ML20198H416
| ML20198H416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/21/1986 |
| From: | Linehan J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-84 NUDOCS 8605300345 | |
| Download: ML20198H416 (11) | |
Text
- -
DISTRIBUTION WM-85067
'- .t .
- G WI 5/Ea 3118. PPrestholt WMRP r/f TVerma NMSS r/f JGiarratana CF RJohnson-apR 211986 REBrowning PHildenbrand MJBell KStablein JBunting PDR' PJustus JTGreeves Robert Browning, Director JLinehan MEMORANDUM FOR:
Division of Waste Management o e 3 n JKennedy FROM: John Linehan, Acting Chief Repository Projects Branch, DWM ra e & r/f
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF DOE'S DRAFT AREA RECOMMENDATION REPORT
SUMMARY
RP staff have performed a " low-level effort" review of the draft Area Recommendation Report (ARR) for the Crystalline Repository Project issued by DOE January 1986. The review consisted of examining DOE's application of their Siting Guidelines (10 CFR Part 960). The draft ARR documents how the DOE Crystalline Repository Project narrowed the 235 candidate area rock bodies in 17 states to the twelve proposed Potentially Acceptable Sites (PAS's) in seven states. The results of the staff review of the material in the ARR indicate that DOE has applied the appropriate provisions of their Siting Guidelines in identifying the proposed PAS's and that the identification was done in a manner consistent with how the Siting Guidelines were to be applied at this decision stage of the site selection process.
BACKGROUND As you are aware, the NWPA does not require NRC to participate in site screening / nomination / recommendation process beyond that of the Commission concurring on the Siting Guidelines. However, the Commission's interest goes beyond concurring in the guidelines to how DOE applies their guidelines. This is important as the application of the guidelines by DOE ultimately affects whether or not NRC will be able to adopt the DOE Environmental Impact Statement that will accompany the repository license application for construction authorization. A more-detailed review of the ARR was determined to be inappropriate because of the preliminary stage of the site selection process which uses only regional data from the open literature. Furthermore, a more detailed review would not have been possible without first some review of the WM Record F e YlM Project O D0cket No.
f60530034560421 g
WM-84 WASTE gpg PDR v LPDR Distribution:
I
_ ___l .
(Return to WM,623 SS) .
E ,
o ,
118/SG/86/04/16
-2_
' voluminous supporting literature that 00E used in screening the sites as well as evaluating how DOE interpreted this regional data. This type of review would have exceeded the Division resources budgeted for the crystalline program review.
The Implementation Guidelines (10 CFR 960 Subpart B) of the DOE Siting Guidelines set forth the following requirements in the selection of PAS's:
960.3-1-4-1: Site Identification as Potentially Acceptable The evidence for the identification of a PAS's shall be the types of information specified in Appendix IV... Such evidence will be relatively general and less detailed than that required for nomination of a site as suitable for characterization.. .
...The sources of information shall include the literature in the public i
domain and private sector, when available...
l 960.3-2-1: Site Screening for Potentially Acceptable Sites j To identify PAS's for the development of other than the first repository, i the process shall begin with site-screening activities that consider large l land masses that contain rock formations of suitable depth, thickness and lateral extent... subsequent site screening activities shall focus on
- successively smaller and increasingly more suitable land units. This l process shall be developed in consultation with the States...
It shall be implemented in a sequence of steps that first applies the applicable disqualifying conditions to eliminate land units on the basis i of the evidence specified in 960.3-1-4-1 and in accordance with the application requirements set torth in Appendix III... ,
1 l ...To identify a site as potentially acceptable, the evidence shall
- support a finding that the site is not disqualified in accordance with the application requirements set forth in Appendix III of this Part and shall support the decision by DOE to proceed the continued investigation of the site on the basis of the favorable and potentially adverse conditions identified to date...
The required provisions of the Siting Guidelines were incorporated into a DOE document that established the methodology for identifying PAS's. This 0FC :WMRP:mkb :WMRP :WMRP : : : :
NAME :SGrace :RRBoyle :JJLinehan : : : :
DATE :04/ /86 :04/ /86 :04/ /86 : : : : i l
4
._ _ _ - . - ~ _ - _ _,_ - . . . - - . _ _ _ , . - - . . _ , . _
118/SG/86/04/16 document, the Region-to-Area Screening Methodology, released in final form April 1985, was developed by DOE over a 24 month period with direct participation from the 17 involved states (also included limited NRC participation). This methodology consists of four steps that are outlined in Enclosure 1.
The Region-to-Area Screening Methodology was then applied to the 235 preliminary candidate areas located in crystalline rock bodies in 17 states.
These were identified in the six regional geologic characterization reports that were finalized in September 1985.
STATUS As stated above, the staff review consisted of examining how DOE applied their Siting Guidelines using the Region-to-Area Screening Methodology. This was done without reviewing the regional supporting data and literature that DOE used to make their findings. Therefore, the DOE technical findings made in the ARR can not be substantiated by the NRC staff review. However, based upon our examination of the material available in the draft ARR, DOE has followed the Siting Guidelines and has: 1) identified the proposed PAS's in accordance with the methodology set forth in the appropriate provisions of the Siting Guidelines; 2) used the types of information specified in 10 CFR Part 960 Appendix IV; 3) made the determination that the proposed PAS's are not disqualified in accordance with the application requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 960 Appendix III; and 4) has found that continued investigations of the proposed PAS's can proceed on the basis of the favorable and potentially adverse conditions identified to date. As a result, the staff review has not identified any concerns with the methodology used by DOE in selecting the proposed PAS's, since the methodology appears consistent with what is called for in the Siting Guidelines.
The final ARR is scheduled for release in July 1986. This will identify the PAS's that will undergo approximately three years of field exploration and testing in order to identify the preferred site locations within each PAS. As DOE's crystalline repository program advances we will need to determine when to devote more staff resources to reviewing site-specific technical data for the crystalline repository program so that NRC will be prepared to review the environmental assessments for the second repository as was done for the first repository.
OFC :WMRP:mkb :WMRP :WMRP : : : :
NAME :SGrace :RRBoyle :JJLinehan : : : :
3___.: ___________:____________:___--_______:-___________:--_________-:--_-________:____--_-___
.DATE :04/ /86 :04/ /86 :04/ /86 : : : :
l r
118/SG/86/04/16 t
Also enclosed are a background paper (Enclosure 2) and a Question / Answer (Enclosure 3) on the NRC review of the-second repository development activities -
giving background, current activities and future activities relating to the crystalline repository project.
Because of the limited review we conducted, we are not proposing to send any type of comment letter to DOE on the draft ARR. We would be happy to provide you with a more-detailed briefing of the review of the ARR at your convenience '
if you so desire.
Sincerely, '
E EIdIS Bl' [
John J. Linehan, Acting Chief Repository Projects Branch Division of Waste Management ,
i
Enclosures:
- 1. Steps in Identifying PAS's
- 2. NMSS Background Paper
- 3. Question and Answer '
l l
l 1
l I
I l
I I
l 1
l 0FC :WMRP:mkb :WMRP 7: Ril : : : :
NAME$SGracelbkkk)$RRBoyle : e n $ $ $ $
_____..____ ._____.. _.._______... . ___._.._________.__..________....._______..______...._ 4 DATE $04/l$/86 $04/jI/86 $04 $ $ $ $
I
s'
, ,i , ,
ENCLOSURE 1 Steps in Identifying Potentially Acceptable Sites (from DOE Region-to-Area Screening Methodology)
The following is a summarization of the four steps laid out in the Region-to-Area Screening Methodology that incorporates the required provisions of the DOE Siting Guidelines (10 CFR Part 960) for identifying Potentially Acceptable Sites.
Step 1 Disoualifying Factors Screen o 5 of the 10 disqualifying factors appropriate for the regional scale from Appendix III of the Siting Guidelines o computerized data base to generate maps of disqualified areas Step 2 Scaled Regicnal Variables Screen o applicable potentially adverse and favorable conditions from guidelines as scaled (numerical scale, 1 to 5, denoting relative favorabilities) regional screening variables developed in 3 workshops with States / Tribes o relative favorability of land areas using 16 variables o weight sets regarding relative importance of variables (9 weight sets derived from 2 workshops)
Step 3 Sensitivity Analysis o explore implications of modifying variable scales o evaluate effects of using geometric mean (verses arithmetic mean '
weighted average) as an alternate index of aggregate favorability o evaluate effects of different sets of weights by comparing summary composite maps o allow further differentiation, if any, by incorporating other geologic variables base on available information 1
. . . - =- . . . . - . . . . . - - - . - . -. -
4 i
r Step 4 Selecting Candidate Areas
, e complete review of steps 1-3 o review additional qualitative / descriptive literature o review and application of Subpart B of the Siting Guidelines (as appropriate)
Diversity of Geohydrologic Settings 960,3-1-1 Diversity of Rock Types 960.3-1-2 Regionality 960.3-1-3 -
o application of all 10 of the disqualifying conditions specified in Appendix III of tee Siting Guidelines (5 applied in Step 1) l o evaluation of information from Appendix IV of the Siting '
j Guidelines (done in review of Steps 1-3) ;
I
?
8 l
v k
b I
2 i
J i
i
?
ENCLOSURE 2 W?1 Paper No; W8-13 Date: ADrfl 17. 1986 ,
NMSS BACKGRGUND FAFER ON STAFF REVIE'Ji 0F 00E CRYSTALLINE PEFOSITORY PROJECT ACTIVITIES Backg ound 4
l 0 NWPA specifies that 00E nominate at least 5 sitas for a second repository by 01/01/89. At least 3 of the sites r;ust put have been, nominated for the first reposito'ry.
6 With NRC ccr.currence DOE issued Repositcry siting Guideltnes j (10CFR960) December 1984.
Siting process divided into five phases:
4 -
screening .
- site nomination site reconnendation for charar.terization site characterization
- site selection i
- The second repository progran is presently in the screening
- phase which consists of the following
) -
a national servey, narrowing to regions i'
a regional survey, narrowing to identificatiot of potentially acceptable sitcs 'DAS's) an area survey, narrowing to the identification of the preferred site locatien within each PA$
a i o DOE issued final Region-to-Area Screening Methodology in April 1985, a
-developed with State / Tribal participation in three workshops and is the basis for selecting candidate areas and identifying PA5's
~
from the regional characterization reports o The NWPA does r.ct require NRC to participate in the site screening /
nomination /recontendation process beyond that of the Commission concurring on the siting guicelines. However, the Commissien's interest goes beyond concurring in tne guidelines to how 00E applies 1
7 - ,,-m i .- ~
,e,r,ir ,_~p = -, - . - g--,- S ~-
k their guideline as the application of the guidelines by .00E ultimately affects whether or not NRC will be able to adopt the DOE EIS (which accompanies the license application for repository construction authorization.)
o 00E issues in January 1986 the draft Area Recommendation Report (ARR) in which the 235 rock bcdies identified in the regional characterfration reports were narrowed to 12 proposed pA3's in 7 states (3 in MN; 2 each in ME, NC. and VA; and i each in NW, GA. and WI).
furrant Activities ,
o NRC has conducted 6 " low-level offort" rsview of the draft ARR 'which j centisted of examining DOE's application of their Siting Guidelfhes.
The results of the staff review of the sat & rial in ti!e ARP. indicate l that 00E has applied the appropriate provisions of their Siting Guidelines to identifying -the proposed PAS's and that the ider.tification was cone in a manner consir.!ent with how the Siting Guidelines were applied at this decision stage in the site selection ,
process. A mo'ce-detailed review of the ARR was determined to be inappropriate because of tne preliminary stage of the site selection process wnich uses only regicnal data from the open literature, furthermore, 3 more detail'd e ravi'w e wocid not have been posiible without first some review cf the valg.ninous supporting literatur6 C.at DOE used in screening the siter as well as evalucting how 00E interpreted this regional data. Tnis typ.e of review would Fave exceeded @ Division resources for. the crystallink program review.
Future Activities o As 00E's Crystalline REpcsitcry Project program advances A de:ision will te made on when additional Staff resources should be devoted to '
reviewing site-specific technical data for the Crystalline. Repository Project program so that NRC will be prepared to review the environmental assessments fo.c the 'second repository as wat done for the first repositcry.
o The final ARR is scheduled for release by DOE in July 1986. This will identify the FAS's that will undergo approximately three years of field exploration and testing in order to identify the preferred '
site locations within each PAS.
2
~
s o DOE is to issue a draft Area Characterization Plan (ACP) in June 1986 and the final ACP in December 1986. The ACP will describe the plans for acquisition of data necessary to support the nomination and recommendation of PAS's for site characterization. Area characterization activities are scheduled from December 1986 through January 1990.
o Once DOE completes the area characterization for the PAS's and identifies the preferred location for repository siting within each
! PAS, the next step for DOE is to nominate at least five PAS's as 4
suitable for site characterization (present step of the siting process for the 1st repository) and then recommend to the President three of the nominated sites for site characteriz;.; ion for the second repository.
WM
Contact:
Scott Grace, WMRP; Donna Mattson, WMPC, concerning state action.
3
~ -
ENCLOSURE 3 Question. What is NRC's role in the screening phase of the Crystalline Repository Project in identifying Potentially Acceptable Sites for the 2nd Repository?
Answer.
DOE has issued a draft Area Recommendation Report (ARR) which identifies proposed Potentially Acceptable Sites (PAS's) that have been selected from the 235 candidate areas in crystalline rock bodies identified in the regional survey completed in 1985. Twelve proposed PAS's in seven states were identified in the draft ARR using the Region-to-Area Screening Methodology (issued April 1985) that was developed in cooperation with the 17 involved states. The final ARR scheduled for release in July 1986 will identify the PAS's that will undergo approximately three years of field exploration and testing in order to identify the preferred site locations for repository siting !
within each PAS.
The NWPA does not require NRC to participate in the site screaning/ nomination /
recommendation process beyond that of the Commission's concurrence in DOE's Siting Guidelines (10CFR960). However, the Commission's interest in how the guidelines will be applied continues beyond its concurrence in the guidelines.
This is important as the application of the guidelines by DOE ultimately affects whether or not the Commission will be able to adopt DOE's EIS which accompanies the license application for repository construction authorization.
NRC has conducted a " low-level effort" review of the draft ARR which consisted of examining DOE's application of their Siting Guidelines. The results of the staff review of the material in the ARR indicate that DOE has applied the appropriate provisions of their Siting Guidelines in identifying the proposed PAS's and that the identification was done in a manner consistent with how the Siting Guidelines were to be applied at this decision stage in the site selection process. A more-detailed review of the ARR was determined to be inappropriate because of the preliminary stage of the site selection process which uses only regional data from the open literature. Furthermore, a more detailed review would not have been possible without first some review of the supporting literature that DOE used in screening the sites as well as evaluating now DOE interpreted this regional data. This type of review would have exceeded the Divisior, resources for the crystalline program review.
1
~ '
~ -
As DOE's Crystalline Repository Project program advances, a decision will be made on wilen additional staff resources should be devoted to reviewing site-specific technical data for the Crystalline Repository Project program so that NRC will be prepared to review the environmental assessments for the second repository as was done for the first repository.
The final ARR is scheduled for release July 1986. This will identify the PAS's that will undergo approximately three years of field exploration and testing in order to identify the preferred locations for repository siting within each PAS.
DOE is to issue a draft Area Characterization Plan (ACP) in June 1986 and the final ACP in December 1986. The ACP will describe the plans for acquisition of data necessary to support the nomination and recommendation of PAS's for site characterization. Area characterization activities are scheduled from December 1986 through January 1990.
Once DOE completes the area characterization for the PAS's and identifies the preferred location for repository siting within each PAS, the ne.vt step for DOE is to nominate at least five PAS's as suitable for site characterization (present step of the siting process for the 1st repository) and then recommend to the President three of the nominated sites for site characterization for the second repository.
2
- _ . - _