ML20150C215

Comments on Waste Boiler BR-565 Decontamination Factor as Determined in Oper Test in Feb 1974.Validity of Number Is Questionable Since Concentration in the Condensate Was Near Measurement Sensitivity;Test Only Covered Oper for One Day

ML20150C215
Person / Time
Site:	07001308
Issue date:	10/04/1978
From:	Eger K GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Clark A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 7811170139
Download: ML20150C215 (1)

Text

- - -

l b

O G E N E R A L (h E LECTRIC

" * "^"

ENERGY

, r m y" PROGRAMS

! JqiSIO N D

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.

MORRIS OPERATION,7555 EAST COLLI,NS ROAD,J MORRIS, ILLINOIS 60450, Phone.(M5L942-5590 lOctober 4, 1978 w i;

U.S. ? !

IG-A. T. Clark, Jr.

\\

Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch f,,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Jnf U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f

Washington, DC 20555

,/

SUBJECT:

Waste Boiler Decontamination Factor - Docket 70-1308

Dear Dr. Clark:

A review was made of the operation of the low activity waste boiler, l

BR-565, pursuant to our phone conversation of September 7.

The decontamination factor determined in an Operational Test in February of 1974 was 3.1 x 103 The validity of this number is questionable, hcwever, since the concentration in the condensate was near the measurement sensitivity and the test only covered operation for a period of one day.

Hence, a further determination was made based on measurements of the concentration and volume of the boiled down material and the concentration and volume of stack effluent. From this an overall deconteaination factor (for the sand filter, the air tunnel, an intervening screen and the boiler) was found for two periods of about two months each in 1976 and 1977. This overall decontamination factor 0

is 1.1 x 10.

An estimate was made of the decontamination factor of the boiler, tunnel and screen by factoring out the effect of the sand filter 1

2 (weighted decontamination factor = 3.1 x 10 ).

The decontamination 5

factor for the boiler, tunnel and screen found this way was 3.5 x 10,

Further factoring is not justified however since the effect of the tunnel and screen (16 mesh.020" diameter wire) has not been studied, l

To summarize, the best value for the decontamination factor of the boiler alone would be between the two values, 3.1 x 103 as a lower limit and 3.5 x 105 as the upper.

I hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely yours, y

i'} Q

%f NWY Y

7

[

( (Q; Kenneth J. E r Senior Engineer, Licensing B[

and Radiological Safety 16973 KJE:tb 78111 Q [3],

ISSUE

RESPONSE

Day's Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion 4.

Evaluation of Arlequacy Siting Criteria The group reached a consensus on adequacy of the criteria as proposed by NRC.

Regulations / Regulatory Guides Group consensus on That NRC issue regu-Copies of regulatory the use of replatory latory guides that are as guides prepared for guides as opposed to specific as possible with IIL%Tt be sent to work-NRC regulations.

regard to site suitability shop participants.

criteria and that states be given adaquate time to review the regulatory guides.

t Most Important Characteristic

[

Group consensus on Some criteria are not w

public health and as important as others.

safety being the most important factor with transportation being second.

ISSUE

RESPONSE

Dav's Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion (Continued) 4.

Evaluation of General Disat ssion and Comments recorded in Siting Criteria the Day Group Why is NHC going under-Reduce the reliance on ground with IILW7 political and adminis-auw ns M ons. A lias the federal govern-ment applied any aero-p 11 ed and have sacurity, space techniques to waste disposal?

There really is no way to know who or what will The problem is the high h a HM risk of having to abort gg, g

a mission. DOE will soon issue a GEIS on all NRC shouM require the ways it has conceiv-DOE to own the land of ed of as a disposal a IILWR.

Is the llanford, Wash-p This may be a problem ington area a potential 7;

of technical credibility!

IIL%R site?

There is no way a state 7p p

can holc a veto power ment position on repro-over the federal govern-cessing e syrA fueM ment on federal land.

i There ought to be a mechanism for the state to intervene.

ISSUE

RESPONSE

Philadelphia Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion Paulson's Group 4.

Evaluation of Adequacy Siting Criteria The Paulson Group A concern of the group agreed with the con-was that the criteria cegts included in needed more specificity.

the criteria and that they were generally adequate.

Issues of Interest The group noted that the issues raised uvre of interest to the states and that no major considerations were omitted.

Y Modification The Paulson Group ex-pressed interest in modifying criterion (a) to absolutely prohibit min-ing and exploration on the repository site. In criterion (d) the group wanted to omit the word

" credible" and in criterion (e) insert the word " proven" before state-of-tha-art.

ISSUE

RESPONSE

Paulson's Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion (Continued) 4 Evaluation of Weighting Siting Criteria The group decided this could not be answered without more information that was site specific.

Failure to attain standards The group agreed that failure to meet any single criterion was reason for ex-cluding the potential site.

Regulations / Regulatory Guides The Ibulson Group i

believed that NRC h

regulations should be more specific and quantitative. This group wanted more emphasis placed on the use of regulations as opposed to the less formal regulatory guides.

Most Important Characteristic The group agreed The group expressed that minimumization concern that no one char-of risk to the general acteristic was deemed as public was the most important as a careful site important goal of selection process oponly siting a repository.

conducted with adequate procedural safeguards.

ISSUE

RESPONSE

Paulson's Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion (Continued) 4.

Evaluation of Gener.d Comments not covered in the Issues r

Siting Criteria or Criteria These comments were received in the group from the various state participants.

(1) NRC should not close the discussion on retrievability without more research.

C) The definition of HLW should be clarified to consider spent fuel separately.

(3) NRC should consider the tharmal impact, especially the effect of the volume of stored waste on the earth's surface.

(4) Careful investigation and consideration should be given to the effects of underground seismic events on ground water migration.

t l

Callen's Group Adequacy l

l The Callen Group ex-One participant in-pressed concern that the dicated that NRC site suitability criteria should include pro-should specify the formal visions in the criteria role of the states in NRC's to show the cost-and DOE's programs.

effectiveness of developing and opera-ting a repository, l

ISSUE

RESPONSE

Callen's Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion (Continued) 4.

Evaluation i f Specificity Siting Criteria The group was concern-ed that transportation of IILW does not receive enough consideration in the criteria.

The group was concerned over the size of the buffer zone. They noted that the zone should be large enough to allow for correct-ive action in case of radio-logical leaks from the repository.

Davis' Group Adequacy T

The Davis Group

[

agreed that the w

criteria were not adequate as they have been proposed.

Issues of Interest The group noted that the criteria cover issues of interest to the states.

ISSUE

RESPONSE

Davis' Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion (Continued) 4.

Evaluation of Modifications Siting Criteria The group agreed that the criteria should be modified and offered select-ed modifications l

as appropriate.

The Davis Group The group expressed reached a consensus concern with criterion (a).

that criterion (a)

In particular, the terms should be changed to

' ownership and control' read the reposi-gave the participanta pro-tory site be owned blems. The issue t f perpetual and controlled by the care was also noted as a con-U.S. government.

cern of the group. The y

group believed that the 7

phrase " ownership should O

be explicitly retained by the U.S. government" should be added to the criterion.

The Davis Group was concern-ed over how NRC envisioned the barrier system would work. It was stated that the concept of barrier should be better defined and it should include the concert of

" primary barrier. ' Along with this change the group stated that in the definnI:n of barrier the word " Limiting" should be replaced by the word "significant. "

ISSI'E HESIONSE Davis' Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion I

Modifications (Continued) 4.

Evaluation of The group expressed Siting Criteria concern over the wording of criterion (c). It re-commended that the word

'significant' te replaced by an actual numerical figure. This substitution would greatly improve communication and under-standing between federal and state agencies in re-gard to what was meant by hazardous levels of radiological releases.

The group concern with

]

?

criterion (d) was that air i

standards le included as U

well as water standards and that the phrase "small fraction" he defined in a more specific manner.

The Davis Group express-ed concern with criterion

(.; 'a that the effectiveness of a repository would be somewhat predicated on the type of waste form entomb-e d.

For example the effect-iveness of a repository deal-ing with solidified waste may be different than one dealing with another form of waste. Further.

the group wanted the term "long term effectiveness" better defined.

ISSUE RES PONSE i

Davis' Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion (Continued)

Modifications (Continued) 4.

Evaluation of With regard to geologic Siting Criteria stability, the group gen-erally was concerned with definitions and the types j

of evaluations that may be used to ascertain geo-logic stability. The group recommended that the concept of geologic stability be more specifi-cally defined.

The group was concerned over the meaning of criterion (h). Specifically, the group wanted the phrase

" unplanned int rusions" 7

defined.

w The Davis Group noted that discussion on the '200' mile repository area was covered in the discussion on the concept of geologic stability.

The group expressed interest in having the phrase "valu-able resources" more specifi-cally defined. It was suggest-ed that a table of current economically valuable re-sources should be developed.

This would encourage conser-vation of those resources and lessen the chance of " unplanned intrusions. '

l

LSSUE

RESPONSE

Davis' Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion Modifications (Continued) 4.

Evaluation of The Davis Group The Davis Group noted Siting Criteria agreed that that although transpor-criterion (k) was tation risks are present-a most important ed as only a single consideration.

criterion the item is most important and has l

far reaching implications.

Weighting The group agreed that the criteria should be weighed with special empha-sis on all matters affecting Lealth and safety.

e i

Failure to attain standard The group agreed that failure to meet any standard was reason for exclusion.

Special emphasis was placed on health and safety, now or in the future.

Most Important Criterion i

The Davis Group agreed that factors pertaining to health and safety and those providing isolation of waste from the environ-ment are the most im-portant considerations in site selection.

ISSUE

RESPONSE

Lavine's Group consensus Principsl concern Minority Opinion Discussion 4.

Evaluation of Adequacy Eiting Criteria The lavine Group r

agreed that the criteria were far too general to be called criteria.

They really are goals.

Issues of Interest i

l The group's concern with l

this question centered around specificity. Fer l

example, if a numerical

{

figure for potential releases was used it would put the terminology 31.

"as low as reasonably g

achievable" In perspective.

Other issues of interest not covered are cost

(

considerations and pro-cedures for state involve-i ment in the siting process.

Modifications The 12 vine Group agreed that modifi-cation of all criterion to show more specificity is required.

t 1

ISSUE RESM)SSE Lavine's Group Consensus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion

@ "I"#@

Weighting 4 Evaluation of The group agreed The group noted that a Siting Criteria that weighting of risk analysis may le an the criterion should appropriate way to assess be accomplished the importance of each with health and criterion.

safety considerations It was acknowledged by of prime importance.

g gp geological site is select-ed, then the health and safety features would take care of themselves.

Failure to attain standard The group was divi-ded on the issue of

?

failure to meet a i

criterion as reason 5

to exclude the potential site. It was noted that site specific information would resolve this situation.

I J

i b

l ISSUE

RESPONSE

Lavine's Group Conse nsus Principal Concern Minority Opinion Discussion (Continued)

Regulations versus Regulatory Guidns 4.

Evaluation of The Lavine Group did Siting Criteria i

l not see any value in

(

using regulatory guides as supplementary devices. They noted that regulations have more authority than l

regulatory guides and strongly emphasized that any applicant i

required to obtain a license meet the pro-l visions of regulations.

Most Important Characteristic The Lavine Group 1

agreed that health and O

safety considerations are the most important in site selection.

1

APPENDIX B

William B. Bishop Assistant Director for Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PRESENTATION FOR THE OPENING PLENARY SESSION AT EACH WORKSHOP DR. BISHOP: We are going to attempt what I call a little resonance tonight. For you who studied electronics in college, you will know that resonance occurs when all the oscillators get on the same wave length. What I am going to do tonight and what others will do during the further tutorials is try to give you a common background in Nuclear Waste Management, where we started and where we're going, so that when we go into the panel sessions tomorrow, we'll be able to discuss, on common ground, the issues involved in the disposal of high l

level radioactive wastes.

1 l

l B-1 l

VUGRAPH NO. 1 Our subject is nuclear waste; specifically, we want to talk about disposal. We want to talk about our standard setting and particularly about site suitability criteria for the disposal of high level nuclear waste. Of course, the bottom line is assuring the public health and safety. The NRC believes this goal can be achieved by considering the repository and the surrounding environment as a single complex system..

I i

1 B-2

Vugraph No. 1 l

l

SUBJECT:

NUCLEAR WASTES I

___q OTHERS TRU HIGH LEVEL (SPENT FUEL)

I l

l I

ETC.

SOLIDIFICATION TRANSPORT DISPOSAL l

I I

I ETC.

DESIGN SITING MONITORING I

I SELECTION STANDARDS LICENSING SITE SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTES t

{

l l

l B-3

~ - -

VUGRAPH NO. 2 i

I In arriving at site suitability criteria we must consider what makes a site suitable for waste disposal as well as all the safety and health aspects. In arriving at any one of the criteria and particularly in arriving at site suitability, we find that we have to move in stages. First, we must develop a premise for our analysis. We must do a technical analysis probably based on a set of questions or issues we derived in the analysis and we must by law develop an environmental impact statement.

We have produced a set of questions for you to discuss and evaluate and to ponder in your own. discussions tomorrow. We have developed a working hypothesis, and we look forward to the enrichment of our hypothesis. After we have completed our analysis, we will be ready to take a strong stance and to def end that stance in formal hearings in the rulemaking proceedings. But we are not yet at that point and we hope to get your input to help us in developing our policy and our program and in instructing our contractors, t

d B-4

Vugraph No. 2 LICENSING t

i Jk Jk JL SOLIDIFICATION i

STANDARDS <

DESIGN SUITABIDLITY y

I TECH.

l ANALYSIS ] -

\\ ' HEARINGS.

USE m

\\

[

EIS l

STRAWMAN (WORKING HYPOTHESIS)

PROPOSED STAND ARD l

(FIXED POSITION) i B-5

..... -.. _.. _. - - -.. -.... ~..... -.. -.. _.-. - -

i i

I VUGRAPH NO. 3 i

)

For our purpose at this workshop we have developed a simple definition of what nuclear waste is.

Nuclear waste is radioactive enough so that it requires special handling, yet it has no i

further value, 1

i 2

i i

i i

i i

4 1

i 1

l l

i j

'f I

L i

a i

B-6 i_...._-----.___-.._-.-._.-.__._.-___.-_______.-.- ~ _....., _ _

Vugraph No. 3 NUCLEAR WASTES e SUFFICIENT RADIOACTIVITYTO REQUIRE SPECIAL CARE e NO FURTHER VALUE i

B-7

VUCRAPH NO. 4 The high level wastes that we'll talk about in the next couple of days are those that include all fission products ant 1 some of those elements, particularly plutonium, that are heavier than uranium--the transuranics.

Radioactive wastes arise in many niaces throughout the nuclear fuel cycle.

l l

l B-8

Vugraph No. 4 THE INEVITABLE PRODUCTS OF FISSION URANIUM + n

> FISSION PROD. + n's

? TRANSURANICS STRUCTURES + n

? ACTIVATION PRODUCTS l

l l

l l

B-9

.._m_____-.

m VUGRAPH NO. 5 One of the two nuclear fuel cycles that is of concern to the present Administration is the so-called "once-through" fuel cycle, in which the only significant high level waste is that which comes directly from the reactor, namely spent fuel. The other, the reprocessing fuel cycle, has been deferred indefinitely. Here, uranium and plutonium are extracted chemically in a reprocessing plant. The fission products, still contaminated with a little bit of uranium and plutonium, are classified as high level wastes and are disposed of.

In addition, there are a number of other wastes generated in the fuel cycle which we will not talk about in this workshop, but be aware they exist; they contain significant amounts of radioactive material, but not nearly as much as occurs in either spent fuel or high level waste.

1 1

I I

4 f

B-10 1

i

Vugraph No. 5 STRUCTURES w LLW

\\

SPENT FUEL g

\\p;.,

b THROW AWAY 1

O g' {, m_ _. F:['j LIX; Z

g\\

FUEL CYCLE 4

i;[ -

g REACTOR LLW LLW

\\ma'I TRU I h aG l'"

N1 e

f.gg d

FUEL FABRICATION f

SPENT FUEL PROCESSING 3,/.-

PLUTONIUM RECYCLE

[t

- M -- I

^%

SOLIDIFIED g

m, - r-HIGH-LEVEL ENRICHING WASTE b-TAILS o_

URANIUM RECYCLE TAILS mam pe, mwI l

4%

. c.. s... : a: :.s.

~

T @ w MinMrda_n%

L

.c.

w w]_,h _o mw T6-

~.

MINES & MILLS FEDERAL FINAL DISPOSITION B-11

VUGRAPH NO. 6 How much, then? This slide is a projection of a somewhat optimistic growth curve for nuclear power detailing the quantities of the various kinds of wastes. Again, we'll be concerned with high level wastes. And this slide was done for the reprocessing fuel cycle.

The volume of high level waste, when solidified, is relatively small in engineering terms.

Those of you who are engineers know that we can handle with relative ease 471 cubic meters of any kind of material and particularly when it's collected over a number of years. But 75 thousand millions of curies, megacuries, of activity is a lot, and that is what would be contained in some hundred canisters, each nne cf which is very highly radioactive--in fact, so radioactive that in the time it takes me to walk by the vugraph machine and describe it, I would have received a lethal dose had that machine been a high level waste canister.

B-12

Vugraph No. 6 l

FUEL CYCLE WASTES PROJECTED FOR THE YEAR 2000*

ANNUAL TOTAL GENERATION A_GCUMU LATED INVENTORY VOLUME ACTIVITY VOLU M F.

ACTIVITY (103 FT3),

(mci)

_L103 FT2i (mci)

HLW (SOLID) 50 60,000 471 75,000 CLAD 54.0 250 450 900 TRU 700 5.5 5,400 24.2 LLW 54,000 1.0 330,000 4.0 GASES 2,200 23.0 21,000 1,500 TAILS 2,400,000 0.8 31,000,000 9.9

• ASSUMES Pu RECYCLE B-13

VUCRAPH NJ. 7 The problem, however, is not a new one or one to be generated over the next 30 years.

Existing today in the U.S., as of January 1977, there were some 280,000 cubic meters of mixed liquids and solids from the defense establishment and some several thousand cubic meters of high level radioactive waste mainly in spent fuel elements, from the commercial sector.

In translatirJ this into something that we can perceive, conceptualize a large reactor running for one year at 80 percent capacity a "ref erence reactor year" (RRY). There are an estimated 150 reference reactor years' worth of fission products in the military wastes. In commercial wastes it's more like 130 RRYs' worth. There is a significant amount, some 300 or so reference reactor years' worth of wastes, already existing. This will require attention, independent of future nuclear power generation.

B-14

Vugraph No. 7 HLW QU ANTITIES-EXISTING / GENERATED EXISTING: UAN.197/)

e MILITARY

(-150 RRY) 280,000 m3 (MIXED) e COMMERCIAL

( -100 RRY)

( 2,300 m3 (LIQUID) i 3,500 m3 (SPENT FUEL)

GENERATION R ATES 35 m3 SPENT FUEL e 1 REACTOR /YR.

(1 RRY)

OR

/

8 m3 HLW (SOLID) e PRESENTINDUSTRY (64 RRY)

-j 2,200 m3 SPENT FUEL OR f 512 m3 HLW (SOLID) j 1,050 m3 SPENT FUEL e 1 REACTOR LIFE

( ~ 30 RRY)

OR f

450 m3 HLW (SOLID) l l

l l

i l

l B-15 l

VUGRAPH NO. 8 Well, what's in there? Those of you who took some chemistry in high school or college will recognize a periodic chart of the elements. The important point is that the fission products, shown in green, are a large number of elements that cross the periodic table.

However, most of them occur in series of elements which act like metals and therefore have similar chemistries. Antimony and telurium are a bit different. The actinide series has the transuranic elements. These also act like metals, but they are more variable in their properties, and have somewhat different properties from the fission products.

In any case, it's a chemical brew, or " stew," of some complexity, which has to be handled in the processing plant rather carefully.

I 1

)

l 1

B-16

a.

e h

Vugraph No, 8 ELEMENTS IN HIGH-LEVEL WASTE H

He Li Be B

C k' >[khf F

No rk Mg Al Si ib-S Cl Ar dh,h K

Ca Sc Ti V

Mn Co Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr in Sn I

Xe Hf Ta W

Re Os ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn Fr Ra Ac

.'{,f Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu

{

Th Pa Sk Cf Es Fm Md No Lw PRINCIPAL FISSION PRODUCTS ACTINIDES E REPROCESSING CHEMICALS l

B-17

VUGRAPH NO. 9 i

One of the things important in discussing these materials is: how long do they live? We have all been told they live for a very long time and they're dangerous for a very long time. Depending upon what our high level waste is, spent fuels, which is the red line, or i

one of the reprocessing wastes, the blue or green lines, the lifetime varies.

The important factor here is that the fission products, shown by the dark heavy line, decay f airly rapidly, reaching a low level in a few hundred years. The actinides, mainly plutonium, curium, americium and some others, decay more slowly. The heavy dotted line illustrates this.

When added together, that is to the fission products, it gives a composite picture of time of decay. And a filled repository can be compared with the toxicity of a comparable body of ore.

If I do the calculation differently, I may compare the total amount of high level waste derived from the total amount of ore mined, or if I compare a single cubic centimeter of l

high level waste, not smearing it across the repository, with a similar cubic centimeter of t

ore, it gives us a different comparison.

In any case, you can see that nuclear life is f airly long, between 108 and 106 years, depending upon how you want to do the calculation. The radioactivit; of high level waste is such that geologic disposal seems the most suitable way to handle the material.

t I

l I

1 I

I l

B-18 I

I I

Vugraph No. 9 i

l i

I i

i I

---...~~..N.

(

- FISSION N

PRODUCTS

's s.,

HEAVY M ETALS

1) PLUTONIUM

_ UNRECOVERED

• RECYCLE PLUTONIUM

\\

2) URANIUM

==.

i H

FUEL RECYCLE f

_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~.,

's u.

N N*.

UNRECOVERED

...g,.......................

PLUTONIUM o

\\

• • .***..N E

sa AND URANIUM qh,

-j (SPENT FUEL)

E g

k

,, * *...,s'%s' %

/

o

.% y..... 3'..*. ~ ~.'.N E

q k

~

f N

' - s\\

REPOSITORY O

VOLUME

• **..* * * *.. N ' %

-- - 3 URAN!UM E

ORE

\\( STRUCTURAL MATE

........,,s x

~

\\g/

~

PLUM PUDDING" ACTIVATION

...............\\.............../

I I

I Cl i

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 AGE OF WASTE (YEARS)

B-19

VUGRAPH NO. 10 I will show a vugraph which my staff warns me they don't like, but I'll use it anyhow. The point here is that each year more nuclear wastes are generated. We make enough each year that if I could somehow, with technology, break it down into little pills, I could make enough lethal doses for more than the world's population. That's something for which I don't think we have the technology. But the important point is that we don't want to let the material out.

We must contain it.

t i

l B-20 I

Vugraph No. 10 3

U INGESTION

, w, w.. >.. w -

f'finwm W "

Ll l"1 WORLD POPULAil0NS l

l l

l l

l

']d.;'G qQ

. _;3:]_

' i' k

1 B-21

_m VUGRAPH NO. 11 To contain it, we have established a program called " waste management," the things we do to these high level wastes, or with them, to keep them contained. Well, clearly, they are produced in some process, and just as clearly because they are of no further use, they are segregated from whatever the " goodies" may be.

The " goodies" could be electricity, or they could be the plutonium and uranium in reprocessing. These may be stored while we do something with them to treat them, take them offsite, and dispose of them.

For high level wastes, the key activities are the production, segregation and storage onsite; solidification, which well hear about; and transportation, disposal, and perhaps some offsite storage as well.

l l

I l

i t

1 l

l l

l B-22

Vugraph No. 11 l

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES OFFSITE ONSITE l TRANSPORTATION l PRODUCTION SEGREGATION STORAGE (OFFSITE)

DISPOSAL STORAGE (ONSITE)

SURVEILLANCE / MONITORING TREATMENT FlXATION (CORRECTIVE ACTION)

SOLIDIFICATION STABILIZATION VOLUME REDUCTION NON RAD. HAZARD REMOVAL UTILIZE PACKAGING I

B-23

.=

VUGRAPH N0. 12 Let me give you a little history of how we got to the present policy relating to high level wastes. It all started in wartime, when we wanted to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons and produce it in a hurry. This was done at Hanford and later at Savannah River. The same philosophy was carried on in the Nuclear fuel Services plant in New York State, namely that the high level wastes would be stored temporarily in large tanks until a new disposal policy was established and new technology developed.

A little later, and this is spread over some 10 years of history, there was additional policy laid out in the Code of Federal Regulations that high level liquid wastes would be solidified and shipped to a Federal repository; but, the nature of the Federal repository had yet to be established. This policy was applied to the Idaho reprocessing plant and was used in designing the GE Morris, Illinois, plant and the Allied General Nuclear Services plant in South Carolina.

However, even before this policy became codified, the National Academy of Sciences advised the Atomic Energy Commission that geologic disposal should be used for the high level wastes. At Lyons, Kansas, the AEC undertook a set of experiments to prove this concept and then, through some urgent needs, they actually designated the Lyons, Kansas, site as a disposal site, not for high level wastes but for some lower level wastes that already existed.

This activity caused significant problems, even consternation, because the site had never been intended for disposal. Then, the AEC changed its plans and said, "We will solidify the high level waste and store it temporarily in a retrievable surface storage facility." An environmental statement was prepared in order to validate that decision.

But that did not withstand the test, and for the last two years, comments on WASH-1539, the environmental statement, a court case called "The Vermont Yankee Case" or otherwise known as the S-3 rule, caused both Presidents Ford and Carter to tell us in the nuclear business that indeed, we should return to the policy of geologic disposal.

So now, with the validation of several quasi-legal positions and policy decisions by two Presidents, we are now, I think, in the position of having very firm policy as to what will be done with high level waste. It will be solidified; it will be shipped to a repository; and that repository will be a deep geologic configuration.

t B-24

^

l Vugraph No. 12 BRIEF HISTORY l

H AN FOR D, S.R.

TANK STORAGE.

q NFS SOLIDIFICATION

]

1 f

10 CFR 50, APP. F Y

+ FED. REPOSITORY,

GE, AGNS NAS

• GE CD AL I

LYO NS, KA.

WASH 1539

~

WASH 1539 COMMENTS

• GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL VT. YANKEE (S-3)

\\

FORD, CARTER l

B-25

VUGRAPH NO. 13 To carry out that policy, there are three agencies in Washington whicts have significant responsibilities and a fourth agency with a supporting role. The focus of the entire waste management program in Washington is on these high level wastes and/or spent fuel; we will be discussing this program over the next two days.

ERDA, with some help from the USGS, will actually select and develop the sites, the engineering plans, and all of the supportive R&D that is necessary to construct a repository. ERDA will also operate the site, probably under contract.

NRC will regulate by developing regulations regarding how a repository must perform and then judging whether a proposed site and repository will meet those objectives. We will grant or reject the license for that operation. Both NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency will establish regulatory criteria: in the case of EPA, something that they call " generally applicable environmental standards," and for NRC, several sets of standards, including the one that we will be discussing here.

The objective that both Presidents Ford and Carter have given the Federal agencies is quite clear: an operational repository by 1985. We have been told by the Office of Management and Budget and by the President himself that we will coordinate our activities, which means schedules and program scopes, but that we (NRC) will maintain our independent judgment about matters having to do particularly with health, safety and the environment.

I i

l B-26

Vugraph No. 13 FEDER AL W.M. ROLE e FOCUS ON HLW & TRU (ie. REPOSITORY) e FED'S WILL:

- DEVELOP (ERDA & USGS)

- IMPLEMENT & OPERATE (ERDA)

- REGULATE (NRC)

- ESTABLISH CRITERIA (NRC & EPA) e OBJECTIVE: OPERATIONAL REPOSITORY BY 1985 e COORDINATION: SCHEDULES & PROGRAM SCOPES (NOT J UDGEMENTS) i i

B-27

VUGRAPH NO. 14 In your briefing book, you also saw a diagram like this, showing the general waste manage-ment roles. The subject we will talk about here is the site suitability criteria that will be established by NRC. However, we can't talk about those without also talking about the procedures through which NRC will go, both in establishing the criteria and using them; and without talking about the design of a repository. We certainly need to reflect a little bit on EPA's environmental standards and some of ERDA's activities, particularly having to do with the selection of the site, but also having to do with the design of the facility. And to that end we have several EPA and ERDA people here as resource people.

1' I

4 B-28

Vugraph No. 14 l

l l

FEDERAL HIGH LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY i

FEDERAL HIGH LEVEL WASTE M AN AGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY w

I I

ERDA NRC EPA I

I I

I r-L,

I r GENERAL, RESEARCH DEVELOP Et l LICENSE l SET USE l ENVIRONM ENT AL g Et DEV-OPERATE

+-

l REPOSITORY g REGULATIONS

'l ELOPMENT R E POSITOR Y I

L.

q l

L STANDARDS J r-I-,

I l

SOLIDS l

SELECT l

l SITE l

l PERFORMANCE l

CRITE RI A g,, I_, _ j i

i r--

1 1

,,, E I DE SIGN F ACILITY '

USE SUITABILITY I

I I:

CRITERIA

'- T-J L

I i

l ESIGN Et TEST g

,PE RFORM ANCEg g

CRITERIA 1

l

\\

OPE R ATE i

l l

I B-29

VUGRAPH NO. 15 NRC is somewhat new to the waste management business through a historical accident. That historical accident was that the AEC had always assumed, and it had always been assumed about the AEC, that the Atomic Energy Commission would accept the high level nuclear wastes and have operational responsibility for that waste. Because the AEC did not license itself, l

the regulatory arm of the old AEC paid very little attention to nuclear wastes at all, and high level wastes in particular.

However, in 1975 the Congress gave the new NRC a new responsibility, namely, to license that other new agency, ERDA, as the operating agency to develop and manage high level waste i

repositories. In June of 1975, the Commission established an organizational unit which has not grown substantially. In September of 1975, the Commission got its first advice from the staff as to what its program ought to be.

Ho ever, in July 1976, while the program planning was heavily underway, the program was delayed due to an "in principle" moratorium brought about by the Vermont Yankee case. This case required the waste management staff to immediately do a review of the health, safety l

and environmental aspects of waste management.

Finally, in January 1977, the Commission was given a final program plan, or what the staff thought was a good, firm plan. You will hear parts of the plan in the next couple of days.

They approved that plan in February. In April, the Commission was reorganized and the program accelerated. It is for this reason that you are here today, on f airly short notice, to assist us in moving ahead with that plan.

0 F

f B-30

Vugraph No. 15 NRC & WASTE MANAGEMENT e PRE-1975

-- LITTLE REGULATORY (AEC)

INVOLVEMENT e JAN 1975

-- NEW RESPONSIBILITY (NRC) e JUN 1975

-- ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT e SEP 1975

-- 1st STAFF ADVICE (o JUL-NOV 1976-- VT. YANKEE, S-3) e JAN 1977

-- PROGRAM PLAN e FEB 1977

-- COMMISSION APPROVAL e APR 1977

-- REORGANIZATION & ACCELERATION e SEP 1977 l

l i

i l

l B-31

.___.e a

_sa.a L_

x_w a

• __.-,.4

+

m:

.4m..._._

L.

.m u h VUGRAPH NO. 16 The problem as we see it today, is that we have a significant waste inventory. Most of the experts in the industry and in our own organization are reasonably confident that we can dispose of the wastes safely. Technology exists and has existed for 10 years, and the application of that technology hasn't changed much in that 10 years.

However, there is no disposal syste:7. in operation, and that's why the President said, "Get j

on with the job by 1985." The safety analysis usually done in a licensing case has not been done (we are trying to do some of it in advance) and the regulations are not yet estab-lished. These are jobs that we have at NRC. With this in mind, we have asked you to work with us in furthering our program.

I l

i 1

I t

i I

B-32 i

I

Vugraph No. 16 l

l THE PROBLEM (AS WE SEE IT TODAY) e SIGNIFICANT INVENTORY EXISTS TODAY e EXPERTS ARE CONFIDENT (LARGELY) e TECHNOLOGY EXISTS (& HAS NOT CHANGED) e NO DISPOSAL SYSTEM IS IN OPERATION e SAFETY ANALYSIS NOT YET DONE e REGULATIONS NOT ESTABLISHED l

l B-13

I VUGRAPH NO. 17 To give you a brief idea of how this particular bit of regulatory action fits into the overall scheme, let me just show you the very vugraph that we showed the Commission in January. We told the Commission that they needed a body of regulations.

We, on the staff, had in mind a new part to the Code of Federal Regulations.

It would have in it some general provisions about waste management, such as procedures, keeping of records, defining of events, and so on, and some sort of rule of thumb about classification of wastes. For each class of wastes (we are still using the traditional categories and definitions for our discussions internally), we would need to specify licensing procedures. A letter on this, containing tentative advice, has just gone to ERDA, We would need to specify what solids could go to disposal, where they could go, and what could be done there, and we might find some other things that we would want to specify, such as monitoring and decommissioning procedures. We have to address the problem of wastes that exist at the Nuclear Fuel Services site in New York State, and we are pretty sure that we have to say something in our regulations about the disposition of the military wastes at l

three sites.

l B-34

Vugraph No. 17 PROGRAM SCHEM ATIC-1

1. WASTE M ANAGEMENT REGULATIONS "10 CFR 60" I

I GENERAL WASTE PROVISIONS CLASSIFICATION I

I I

i 1

LLW HLW rTR U MILL DECOM'D REMEDIAL O MERS DISPOSAL DISPOSAL TAILINGS FACILITIES CASES l

1 l

1 I

1~~l SPECIFIC F,G LI D SfTE DE SIG N is I

LICENSING PE RFORM ANCE SUIT ABILITY OPE R ATION l

l PROCEDURES CRITL RI A C RITE RI A CRITE RI A L____j l

l r

J--,

GENERAL FEEStr TIMING l

l PROCEDURES RECORDS l

l 1

r-

--i l

l ABANDONED NFS MILIT ARY S1TES L _._ _._

_J

• SPE NT FUEL. G ASE S. ETC.

I l

8-35

1 VUGRAPH NO. 18 We then told the Commission that we thought we had better do that rapidly, since ERDA needed advice quickly, and industry also needed advice fairly quickly. 50 this was the schedule we laid out for them. Obviously, we began some of this work before the Commission approved the overall program plan. The piece of the plan that we are talking about today is the site suitability criteria. We are now just beginning our second phase of analysis on that.

When we had your discussion chairmen in for briefing a couple of weeks ago, they brought to our atter. tion that the substantive part, that is, the technical part of the criteria, was only part of what the States might be interested in. We took their advice seriously, and so I would like to point out to you where these criteria will enter into our procedures and invite you to discuss those also in your panel groups tomorrow. As you will see from the list of issues, that is part of our intention.

B-36

. ~.

Vugraph No. 18 REGULATORY SCHEDULE 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 i

f t

I 1

a i

I t

1 I

1 1

I i i CLASSIFICATION & GENER AL PROVIS1QfiS gg tilGH LEVEL WASTES SOLIDS PERFORM ANCE CRITERIA 1%g g

hO REPOSITORY SITE CRITERI A X

DESIGN & PERFORMANCE CRITERI A gg NFS RULEMAKING g

g LOW LEVEL WASTES SOLIDS PERFORM ANCE CRITERIA g

g l

REPOSITORY SITE CRITERIA gg MILL TAILINGS g

g QECONTAMIRATION & DECOMMISSIONING h PROPOSED $ FINAL i

I i

I I

I l

8-37

VUGRAPH NO. 19 We have told ERDA that tentatively they can expect that we will want to do a preliminary site review. Having done that review, we will write them a letter of guidance and let them know whether we see something objectionable about a site that would make it impossible to license it.

Assuming there is no informal objection to a site, ERDA will proceed to request construction money. At some time, we will want to have reviewed their plans for construc-tion, including sinking the shaft and digging the underground mine. We will then decide whether to issue formal authorization for site development.

Beginning during the development of the site and after the site is partially developed, we will review a request for an operating license; that is, for accepting radioactive material at the site. So in the near term, we expect to do at least three things, and perhaps have several steps completed in the course of a repository development review.

Just to give you some sense of how this compares with something we've done in the past, a reactor licensing includes a preliminary site review; it includes a construction review, in the course of which a limited work authorization might be granted, and at the end of which a construction permit is granted. It includes an operating license review, at the end of which a license is granted or rejected on the basis of safety analysis; very similar steps are envisioned for the repository (slightly different, perhaps, because here, the concern is primarily for the site suitability),

i l

l l

I l

l l

\\

l l

B-38

Vugraph No. 19 l

TENTATIVE LICENSING PROCEDURES REPOSITORY LICENSING LETTER f

PRELIMINARY SITE REVIEW

( AUTHORIZATION)

Y I

REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT R EVIEW (LICENSE)

V OPER ATING LICENSE REVIEW REACTOR LICENSING PRELIMINARY SITE REVIEW (PERMIT)

Y CONSTRUCTION REVIEW (LICENSE)

Y OPER ATING LICENSE REVIEW B-39

1 VUGRAPH NO. 20 In the course of doing these things, and in the course of establishing our criteria, we must, by law, undertake a number of formal things in which the States can and probably should have a role. These include all of our hearings and comments on environmental statements, and/or rules.

We can have a hearing, if it's requested and the Commission grants it, on most of our rulemaking and, of course, on our licensing proceedings; there are some other times where perhaps the States may want to get involved. Those places are the open triangles that I've shown here. You may spot some others in your discussions tomorrow. Please, in your discussions, consider where you see the States might want to enter into more mandated procedures.

We're clearly, in the development of our site suitability criteria, coming to you early for your thoughts. Perhaps you will want to suggest we do that more often, or perhaps you think it's a waste of time. This is the sort of thing that we want to hear.

B-40

Vugraph No. 20 1

i I

TENTATIVE LICENSING PROCEDURES i

LETTER

/

p3

/

PRELIMINARY SITE REVIEW (AUTHORIZATION)

V VV REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (LICENSE)

T;/

VV OPERATING LICENSE CRITERIA REVIEW

",~l VO SITE SUITABILITY VO v

DESIGN 5[7 9 i{,,

OPERATION Q - PUBLISH REG./EIS FOR COMMENT s, - POSSIBLE HEARING y - OTHER POSSIBLE STATE INPUT l

B-41 w

VUGRAPH NO. 21 Finally, you will find in your set of charts a rather busy one, which I won't discuss, but I will point out that this chart is in real time. There are some very specific points where there exist formal opportunities for involvement in reviewing environmental statements and regulations. We are at the point of establishing our regulations, it may be that the States would like to be with us in the site reviews; again, in real time, think abuut where the States might want to come in.

l l

B-42

Vugraph No. 21 COMMERCIAL WASTES ER = ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT EIS = ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT STATEMENT CY 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 CONSTRUCTION SE E DESIGN SINK SHAFT CONSTR UCT RE POSITORY OPERATE E

LICENSEE (Do El REQUIR EM ENTS

$'ISUBMIT LICENSE UPDATE OF SITE APPLICATJ ON APPLICATION G ER S ER LICENSOR IN RC) REQUIREM ENTS

-RE lONS r-57TE F I Y PP OVE IS A PR E ~ ~ ~ ~-

CONSL/LTATIONS CON UCTION UP TE OPE ION V

HEA INGS START l

INSPECT FORM AL PU BLIC IN PUT

[ POSSIBLE PUBLIC INPUT 1

1 B-43

APPENDIX C

l Man & Radioactive Wastes...

Assuring Mutual Isolation l

I:{dI:

lf Man f

hag l wastes I

j urI 4);

o

. 9i W.M. Hewitt U.S. NRC C-1

1 Evening session:

e Multibarrier concept e Potentially useful barriers e influence of time

- Effectiveness of barriers

- Need for barriers Morning session:

e Brief review e Overview of WM standards program o " Closer"look at site suitability C-2

1 1

The NRC has a comprehensive program underway which is designed to:

e identify the barriers & controls needed each step along the waste management chain e Establish appropriate standards to assure such barriers & controls are required by law (NRC regulations)

I e Develop guides & procedures to assure the proper implementation of NRC regulations C-3

Radioactive Waste Manaaement Man w aste e Protect public health & safety e Protect environment C-4

l Obiective: move waste from point "A"to point "B" Rules: meetinos between man [t wastes should be:

e Extremely unlikely Point "A" e ALARA ge,9 oces /

t s

Man waste 1

Plant Sudace Retrievable g

Sub-Handling storage Point "B" surface Disposal Interim storage Transportation Repository Handling Surf ace storage C-5

What Do We Know About the Players?

e Mobile e Inquisitive e Susceptible e Unpredictable Man waste

)

l Hazardous for finite time e Amenable to controls Volatilization e Limited mobility Dispersion i

Dissolution i

C-6

Strategy:

• Always provide barriers _between man & waste e Adjust barriers to fit situation lf'

'4:-

l. ;

L!.'f Man waste

. m ffI.

U@..I; N~-

• !M Administrative controls Physical barriers i

C-7

i Present NRC reaulations do address several points which are important to HLW management -

- e Waste shall be solidified within 5 years...

• Solids shall be chemically, thermally, & radiolytically stable...

e Transported in Type B shipping casks...

e Transfer to federal repository within 10 years...

j 1

l l

l l

l i

C-8

e The first barrier can be provided through the use of a suitable waste form to riecrease radionuclide mobility

.-$i$$$is, 8M)a >$$;' s D6

'c aR :s Waste $$

h> :RR" Of

/Q$[(i18)$(Y

,,w$

Chemically stable Solidifv / Radiolytically stable N

Thermally stable i

l C-9

l e The second barrier can be a relatively impervious canister surrounding the waste form Canister to protect Waste from environment i

Environment from waste l

C-10

.l l

" TYPICAL" CANISTER

_k DIAMETER LENGTH

[

TYPICAL 12" 10' l

l CONTENTS OF TYPICAL CANISTER:

CONTENTS OF TYPICAL CANISTER:

VOLU ME: 6.3 cu. f t.

WElG HT: 2000-40000 lbs.

f HEAT OUTPUT: 5 kilowatts CU RlES: 20,000,000 10 CANISTERS PER 1000 MW(e) YEAR 80,000 CANISTERS THROUGH 2000 A.D.

C-11

l e During handling & storage the waste will be inside engineered structures which.

are desianed to contain the waste under both " normal" & " accident" conditions NRC Design Criteria

" Events due to man" "Natu ral events"

. Crashes e Tornadoes e Attempted e Earthquakes intrusions e Floods Waste

• Etc.

solid e Etc.

e Fires

/ e Equipment failures

" internal events" N\\ e Errors e etc.

C-12

During transportation the wastes will be inside " Type B"' shipping casks which are designed to withstand transportation related accidents

. c.u

,.:Q5.f bit :.; -

• Impaets

- ::}{j{$ ?!!in,

$ij[f)i!!;jji e Fires

• Submersion Waste

. !j.{gll.

O,.,

solid t

'Sg! !.

MYK -

UN$@!!

. ([!?N S.

,e agqqg ' L:;:=.;

I

• 10 CFR Part 71 i

l l

l l

i l

C-13

~

I i

l l

l l

l l

l TYPIC AL SPENT FUEL C ASK l

l 1

VAlbf SOK

$f AINil55 5f f EL CUfit SMILL if AINLE55 $ffit shktt SMLLL

$ Net LDih G B 2

, "5 ' * *e j

.,.;, :e'

,, 4 la'

.h COOtthG/ IMP ACI I

,,ns f f PsC AL

' l,

$Ull BUNDil

'\\

full BAssif

.a wifw $7A;tal J '.B 3 N

i tw8Af!

f f MO w A 8ti Mi A C t

4 i

o I

h 4

i l

l i

1 i

D C-14 ij

l SHIPPING CASK IN RAllTRANSPORT CONFIGURATION TIPPING CRADLE CASK

\\,

RETRACTABLE ENCLOSURE -

-iN,w MOVE ABLE COOUNG DUCT b*s.

FlxED ENCLOSURE

'~

61,

\\

. -,

• E,- f 7 y (., p;

.y s~

m k

/ l', ~

f.

'y 1,

,. : }, ; yTJ 'edi )

w l.

]

,yy,

,g -

3

y'.

j

.-a pf f-p i i y 9; T

c, w/ i, </

~ - -;glE;gy Y.9

,,1.r:'" J O

r

/

d 4

' J[,/ Q

' faxed COOLING DUCT 0

uc ? T V[,.

./

Q

\\'O j'Tk r;4sj J',

D R'EDUNDANT ENGINE / BLOWER i

v y/T,,I27(N g/

f N b)

CoouNG 5YSTEM o

s

. b$

'y'T 100 TON CAPACITY FLAT CAR

\\

.7

\\.

{

l l

l l

C-15

_a..

ONCE EMPLACED IN A DEEP GEOLOGICAL RESPOSITORY,THE PRIMARY TRANSPORT MECHANISM IS GROUNDWATER MAN

/

WASTES t

TIME & DISTANCE l

l C-16

ONCE EMPLACED IN A DEEP GEOLOGICAL RESPOSITORY,THE PRIMARY TRANSPORT MECHANISM IS GROUNDWATER v

l MAN WASTES R ADIONUCLIDE RETARDATION C-17

ONCE EMPLACED IN A DEEP GEOLOGICAL RESPOSITORY,THE PRIMARY TRANSPORT MECHANISM iS GROUNDWATER MAN WASTES l

LIMIT WATER FLOW TO & FROM WASTES 1

4 C-18

l ONCE EMPLACED IN A DEEP GEOLOGICAL RESPOSITORY,THE PRIMARY TRANSPORT MECHANISM IS GROUNDWATER v

MAN I

WASTES GR UNDWATER KEEP WATER FROM WASTES 4

C-19

Some Key Points to Consider:

As we project forward in time:

o Confidence in predictions decreases e Radiotoxicity discreases i

l l

i C-20

l Some Key Points to Consider:

As we project forward in time:

• Confidence in predictions decreases e Radiotoxicity decreases l

Confidence in Controls l

Time (Yrs) 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Administrative

.k l2" c""

N -~~

-~~

co ?1 C-21

Some Key Points to Consider:

As we project forward in time:

o Confidence in predictions decrLases e Radiotoxicity decreases 10' 10' 1

& 10' y

Hg2.6%

X Cr 24.0%

S e 10' 3

pas.8%

i e

4 cc 10' i

Uranium 1

ore 0.2%

10-'

i i

i I

i 10' 10' 105 10' 105 10' Years after removal from reactor i

I I

I l

l l

C-22

-1 Some Key Points to Consider:

As we project forward in time:

e Confidence in predictions decreases e Radiotoxicity decreases The time during which masonabij confidence in controls exists is areater than the time required for the waste toxicity to decrease below that of naturally occuring bodies of ore l

r C-23

Objective:to familiariza you with some of the key considerations & noals of the waste management standards development program in order to:

)

. Assist you in understandina our proaram e Provide you with an overview of the measures we consider to be necessary to protect the public health B safety and the environment

\\

e Take advantage of your diverse backgrounds & regionalinterests to gain f urther insiahts into the program needs I

1 C-2;

=

Objective: Build HLW Regulatory Base-ASAP Develop data base 76 78 HLW program Establish standards elements

'78 '80 Licensing methodology

'78 '80 Proposed Reg - Spring '78 Final Reg

- Fall 78 Guides

- Winter 78 Position Papers - Fall 77 Maior iElements for Licensing l

1 l

l C-25

Objective: to provide timely, ef fective, & balanced waste management standards Timely Effective Balanced e Ready when e Keyed to program e Avoid over-needed needs regulation e Minimize lic.

• Provide performance e Require what delays objectives is necessary e Recommend implementation techniques i

C-26

i l

i l

j STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT As criteria are determined to be appropriate, appropriate means of implementation and dissemination must be determined Regulation Criterion

> Reg. guide e Time e impacts e Generic certainty Branch pos.

- Bases

- Detail l

C-27

The method used depends upon the flexibility intended, the nature of the information to be provided, & the allowable time Sets forth requirements Regulation Basis Provides objectives j

Needs Regulatory Provides guidance basis in guide regu-implementation methods lation Branch Fore-Inter.im guidance position runner 1

l I

l l

l r

C-28

General approach used in developing waste management standards (criteria) e Identify areas requiring NRC stds.

e Review existing NRC stds.

e Determine need for new stds. dev.

e Schedule development & implement plan

- Initial priority-regs e Assess data base quality e Assess Reg. guide potential e Developintegrated program l

4 C-29 L

Criteria Development Identify

- Develop Identify need data base risks

/

/

Identify Scope Develop potential otential Strawman criteria criteria duc ng risks Review Revise & develop Strawman preliminary criteria criteria for EIS C-30

Goal: to implement a philosophical objective through the use of an unbiased data base Data base

') Interpretation

) Criterinn Contractor NRC e Unbiased study e Interpret results Identify potential e Develop criteria e

concerns &

consistent with limitations objectives &

data base i

l 1

l C-31

Rulemaking Proceeding Preliminary DEIS Preliminary draft criteria

?

prepared y

development regulation -

complete prepared Proposed FEIS Comrnents regulation complete evaluated published Redraft Publish regulation y

regulation 1

y I

s C-32

l 1

.A z

s P

l I

I If l

f. ;

(

~

b

/

. =} t 0

\\N 1,

1 u, g

E

! _ >s,.f p

1 a-g i e, 't :!:.

cq g f sjuj NUCLEAR REACTOR mums SPENT FUEL T

]

i U

p =m Ob11

-- ld

l. M l

SPENT FUEL PROCESSING mmmm WASTE m

m phnt!S

-W.

- A-&::y5_

^=M:

~ 4;,^ ru-

[D d7"P%_-a C~I

m. -b[d 17--.

g. _

~T--

xAr, gh

- e'- - % -

"7f.i <. [i. t;,,

4.* f.I J *,*,.;I

'M-T7"'

, "., *,:. Qd% ',

v

', 'g Q

m 4mm g 3- -..

.i H ~ h H

w h

'M M

,.f. -

/ ~

FEDER AL FINAL DISPOSITION C-33

~

h' - - i

?4

.~1

' C' '(*d f:ftrihtF namor anoo c,-M. -a,na

~

e N~..._-3 s

_ __. _ __._-, g,

. -x I

e} t '.

t r

i

,i

~

~r y r cm Ji_

l

/-I i

e u

4 1 w

4

- - -.- '~,g, j

W J

N 4

...h

1. 1

.;,r"i c'M,i '4 CORROSION-RESISTANT STRUCTURES

' ':' -,1[(' CORROSION. RESISTANT 2

 :.; +

CONTAINERS

'r1lf:'rti n L h'+ : T V c1 r1 !..

e l

j'

'\\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\\\A\\ \\\\ \\\\7 a

-(

4:: 5\\ \\

y e

)

m

. C

, ;7,,

(

.t s a

\\

l

/

... I

(* D %,e - 'u','. d ', 'u' ' d ' "

w

_.,..,, j WAST E,

,'t g

L"

--. B ACKFILL 1

.E,

. u.

s g

f.f-

j C-34 1

i l

Protect environment Protect public Effective management f Timely & comprehensive health & safety j of HLW/TRU regulatory actions I

R i

l Waste Design Admin.

Siting Operat.ing Decomm.ission.

form perform.

proced.

criteria specificat.

obj.ectives criter.ia criteria i

i IGenerall n

4 Purpose & scope

- Volat:hty lthermat

- Ownership h control

- Desagn h constructuen

- 'Receiveng"

- Mariagement of mined

{

twhat & whyl mechamsm)

- Medes suitability (mining.

O A*

• requirements materials ut

- Gee, erat information

- Particulate despersion integrity. waste

- Protection agamst

- Waste accountabihty

- Backf*hmg cetteria idefmetions communi-Emechan6 cell interactionst naturst. en ternal

- Reportmg

- Seaf testmg cations)

- teachabiinty (chemical)

- Barreers to radionuchde phenomena *

- Content of apphcations

- Chemicat.radiologitat.

'elease stransport

- Barners agamst

- Testmq h memtenance

- D D of surface facihties Igenerst requirementst thermal stability 1+mners) opeestmg tong term

- Persone e uit is

- TBD

- Licensing procedures ipressertration)

- Long term stability releases **

~ MWo"S 80 f *CdV isequonce of events Performance tests guide tassuring barrier

- Fire protection-and or secense hearmgs. authorizations) effectiveness) physic al protection..

- T echrucal const,amts

- Basis for NRC approvals

- Testmg & esplorat6on

- Testmg h r.n.amtenance

- Reporting requerements lprotectmg sitel provisions

- Personnel protectt >n lenv snessurements.

- Socioeconomic

- Thermat rettena waste b eccotantabehty,etc )

tresources, roc k interact,ons**

- ER format guede b transportation)

- Back fithng & seahng

- SAR format guide

- Testmg guides

• critersa* *

- Reportmg quedes

- Data sequ*rements

- Waste handimg systems guides

• critecality conteots**

- O A guide (geotogical'

~ General desig<a hydrological?

considerations **

- Long term ces. desa tions guede klematology.

• • Meterral to be demographyl addressed ia both regulations b guides

• Media specific General Considerations for HLW/TRU Waste Management Standards

CEOLOGIC SEC110N THR000H THE (og MEDAI40S AREA ntitUDE utiEns FEE 1 4000 + 2 "

@W Sarda Laboratwes 5,

1750' S100Y.._ _;

. AkEA SANTA ROSA 330c

~

M SANDS 10NL h-i

~ ~ ~ ~

k-

.! DEWEY LAKE icoo-t

( v".P RED BEDS 3000 g.

Q-c' l

. _ ! uSILER i

FORMATION 33o..rSco i

7 l

. gono M*"!

'_0*

ADO 500-

, Igut

-- FORM ATION 1500

%i -CowCEN AN"YORiTl 4000

~

250-t i

500

' ANHy0 RITE 3

i N

sut 4

sta ttytt..

k

' tASitLE I.

sui i.

-500 i

, pgRMA110M

- 250' t

1' i

s, 0

1 g

3

" MIL E S i

\\.s 0 g

g 3 4

6 mit0ME TE RS i

t C-36

MAN MAN DISTANCE

^

r m

ION EXCHANGE, DlLUTION, DISPERSION t

J AQUlFER

((

k r

MDILUTION WATER

\\

b 1 FLOW R ATE, ION EXCH ANGE

[FLOWTHROUGH)

SILTSTONE, g (I g

(ION EXCHANGE) n Y

T FLOW RATE

((

(

%'4 (ION EXCHANGE)

SALT, SH ALE, GR ANITE,...

) REPOSITORY [ FLOW THROUGH]

))

+ FLAW... " LOW" RATE OF FLOW SILTSTONE

(

[ FLOW FROM BELOW]

SHALE AQUlFER

))

l l

1 i

l l

l C-37

\\

Potable water Repository dq

(

T Depository Barrier zone Buffer rono i

l C-38

SITE SUITABILITY CRITERI A

'76 l

1977 l,78 OCT JAN APR JUL OCT JAN I

f i

i I

I I

I I

I I

I i

1 1

I I

I i

Publish reg /DEIS Draft Reg.

LLL DEIS EIS start i

N AS start i

Scope regs 1

t LLL report

- LLL start ESTF draf t report

- ESTF start (Earth se;ence task force) l l

i I

1 l

l C-39

l HLW Repository Site Suitability Criteria e Ownership & control e Barriers to radionuclide transport e Media suitability e Long term integrity e Testing & exploration e Socio econornics LLL Study (Internal)

/

Earth Peer NAS States science review panel workshops task group force 4

C-40

l l

l Criteria vs. Control Period Time (Yrs)

Criteria 1

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

e Waste form

~~-~

3:f,a"rll"""" mm e Site suitability

~~--

=a",eis M ----

T

)

C-41

l Criteria vs. Control Period f

Time (Yrs)

Criteria 1

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

f Material sciences e Waste form

-~~~

6:fra2:;,' '~*""

M ~~ ~ ~

l e Site suitability

~~-~

d in con rois e Principally directed at reducing risks during transportation Et handlinn e Potential for " longer term" control i

I l

l l

l l

C-42 l

~

Criteria vs. Control Period Time (Yrs)

Criteria 1

10 100 1.000 10,000 100.000 Y

Y Y

Y Y

y y

e Waste form (Materials & engineering 3:2"rl,' """""

N T__-

e Site suitability e Operating &

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -

admin. controls e Reduction of " operating phase" risks

)

e Preservation of site effectiveness l

I i

1 s

1 1

1 l

C-43

I

\\

Criteria vs. Control Period Time (Yrs)

Critoria 1

10 100 1,000 10,000 100.000 Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

e Waste form

~

o::w;,~"c-M

~~

Earth sciences

[ & anthropogenetic e Site suitability e Operating 6

~---

admin controls e Long term control e Minimize reliance on man e Overcome engineering limitations C-44

Criteria vs. Control Period Time (Yrs)

Criteria 1

10 100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -

e Waste form e Design / performance

,w,-~~

(f or f acility) l e Site suitability

--~-

l Institutional &

[anthropogenetic d in con rols I

s. Control over sphere of internal & externalinfluences e Short term measure (long-term implications) b C-45

I

)

.s n.;,.,s,,n, g.Nik W

-4

.., '. ~.,c"*~,,,,

9, r#,,,,y,..:;h,c4

-t 4

o 1

o

)

n

,j [

pgHk'{,(.

- II b-

,,, E f

h!

\\\\

/ya "N")

k,ll>\\,

e

,_7, flf,$k,.h /]/f E N ]

(yhk[Y{\\

U-

- JJJJ.

N' t

\\

Y3

\\

)

@;l ip' = m m-- 7~

l

//

.N)g.48;#

J,

},

'o;,/

Waste isolation Pilot Plant i

)

C-46

-