ML20154Q669
Text
.L p owxo cop h M. i c ca, t o 6 't i - i o+
2 JINI 1 4 12 7 0FFICIAL CONCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION RECORD MEMORANDUM FOR: Donalo A. Nussbaumer Assistant Director for State Agreement Prcgrams State Local and Indien Tribe Programs FPOM: Paul H. Lchaus, Acting Chief Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F PRELIMINARY DRAFT SITE AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRuhMENTAL CONSERVATION DATE:
DISTRIBUTION LLWM/SF 409.33 NMSS RF LLOB r/f LSaraka DMartin / PLohaus MRKnapp JGreeves J Ka ne .s ' MWeber KSchneider CONCURRENCES ORGANIZATION /CONCUREE INITIALS DATE CONCURRED LLOB/LSaraka N.c 06/&/87 LLOB/DHartin BrY)1 06//6/87 LLOB/PLohaus 'K/M /u
/b I '
06/ /87
'i l
1 880527 kh60 PDR RESNIMOBO-135 l l
f 0 /A if-/3 ask e- l I
JUN 161987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Donald A. Nussbaumer Assistant Director for State Agreement Programs State, local and Indian Tribe Programs FROM: Paul H. Lohaus Acting Chief Operations Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY DRAFT SITE AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION The Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decomissioning (LLWM) staff coments en the New York Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) i Preliminary Draft of Criteria for LLRW Disposal Facility Site and Technoloqy l Selection are enclosed for your use in responding to the June 3,1987 DEC request for comments.
We are aware of your office's sensitivity in scheduling sufficient time for NRC staff to conduct document reviews similar to this DEC request. However, we j request that your office emphasize to the New York DEC our need for sufficient i time to schedule and conduct reviews. l Also, we are concerned about providing coments on an incomplete regulation.
As you are aware, the preliminary criteria that DEC submitted only contain technical criteria that address siting and facility design criteria. We believe it would be useful for us to also review the technical requirements that will be contained in the complete New York State LLW regulation.
Finally, in the absence of reviewing a complete LLW regulation, we recomend that your office advise the New York DEC of the importance in avoiding the i development of a regulation that contains overly prescriptive criteria. A regulation that contains general criteria will provide the licensing authorities greater flexibility in considering applications to operate a LLW disposal facility.
Please contact Larry Saraka at extension 74554 if you have any questions about this review.
QE ..&
\c Paul H. Lohaus, Acting Chief
\, Operations Branch Division of low-level Waste Management and Decomissioning
Enclosure:
As stated
COMMENTS TO SLITP ON NY STATE DEC PRELIMINARY DRAFT CRITERIA FOR LLW DISPOSAL MEMORANDUM
- 1) Page 1, paragraph 2:
Note "performance criteria similar to those in Subpart C of 10 CFR 61."
For purpose of compatibility, do perfomance objectives have to be identical to those in 10 CFR 617
- 2) Page 2, paragraph 1:
This last sentence needs clarification. Specifically, how many State agencies are preparing the rulemaking for LLW disposal? How can these agencies ensure that the regulation will: 1) be consistent throughout and;
- 2) be comprehensive?
SUBPART D SITING CRITERIA FOR LLW DISPOSAL SITES 328.17 SCOPE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (a) Scope and Purpose
- 1) See memorandum comment number 1.
328.18 GENERAL SITING CRITERIA
. (i) SITING CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL TECHNOLOGIES (a) General j
- 1) Under criterion 3, suggest adding the words "of Subpart C" between "objectives" and "are".
- 2) Criterion 4 emphasizes groundwater and geologic systems that may affect facility performance. The proposed regulation does not indicate that hydrogeologic systems that may be affected by facility perfomance also need to be characterized, monitored, analyzed and modelled.
(b) Surface Waters and Hydroloqy ;
1
- 1) A third criterion should be included. This criterion should reflect the {
wording in 661.50 (a) (6) (ie, minimize upstream drainage). l 1
(c) Mineral and Exploitable Resources 1
- 1) The term "natural resources" as used in this criterion should be defined in order to eliminate any confusion between its meaning in criterion (c) and its meaning as used in criterion (j).
- 2) Suggest revising this criterion by deleting "past or present."
(e) Groundwater and Hydrogeology
- 1) Criterion I rray cause problems because it may direct siting toward very lcw perrteability rocks, which may compl1cate design of facilities to avoid "bathtubbing" problems. This criterion shculd be described in mure detail or deleted from the docun.ent.
(j)NaturalResources
- 1) See coninent (1) under Mineral and Exploitable Resources.
GENERAL COM ENT
- 1) The 10 CFR 61 site suitability criteria that are addressed under General Siting Criteria are: $61.50 (a) (2)(3)(4)(9) and (11).
(ii) SITING CRITERIA FOR ABOVEGROUND, BELOWGROUND YAULTS ONLY (a) Surface Waters and Hydrology ,
- 1) Criterion 4 is similar to but does not include all of the concepts in i 561.50 (a) (6) (ie. minimize upstream drainage). This criterion should be ,
expanded to accommodate all of 161.50 (a) (6).
)
GENERAL COMENTS 1
- 1) The 10 CFR 61 site suitability requirements that are addressed when considering For Abovegroundbothand Siting Criteria For Belowground Allare:
Vaults Technologies and Siting 661.50 (a) (2)(3)(4) 7)(8)(Criteria !
(9)(10)and(11).
l
- 2) This document lacks siting criteria for earthmounded concrete bunkers and l shaf ts (boreholes). We consider that these two alternatives along with aboveground and belowground vaults should meet the site suitability requirements in $61.50. Therefore, particular consideration should be given to ensuring that siting criteria for all these alternatives address as a minimum, the site suitability criteria in 10 CFR 61.
(iii) SITE CRITERIA FOR UNDERGROUND MINED REPOSITORY ONLY
- 1) We are not providing coninents on site criteria for underground mined repositories. Although an underground mine could be sited and licensed on a facility-specific basis under existing regulatory provisions in 10 CFR 61, specific requirements for deeper land disposal methods such as mined cavities were not considered in the initial 10 CFR 61 rulemaking effort. See NUREG 1241 for additional staff consnents on alternatives.
3 SUBPART E DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA 382.19 SCOPE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY
- 1) No specific coments.
GENERAL COMMENT
- 1) Previously (2/10/87 teleconference) NRC staff bad provideo coments to NY State DEC on its RFP to develop siting and design criteria for a LLW disposal facility. One concern that was presented at that time was that the 7/87 State requirement to prepare regulatory criteria for alternative methods for 'LW disposal is premature since NRC technical information on alternatives will not be published until 1/88 (This position should be reiterated). Consequently, the scope of review for the Disposal Technology Criteria sections has been limited. The criteria have been evaluated against 161.51 (ie. Disposal site design) and the concepts of 10 CFR 61.
Specific coments on design criteria for alternatives would better be made following NRC's publication of technical information and requirements in Janua ry, 1988.
382.20 DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS
, (1) TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL TECHNOLOGIES (a) General
- 1) Criterion 1 should be carefully analyzed for compatibility with 10 CFR 61 by SLITP and CGC.
- 2) Criterion 5, what is contained in Parts 370-374 of the referenced State Title? Also, are there any conflicts between New York's hazardous waste regulations and the proposed LLW regulations that would preclude mixed LLW disposal?
(b) Design
- 1) Criterion 2, suggest deleting "to" and replace with "and."
- 2) Criterion 3 should be expanded. Does DEC intend that this criterion mean that the facility, on its own, comply with the perfonnance objectives in 10 CFR 61 or, does it mean that the design should contribute to demonstrating compliance with the performance objectives of 10 CFR 61?
- 3) Criterion 5 may be inconsistent with the performance objective that addresses long-term stability with minimal maintenance (161.44).
Therefore, it is suggested that criterion 5 be rewritten. It could be stated that the design of the disposal facility should facilitate remedial actions, if necessery.
i 4
- 4) Criterion 6, suggest deleting "repository" and replace with "disposal unit ar.d site."
- 5) Criterion 7, should be deleted if criterion 6 is revised as suggested.
GENERAL COMPENT
- 1) The tem "active institutional control" should be defined or deleted.
- 2) The 10 CFR 61 disposal site design criteria that are addressed under Technology Criteria Applicable to All Technologies are: 661.51 (a) (1)(2) and (3).
- 3) The criteria in 382.20 appear to use the tems "site", "disposal site",
"disposal units", "disposal facility", and "structures" interchangeably even though each tem has its specific definition in the context of the proposed regulations. The document should be re-evaluated to ensure that these terms are being used consistently with their definitions.
(ii) TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA APPLICABLE FOR ABOVEGROUND AND BELOWGROUND YAULTS ONLY (a) Design
- 1) Use of tt.a tem "flooding" as used in criterion 4, appears to be inappropriate. Suggest substituting the word "saturating" for "flooding."
- 2) Suggest revising criterion 5 to read: The disposal units shall contain a reliable monitoring system to give early warning of the release of radionuclides from the disposal units before they leave the site boundary.
- 3) Suggest piccing criterion 9 before criteria 6-8. Criteria 6-8 can be perceived as sub-criteria that implement criterion 9.
GENERAL C0f94ENT
- 1) The 10 CFR 61 disposal site design criteria that are addressed when considering Technology Criteria Applicable to All Technologies and Technology) Criteria For Aboveground and Belowground Vaults Only are:
161.51 (a (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)and(6).
?) Major natural phenomena, as used in criterion 3 should be defined. Does major natural phenomena imply that probably maximum events should be used as design bases? It may be appropriate to remove this criterion from the proposed regulations and include it as guidance on how to demonstrate compliance with the proposed regulation.
, __.__.._.y _ __ - .. .y
5 i
(iii) TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA FOR ABOVEGROUND VAULTS CNLY (a) Design
- 1) Criterion 1, see General Coment 1 under Technology Criteria Applicable to All Technologies.
Also, suggest deleting "resist" ar.d insert "protect against inadverdent."
- 2) Criterion 2, if class A waste is disposed with class B and C waste it must be stabilized. This would require that class A waste be stable for 300 years, not 100 years as it is suggested in criterion 2.
- 3) Criterion 4 suggest deleting everything af ter the word "action." This concept is similar to the concept raised in General Comment 1 under Technology Criteria Applicable tc All Technologies.
(iv) TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA APPLICABLE FOR BELOWGROUND VAULTS ONLY (a) Design
- 1) Criterion 1, suggest deleting "resist" and insert "protect against."
- 2) Criterion 2, see connent 2 under Technology Criteria Applicable For Aboveground Vaults Only.
(v) TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA APPLICABLE FOR UNDERGROUND MINED REPOSITORY ONLY
- 1) We are not providing connents on design criteria for underground mined repositories. Although an underground itine could be sited and licensed on a facility-specific basis under existing regulatory provisions in ,
10 CFR 61, specific requirements for deeper land disposal methods such as l
mined cavities were not considered in the initial 10 CFR 61 rulemaking 1 effort. See NUREG 1241 for additional staff connents on alternatives. I l
382.3 DEFINITIONS '
It is our understanding that SLITP is reviewing the definitions section.
I l
l 1