He opening sentence of the STP should clearly say that a program of site characterization is required to Is the word "also" in the second sentence of the be conducted "for the site under consideration" abstract a misnomer with regard to the listing of key before submitting a license application "for a high-10 CFR Part 60 regulations?
level nuclear waste repository."
Response
Response The staff ngrees with this comment and has deleted the The staff agrees with this comment and has revised the word "also" in the second sentence of the abstract, first sentence of Section 1.0 to read as follows:
ACNW COMME.NT #8 (pages 68 and 82 of the
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as ACNW/ staff meeting transcript) amended, and 10 CFR Part 60 require that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) conduct a program Why doesn't Figure 1 icflect the statement in the of site characterization to obtain the data necessary SIP that "In reality, we recognize that both efforts to determine the suitability of the Yucca Mountain (ESF and repository (i.e., GROA) design) may well site for a geologic repository for high-level radioac-proceed simultaneously...," et cetera.
tive waste (IILW)."
Response
References This comment is noted.The stafrconsiders that although R.E. Browning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and it is possible to proceed with the design of the ESF and the Safeguards / Division of Ifigh-Level Waste Management, GROA simultaneously, this approach is not likely to be letter to R. Stein, U.S. Department of Energy [
Subject:
used.ncrefore, Figure 1 does not reflect this approach.
NRC Staff Review of the Department of Energy January However, the approach shown in Figure 1 is only one of 8,1988, Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan-th reptable ways DOE can proceed with the ESF de-Final Point Papers), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sign process. It does not preclude DOE from using other sion, May 11,1988.
possible acceptable approaches.
U.S. Department of Energy, " Completed Analytical To further clarify the staff position on this subject, the Techniques, Chapter 8," in " Consultation Draft Site second sentence in the eighth parag.aph of the discussion Characterization Plan, Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada Re-(in Section 4.0), behind Technical Position No.1, has search and Development Area, Nevada," Vol. 8, DOEl been rewritten as follows:
RW-0160, January 1988.
I
\\
E-3 NUREG-1439 I
l NRC FORM 335 U.8. Im> CLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION
- 1. REFORT NUMBER (t ag)
(Assigned by NRC AM Vol..
NRCM 1102, Supp., Rev., and Addendum Num-3 m 32o2 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET
'" " *"Y4 (see instructions on it. r.
e)
NUREG-1439 1 T OLE AND BVBTITLE
- 3. DATE REPOHi PUBUSHED Staff Tec!mical Position on Regulatory Considerations in the Design and Construction uoy7g i
ye,n of the Explcratory Shaft Facility I
July 1991
- 6. TYPE OF REPOHI D. Gupta, J. Peshel, J. Ilunting Staff Technical Position L PEROD COVERED (inclusive Dates;
- 8. PEHi-OHMING ORGANIZATON - NAMt AND ADOHE SS (if NHC. provice Drvision, Ottice or Hegion. U.S. Nuclear Regutatory Commission, and memna addreas: it contractor, provka name and mamno addressa Division of High-Level Waste Management Cifice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- 9. 6PONSORING OHGANIZATON - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NHC, type
- Same as above*; if contractor, provide NRC Divis6an. Oftka or Region.
U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commiss6ork and malling address.)
Same as above
- 10. SUPPLEMENT AHY NO T ES It, ABSTRACT (200 words or less)
The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has prepared this staff technical position for the purpose of com-piling and further clarifying previous staff positions on regulatory considerations in the design and construction of the exploratory shaft facility (ESF). (The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) now refers to the ESF as the " exploratory studies facility." DOE's change in terminology does not affect the positions taken in this,. iidance.) This document lists the key regulations in 10 CFR Part 60 that should be considered in the design and constrataun of the FSF and presents the staff position statements and corresponding diserssions.
- 12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases trist will assist researchers in locaterc the report.)
- 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unlimited High Level Wasta.
Exploratory Shaft Facility (ESF)
Unclassified
~
(This Report)
Unclassified 16, NUMBLH OF PAGES 1
- 16. Pf-uCE
- C FORM 106 (2-40)
&,e-244 44 J--
--2-,
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRINTED USING RECYCLED PAPER 1
R.a$a4uBER+E,-n#p*he,ps.
WES2WRsMamygeR8BMhW EM a
a e
ucuAmputATonyLcowssion$w+%; #Wd$dggvMWs M
~"?%
g
?b4W g
mnnaa * *a sge Wp p
M F5 g*W,gwwAmyotocoimEsgyg #e@wopwmesew w' s-e;@
pw esmo,emeng emesu y* o g#ynuAty$p$m$$enuna@m$a$ggwen8a M@
a uw Se v
a myy 38 F %e 'i a - nh wy Rh,t%fW-.%x41 uw rn ag y 45-kyw
~
WoD.4 yy-800 l
'fhb;hh hh kkhh hf$
Puma![she!MpedBBMe$hhn~ks mmat we a
.A.g.yy+_y aa7_mmygn_~ wwnen,nym:pa.c,
b Y
w$esM@adypasapa$weemependn p
seem espapee i
GlNRREBERRR$
R_$l_E I_i_kB LED E BiBB