ML20198L125
| ML20198L125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1997 |
| From: | Curran D, Walker N CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH, HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198L090 | List: |
| References | |
| ML, NUDOCS 9710240251 | |
| Download: ML20198L125 (24) | |
Text
_____- -
- .o UNITED STATES OF AhiERICA U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhihilSSION BEFORE TI{E ATOhitC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the hiatter of
)
Louisiana Energy Services
) Docket No. 70 3070 (Claiborne Enrichment Center)
) October 16,1997
)
CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASil'S SURREPLY PROPOSED SUPPLDIENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REG ARDING CONTENTIONS B AND J.3 1.
INTRODUCTION
- 1. Intervenor, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (" CANT"), hereby submits the follov/-
ing Surreply Proposed Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding Con-tentions B and J.3 (hereinafter " Reply Proposed Supplemental Findings"). These Surreply Findings respond to arguments made for the first time in NRC Staff's Reply to Proposed Find-ings Regarding CL197-11 (October 14,1997)(hereinafter " Staff Proposed Reply Findings").
111.
Tile STAFF'S REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING ITS REVIEW OF TIIE NATIONAL ACADDIY OF SCIENCES STUDY ARE INCORRECT.
- 2. In paragraph 5 ofits Proposed Reply Findings, the Staff makes the following asser-tion in response to CANT's argument that the Staff ignored relevant and available data on retardation factors presented in a 1983 National Academy of Sciences report :i The Staff witness testified that the data cited in the NAS table was res lewed along with NAS report text that qualified the data presented in the table. Price, Tr.1116-17. With regard to the radium's retardation factor, the qualification cited by the Staff which is presented-in the NAS report is: "The numbers in Table 7-1 are not based on firm evidence." M. In light of the qualification pro-vided in the NAS report, the Staff's use of referenced experimental data was preferable. M.
Paragraph 5 contains several significant errors and misrepresentations.
- 3. First, contrary to the Staff's assertion, the Staff did not testify at the 1995 hearing that it had reviewed the NAS data. At the very transcript pages cited by the Staffin paragraph 5, the Staff's witness, Dr. Price, testified that:
1 The National Academy of Sciences ("NAS") report, issued in 1983, is entitled " A Study of the Isolation Systr.m for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes."
9710240251 971016 PDR ADOCK 07003070 C
pog l
2 Well, we are of course, aware of the National Academy study,d with the associ-and in particular with the summary table that provides values for retardations ar ated text that goes with th91 table. Neither the text nor the table provides cita-tions for the value. And in Mition, some of the associated text qualifies the values that are provided in the table.
We felt that we went to another reference, because it was a direct citation to experimental data, and we felt tliat we needed to rely on that, that that was a preferable route to go.
1995 Tr. at 1116. Thus, at best, the Staff reviewed Table 7-1 of the NAS study, the summary table of retardation factors.
- 4. Second, the Staff misleadingly represents the statement that "[t]he numbers in Table 7-1 are not based on firm evidence," as a quotation from the 1995 hearing transcript, by citing it as "hl.," immedictely following a previous citation to pages 11161117 of the transcript.
This language does not appear in the transcript at all. Instead, it is a quotation from page 202 in Sect on 7.10 of the NAS study, which provides textual explanation for the figures found in i
Table 7-1.
- 5. Because the Staff has quoted directly from the NAS study, we believe it is appropriate to review the cited portions of the study and determine whether they support the Staff's aesertion.2 We f nd that the alleged qualification regarding the lack of firmness of data applies to radium alone. No qualification is expressed, either in Table 7-1 or the accompany-ing text in Section 7.10, regarding the reliability of data reviewed by NAS for uranium, a crit-ical constituent in the Staff's analysis.
- 6. Moreover, although the Staff clains in paragraph 5 to have reviewed the NAS data, the record contains no evidence that the Staff reviewed the NAS study's data sources regarding retardation factors for uranium that are referenced in Section 7.10 of the NAS s:udy. Sec NAS Study at 198-199 and reference citations at 204-210.3 2
A copy of Table 7-1, Section 7.10, aad the references cited in Section 7.10 is attached.
3 The data sources cited in the NAS study are Deju, R. A., Basalt Waste Isolation Project Quarterly Report 1 April 30 June 1981, REO-BWi-81-100 3Q, Rockwell Hanford Oper-ations, Richland, Washington; and Wolfsberg et al., Sorption-Depsorption Studies on Tuff Ill: A Continuation of Studies with Samples from Jackass Flats and Yucca
.).
- 7. By making its new (and clearly erroneous) representation that it did review the NAS data, the Staff now appears to be abandoning its previous testimony that it did not review the data because the text of Table 71 did not present citations for the values represented therein.
1995 Tr. at 111617. We reject the Staff's attempt to change its testimony at the eleventh hour, and moreover we find that the data sources for Table 71 are clearly identified in Section 7.10. Accordingly, we conclude that the Staff had no justification for ignoring the data.
III.
TIIE STAFF IIAS FAILED TO REBUT CANT'S EVIDENCE TIIAT TIIE STAFF'S URANIUM DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR DEEP MINE DISPOSAL OF U308 ARE SCIENTIFICALLY INCREDIBLE.
- 8. In paragraph 7, the Staff responds to Dr. Makhijani's testimony that the Staff's uranium dose calculations are not scientifically credible, because they are much lower than doses that would be obtained from a well dug in ordinary soil. The Staff asserts that:
CANT's position appears to rely on the premise that the concentration of uranium in groundwater in contact with a source of solid phase uranium com-pounds depends primarily on the concentration of uranium in the source. As
- indicated by the FEIS, s[nce solubility is the primary characteristic determining release rates, the amount of uranium in groundwater does not in general depend on the solid phase concentration but on the groundwater characteristics and the amount of mixing and decay occurring during movement from the source to the receptor. FEIS at A 8 and A 10.
The Staff's response to Dr. Makhijani's testimony neither correctly represents his testimony, nor finds suppert in the FEIS.
- n. There is n.o record basis for the Staff's supposition that Dr. Makhijani's testimony relies on the premise that the concentration of the uranium in the source is the primary factor 9
affecting the concen'. ration of uranium in groundwater. The obvious import of Dr. Mak-hijani's testimony is that the concentration of the source of uranium in the soil is a key factor, among others, in determining the likely dose.
- 10. The FEIS also recognizes that the concentration of uranium in the source is a fac-tor affecting uranium releases:
(continued)
Mountain, Nevada, LA-8747-MS, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, May. Ses NAS study at 199,206,210.
4 The release rate of uranium and daughter radionuclides from the disposal facil-ity is limited by their solubility in water 9I by the total inventory of radionuclide --
present at the time of release.
FEIS at A-8 (emphasis added). Moreover, nothing in this statement asserts that solubility is the ' primary" factor affecting release rates, as the Staff asserts. It is simply one of two relevant factors cited, 11 Nor is the Staff's assertion supported by the FEIS's statement on page A-10, that:
For each of the sites it, the basalt and granite sites identified as models in the FEIS), release of rad.onuclides would be controlled by solubility limited dis-solution in water flowing through the disposal facility.
Nothing in statement nn be read to infer that inventory limited releases are generally -
Irrelevant to dose calculations, as the Staff would have it. We also note that this statement appears to be a purported conservat:sm, not a conclusion based on the data. Ssc CANT's Reply Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Contentions B and J.3 at 7, par.18 (October 14, 1997).
Respectfull submitted, Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, & Spielberg 2001 "S" Street N.W.
Suite 430 Washin ton, D.C. 20009
.(202) 3f8-3500 -
A)< M A1. W L h C.
Nathalie M. Walker Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund 400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 522-1394 October 16,1997
eid we e A Studyof the Isolation Systemfor GeologicDisposal ofRadioactiveWastes Waste Isolation Systems Panel BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources National Research Council
~
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.1983
. 4 g
I
147 TABLE 71 Solubilities and Retardation Factors of Some Hazardous Radios:tive Elements i!
i Solubility (los ppm)
Reducing: Eh = -0,2 Omidizing: Eh = +0.2 3,gg,'
Most I
Derne:t -
Probable pH = 9 pH = 6 pH = 9 pH = 6 Granite - Basalt Tuff Shale Salt 20 50 50
$0 50 200 Se
-3 (t) 200 200 200 200 1,000 10 50 20 50 1
Sr high
-0.2 high
-0.2 high 200 200 200 200 10 2,000 2,000 10,000 5,000 100 500 500 500 500 300 Zr 4
-4 4
4
-6 '
5,000
$,000 3,000 5,000 1,000 30,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 5,000 c
1 1
1 I
Tc
-3
-10 high high high 5
A 5
5
.5 40 100 100 20 20 100 100 200 200 10 Sn -
-3 (t)
-4 4
4
-4 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 100 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,000 10 10 10 10 5
100 100 100 100 30 Sb
-3 (t) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 1
1 1
I I
I high high high high high i
I l
l 1
m.s 1
50 t
l-1 N
B00 100 60 200 1
Cs
. high high high high high
- 1,000 1,000 500 1,000 10 10,000 10,000 10,000 20.000 2,000 10 20 20 20 Pb
-1
-1 0
-1 0
50 50 30
$0 20
'N, 200 500 500 500 100 50 50 30 50 5
Ra
-2
-3
-1 3
-l 500 500 500 500 50 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 500 N.
500 500 500 500 300
'N Th
-3
-4
-4
-4
-4 3,000 5,000 5,000 3,000 1,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 5,000
~
10 20 5
50 10 U
-3
-3
-5 high high 50 50 40 200 20 500 1,000 200 5,000 60 to 10 10 10 10 Np
-3
-4
-4
-2
-l 100 100 100 100 50 500 500 500 400 300 10 100 50 500 10 Pu 3
-5
-4
-5
-3 200
$00 200 1,000 200 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 10,000 l
500 60 300 200 300 Am
-4 (t)
-8
-8
-3 3,000 500 1,000 000 1,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 5,000 200 100 100 200 200 2,000 500 500 2,000 1,000 C:a
-3 (t) 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 3,000 NOTE: See Section 7,10 for comments, explanation, and bibliographic references, Boldfaced values of retardation factors are those that K,3. Krauskopf considers to be suitably conservative for predicting the performance of conceptual reposi-tories (Chapter 9).
SOURCE: Compiled by K 8, Krauskopf, Stanford University, x
194 mineral resources.
Because the brackish and saline pore fluids are presently unattractive for normal uses and better-quality water supplies are available elsewhere at shallower depths, the likelihood of accidental future human intrusion in seards for water is very low.
South of Maryland the coastal plain extends farther inland, with consequences fer depth of sedimentary rocks, presence of aquifers, salinity distribution with depth, and potential resources that must be evaluated.
Data are adequate to emphasize the marked advantages of a crystalline rock repository overlain by a regional aquifer, but detailed studies of potential sites are essential.
Although this example is mainly for the many potential coastal sites, favorable combinations of crystalline rocks overlain by regional aquifers also exist on the flanks of many interior bedrock structural highs.
Some of these have significant potential for organic fuel resources and mineral deposits, which must be evaluated.
7.10.
EVALUATION OF DATA FOR SORPTION AND SOLUBILITIES 7.10.1.
Introduction Table 7-1 is a summary of data available in the published literature on the solubilities and retardation f actors of important radionuclides in the major proposed geologic media. An attempt is made to supply a single number that can safely be used for the solubility and retardation f actor of each nuclide in each medium under the most probable repository s
conditions--pH between 6 and 9 and Eh between 0.2 and -0.2 V.
For solubilities these are the numbers in the column headed "Most Probable,"
and for retardation f actors they are the bold-f aced numbers in each group of three for each element. Single numbers for elements with more than one oxidation state (aspecially technetium, uranium, neptunium, plutonium, and tin) must be used with caution, because both solubilities and retardation f actors for these elements are very sensitive to slight changes in Eh.
To give an idea of possible variations, the table includes additional numbers for solubility under different assun.ed repository conditions and for extremes of reported retardation f actors.
The single numbers in all cases are chosen to be conservative but not absurdly so.
In selecting data for more detailed performance analyses of actual repositories, it is important that the local conditions of pH and Eh be known.
Actual measurements of dissolved oxygen in groundwater are needed.
In dense rocks in particular, the whole-rock mineralogy is not necessarily an indicator of the redox conditions of water moving through fractures.
7.10.2.
Solubilities The numbers in the " reducing" and " oxidizing" columns of Table 7-1 are in part taken from published experimental work and in part calculated
195 from thermochemical data. The "most probablq" values (for pH 6 to 9 and Eh 0.2 to -0.2 V) are estimated from these limits.
Because thermochemical data for some elements are uncertain and because solubility is influenced by many f actors (notably grain size, degree of hydration, and presence of complex-forming ligands in groundwater), the estimated values are higher than, or at least as high as, the numbers given for comparable conditions in the " reducing" column for pH 9.
A good deal of subjective judgment is necessarily involved in choosing the most probable values. The designation "high" means that solubility is greater than 10 ppb and hence could not be an ef fective control of radionuclide concentration.
For saae elements, solubilities are simply not known, either from thermochemical data or from experiments, and the numbers given are guesses based on chemical similarities (tin, antimony, selenium, and curium). For technetium and neptunium, it should be emphasized that solubilities woulo be considerably greater than the "most probable" value under only slightly more oxidizing conditions.
Data for americium are especially perplexing earlier work suggests solubilities on the order of 1 ppm, hence not controlling, but the paper by Rai et al.
(1981a) at the Pacific Nor thwest Laboratory (PNL) gives good evidence for the numbers listed in Table 7-1.
7. 10.3.
Retardation Factors Most 6f the retardation f actors (K) in Table 7-1 are calculated from measured values of the distribution coefficient (Ka; by:
K = 1 + pKd(1 - C)/C e where c is the porosity, i.e., the water volume divided by the volume of solid plus water, o is the density of the solid phase, and Kd is the distribution coefficient expressed in cubic centimeters per gram.
A value of 10 is assumed for p (1-c )/c, which seems safely conservative because rock densities are seldom less than 2 g/cm3 and porosities are seldom greater than 20 percent.
Recorded Kd values and retardation f actors for most elements cover an enormous range, reflecting differences in experimental conditions and techniques of measurement. Choosing reasonably conservative values requires subjective judgment not only about the numbers themselves but about quality of the experimental work, particularly the relevance of the experimental conditions to the probable conditions in a reoository.
For each nuclide and each geologic medium, Table 7-1 gives three values:
the first is a rock-bottom conservative figure, chosen from the lowest experimental figures reported and almost certainly lower than would be expected in nature; the second is a reasonably conservative estimate for most expectable repository conditions; and the third is a number picked f rom higher values in the literature that seem possible but a little high for conservative use. The range in each group of three reflects the f act that retardation f actors cannot be specified more closely than about an order of magnitude, because their measurement i
196 is difficult and because they are influenced by many environmental factors.
The retardation numbers for tuff in Table 7-1 include all varieties of this rock (fresh, devitrified, zeolitized, etc.) but for the sake of conservatism are weighted toward the less-sorptive types.
In the " clay, soil, shale" column, experimental values are lumped that seem to depend largely on sorption by clay mineralst such numbers may well be applicable to weathered or altered granite and basalt with clay-lined fractures.
The column for salt does not refer to sorption on rock salt itself (which is very small) but to sorption on ordinary rocks near a salt repository where groundwater presumably contains much dissolved Nacl.
These numbers are particularly uncertain because they obviously depend on the concentration of salt as well as other variables.
In measuring Kd values some authors have not been careful to ensure that the original concentration of sorbate was less than its solubility limit, so that the Kg values may be inflated by the amount precipitated rather than sorbed. This may be responsible for some of the very high values in the literature for plutonium, americium, and curium, and perhaps also for thorium, zirconium, and tin.
From the practical standpoint of radionuclide movement, the questionable K values are probably not important, because the combination of d
insolubility and at least reasonably high retardation would in any event keep concentrations of these elements below MPC values.
Some apparent anomalies in Table 7-1 have no clear explanation, except that they generally involve results from different laboratories that used somewhat different materials or techniques.
should tuff sorb uranium less well than granite or shale?Why, for example, Why should basalt be less effective for americium and curium than granite?
Why should sorption of americium, curium, and selenium be apparently just as strong or stronger from brines than from dilute groundwater, whereas for most elements the sorption from brines is much less?
Such questions probably have little actual significance because they may refer to different kinds of starting a terials or different experimental techniques.
Sorption data are very.;anty for curium, radium, lead, tin, selenium, and antimony, and the numbers for these elements are little better than guesses.
7.10.4.
Notes on Individual Elements Strontium (Sr)
Solubility Strontium forms two somewhat insoluble compounds with common constituents of groundwater, SrSO4 and SrCO. Neither would hold 3
the concentration anywhere near 10 ppb under repository conditions.
At pH 9, calculation indicates that SrCO in water with HCO at 3
0.002M would give about 0.6 ppm of Sr + to the solutions this result agrees with a more sophisticated calculation of Muller et al. (1981).
No complexes are known that would influence solubility.
l g
I 197 Re ta rdation Strontium is a f avorite element for sorption experiments; many values are recorded in the literature, and the values have an enormous range:
16 to 3,000 for granite; 160 to 11,000 for basalt; 20 to 200,000 for tuff; 100 to 400,000 for clay; and 0.2 to 40,000 for rocks in concentrated brine. The number 200 picked for all the rocks in dilute groundwater is a conservative average for experiments that use simulated repository conditions and seem to be well done. No reason is evident for the very high reported numbers; some may represent formation of slightly soluble compounds rather than sorption. There seems general agreement that sorption from brine is much less than from dilute solution. The ultraconservative mininum values record common experience that crushed very fresh rock is not a good sorbent for strontium; probably sorption in ordinary granite and basalt is enhanced by the usual slight alteration of feldspara to sericite or clay minerals.
Cesium (Cs)
Solubility Cesium normally forms no insoluble compounds with comron anions, but it can be trapped in analcime, a sodium zeolite that accommodates some cesium if available during crystallization (Keith et al., in press).
Retardation Like strontium, cesium has been very extensively studied, and ranges of reported values are equally large. There seems general agreement that cesium is strongly sorbed on common rocks from dilute solutions but not from brines. Sorption is especially strong on rocks that have layer-silicate minerals (micas and clay minerals). When strontium and cesium are compared, much greater sorption of the latter is commonly noted. The somewhat smaller figures for Puff are simply from averaging experimental data, and the differences almost certainly have no real significance.
Technetium (Tc)
Solubility Technetium is very soluble in groundwater as TcO -
4 under oxidizing conditions, but it precipitates as the very insoluble TcCh when conditions are reducing. Unfortunately, thermochemical data for technetium are not well enough known to set the boundary between these two forms precisely. The numbers in Table 7-1 are from Bondietti and Francis (1979) ; the enormous difference in solubility between pH 6 and pH 9 is a consequence of the large coefficient of H+ in the equations 4
TcO2 + 4H+ = Tc + + 2H O 2
and TcO2 + 2H O = TcO
+ 3 e + 4H +.
2 4
l 1
198 Muller et al. (1981) describe Bondietti and Francis's estimate as "no well enough supported to be acceptable," and simply say the solubility of reduced technetium is "certainly low."
Smith et al. (1981) choose a value of 1 ppb, based on Bondietti and Francis's experimental result and old thermochemical data given by Pourbaix (1966).
The National Waste Terminal Storage (NWIS) in response to panel questions, gives much lower calculatedProgram 1981),
results, but then says, "They can hardly be considered realistic."
The figure of 1 ppb seems safely conservative, provided conditions remain fairly reducing and slightly alkaline but the solubility increases rapidly with slight increases in either ecidity or redox potential.
Retardation There is general agreement that TcO ~, the probable form of technetium under even slightly oxidizing conditions, is very 4
slightly sorbed.
Johnstone and Wolfsberg (1980), whose work seems very good, give experimental Kd values for tuf f 'snging from 0.2 to 2.0 ml/g for experiments in air, and values fro.- 3 to 118 ml/g for experiments in N. Other quoted K 2
(e.g., Muller et al.1981), but most are below 20.d values range up to 1,000 ml/g Muller et al. note that the form of technetium under reducing conditions is unknown but 2
is probably Tc + or Tc(OH)2+; since these are cations, they should show some sorption.
For slightly reducing conditions, at least slight retardation (f actor of 5 in Table 7-1) seems probable, but a factor greater than 100 is not justified for any of the rocks.
Iodine (I)
Solubility Iodine would be present under reducing conditions as I" and under oxidizing conditions as I2 or 10 ' (depending on 3
pH).
All of these are soluble under any imaginable repository conditions.
Retardation There is wide agreement that iodine shows little or no retardation.
Cloninger and Cole (1981), however, report an experimental value of 5 ml/g for Kd in basalt.
Uranium (U) solubility Uranium is soluble under oxidizing conditions (Eh greater than +0.1 V) in the form of UO2+,
If much CO32 is present (not likely under repository conditions), it is soluble even in reducing conditions as low as Eh = -0.1 V, as a carbonate complex.
Phosphate and fluoride complexes are stable enough to increase solubility appreciably if these ligands are present in amounts only slightly greater than those in ordinary groundwater.
Deju (1981c) recorde experimental solubilities between 2 x 10-3 and 2 ppm for basalt groundwater at pH 9 to 10 and Eh -360 to -410 mV.
He notes
199 x 10 ghe theoretical solubility under these conditions is less than 2 that ppm. Calculations done by the NWFS Program Staf f (U.S.
Department of Energy 1981) in response to panel questions give solubilities for reducing gonditions in different kinds of groundwater r ang ing f rom 10-2.6 to 10-6 ppm; Heckman and Donich (1979) give less than 10-10; Wood and Rai (1981) suggest 10-3 at pH 9 and 10-5 at pH 6 Muller et al. (1981) calculate 10-6.3 for the solubility of crystalline UO2 at pH 6 but note that the figure would be greater by more than five orders of magnitude for amorphous UO +
2 Smith et al. (1981) adopt a value of 10-3 ppm af ter reviewing several sources. The figure of 10-3 ppm seems safe, but solubility is strongly dependent on Eh, complexing agents, and crystallinity of the solid.
Retardation Deju (1981a) gives experimental Kd values for fresh basalt f rom 6 to 170 for reducing conditions and 2 to 70 under oxidizing conditions, then notes that the numbers are much higher (30 to 1,200) for clay and zeolites in cracks in the basalt (through which groundwater would presumably travel). Wolfsberg et al. (1981) cite experimental values for devitrified tuff ranging from 0.5 to 14 ml/g and for zoolitized tuff from 2.3 to 57 ml/g. Other figures for retardation range up to 5,000 (still higrar if organic matter is pr esent), but most are under 500.
There seems general agreement that sorption is less from brine than from dilute solution. The relatively low figures for tuff in Table 7-1 are based on Wolfsberg's work.
1 Neptunium (Np)
Solubility Neptunium, like uranium, is soluble (as NpO2+ and NpO ")
under oxidizing conditions but forms an insoluble dioxide 2
under reducing conditions. The transition is not well defined by available thermochemical data. For an Eh of 0.2 V, Rai et al. (1982) give 0.1 ppm at pH 6 and 0.01 at pH 8; the diagrams of Simon and Orlowski (1980), on the other hand, suggest 10-3 under these conditions and about twice that value if CO2 is present. Muller et al. (1981) calculate 10-7 *3 ppmatpH6underreducingcondition{,7 and a thousand times smaller at pH 8.
adopt 10-3. ju (1981c)The figure of 10-3 ppm Da suagests 10~
at pH 7; Smith et al. (1981) seems safe, but the solubility, like that of uranium, is strongly influenced by Eh, complexing agents, and crystallinity of solid NpO '
2 Retardation Allard et al. (1980) taport Ed values for minerals separated f rom granite and basalt in the range of 30 to 500 ml/g under oxidizing conditions. Muller et al. (1981) note that neptunium probably exists chiefly as NPO +, a singly charged and weakly 2
sorbed complex, and estimate Rd values between 0 and 100. Wolfsberg et al. (1981) give experimental Ke values of 6 ml/g on devitrified tuf f and 20 ml/g on zeolitized tuff, both under oxidizing conditions.
Cloninger and Cole (1981) choose retardation factors of 50 for basalt
200 and 670 for granite; Burkholder et al. (1975) use 100 for K.
Smith d
et al. (1981) adopt 100 for a retardatica factor.
Foley et al. (1981) give retardation f actors of 50 for basalt, 666 f or granite, 460 for shale, and 230 for sorption from brine.
Data summarized by Moody (1981) result in retardation factors ranging from 500 for granite to 1,500 for tuf f and basalt under reducing conditions, and from 10 to 100 under oxidizing conditions. The data are confusing and the numbers in Table 7-1 are little more than guesses.
Plutonium (Pu)
Solubility Like neptunium and uranium, plutonium is soluble under oxidizing conditions (as Pu02 + in acid solution and hydroxy 2
complexes at neutral and high pH) and precipitates as the dioxide under reducing conditions. The stability field of the dioxide is larger than that for uranium and neptunium, so plutonium is generally les 10-9 soluble. Calculated solubilities are very low, generally below ppm for all reasonable repository conditions, but experiments suggest higher values.
Some convincing experiments by Rai and Ryan (1981) give solubilities of PuO2 st pH 7 of 10-3 ppm and of Pu(OH)4 30 times higher; both valuss decrease by a f actor of 10 per unit increase in pH.
Extrapolating experimental results on borosilicate glass, Wood and Rai (1981) estimate solubilities of 10-3 and 10-4 ppm for oxidizing and reducing conditions at pH 6 and a solubility of 10-5 for both conditions at pH 9.
Smith et al.
(1981) adopt 10-3 Muller et al. (1981) estimate a high solubility (as Pu3+ ppm.
) under reducing conditions at pH 6 and 10-3* 7 ppm at pH 8.
A figure of 10-3 ppm seems safe, with the usual cautions about complexes, Eh, and crystallinity.
Retardation The numerous studies of plutonium sorption are unanimous in suggesting high values, even from strong brines.
Very few numbers for retardation in the literature are below 200, and high values range up to 900,000.
The numbers in Table 7-1 are conservative averages f rom experimental work that looks reliable.
Many authors note that the numbers may be influenced by complexing, especially with organic ligands.
Americium (Am)
Solubility There is great conf usion about the solubility of americium, presumably because the basic thermochemical data are poor.
It is generally agreed that the only stable oxidation state in solution is +3 and that higher oxidation states are strong oxidizing agents; whether Am02 is sufficiently insoluble to exist as a solid in repository environments, despite its oxidizing properties, seems to be a matter of debate.
Apps et al. (1977) do not even mention AmO in their compilation of thermochemical data, noting only that 2
the
201 stability field of AmO + is far outside of terrestrial 2
conditions.
Data summarized by Moody (1981) show AmO2 as the stable solid under low-Eh conditions and AmO OH at high Eh.
Wood and Rai 2
(1981) maintain that "it is expected that Am(III) solid and solution species will be stable throughout the environmental pH range.
Eh should not, therefore, be an important f actor for Am solubility. "
Early estimates of americium solubility are hight Smith et al. (1981) make it 50 ppm; Foley et al. (1981) suggest 10-2.7 ppm; and Muller et al. (1981) describe americium an "relatively soluble" but give no definite value.
The NdTS values seem absurd, and the authors themselves describe them as " highly suspect."
Recent work leaves the solubility of americium still ambiguous.
l Edelstein et al. (1983) measure the concentration of americium remaining in solution af ter precipitation from a 0 lM NaClO 4
solution at pH over the range 5 to 10, and they report values of about 0.002 ppm at pH 9, 0.2 ppm at pH 8, and greater than 10 ppm at pH 7 and lower.
They describe these numbers as "an upper limit to the solubility of amorphous Am(OH)3," although the precipitated solid was not analyzed. Much lower figures were obtained by Rai et al.
(1981a) in solutions formed by shaking contaminated sediments at Hanford with 0.0015M CaC1 :
10~4*7 ppm at pH 6 and 10-7 *7 2
ppm at pH 9.
They were urtble to identify the solid compound of americium, but they conclude that it would resemble a solid that might be precipitated under repository conditions. Similar solubilities are recorded by Deju (1981) and by Wood and Rai (1981) but are probably based on the same work.
Because Rai et al. used conditions more closel resembling a repository situation, their numbers seem preferable to those of Edelstein et al. for present purposes, and 10-4 ppm seems a reasonably conservative guess for maximum solubility. The concentration that might be obtained by rapidly neutralizing an acidic americium solution, however, would doubtless be much higher.
Retardation There seems a general consensus that americium is strongly sorbed by all common rocks at pH values expected in a repository environment, even from fairly concentrated brines.
The lowest number recorded is a retardation factor of 60 for basalt (Cloninger and Cole 1981); high values range up to 500,000. With regard to brines, Muller et al. (1981) deviate from the majority opinion by suggesting Kd values in the range of 1 to 100; but at least some of the work they quote was done at pH 1 to 4, where the sorption is indeed low.
Recent experimental work giving high values is reported by Johnstone and Wolfsberg (1980), Beall et al.
(1980),
Cloninger and Cole (1981), and Allard et al. (1980). No reason is evident why basalt should be less sorptive than granite, especially for an element that is not influenced by Eh, so Cloninger and Cole's low figure needs checking. As for the other actinides, the solubility and retardation of americium may be markedly influenced by ligands that form complexes with Am +.
3
203 Curium (Cm)
Solubility Published laboratory data for curium are nonexistent, and guesses are based on similarity to americium. Muller et al. (1981) suggest high solubilities for both elementst most others low side. The 1 ppb listed in Table 7-1 is a pure guess, guess on the and the question mark beside it is important.
Retardation As is true for americium, reported values for curium are uniformly high, but dependable experimental data are scarce.
Radium (Ra)
Solubility Like the other alkaline-earth metals, radium forms a moderately insoluble sulfate and carbonate. The sulfate is about four orders of magnitude less soluble than SrSO 2
4 but still would hold the concentration of Ra + only to about 10-6.4M or 0.1 ppm (for assumed SO42. to-4 ).
The numbers for pH 9 in Table 7-1 are M
based on the dubious assumption that the carbonate is less soluble to about the same extent, but no recorded value was found.
solubility will not be an effective control for radium.
In any event, Retardation Scant experimental data suggest stronger sorption than for Sr'*, and this agrees with the general tendency for increasing sorption with increasing atomic weight in the first two columns of the periodic table.
The numbers in Table 7-1 are not based on firm evidence.
Lead (Pb)
Solubility Lead in a repository environment would have the single valence 2+ and could precipitate as the moderately insoluble PbSO or PbCO.
Numbers in Table 7-1 are calculated for these compounds, 4
3 on the assumptions that 2 = 10-4M SO4 and HCO ' = 0.002M.
3 In a more sophisticated calculation taking account of complexes, Hem (1976) arrives at 2 ppm for pH 6 and 0.2 ppm for pH 9.
Thus, lead concentrations are not effectively controlled by solubility.
This might not be true, however, for dilute solutions containing sulfide ion 10-d7.5),because lead forms the very insoluble PbS (solubility product
203 l
Retardation The same set of numbers reported by Moody (1981) and the NWTS Program Staf f (U.S. Department of Energy 1981) is probably based on experiments at PNL. They suggest modest sorption, less in salt water than in fresh. The difference between numbers for basalt and granite is puzzling.
Thorium (Th)
Solubility The dominant form of thorium in solution at pH values O
above 5, according to Ames and Rai (1981), is Th(OH) s for its
+3 concentration in equilibrium with Th02 they give 10~
ppm. Th e same number] given by Bondietti and Francis (1979). A higher number, 10~
ppm, is given by Muller et pl. (1981), but whether this refers to crystalline Th02 or a hydrated form is not clear.
In river water, Heckman et al. (1979) report the same number,10~1*2; but in a river draining a thorium deposit in Brazil, M. Eisenbud (Institute of Environmental Medicine,7NYU Medical Center, personal finds only 10~3*
pga. The tabulated number, 1 communication, 1982) ppb, seins safely conservative, although complexing or colloid formation might give higher values locally.
Rett:
' ion Reported retardation factors are uniformly high, ranging f.
1 (for brine solutions) to 1,000,000 (for clay), but data are ec '
Zirconium (Zr)
Solubility Data for zirconium are poor. Ames and Rai (1978) suggest less than 10-9 ppm at pH 3.5 to 8.0 and 10-7 et al. (1981) calculate 10-5.7 ppm at pH 6 and 10-4*f 9; Muller ppm at a t pH 8; Smith et al. (1981) conservatively guess 10-3 ppm. A value of 10-4 ppm seems safely conservative, but it is not well supported.
Retardation As for thorium, reported values for zirconium are high and the quantity of data is small.
Tin (Sn)
Solubility The most stable solid compound of tin is the very insoluble dioxide SnO. This can dissolve in alkaline solution to 2
form Sn(OH)62, or the more stable fluoride complex if appreciable F~ is present. Under the reducing conditions of many 2
repositories, however, the tin would probably be reduced to Sn + (or some complex thereof). Heckman et al. (1979) calculate a total solubility of about 10-12.4 ppm at pH 6.8 and 10~9 *7 ppm at pH 8.2, but measure 10-3 *7 ppm in river water. Muller et al. (1981)
4
.o 304 suggest 10-4 ppm for the range pH 6 to 8.
guess of 1 ppb is a conservative figure, but it rests on shakFrom these meag evidence.
y Re tardation Moody (1981) and the NRFS Program Staff (U.S of Energy 1981) record similar numbers, evidently derived fr
. Department same study at PNL, in which the range of retardation fom the conditions 500 to 5,000 (except for 10 for brine i actors for x
z ng environment).
1,000 to 3,300:Others give higher numbers:
Heckman et al. (1979)
Ciccinger and Cole (1981),
Storage Investigation Project Staff (1982a)1,000; the Nevada Nuclear Waste Numbers in Table 7-1 are largely guesses 2,000 to 100,000.
I Selenium (Se)
_ Solubility only control on solubility in a reducing environment, butA e
thermochemical data are inadequate for meaningful cal figure of 1 ppb in Table 7-1 is little more than a gu culations. The ess.
Retardation Moody (1981) and the NWTS Program Staff record simila numbers, evidently from the same study at PNL.
r 50 under oxidizing conditions and from 30 to 200 u dNumbers are from 10 to conditions, with a maximum of 1,000 in brine.
n er reducing (1981) give a range of 24 to 150s the NWTS ProgrCloninger and Cole Department of Energy 1981) gives 70 to 140 for tuff am Staff (U.S.
gives K to 21 if pyrite is present.d values ranging from 0.6 to 8.0 for basalt, Deju (1981b) increasing to 15 confidence in their validity. The restricted range gives some 7.11.
REFERENCES Allard, B., G. W. Beall, and T. Krajewski actinides in igneous rocks.
1980. Sorption of Ames, L. L., and D. Rai, Nuclear Technology 49:474-480 1978.
and Soil Media, Volume 1:
Radionuclide Interactions with Rock Mobility and Retention.
Processes Influencing Radionuclide EPA 520/6-78-007. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Anthony, T. R., and B. E. Cline.
1971.
droplets through solids.
Thermal migration of liquid Apps, J. A., J. Lucas, A. K. Mathur, and LJournal of Applied Physics 42:3380 and Experimental Evaluation of Waste Transport in Selected R
. Tsao.
1977. Theoretical 1977.
Annual Report of LBL Contract No. 45901AK ocks:
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of Calif LBL-7022.
Bair, E. S.
1980
., Berkeley.
of open pit anthracite mining. Numerical simulation of the hydrogeologic effec Ph.D. thesis. Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
mii
_ - -- J
205 Bair, E. S., and Parizek, R. R.
1981. Numerical simulation of potentiometric surface changes caused by a proposed open-pit anthracite mine. Groundwater 19(2):190-200.
Basalt Waste Isolation Project Staf f.
1981a.
Reference Conditions for Long-Term Risk Assessment Calculations. RH O-BWI-LD-3 6.
Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Wash.
Basalt Waste Isolation Project Staff.
1981b.
Briefing material for the June 11-13 meeting of the Waste Isolation Systems Panel, National Academy of Sciences. Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Wash.
Basalt Waste Isolation Project Staff.
1981c. Hydrology and Geology Overview Committee Reports and Responses.
R90-BWI-LD-50.
Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Wash.
Basalt Waste Isolation Project Staff.
1981d.
Hydrostratig rcphic charts for boreholes DB-15, DC-6, DC-12, DC-14, snd DC-15.
Le tter f rom R. B. Goranson to the Chairman of the Waste Isolation Systems Panel, National Academy of Sciences, responding to panel request, October 28.
Beall, G. W., G. D. O'Kelley, and B. Allard.
1980.
An Autoradiographic Study of Actinide Sorption on Climax Stock G ranite. ORNL-5617.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Bish, D. L.
1981. Detailed Mineralogical Characterization of the Bullfrog and Tram Members of USW-G1, with Emphasis on Clay Mine rology. LA-9021-MS. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alanos, N.Mex.
Blankennagel, R. K., and J. E. Weir, J r.
1973. Geohydrology of the Eastern Part of Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada.
P rofessional Paper 712-B.
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Bondietti, E. A., and C. W. Francis.
1979. A Reference Analysis on the Use of Engineered Barriers for Isolation of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Granite and Basalt. PNL-3530. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, Wash.
Brace, W. F.
1980. Permsability of crystalline and argillaceous rocks.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
& Geomechanics Abstracts 17:241-251.
Br edehoef t, J. D., and T. Maini.
1981.
Strategy for radioactive waste disposal in crystalline rocks. Science 213(4505):293-296.
Burkholder, H. C., M. O. Cloninger, D. A. Baker, and G. Jansen.
1975.
Incentives for Partitioning High-Level Waste. BNWL-1927.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, Wash.
Carr, W. J.
1982. Volcano-Tectonic History of Crater Flat, Southwestern Nevada, as Suggested by New Evidence from Drill Hole USW-VH-1 and Vicinity. OFR 82-457.
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver,
Colo.
Cloninger, M. O., and C. R. Co:c.
1981. A Reference Analysis on the Use of Engineered Barriers for Isolation of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Granite and Basalt. PNL-3530 Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, Wash.
Crowe, B. M., and W. J. Carr.
1980.
Preliminary Assessment of the Risk of Volcanism at a Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository in the Southern Grea t Basin. OFR 8 0-3 75.
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.
I 206 Davis, S.
N., and H. W. Bentley.
1992. Dating groundwate' r, a shor t review.
Nuclear and Chemical Dating Techniques:
Int'erpreting the Environmental Record, L. A. Currie, ed.
American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. Symposium Series No.176.
Dej u, R. A.
1981a.
1 January-31 March 1981. Basalt Waste Isolation Project Quarterly Repor t RHO-BWI-81-100 2Q.
Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Wash.
Deju, R. A.
1981b.
1 April-30 June 1981. Basalt Waste Isolation Project Quarterly Report RHO-BWI-81-100 3Q.
Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Wash.
Deju, R. A.
1981c.
1 July-30 September 1981. Basalt Waste Isolation Project Quarterly Report Ndo-BWI-81-100 4Q.
Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Wash.
Dixon, G. L.
1981.
Letter to R. M. Nelson, Department of Energy, September 25, on the status of U.S. Geological Survey studies at Yucca Mountain Area through September 1,1981.
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colo.
Dove, F. H., W. A. Rice, J. L. Devany, F. W. Bond, and P. G. Doctor 1982.
Hydrologic and Transport Considerations for Horizon Selection at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Memorial Institute, Richland, Wash. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Edelstein, N., J. Bucher, R. Silva, and H. Nitsche.
1983.
Thermodynamic Properties of Chemical Species in Nuclear Waste.
ONWI-3 99, LBL-14325.
Project Management Division, Columbus, Ohio. Office of Nuclear Waste Iso Erickson, K. L.
1981.
A Fundamental Approach to the Analysis of Radionuclide Transport Resulting from Fluid Flow through Jointed s
Media.
SAND 80-0457.
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.Mex.
Foley, M. G., J. B. Burnham, C. R. Cole, E. A. Eschbach, M. A. Harwell, G. L. McVay, R. J. Serne, and J. K. Soldat.
Assessment of Effectiveness of Geologic Isolation Systems, Review 1961.
Comments on EPA Standard 40 CFR 191.
David Rosenbaum, August 5,1981.
Letter from Colin Heath to Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, Wash. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Frape, S.
K., and P. Fritz.
1982.
The chemistry and isotopic Canadian Journal Earth Sciencescomposition of saline groundwaters from 19(4):645-661.
Freeze, A. R., and J. A. Cher ry.
1979. Groundwater.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
P_ entice-Hall.
Fritz, P., and S. K. Frape.
In press. Saline groundwaters in the Canadian shield, a first review.
Geguzin, Y. E., A. S. Dzyuba, and V. S. Kruzhanov. Chemical Geology.
1975.
temperature gradient from liquid inclusions in a crystal. Response to a Physics-Crystallography Soviet 20:234-238.
Graf, D. L., W. F. Meents, I. Friedman, and N. E. Shimp.
origin of Saline Formation Waters, III:
1966. Th e Calcium Chloride Waters.
Circular 397.
Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Ill.
7
207 Harwell, M. A., A. Brandstetter, G. L. Benson, J. R. Raymond, D. J.
Bradley, R. J. Serne, J. K. Soldat, C. R. Cole, W. J. Deutsch, S. K.
Gupta, C. C. Harwell, B. A. Napier, A. E. Reisenauer, L. S. Prater,
C. S. S immons, D. L. S trenge, J. F. Washburn, and J. T. Zellmer.
1982.
Assessment of Effectiveness of Geologic Isolation Systems:
Reference Site Initial Assessment for a Salt Dome Repository.
PNL-2955.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, Wash.
Heckman, R.
A., and T. R. Donich.
1979. Waste Management Technical Support Project. NUREG/CR-0538, UCRL-52547.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Hec kman, R. A., D. F. Towse, D.
Isherwood, T. Harvey, and T.
Holdswor th.
1979. High-Level Waste Repository Site Suitability Study--Status Report.
NUREG/CR-0578, UCRL-52633.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Helfferich, R.
1962.
Ion Exchange. New York: McG ra w-Hill.
Hem, J.
D.
1976.
Geochemical controls on lead concentrations in stream water and sediments.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 40:599-610.
Jenks, G. H.
1979. Ef fects of Temperature, Temperature Gradients, Stress, and Irradiation on Migration of Brine Inclusions in a Salt Repository. ORNL-5 526. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Jenks, G. H., and H. C. Claiborne.
1981. Brine Migration in Salt and i
Its Implication in the Geologic Disposal of Nuclear Waste.
(
ORNL-5 818. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Johnstone, J. K., and K. Wolfsberg.
1980. Evaluation of Tuff as a Medium for a Nuclear Waste Repository:
Interim Status Report on the j
Properties of Tuff.
SAND 80-1464. Sandia National Laboratories, i
Albuquergye, N.Mex.
Keith, T. E. C., D. E. White, and M. H. Beeson.
1978.
Hydrothermal Alteration and Self-Sealing in Y-7 and Y-8 Drill Holes in Northern Part of Upper Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
Professional Paper 1054-A.
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Keith, T. E. C., J. M. Thompson, and R. E. Mays.
In press. Selective concentration of Cs d.n analcime Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 47(4).
Martinez, J. D., R. L. Thoms, C. R. Kolb, M. B. Kumar, R. E. Wilcox, and E. J. Newchurch. 1978. An Investigation of the Utility of Gulf Coast Salt Domes for the Storage or Disposal of Radioactive Wastes.
Vols. 1 and 2, pp.19-20.
EW-7 8-C-0 5-5 4 9 L/ 53.
Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Martinez, J.
D., R. L. Thoms, C. R. Kolb, M. B. Kumar, R. E. Wilcox, and E. J. Newchurch.
1979. An Investigation of the Utility of Gulf Coast Salt Domes for the Storage or Disposal of Radioactive Wastes.
Pp. 277-278. ESil-02500-A-I.
Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Moody, J. B.
1981. Radionuclide Migration / Retardation:
Research and Development Technology Status Report. ONWI-321, September Draft. Of fice of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio.
~d
208 Muller, A. B., N. C. Finley, and F. J. Pearson, Jr.
1981.
Geocnemical Parameters Used in the Bedded Salt Reference Repository Rita Assessment Methodology.
NUREG/CR-1996, SAND-81-0557.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations Project Staff.
1982a.
Summary for the Potential Repository Site at Yucca Mountain.
Report prepared for the Waste Isolation Systems Panel, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., January.
Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations Project Staff.
1982b.
Presentation to DOE Headquarters on the Concept of the Exploratory Shaft at Yucca Mountain, August.
Olander, D.
R., A. J. Machiels, and E. Muchowski.
1981. Migration of gas-liquid inclusions in kcl and Nacl single crystals.
Nuclear Science and Engineering 79 212-227.
Peters, R.
R., and J. K. Johnstone.
1982. Letters to L. D. Tyler on bounding calculations for radionuclide movement in the unsaturated zone. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquercue,
N.Mex.
Pigford, T. H.
1982. Migration of brine inclusions in salt. Nuclear Technology 56:93-101.
Pourbaix, M.
1966.
Atlas of Electrochemical Equilibria in Aqueous Solutions. New York: Pergamon.
Powers, D. D., S. J. Lambert, S.-E.
Shaf fer, L. R. Hill, and W. D. Weart, eds.
1978. Geological Characterization Report, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site, Southeastern New Mexico.
SAND 78-1596. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.Mex.
Rai, D., and J. L. Ryan.
1981. Crystallinity and Solubility of -
m Pu(IV) Oxide and Hydroxide in Aged Aqueous Suspensions.
PNL-SA-9722 Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, Wash.
- Rai, D., R. G. Strickert. D. A. Moore, and R. J. Serne.
1981a.
Influence of solid phases on americium concentrations in solutions.
Geochimica 4t Cosmochimica Acta 45:2257-2265.
- Rai, D., R, G. Strickert, and J. L. Swanson.
1981b. Actinid e 1
Solubilities in the Near-Field of a Nuclear Waste Repository.
Presented at Workshop on Near-Field Phenomena in Geologic,
Repositories, August 31-September 3, Seattle, Wash. To be published by Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
- Rai, D., R. G. Strickert, and G. L. McVay.
1982. Neptunium Concentrations in Solutions Contacting Actinide-Doped Glass.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, Wash.
Also accepted fer publication in Nuclear Technology.
Rogers, A. M., D. M. Perkins, and F. A. McKeown.
1977.
A preliminary assessment of the seismic hazard of the Nevada Test Site Region.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 67(6):1587-1606.
Rogers, A. M.,
S. C. Hermsen, and W. J. Carr.
1981.
Southern Great Basin Seismological Data Report for 1980 and Preliminary Data An alysis. OFR 81-1086.
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colo.
Roseboom, E. H., Jr.
In press. Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste Above the Water Table in Arid Recions. Circular.
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
0 209 Rosen, J.
1952. Kinetics of a fixed-bed system for solid dif fusion into spherical particles. Journal of Chemical Physics 37:387 Savage, J. C., M. Lisowski, and W. II. Prescott.
1981. Geodetic strain measurements in Washington. Journal of Geophysical Research 86:4929-4940.
Shefelbine, H. C.
1982.
Brine Migration: A Summary Report.
SAND 82-015 2.
Sandia National Laboritories, Albuquerque, N.Mex.
Simon, R., and S. Orlowski, eds.
- 1980, Radioactive waste management and disposal.
Pp. 529-530 in Proceedings of the First European Community Conference, Luxembourg. Conf. 8005143, EUR 6871 New York:
Harwood Academic.
Smith, C. B., D. J. Egan, Jr., W. A. Williams, J. J. Gruhlke, C. Y.
Hung, and B. L. Seristi.
1981.
Population Risks from Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories. EPA 520/3-80-006. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Szabo, B. J., W. J. Carr, and W. C. Gottschall.
1981.
Uranium-Thorium Dating of Quaternary Carbonate Accumulations in the Nevada Test Site Region, Southern Nevada. OFR 81-119.
U.S.
Geological Survey, Denver, Colo.
U.S. Department of Energy.
1961. Geochemistry of Radionuclide Sorption and Solubility. Program response prepared for the Waste Isolation Systems Panel by the National Waste Terminal Storage (NRIS) Program Office. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1982a. Minutes of Mceting of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 17-19, Las Vegas, Nev.
U.S. Department of Energy.
1982b. Summary of Key Factors Which Led to the Recommendation of the Reference Repository Location and the Site of the Principal Borehole and Exploratory Shaf t.
Draft report. Washington, D.C., July.
Van Devender, T. R., and W. G. Spaulding.
1979.
Development of vegetation and clinate in the southwestern United States.
Science 204 701-710.
Vine, E. N., R. D. Aguilar, B. P. Bayhurst, W. R. Daniels, S. J.
DeVilliers, B. R. Erdal, F. O. Lawrence, S. Maestas, P. Q. Oliver, J. L. Thompson, and K. Wolf sberg.
1980.
Sorption-Desorption Studies on Tuf f II.
A Continuation of Studies with Samples from Jackass Flats, Nevada, and Initial Studies with Samples from Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-8110-MS.
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, N.Mex., January.
White, D. E.
1965.
Saline waters of sedimentary rocks.
Pp. 3 42-366 in Fluids in Subsurf ace Environments-A, A - Young and J. F. Galley, eds.
Symposium Memoir No. 4 American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Okla.
White, D. E.
In press. Background Paper for Generic Assessment of Granitoid Repositories. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
White, D. E.
In press. Background Paper for Assessment of Basalt Lava Flows (BWIP), Washington, National Academy of Sciences, Washingtc.i, D.C.
.ct'
. = *. n 2 10 White, D. E. 'In press. Background Paper Granitoid Repository
_ Overlain by_ a _ Regional Sedimentary Aquifer. National Academy of Sciences,- Washington, D.C. -
White, D. E., J.
D.' Hem, and G. A. Waring. - 1963. Chemical
- composition of subsurface waters. ~ Professional Paper 440-F.
Data-of Geochemistry.
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Wilson, W. E.
1982 a.-
Letter to L. - D. Tyler, Sandia National -
Laboratories, May 27, on estimates of groundwater velocities and travel times from Yucca Mountain to Lathrop Wells and discussion of assumption.
U.S. Geological Survey, _ Den #er, Colo.
Wilson, W. E.
-1982b. Letter _ to D. - L.- Vieth, Department of Energy,
August 26.
U. S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colo.
Winog rad, I. J.
1981. Radioactive waste disposal in thick unsatuetted zones.
Science 212:1457-1464 Winograd,- I. J., and G. C. Doty.
1980.
Paleohydrology of the Southern Great Bcsin, with Special Reference to t%ter Table Fluctuations Beneath the Nevada Test Site during the Late (?)
Pleistocene. _ OFR 8 0-5 69.
U.S. Geological Sarvey, Reston, Va.
. Winograd, I. J., - and' W. Thordarson. _1975.
Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Framework, Soutte Central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with Special Reference to the Nevada Test Site.
P rofessional-Paper 712-C.
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Wolfsberg, K., B. P.' Bayhurst, B. M. Crowe, W. R. Daniels, B. R.
Erdal, F. 0. Lawrence, A. E. Noc::is, and J. R. Smyth. 1979.
Sorption-Desorption Studies on Tuff I:
Initial Studies with Sanples f rom the J-13 Drill Site, Jackass Flats, Nevada. LA-7480-MS. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Lor Alamos, N.Mex., April.
., ~ Wolfsberg, K., R. D. Aguilar, B. P. Bayhurst, W. R. Daniels, S. J'.
DeVilliers, B. R. Erdal, F. O. Lawrence, S. Maestas, A. ' J. Mitchell,-
P. Q. Oliver, N. A. Raybold, R. S. Rundberg, J. L. Thompson, and E.
N. Vine.
1981. Sorption-Desorption Studies on Tuff IIIt ~.A Continuation of Studies with Samples from Jackass Flats and Yucca Mountain, Nevada.-- LA-8747-MS.
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, N.Mex., May.
Wood, B. J., and D. Rai, 1981. Nuclear Waste Isolation: Actinide containment in Geologic Repositories. PNL-SA-9549. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, Wash.
. k. *. n
' ' s ; [3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 00CKETED I, Diane Curran, certify that on October-16, 97, le of us the foregoing CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S MOT
_N F f In E1997 TO FILE SURREPLY-PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS an -CITf
~ IiCSNC
~
AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S SURREPLY PROPOSED SUPPLEMEN QFIN FF c)
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-ON CONTENTIONS J.9, B.,
\\
f'g. 3 were served by first-class mail and/or FAX on the followin b
apeys as indicated below:
B
- Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Off. of Appellate Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Richard F.
Cole Robert Morgan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Duke Engineering U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 230 South Tron Street Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O.
Box 1004 Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
- Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board W.H. Arnold, President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- LES, L.P.
Washington, D.C.
20555 2600 Virginia Ave.
N.W.,
Suite 608 Washington, D.C.
20037
- Secretary of the Commission Rulemaking and Adjudications Section U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nathalie M. Walker, Esq.-
Washington, D.C.
20555 EJLDF 400 Magazine St.,
Suite 401 New Orleans, LA 70130
- Richard Bachmann, Esq.
i Office of General Counsel Marcus A. Rowden, Esq.
U.S._ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fried, Frank, Harris, etc.
Washington, D.C.
20555 1101 Pennsylvania Av.
N.W.,
Suite 900S Washington, D.C.
20004
- J.
Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
David Bailey, Esq.
Robert L.
Draper, Esq.
Thomas J.
Henderson, Esq.
Winston & Strawn Lawyers' Committee for Civil 1400 L Street N.W.
Rights Under Law Washington,- D.C.
20005-3502 1450 G Street N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C.
Ronald Wascom, Deputy Asst. Secretary Office of Air Quality & Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Quality P.O.
Box 82135 Baton Rouge, LA 70884 Diano Curran