ML20137Y916
| ML20137Y916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/02/1985 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Thomas L ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512110178 | |
| Download: ML20137Y916 (9) | |
Text
9
((
))o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ 5 E
oI WASHINGTON, D C. 20556 r
$.,..... s CHAIRMAN December 2, 1985 The Honorable Lee Thomas Administrator I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
On May 10 and 11, 1982 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) submitted formal comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed environmental standards for management and disposal of high-level radioactive wastes.
Among other things, we stated our view that the proposed " assurance requirements" and " procedural requirements" contained in those proposed standards involved matters of implementation and thus went beyond the limits of EPA's jurisdiction.
In letters dated July 19 and August 15, 1984 Acting Chairman Roberts and Former Administrator Ruckelshaus, respectively, agreed that the staffs of EPA and NRC should attempt to develop modifications to 10 CFR Part 60 to incorporate the principles of EPA's proposed assurance and procedural requirements.
EPA could then delete these requirements or l
make them applicable only to facilities not licensed by the NRC, eliminating any potential problems of jurisdictional overlap.
The NRC staff recently reported to the Commission several proposed changes to Part 60 which have been worked out by the i
NRC and EPA staff (text enclosed).
Consistent with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission will propose these changes for incorporation into Part 60 now that the final EPA high-level waste standards have been published.
The NRC staff anticipates submittal of a rulemaking package, incorporating both these wording changes and other conforming amendments, to the Commission within 120 days.
The Commission appreciates the cooperation shown by the EPA staff in working to reach this agreement.
Sincerely,
'1 y
)
0512110178 851202
/
'(L8+ er ',f 2 [(u (.., r PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR Nunzio' Philadino
Enclosure:
Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 60 t
.- EPA ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 60 1.a.
EPA Assurance Requirement:
I (a) Active institutional controls over disposal sites should be maintained for as long a period of time as is practicable after disposal; however, performance assessments that assess isolation of the wastes from the accessible environment shall not consider any contributions from active institutional controls for more than 100 years after disposal.
(In Working Draft No. 8 " active institutional control" means:
(1) controlling access to a disposal site by any means other than passive institutional controls, (2) performing maintenance operations or remedial actions at a site, (3) controlling or cleaning up releases from a site, or (4) monitor 1 rig parameters related to disposal system performance.)
b.
Discussion:
The Comission's existing provisions (960.52) related to license termination will determine the length of time for which institutional controls should be maintained, and there is therefore no need to alter Part 60 based on the first part of this assurance requirement.
The second part of this assurance requirement would require that " active" institutional controls be excluded from consideration (af;er 100 years) when the Comission assesses the isolation characteristics of a repcaitory.
The staff understands that remedial actions (or other active insoitutional controls) would not be relied upon under Part 60 to compensate for a peor site or inadequate engineered barriers. However, in the definition of
" unanticipated events and processes," Part 60 expressly contemplates that, in assessing human intrusion scenarios, the Comission would assume that
" institutions are able to assess risk and to take remedial action at a level of social organization and technological competence equivalent to, or superior to, that which was applied in initiating the processes or events concerned" (emphasis added).
Therefore, it might appear at first blush that Part 60 is at odds with the draft EPA standards.
~
. The " remedial action" is not, however, the same in the two documents.
The EPA standards have in mind a planned capability to maintain a site and, if necessary, to take remedial action at a site in order to assure that isolation is achieved. The staff agrees that such a capability should not be relied upon.
The extent to which corrective action may be taken after an unanticipated intrusion occurs is an entirely different matter. The Comission may wish to consider, for example, the extent to which the application of the limited consistent with current petroleum industry practice)g., sealing borehole societal response capability assumed by the rule (e. could reduce the likelihood of releases exceeding the values specified in the EPA standards, or could eliminate certain hypothetical scenarios such as systematic and persistent intrusions into a site.
The NRC and EPA staffs are in substantive agreement that planned remedial capabilities should not be relied upon for repository safety, and agree that the wording below should be proposed for public coment. The EPA staff may provide coment on this wording to help clarify the distinction between expected societal responses versus pl,anned capabilities for remedial actions.
c.
Proposed Changes to part 60:
Add definitions to 160.2 as follows:
" Active institutional control" means: (1) controlling access to a site by any means other than passive institutional controls, (2) performing maintenance operations or remedial actions at a site, (3) controlling or cleaning up releases from a site, or (4) monitoring parameters related to geologic repository performance.
" Passive institutional control" means:
(1) pemanent markers placed at a site, (2) public records and archives, (3) government ownership and regulations regarding laid or resource use, and (4) other methods of preserving knowledge about the location, design, and contents of a geologic repository.
Add a new $60.114 as follows:
660.114 Institutional Controls Neither active nor passive institutional controls shall be deemed to assure compliance with the overall performance objective set out at i 60.112 for more than 100 years after disposal. However, the effects of institutional controls may be considered in assessing, for purposes of that section, the likelihood and consequences of processes and events affecting the geologic setting.
... - =.
3 4
2.a.
EPA Assurance Requirement:
(b) Disposal systems shall be monitored after disposal to detect any substantial and-detrimental deviations from expected performance. This monitoring shall be done with techniques that do not jeopardize the isolation of the wastes and shall be conducted until there are no significant concerns to be addressed by further monitoring, b.
Discussion:
Part 60 currently requires completion of a performance confirmation progr..:-
prior to repository closure, but does not require monitoring during the period following closure but prior to license termination.
The Consnission chose not to require post-closure monitoring because of doubts about the usefulness of such monitoring and because of fears that monitoring in or near a repository after closure could degrade repository performance.
The type of monitoring
+
envisioned by EPA does not involve direct monitoring of the repository itself (which might degrade repository performance).
Rather, EPA proposes monitoring of such parameters as regional groundwater flow characteristics. The staff agrees that such monitoring may, in some cases, provide desirable information beyond that which would be obtained in the performance confinnation program which Part 60 now requires to be continued until permanent closure. The staff therefore proposes to require mont'toring as an extension of performance confirmation, as appropriate, when such monitoring can be conducted without degrading repository perfonnance.
c.
proposed Chanoes to Part 60:
Addto560.21(c) anew 1(9)asfollows:
(9) A general description of the program for post-permanent closure monitoring of the geologic repository.
Renumberthecurrent1(9)through(15)accordingly.
Revise 960.51(a)(1) to read:
(1) A detailed description of the program for post-permanent closure monitoring of the geologic repository in accordance with 160,144. As a minimum, this description shall:
(1) identify those parameters that will be monitored; (ii) indicate how each parameter will be used to evaluate the expected performance of the repository; and (iii) discuss the length of time over which each parameter should be monitored to adequately confirm the expected performance of the repository.
4
--r, -,
-.,-.v-m--,-m
--r- - -
--,e
. ---- - - ~, ~.
7.,---r---,
--m-,-,--,,--------y,
.,n_.,-
,,.-a.---n r,
. Add to 560.52(c) a new 1 (3) as follows:
(3) That the results available from the post-permanent closure monitoring program confirm the expectation that the repository will comply with the performance objectives set out at 560.112 and 160.113; and Renumber the current 1 (3) as 1 (4).
Add a new 160,144 as follows:
460.144 Monitoring After permanent Closure A program of monitoring shall be conducted after permanent closure to monitor all repository characteristics which can reasonably be expected to provide material confirmatory information regarding long-term repository performance, provided that the means for conducting such monitoring will not degrade repository performance.
This program shall be continued until termination of a license.
Include in the Supplementary Information of the Federal Register notice proposing these changes the followjng paragraph:
Part 60 currently requires DOE to carry out a performance confirmation part 60 does not now program which is to continue until repository closure, require monitoring after repository closure because of the likelihood that post-closure monitoring of the underground facility would degrade repository The Commission recognizes, however, that monitoring such performance.
parameters as regional groundwater flow characteristics may, in some cases, provide desirable information beyond that which would be obtained in the performance confirmation program. The proposed requirement for post-permanent closure monitoring requires that such monitoring be continued until termination of a license. The Commission intends that a repository license not be terminated until such time as the Commission is convinced that there is no significant additional information to be obtained from such monitoring which would be material to a finding of reasonable assurance that long-term repository performance would be in accordance with the established performance objectives.
4 d
4
....,_m.-,.
, -, _v,------
4 5-3.a.
EPA Assurance Requirement:
(c) Disposal sites shall be designated by the most permanent markers, records, and other passive institutional controls practicable to indicate the dangers of the wastes and their location.
b.
Discussion:
No revisions to Part 60 are needed.
560.21(c)(8),60.51(a)(2),and60.121 contain equivalent provisions.
e O
f
_..._.,___._,,,..,_-._r__
c.,
. 4.a.
EPA Assurance Requirement:
(d) Disposal systems shall use several different types of barriers to isolate the wastes from the environment.
Both engineered and natural barriers shall be included.
b.
Discussion:
The staff considers that Part 60 already requires use of both engineered and natural barriers. Nevertheless, in order to avoid any possible confusion regarding the provisions of 660.113(b), the staff proposes to add additional clarifying language to 160.113.
c.
Proposed Changes to Part 60:
Add a new 1 (d) to 960.113 as follows:
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of (b) above, the geologic repository shall incorporate a system of multiple barriers, both engineered and natural.
In the Supplementary Information of the Federal Register notice proposing these changes include the following:
Questions might arise regardi'ng the types of engineered or natural materials or structures which would be considered to constitute barriers.
The Coninission notes that 160.2 now contains the definition:
"' Barrier' means any material or structure that prevents or substantially delays movement of water or radionuclides." Thus, the Comission considers that the new paragraph to be added to 960.113 will confirm the Comission's commitment to a multiple barrier approach as contemplated by Section 121(b)(1)(B) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
1 i
l l
a s
7-
'A.
5.a.
EPA Assurance Re'quirement:
1 (e) Places where there u s been mining for esources, or where there is a reasonable expectation of exploration for scarce or easily accessible resources, or where there is a significant concentration of any material'that is.not widely available from other sources, should be avoided in selecting disposal.. sitess. Resources to be considered shall include minerals, petroleum or natural gas," valuable geologic formations, and ground waters that are either irreplaceable because there is'no reascnable alternative source of drinking water available for substantial populations or that are vital to the preservation of unique and sensitive ecosystems.
Such places shall not be-used for disposal of the wastes covered.by this Part unless the favorable characteristics of such placer, ccmpensate for their greater likelihood of being disturbed in the future.
s s
b.
Discussiori Part60containsprovisionsequivalenttothislassurance'requirementin 160A22ic)(17),(18).and(19). Part'60 does not, however, address "a significant concentration of any material that. is rot widely available from other, sources."
y It is possible that the economic va'lue of materials c:uld changEin the' future in a way which might attract future exploration or development detrimental to repository performance. The steff proposes to add an additional potentially adverse condition to Part 60 related. to significant concentrations of material that is not widely available from other sources." fs with the other potentially adverse ccnditions, the presence of such a conditi W would~ require an evaluation'of the effect of t% condition on repository performance as specified in 160.122(a)(2)(ti), but would nyt precluda selection of a site for repository construction.
(It should be noted th'lt DOE's siting guidelines contain an identical provision in 10 CFR 950.4-2-8-1.)
c.
Proposed Changes to Part 60:
Addanew1(18)to560.122(c)asfollows:
(18) The presence of signifnant concentratio.1s of any naturally-occurring material thatl$ not widely available from other sources.
\\
\\
Renumber the current 1 (18) thr,cugh (21) accordi N1y.
s
\\
4 3
s
- + -., - - _ _. _ - _. _
~. _ _.,_ _ -. _ _. _ _ _.
.__mm_-
i 6.a.
EPA Assurance Requirement:
(f) Disposal systems shall be selected so that removal of most of the wastes is not precluded for a reasonable period of time after disposal.
b.
Discussion:
EPA's concept of " removal" is significantly different from " retrieval" in Part 60.
EPA wants to preclude disposal concepts such as deep well injection for which it would be virtually impossible to remove or recover wastes regardless of the time and resources employed.
For a mined geologic repository wastes could be located and recovered, albeit at great cost, even after repository closure.
EPA therefore considers that a repository complies with this absurance requirement, and no revision to Part 60 is needed.
1
.=
I
.,. -. ~ _,,
-w.
,... ~,
,,,,,,., -,,.-,. - - - ~ -,