ML20206E646
| ML20206E646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/22/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606230477 | |
| Download: ML20206E646 (76) | |
Text
__
d ZA a
MAR 2 21985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING In a March 15, 1985, memorandum to me concerning control of NRC rulemaking, you requested that I (1) exempt several rulemakings, which comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), from the review that I established to control rulemaking (EDO memorandum dated February 13,1984) and (2) expedite or exempt this review for a rulemaking involving the final version of amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 concerning nuclear waste disposal in the unsaturated zone.
Regarding item 2 above, the review of the rulemaking has been completed, and I approve continuation of the rulemaking.
Regarding item 1 above, I do not believe that rulemakings, which comply with legislation, Comission direction or my direction, should be exempted as a class from the rulemaking review that I established to control rulemaking. As my February 13, 1984 memorandum noted, it is important that (1) candidates for rulemaking are early and promptly identified, screened and thereafter periodically reviewed to determine whether or not to proceed with rulemaking; (2) rulemakings are assigned priorities commensurate with their importance relative to accomplishing the NRC mission; and (3) rulemakings are timely, effective, efficient and of high quality.
The information required for the review is the same information contained in the Regulatory Analysis that is required to be part of the rulemaking package.
(See NUREG/BR-0058, " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission," January 1983. )
Accomplishing this review on an annual basis assures that the rulemaking will be reviewed in light of current information and circumstances which could be significantly different than those existing when the rulemaking was initiated or last reviewed. The involvement of the Office of Research (RES) assures that current research findings are considered in the review of each rulemaking.
8606230477 850322 EDO RM 60 PDR William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations V. Stello Distribution:
J. Roe WJDircks DEDROGR cf H. R. Denton VStello Central File J. Taylor JH ezek JPhilips R. B. Hinogue chwink EDO R/F P. G. Norry
,/
OFC :ROGP/S
- ROGR/D
- DEDROGRi
- EDO
/
_:L.J4A1.1._:..k...
k_____.:.q
- Vt'e70~
- WJ s#
NAME :WS k
- JF
.i tek DATE :3/19/85
- 3/19/85
- 3[J/85
- 3/d85 I
. _ _. ~ - _ _ _..
V-g lio f
A hAL 4
UNITED STATES
//
f 4w
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO (
7.
tj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 L
l t
f
\\..... #
MAR 15 BBS Q < u d [k
{qlj'J[h MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks tW Executive Director for Operations j (( #,.h FROM:
John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Materials Safety
( ql. 4b and Safeguards U
i
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING The purpose of this memorandum is to request that you exempt rulemakings related to high-level waste disposal from the requirements specified in your February 13, 1984 memorandum on '" Control of NRC Rulemaking." In your February 13, 1984 memorandum, you stated that offices must obtain your approval to continue a specific rulemaking.
While the need to control rulemaking is recognized, several rulemakings should be exempted from these requirements because they are not optional but are required by statute.
Specifically, it is requested that the following rulemaking be excluded from the requirements of your February 13, 1984 memorandum.
The proposed procedural amendments which were published in the Federal Register on January 17, 1985 primarily reflect changes required by the Nuclear Waste g
Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
The comment period on the proposed procedural I/
amendments closes on March 18, 1985.
In order to use conformed and resource saving procedures, the Commission must finalize this rule prior to the-submission by DOE of the. site characterization plans (currently targeted for December 1985).
Therefore, the staff has only eight months to complete the rulemaking on this action.
Since this rulemaking is specifically required by the NWPA, is so far advanced, and is needed by the end of 1985, it seems unnecessary to evaluate the continued need for the rulemaking.
In the January 17, 1985 Federal Register notice of the proposed procedural amendment the Commission announced its intent to also conduct further rulemakings to comply with the NWPA.
In particular, the NWPA has necessitated rulemakings to (1) revise environmental review requirements in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 60; (2)' revise our regulations as necessary to comply with the EPA standards when they are promulgated; and (3) consider revision of the definition of high-level waste.
These required rulemakings should also be exempted from the requirements of the February 13, 1984 memorandum.
c('
Another rulemaking for.which we are requesting an expedited revi exemption is the amendment-to 10 CFR Part 60 for waste disposal i unsaturated zone. When the Commission approved the technical criteria for
-2_
geologic repositories, it committed to amend the criteria to accomodate potential repository sites in the unsaturated zone. At the candidate site in Nevada the zone of interest is the unsaturated zone. We are required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to have appropriate technical criteria promulgated to apply in reviewing license applications. This amendment was published as a proposed amendment in February 1984. Public comments have been received and considered by the staff. The final rule, including a Commission paper, etc.,
was completed in January 1985 and was sent to you, with the rulemaking review package by RES on March 5, 1985. Since this rulemaking is required by _
the NWPA and is essentially complete, we believe that an expedited. review or an exemption is appropriate.
1 It is therefore requested that the above described NWPA rulemakings_ be. excluded' from'the requirements of the rulemaking review procedure.
ohn G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards cc:
R. Minogue, RES
-~f'~~-
["*%
m.
UNITED STATES y
t.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pg g
j g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
MR5 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert B. Hinogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING:
RES REVIEW 0F ONG0ING RES SPONS0 RED RULEMAKING Based on our review of the ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking--final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60- " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories", RES recommends that NRC should proceed with this specific rulemaking. This recommendation, in draft form, has been coordinated with the Office of Nuclear Material Safe +y and Safeguards.
The basis for our recommendation is as follows:
The final rulemaking sets forth specific technical criteria for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic repositories located within that portion of the hydrogeologic regime termed the " unsaturated zone". The Commission stated its intent to develop such criteria in June 1983 (48 FR 28203) and proposed appropriate amendments to the 10 CFR Part 60 technical criteria for public comment in February 1984 (49 FR 5934). The views expressed in the fourteen comment letters received by NRC were generally supportive of the proposed amendments and suggested only minor changes to the provisions primarily for the sake of technical accuracy.
The final amendments contained in the enclosed staff paper will assure that NRC regulations address considerations relevant to all geologic repositories whether sited in the saturated or the unsaturated zone. The consideration of these amendments by the Commission at this time is particularly appropriate since the Department of Energy (DOE) has recently identified Yucca Mountain, Nevada as one of its three preferred sites for characterization as potential repository sites.
Information provided in the draft Environmental Assessment recently submitted to NRC by DOE indicates that the proposed repository horizon at the Yucca Mountain site is located within the unsaturated zone (DOE /RW-0012, December 1984).
4 l
i i
j W 5' q 2-i
!j'
.The complete RES review package has been sent to OED0 (Attention: DEDROGR)and j '
to the Director, NMSS.
-f
$)
Robert B. Minogue, Dire or Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
i t
t a
l 4
I i
i
+
i s
i l
i l
1 4
~
I 9
b I
I
_ _ _... _ _.. _ - _ _ _. ~,. -.. _
ROUT!NG AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP 3/f[8[
~
TO: (Name. office symbol, room number, initials Date bunidsng Agency / Post)
OM) 1.
C6 pC h
l(
g g,
3.
4.
5, g on File Note and Return J _ proval For Clearance Per Conversation ps Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your Information See Me Comment Investigate Segnature Coordination Justify M
Lb4 m
e e s -4 o-M
~ ~
G>, gh w YA kkrb Wlk' g\\
fj,y,& ) iO zw M
A L Af J,;
@ C'
,4-p cg,v wv c' ^ '
y )G (. _) so a LML E 'E * *
^
kw
^)
ro
,cfA<
% M '4t H ^ 'S
.p p
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, cles'ances, and similar actions FROM: (Name, org symbol, Agency / Post)
Room No.-Bldg W W -4 M. k b k((5 Phone No.
W 3,-102 1
L FO M 41 (Rev. 7-76) rPum (41 cb,101-11206
NAR 5 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING:
RES REVIEW 0F ONGOING RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING Based on our review of the ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking--final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60- " Disposal of High-level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories", RES recomends that NRC should proceed with this specific rulemaking. This recomendation, in draft form, has been coordinated with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
The basis for our recomendation is as follows:
The final rulemaking sets forth specific technical criteria for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic repositories located within that portion of the hydrogeologic regime termed the " unsaturated zone". The Comission stated its intent to develop such criteria in June 1983 (48 FR 28203) and proposed appropriate amendments to the 10 CFR Part 60 technical criteria for public coment in February 1984 (49 FR 5934). The views expressed in the fourteen coment letters received by NRC were generally supportive of the proposed amendments and suggested only minor changes to the provisions primarily for the sake of technical accuracy.
The final amendments contained in the enclosed staff paper will assure that NRC regulations address considerations relevant to all geologic repositories whether sited in the saturated or the unsaturated zone. The consideration of these amendments by the Commission at this time is particularly appropriate since the Department of Energy (DOE) has recently identified Yucca Mountain, Nevada as one of its three preferred sites for characterization as potential repository sites.
Information provided in the draft Environmental Assessment recently submitted to NRC by DOE indicates that the proposed repository horizon l
at the Yucca Mountain site is located within the unsaturated zone (D0E/RW-0012, December 1984).
1 00L y
___[
[.h%d(i/mb:FCostanzi
_______[
___b
__I __
_____I NAME:
- KRGoller
- JMalaro
- FGillespie :DFRoss
- RBMinogue DATh hh hbh hhhbh
$hhhhbh hhhbh hh hbb hhfbb hh hbh
NAR 5 g5
_2_
The complete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention: DEDROGR) and to the Director, NMSS.
Orisinal signag byr ROBERT B. MINO6UE Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research DISTRIBUTION Subj.
FCostanzi Circ.
KGoller 1
Chron.
Dross WMB/rf RMinogue C0strowski WOTT 1
l A
n n OFC:DRPES WMB PES B :DRPES/g 0
. __________...q.f__. ES/D
_ _ ' _ _ _.. :R S/
- Rl IR i
NAME 0 ski /mb:FC tanzi
- KRGoller
- J aro 1
e:DFRojs
- R3 no ue Dkhhb/\\h/bb h/ff/b5
$//h
/h5
" [ 0 /bh"" h/
bh
/
5 a /
1 1
RES REVIEW PACKAGE
RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET T0:
F. F. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM:
G. A. Arlotto, Member. RIRB Additional Technical Criteria for the Disposal of High-Level TITLE OF RULEMAKING:
Radioactive Wastes in Geological Repositories Located in the Unsaturated Zone (Part 60)...................................
REQUEST RIRB AGREE WITH RECOPO4ENDATIONS MEETING.
h IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE MODIFY RECOMMENDATIONS IN NOT PARTICIPATING
s
/ 2'C
\\
MEMBER, RIRB y/5/h-DATE h
F.i5 lhDEFENDEh! l.,i'.lEW BOARD VOT]ht 5+'E01 T0:
F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM:
W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB Additional Technical Criteria for the Disposal of High-Level TITLE OF RULEMAKING:
Radioactive Wastes in Geological Repositories Located in the Unsa tu ra ted Zone ( Pa rt 60)...................................
X AGREE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS g*
IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE MODIFY RECOMMENDATIONS. IN NOT PARTICIPATING.
RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
Straight agreement.
wwn W. M. MORRISON MEMBER, RIRB l
FEBRUARY 25, 1985 DATE
nounNG AND TRANSWTTAL SUP
"'" FEB 19 1985 m mome. emee e,=w. eeem aumner, seR.em com 6samas.Asency/ Peen 3, W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB s.
- a. G. A. Arlotto, tiember, RIRB 4.
}
E X
Action Fue Note end Retum Approwel For Cleerence Per Converestion As Requested For Correction Propero Reply cereulate For Your information See Me in weee asaetwo Additional Technical Criteria for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geological Re Unsaturated Zone (Part 60).........positories Located in the RIRB members are requested to conduct an independent review of the attached RES rulemaking review package and provide the Chairman, RIRB, with their voting sheets indicating their positions on the rulemaking.
Responses by c.o.b. FEB 2 6 1985 will be appreciated.
rat 1RB will use the voting sheets to assemble the complete RES review package for eventual transmittal to the OEDO and the Director of the user office.
i Do NoT wee this form as a RECORO of approvels, concurrences, ssposets, eteerences, and similar act,ons FROld:(Name, org symbol. Agency / Post)
Room No.-Sieg.
RAtRB staff 7 pn n.,
sees-see pgang 43 gesy 7 76) 3 est MI-staes
- croi sis o - ass.s s mt
,,_y_
7
...._y,.,
.,__.,_m_.,..,
,y,_y.,-,.wy,.~.,,,,,,_.y.-
8 TASK LEADER PACKAGE
l 4
MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations i
FROM:
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING:
RES REVIEW 0F ONG0ING RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING j
Based on our review of the ongoing RES sponsored rulemaking--final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60- " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories", RES recommends that NRC should proceed with this specific j
rulemaking. This recomendation, in draft form, has been coordinated with the j
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
i The basis for our recomendation is as follows:
The final rulemaking sets forth specific technical criteria for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic repositories located within that portion of the hydrogeologic regime termed the " unsaturated zone". The Comission stated its intent to develop such criteria in June 1983 (48 FR 28203) and proposed appropriate amendments to the 10 CFR Part 60 j
technical criteria for public coment in February 1984 (49 FR 5934). The views expressed in the fourteen comment letters received by NRC were generally supportive of the proposed amendments and suggested only minor changes to the provisions primarily for the sake of technical accuracy.
l The final amendments contained in the enclosed staff paper will assure that NRC regulations address considerations relevant to all geologic repositories whether sited in the saturated or the unsaturated zone. The consideration of 4
j these amendments by the Comission at this time is particularly appropriate since the Department of Energy (DOE) has recently identified Yucca Mountain, j
Nevada as one of its three preferred sites for characterization as potential i
repository sites.
Information provided in the draft Environmental Assessment recently submitted to NRC by DOE indicates that the proposed repository horizon 1.
at the Yucca Mountain site is located within the unsaturated zone (D0E/RW-0012,
{
December 1984).
t v0L pv OFC:
g
- DRPES/WMB :DRPES/D
- RES/DRA0
- C MN:RIRB :RES/DD
- RES/D NAME 1/mb:FCostanzi
- KRGoller
- JMalaro
- FGillespie :DFRoss
- RBMinogue h
)bh
$h bh hhhbb hhhb5
$h)hbh DATh$h)f)bb$h)fbb
/
The complete RES review package has been sent to OED0 (Attention: DEDR0GR) and to the Director, NMSS.
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research DISTRIBUTION Subj.
FCostanzi Circ.
KGoller Chron.
Dross WMB/rf RMinogue C0strowski WOTT i
t 0FC:DRPES WMB
- . PES B
- DRPES/;3g :RES/DRA0
- CHMN:RIRB :RES/DD
- RES/D g..________________________...________________..______
NAME O ski /mb:FC tanzi
- KRGolfer
- JMalaro
- FGillespie :DFRoss
- RBMinogue
/
b b/hh)bb b
bb b/ /bb b/hbb b/hbb bATEbffhbb
4 NRC REGULATORY AGENDA ENTRY
UPDATED REGULATORY AGENDA 02-14-85 TITLE:
Additional Technical Criteria for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geological Repositories Located in the Unsaturated Zone CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 60 ABSTRACT:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing amendments related to the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic repositories within the unsaturated zone. These amendments, in addition to the existing provision of 10 CFR Part 60 would ensure that the regulations will apply in an appropriate manner to geologic media within either the saturated or the unsaturated hydrogeologic zone. This action is necessary to ensure that the NRC regulations address considerations relevant to all geologic repositories, whether sited in the saturated or the unsaturated zone. The major benefit of the final amendments would be to provide NRC with the maximum flexibility with respect to reviewing license applications for HLW disposal. The cost to NRC would be approximately 1.0 staff year.
TIMETABLE:
NPRM 02/16/84 49 FR 5934 NPRM Comment Period Begin 02/16/84 49 FR 5934 NPRM Comment Period End 04/16/84 Interim Final Rule 06/30/85 LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5842; 42 USC 10141 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:
No AGENCY CONTACT:
Colleen Ostrowski Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4615 l
l
,w ww
\\
9 RULEMAKING AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED i
i s
For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60--DISPOSAL 0F HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES IN GE0 LOGIC REPOSITORIES
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval of a notice of final rulemaking.
Category:
This paper involves a minor policy question.
1ssue:
Should 10 CFR Part 60 contain specific criteria for geologic disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in the unsaturated 1
zone.
Summary:
This paper presents final amendments which will assure that NRC regulations address considerations relevant to all geologic repositories whether sited in the saturated or unsaturated Staff recommends that the Commission approve for publica-zone.
tion as final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 specific technical criteria for geologic disposal of high-level radioactive,<astes i
within the unsaturated zone.
Since resource needs to implement 10 CFR Part 60 have been reflected in programmatic budget requests no sinnificant new resource expenditures will be required by issuance of these amendments.
Background:
The Commission published for public comment proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 which contained specific technical criteria related to disposal of high-level radioactive wastes within the unsaturated zone on February 16, 1984 (49 FR 5934).
The recom-mended final amendments were developed following consideration of the comments received from fourteen groups and individuals.
The recommended final amendments were presented before the ACRS
[
Waste Management Subcommittee on July 11, 1984, and were discussed during the 292nd ACRS meeting, August 9-11, 1984.
Discussion:
Regulations which established procedures for licensing the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes (HLW) in geologic
Contact:
C. Ostrowski, RES X74615
The Commissioners 2
repositories were published on February 25, 1981 (46 FR 13971).
Proposed technical criteria against which license applications would be reviewed under 10 CFR Part 60 were published for public comment on July 8, 1981 (46 FR 35280) and final technical criteria were promulgated on June 21, 1983 (48 FR 28194).
In the statement of considerations to the proposed technical 4
criteria the Commission explained that the proposed criteria were developed for disposal in saturated media because the then current plans of the Department of Energy (00E) called for disposal at sufficient depth to lie solely within the hydrogeologic region called the saturated zon, (46 FR 35281).
The Commission further noted that additional or alternative criteria may need to be developed for regulating disposal in the unsaturated zone.
The Commission approach was criticized by several commenters, including DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey.
The bases for this criticism were that (1) disposal of HLW within the unsaturated zone was a viable alternative to HLW disposal within the saturated zone and (2) since the Part 60 technical criteria were generally applicable without regard to the possibility of saturation, their scope and applicability should not be unduly restricted.
The NRC staff reviewed the technical criteria in light of the public comments and found this criticism to be well-founded.
The staff drew the possibility of further rulemaking in this area to the Commission's attention in SECY-83-59.
In the statement of considerations to the final technical criteria the Commission recognized that although the. final tech-nical criteria were generally appropriate to disposal in both the saturated and unsaturated zones, some distinctions were needed (48 FR 28203).
Rather than promulgating the specific criteria which would apply to the unsaturated zone at the time the final technical criteria were published in June 1983, the Commission
}
stated that it preferred to issue such criteria in proposed form so as to afford further opportunity for public comment.
Proposed amendments developed in response to this Commission decision were published for public comment on February 16, 1984 (SECY-83-444; 49 FR 5934).
Enclosure C contains a copy of the proposed amend-ments as published in the Federal Register.
The proposed amend-ments contained provisions for new definitions (S60.2) and favor-able and potentially adverse siting criteria (560.122) related to HLW disposal within the unsaturated zone.
Additionally, in the statement of considerations which accompanied the proposed amend-i ments, the Commission particularly sought public comment on ques-
~
tions related to groundwater travel time calculations in unsaturated geologic media (49 FR 5937).
l The Commissioners 3
l l
In conjunction with the proposed amendments, NRC published draft NUREG-1046 -- Disposal of High-level Radioactive Wastes in the Unsaturated Zone:
Technical Considerations for public comment.
The Commission received a total of fourteen comment letters in response to its solicitation of public input on both the proposed 4
amendments and draft NUREG-1046.
In general, these commenters supported the Commission's proposed action and raised no sianifi-cant new~ issues with respect to this rulemaking action.
The com-Tnenters primarily addressed the questions posed by the Commission on groundwater travel time calculations and suggested word changes to the proposed amendments for the sake of clarity and technical accuracy.
Current technical criteria governing the post emplacement perform-ance of the particular barriers (i.e. engineered barriers and geologic setting) of the geologic repository system are set forth at 560.113 (48 FR 28224).
The post-closure performance criteria for the geologic setting (S60.113(a)(2)) require that the geologic repository be located so that pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time along the fastest path of likely radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the accessible environment be at least 1,000 years or such other travel time as may be approved or specified by the Commission (48 FR 28224).
In the statement of considerations which accompanied the proposed amendments the Commission discussed several reasons why calculations of pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time along the fastest path of likely radionuclide travel through the unsaturated zone could have large associated uncertainties, and hence could be of questionable value in estimating the capability of the geologic setting to isolate HLW from the accessible environment (49 FR 5936).
The Commission stated that if DOE could demonstrate with reasonable assurance that travel time for groundwater movement through the unsaturated zone can be quantified, then DOE should be allowed to include such travel time when demonstrating com-pliance with S60.113(a)(2).
The Commission also recognized that it may be more appropriate to specify another parameter upon which performance may be evaluated for a geologic setting.in the unsatu-rated zone, or to utilize the approach set forth in S60.113(b) which provides the Commission with the flexibility to specify variations in the performance objectives on a case-by-case basis, as long as the overall system performance objective is satisfied.
l Therefore, to solicit public input on groundwater travel time in the unsaturated zone the Commission posed two questions on this issue in the statement of considerations (49 FR 5937).
These Questions requested public comment on:
- 1) how groundwater travel time in the unsaturated zone could be determined with reasonable assurance, and whether or not the existing groundwater travel time j
performance objective in S60.113(a)(2) should be limited to ground-l water movement within the saturated zone; and 2) whether ground-
The Commissioners 4
water travel time is an appropriate measure of performance for a site within the unsaturated zone or whether an alternative perform-ance objective would be more appropriate.
The issues surrounding the groundwater travel time calculations were specifically addressed by seven of the fourteen commenters on the proposed amendments and draft NUREG-1046.
A discussion of the views expressed by these commenters is contained in Enclosure A (pp.4-14) while the individ-ual comments on groundwater travel time are categorized in Enclo-sure 0 (pp. 4-16).
Following consideration of the public comments on groundwater travel time calculations, the staff recommends that the Commis-sion maintain its original position as set forth at 49 FR 5936 that if DOE can demonstrate with reasonable assurance that travel times for groundwater movement through the unsaturated zone can be quantified, then DOE should be allowed to include such travel times when demonstrating compliance with 560.113(a)(2).
- However, the staff recognizes that for the unsaturated zone it may be more appropriate in some cases for the Commission to utilize the approach set forth in S60.113(b) which, as mentioned above, pro-vides the Commission with the flexibility to specify variations in performance objectives on a case-by-case basis as long as the overall system performance objective is satisfied.
Although no change was made explicitly to the groundwater travel time provisions of S60.113(a)(2), the proposed definition of the term " groundwater" set forth at S60.2 would clarify that S60.113(a)(2) is equally applicable to geologic repositories within either the saturated or unsaturated zone.
Similarly, the recommended amend-ment to the Siting Criteria (S60.122(b)(7)) would have the effect of making pre waste emplacement groundwater travel time along the fastest path of likely radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the accessible environment which substantially exceeds 1,000 years a favorable condition for HLW disposal within either hydrogeologic zone.
In response to the comments which addressed other provisions of the proposed amendments, several word changes have been made for the sake of clarity and technical accuracy.
A detailed discussion of the changes recommended by the staff can be found in the draft Federal Register notice (Enclosure A).
In addition to these changes, new amendments containing modifications to existing pro-visions of SS60.133 and 60.134 are also included in the recommended final amendments.
The provisions of SS60.133(f) and 60.134(b) have been modified to more closely identify the concept of a potential for creating a preferential pathway for groundwater to contact the waste packages.
This change was prompted.by a com-menter's observation that as originally worded, these provisions might not be internally consistent with proposed S60.122(b)(8)(iv) l
=
The Commissioners 5
which identified a host rock that provides fo'r free drainage as i
a favorable hydrogeologic condition in the unsaturated zone.
Further, minor word changes were made to these two provisions for i
the sake of technical accuracy.
i A staff analysis of the public comments on the proposed amend-ments and draft NUREG-1046 is provided in Enclosure D.
The staff 1
}
considered all public comments in developing the recommended final amendments.
The staff has reviewed the provisions of the final DOE Siting 4
Guidelines related to the unsaturated zone against the recom-mended final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 and has determined that i
the DOE Siting Guidelines are not in conflict with the 10 CFR i
Part 60 amendments.
{
NRC resource needs to implement the provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 have been reflected in programmatic budget requests.
Thus, no i
significant new resource expenditures will be required by i
issuance of these amendments.
i j
]
Recommendations:
That the Commission:
1 1.
Approve for publication as final amendments to 10 CFR c
Part 60 specific technical criteria for geologic disposal of HLW in the unsaturated zone and the accompanying Statement i
of Considerations, as set forth in the draft Federal Register i
notice in Enclosure A.
2.
i Certify tnat this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This certification is necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5.U.S.C. 605(a).
3.
Note:
The changes made to the proposed 10 CFR Part 60 a.
amendments as published in the Federal Register are provided in comparative text in Enclosure B.
~
4 i
b.
Enclosure C contains a copy of the proposed amendments as published in the Federal Register on February 16, 1984.
4
~
j c.
The detailed staff analysis of public comments on the
~~
1 proposed amendments and draft NUREG-1046 is contained in Enclosure D.
(Draft NUREG-1046 is currently under i
review by the staff and will be revjsed to reflect
~-
The Commissioners 6
changes made in the unsaturated zone amendments.
When this draft report has been revised it will be published as a final NUREG report).
d.
A regulatory analysis is presented as Enclosure E.
A review of a draft version of the recommended final e.
i amendments was presented before the ACRS on July 11, 1984.
Enclosure F is a copy of the August 14, 1984 letter from J. C. Ebersole, Chairman, ACRS to Chairman Palladino.
f.
As provided by Section 121(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, no environmental assessment is being prepared in connection with this action.
g.
This rule contains no new or amended recordkeeping, i
reporting, or application requirement, or any other type of information collection requirement, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L.96-511).
1 h.
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed by the Division of Rules and Records of the certification regarding i
economic impact on small entities.
i i.
The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, the Sub-committee on Nuclear Regulation and the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee will be informed of this i
rulemaking action by a letter similar to Enclosure G.
j.
The Office of Public Affairs has determined that it is I
not necessary to. issue a public announcement on these amendments.
Scheduling:
If scheduled on the Commission agenda, the staff recommends this i
i paper be considered at an open meeting.
While no specific cir-cumstances require Commission action by a particular date, the
[
i 5
1
---_,,.--_-_L
l i
The Commissioners 7
4 Commission should be aware that the Department of Energy is i
currently considering certain unsaturated geologic media as potential repository sites.
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A.
Federal Register Notice Containing i
Final Amendments to 10 CFR 60 8.
Comparative Text Version of 4
i Amendments l
C.
Federal Register Notice on Proposed Amendments
]
D.
Staff Analysis of Public Comments l
E.
Regulatory Analysis F.
ACRS Comments on Amendments G.
Draft Congressional Letter j
j i
i 4
i 4
l 1
I NOTE:
SEE PREVIOUS C0llCURREliCES
- RES/DRPES/ limb
- RES/DRPES/WMB* RES/DRPES/DD* RES/DRPES/D* RES/DDD RES/D*
~~
C0strowski/mb FCostanzi EFConti KRGoller DFRoss R!linogue 12/13/84 12/18/84 12/20/84 1/14/85 1/' /85 1/15/85 4
i ELD
- EDO GCunningham JDavis WJDircks 12/17/84 11/23/84 1/ /85 4
i i
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60 Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regula-i tions for the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic j
repositories.
These amendments will ensure that the rule contains specific criteria for the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes within I
the unsaturated zone.
This action is necessary to assure that NRC I
regulations address considerations relevant to all geologic repositories, whether sited in the saturated or unsaturated zone.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Colleen Ostrowski, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)427-4615.
l s
t 1
Enclosure A-
[7590-01]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND On February 25, 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) promulgated a rule that established procedures for licensing the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes (HLW) in geologic repositories (46 FR 13971).
NRC promulgated technical criteria to be used in the evaluation of license appli:ations under those procedures on June 21, f
1983 (48 FR 28194).
Although these technical criteria are generally appropriate to disposal in both the saturated and unsaturated hydrogeologic zones, some further distinctions need to be made i
for disposal in the unsaturated zone.
Consequently, the Commission 1
expressed its intent to issue specific technical criteria for the t
j unsaturated zone after promulgating the final technical criteria so as to afford further opportunity for public comment on this issue.
Proposed amendments to these technical criteria to include HLW disposal within either the saturated or unsaturated zone were published for comment on February 16, 1984.
These proposed amendments contained provisions for new definitions and favorable and potentially adverse siting criteria.
i In addition to the proposed amendments, the Commission specifically i
requested public input on two questions related to groundwater travel time calculations within the unsaturated zone.
In conjunction with the proposed f
2 Enclosure A.
[7590-01]
amendments, the Commission published for public comment draft NUREG-10461 l
l which contained a discussion of the principal technical issues considered by the Commission during the development of the proposed amendments.
3
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTS AND CHANGES A total of fourteen groups and individuals commented on the proposed amendments and draft NUREG-1046.
There was general acceptance of the Commission's view that disposal of HLW within the unsaturated zone is a viable alternative to disposal within the saturated zone.
The commenters addressed the Commission's specific questions on groundwater travel time within the unsaturated zone and provided additional comments suggesting word changes to improve the technical accuracy and clarity of the 1
proposed amendments.
The principal comments received on the questions and proposed amendments, and the Commission's corresponding responses, are l
discussed below.
Changes and clarifications made in the rule as a result i
I of the Commission's consideration of these comments are also explained in this section.
Copies of the individual comment letters and a detailed I
analysis of these letters by the NRC staff are available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20555.
1 Draft NUREG-1046 -- Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in the Unsaturated Zone:
Technical Considerations is currently being revised to reflect changes made in the amendments _to 10 CFR Part 60 related to HLW disposal within the unsaturated zone.
When this revision is completed, a copy of NUREG-1046 will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room.
Upon publication, copies of NUREG-1046 may be purchased by calling (301) 492-9530 or by writing to the Publication Services Section, Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, or i
purchased from the National Technical Information Service, Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
3 Enclosure A.
)
[7590-01]
i J
(a) Groundwater Travel Time Calculations.
Technical criteria governing the post-emplacement performance of the particular barriers of the geologic repository system (i.e. engineered barriers and geologic setting) are set forth at S60.113 (48 FR 28224; June 21, 1983).
The post-closure performance criterion for the geologic setting set forth at S60.113(a)(2) requires that the geologic repository be i
located so that pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time along the fastest path of likely radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the accessible environment be at least 1,000 years or such other travel time as may be approved or specified by the Commission.
Although no change was made explicitly to the provisions of S60.113(a)(2) in the proposed amendments for the unsaturated zone, the proposed definition of the term " groundwater" set forth at S60.2 would clearly make the scope of 1
S60.113(a)(2) applicable to geologic repositories within either the saturated or unsaturated zone.
Similarly, the proposed amendment to the Siting Criteria (S60.122(b)(7)) would have the effect of making pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time along the fastest path of likely radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the accessible i
0 environment which substantially exceeds 1,000 years a favorable condition for HLW disposal within either hydrogeologic zone.
6 In the statement of considerations which accompanied the proposed amendments, the Commission discussed possible lirritations of the pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time performance objective of S60.113 when applied to the unsaturated zone.
However, the Commission i
stated that if DOE could demonstrate with reasonable assurance that l
travel time for groundwater movement through the unsaturated zone Can be quantified, then DOE should be allowed to include such travel time when i
4 Enclosure A-4
[7590-01]
I demonstrating compliance with 560.113(a)(2).
The Commission also 1
acknowledged that it may be more appropriate to specify another parameter upon which performance may be evaluated for a geologic setting in the unsaturated zone, or to use the approach set forth in S60.113(b) which provides the Commission with the flexibility to specify variations in performance objectives on a case-by-case basis, as long as the oyerall system performance objective is satisfied.
Further, the Commission observed that calculations of pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time along the fastest path of likely radionuclide travel through the unsaturated zone could involve considerable uncertainty, and thus requested public comment on questions related to the applicability of the existing 10 CFR Part 60 performance objective for the geologic setting to sites located in unsaturated geologic media.
In response to this solicitation of public comment, seven of the fourteen commenters specifically addressed the questions on groundwater travel time calcula-tions.
These questions and the views expressed by the seven commenters are reviewed below.
The notice of proposed rulemaking first requested comment on how i
groundwater travel time in the unsaturated zone could be determined with reasonable assurance.
Comments received in response to this question i
were divided nearly equally into two categories.
The first group of commenters argued that presently it would be difficult to calculate groundwater travel time in the unsaturated zone with reasonable assurance because of the lack of generally acceptable methodology and the limited scope of research efforts currently devoted to this question.
A second group of commenters, comprised predominantly of representatives of other Federal agencies, endorsed the opinion that groundwater travel time could i
5 Enclosure A.
i 1
[7590-01]
be determined with reasonable assurance.
One of these commenters indicated that groundwater travel time calculations could be made by
.i 4
~
measuring the amount of natural tritium in the groundwater samples from a vertical profile in unsaturated geologic formations.
Two other commenters stated that groundwater travel time could be derived from
^
groundwater flux using measurements of ambient water content, degree of j
saturation, matric potential and hydraulic conductivity to determine moisture-characteristic curves relating these parameters to one another.
These curves can be developed so as to predict constitutive relationships i
over a wide range of conditions.
From these relationships and flux determinations these commenters argued that groundwater velocities and i
subsequently groundwater travel times could then be estimated.
One of these two commenters further stated that reasonable assurance may be gained in estimating groundwater travel time using results of laboratory testing, state-of-the-art direct determinations in the field or laboratory, and bounding estimates developed by indirect methods, while both commenters indicated that reasonable assurance may also be gained by incorporating uncertainty analyses into predictive models.
The Commission recognizes that prior to the commencement of HLW 2
disposal studies most groundwater investigations in unsaturated geologic 3
media were generally limited in scope to issues related to near-surface, highly porous soils and unconsolidated rock types.
Efforts to predict j
groundwater movement through potentially suitable geologic repository sites within the unsaturated zone often entail the application of hydrogeologic theories, models and methodologies governing near-surface, porous media to much deeper hydrogeologic environments and different rock propert hs than they originally were designed for.
The Commission i
6 Enclosure A-
[7590-01]
realizes that given the current state of groundwater investigations there may be difficulties associated with groundwater travel time calculations in both the saturated and unsaturated zones, as one commenter observed.
1 s
However, the Commission concludes that groundwater travel time calculations can be determined in the unsaturated zone, though not necessarily with great precision, provided that the proper level of site characterization analysis is conducted.
Following a detailed study of the comments received on this question, the Commission believes it is feasible for DOE to demonstrate compliance with the groundwater travel time provision, using existing field and laboratory experiments.
Further, as several commenters indicated, a substantial effort is currently underway to l
develop new methodologies and to improve existing techniques for measuring the hydrogeologic parameters and flow properties that will provide the necessary input to groundwater travel time calculations.
For example, it was noted that in-situ monitoring techniques, including tracer tests, are undergoing development and may broaden the range of rock types and conditions for which it is feasible to estimate groundwater velocity and, hence, groundwater travel time.
The second part of the first. question on which the Commission sought i
comment centered on whether or not the existing groundwater travel time performance objective in 660.113(a)(2) should be limited to groundwater J
movement within the saturated zone.
The general consensus among commenters on this issue was that there is no reason to strictly limit the groundwater travel time performance objective to water movement in the saturated zone.
Followirg a review of the discussions presented in these comments the Commission has determined that the groundwater travel 1
l 7
Enclosure A.
t
[7590-01]
time provision (660.113(a)(2)) can be applied to a geologic setting located in either the saturated or unsaturated zone.
The Commission could discern no obvious advantage for developing a parallel provision for the unsaturated zone as one commenter suggested.
With respect to another commenter's concern that if the Commission decided to retain the groundwater travel time provision, travel time along any segment of the flow path, including the unsaturated zone, should be creditable, provided that reasonable assurance has been demonstrated.
The Commission has concluded further that the definition of the term " groundwater" set forth at 560.2 will allow travel time along subsurface flowpaths to be considered regardless of the hydrogeologic regime through which the water is moving.
As defined in S60.2, " groundwater" means all water which occurs belcw the land surface.
The Commission believes that the concerns of one commenter that it would be inappropriate to limit groundwater travel time to the saturated zone because such an action would not accurately indicate the actual radionuclide transport time from the original location of the waste to the accessible environment will also be largely accommodated by as the definition of the term " groundwater" in S60.2. With respect to the view expressed that the approach set forth in S60.113(b) may be particularly appropriate in the case of HLW disposal in the unsaturated zone, it should be noted that in those instances when groundwater travel time calculations cannot be demonstrated with reasonable assurance, the Commission may prefer to specify or approve alternative performance objectives pursuant to $60.113(b).
In its second question related to groundwater travel time the Commission sought public comment on whether groundwater travel time represented an appropriate measure of performance for a site within the t
8 Enclosure A.
[7590-01]
unsaturated zone, or whether an alternative performance objective for the geologic setting would be more appropriate.
The views expressed by the commenters were nearly equally divided on this issue.
Some of the t
commenters asserted that, although not ideal, the groundwater travel time l
provision may, under certain circumstances, represent an appropriate measure of performance for a geologic setting in the unsaturated zone.
Other commenters argued that groundwater travel time was not an appro-priate performance objective for HLW disposal within the unsaturated zone I
and suggested several alternative performance objectives, as discussed
- below, j
With respect to alternative performance requirements, one commenter I
considered it unacceptable to establish an alternative performance measure for unsaturated geologic media while using a different measure for a saturated salt site.
The Commission anticipates that the decision 4
to apply the groundwater travel time provision to all geologic settings l
regardless of the hydrogeologic zone in which the site is located should alleviate this commenter's concern.
Another commenter stated that although groundwater travel time substantially exceeding 1,000 years is a i
favorable condition, it is not appropriate as a totally definitive i
performance objective for disposal in either the saturated or unsaturated zone.
However, in view of $60,113(b), the groundwater travel time performance objective is not such a " totally definitive" objective.
The l
i same commenter considered release criteria as the absolute measure of total performance and further argued that realistic estimates of release
~f criteria for the unsaturated zone might not be possible until
)
observations are actually made in shafts and drifts.
In response, the i
Commission would note that the site characterization program would i
I 9
Enclosure A.
_ - -. ~ _._ _. - - _ _. _ _ _ _ _
[7590-01]
include such observations.
One commenter indicated that if NRC chose to 4
retain the groundwater travel time performance objective that this provision should only be applied if the travel time calculations include combined travel times in the unsaturated and saturated zones so as to better approximate radionuclide transport.
The Commission considers the concerns of this commenter to be accommodated by the definition of the _
term " groundwater" adopted in the final amendments.
Most commenters who argued against the application of the groundwater travel time performance objective to unsaturated geologic media generally suggested alternatives based either on the hydrogeologic concept of flux or upon the case-by-case approach of S60.113(b).
As derived from U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper-1988 the term groundwater " flux" can be defined as the rate of discharge of ground-water per unit area of porous or fractured geologic media measured at right angles to the direction of flow.
In comparison, the term " groundwater travel time" used in 10 CFR Part 60 can be interpreted as the length of time required for a unit volume of groundwater to travel between two loca-tions.
Alternatives suggested by the commenters which were based upon the concept of flux included a maximum groundwater flux requirement and a dual "either/or" criterion which would allow the applicant the option of demonstrating compliance with either a minimum groundwater travel time i
requirement or a maximum groundwater flux requirement.
After considering the possibility of an alternative performance objective based upon the maximum groundwater flux, the Commission has decided to retain the groundwater travel time requirement for geologic settings regardless of the hydrogeologic zone in which they are located.
This decision was
{
based on the Commission's belief that the groundwater travel time j
\\
?
10 Enclosure A.
[7590-01]
requirement represents an independent measure of the overall hydro-geologic system performance which may encompass a variety of hydro-geologic parameters including groundwater flux.
However, the Commission expects that groundwater flux will be an important factor in the tech-nical evaluation of radionuclide releases in the unsaturated zone, as well as in the saturated zone.
l The Commission does not consider it necessary to specify a dual "either/or" groundwater criterion suggested by one commenter since under the provisions of $60.113(b), the Commission already has the flexibility to approve or specify some other radionuclide release rate,
^
designed containment period, or pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time on a case-by-case basis.
Further, the Commission anticipates that areally integrated or averaged groundwater flow velocity referred to by this same commenter will be addressed in the evaluation of uncertainties i
surrounding the groundwater travel time calculations.
In addition, to a rerformance criterion based upon groundwater flux, i
other alternative perfoimance criteria were discussed by commenters.
DOE, in its original comment letter on the proposed amendments expressed general support for a performance criterion based upon groundwater flux, but in an addendum to this letter concluded that it would be impractical to define a performance objective for the geologic setting based on flux through a geologic repository located in the unsaturated zone.
- Instead, DOE took the position that an alternative performance objective developed upon the concept. of a minimum time for groundwater travel to the accessible environment based on four separate physical events would be more appropriate r the unsaturated zone. The four physical events con-tained in the suggested 00E alternative performance objective are:
11 Enclosure A.
i
[7590-01]
(1) the creation of a drying zone around the emplaced wastes, (2) the subsequent return of moisture to the rock surrounding the waste canisters, (3) the travel time through the unsaturated zone and finally, (4) the travel time to the accessible environment by groundwater movement through the saturated zone.
The manner in which these or possibly other events may occur within the geologic repository system will depend upon the interactions of a i
number of site-and design-specific parameters such as the l
i thermomechanical and hydrogeologic properties of the host rock, thermal loading of the underground facility and waste package design.
- However, i
as noted at 48 FR 28203, the Commission believes that it is important to consider both natural and engineered barriers individually and has structured the technical criteria of 10 CFR Part 60 in a way that
]
requires that the natural and engineered barriers each make a definite contribution to the overall system performance objective for the geologic repository.
To that end the Commission considers it important to maintain a standard of performance for the geologic setting that is a measure of the quality of the natural barriers and is t
independent of any interaction between these natural barriers and the 2
engineered barriers.
The existing pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time provision (S60,113(a)(2)) is such a performance standard since it is characteristic I
of the area outside of the disturbed zone created by underground facility construction and waste emplacement operations. This parameter is not dependent upon the effects of waste emplacement and is intended to 4
provide assurance of isolation beyond the first 1000 years. The Commission prefers the existing groundwater travel time provision, which 12 Enclosure A J
[7590-01) is part of its multiple barrier approach, to the alternative performance objective suggested by DOE since the latter does not offer a measure of j
performance for the geologic setting that can be evaluated independently J
j of design and engineering factors.
Further, the physical parameters I
needed to evaluate pre-waste-emplacement conditions of the geologic 1
setting can be accurately measured with direct and indirect field j
methodology.
The DOE suggestion would necessitate that estimates of long-term performance of the geologic setting under post-waste-emplacement conditions be used in the Commission's deliberations on whether the groundwater travel time performance objective is met.
The uncertainties 1
associated with such estimates can be affected by a number of factors,
)
including the age and nature of the waste and the design of the underground facility.
Evaluations of the performance of the geologic l
setting under post-waste emplacement conditions must also take into j
account predictions of future changes in the thermomechanical, geochemical and hydrogeologic properties of the geologic setting through time as a result of the creation of a non-isothermal environment due to waste emplacement.
The Commission's view is that the present emphasis on pre-waste-emplacement conditions will provide a higher degree of confidence in the continued isolation capabilities of the natural barriers of the geologic setting over the long term.
i The view was also expressed by other commenters that the development i
of a new alternative performance objective to existing S60,113 (a)(2) may not be necessary since the Commission's approach set forth at 560.113(b) might be a more appropriate means of specifying alternatives I
+
13 Enclosure A I
[7590-01]
to the groundwater travel time criterion.
The Commission notes that it is essentially following this approach in its decision to retain the existing provisions of S60.113(a)(2) and S60.113(b).
Following a review of the various alternative performance objectives suggested by the commenters, the Commission considers groundwater travel time to represent a more appropriate parameter upon which the performance of the geologic setting can be evaluated than any of the suggested alter-natives because a prescribed groundwater travel time can be generically applied and will provide a conservative estimate of a minimum radionuclide release time to the accessible environment.
It should be f
noted, however, that the Commission still retains the option of applying the provisions of S60,113(b) instead of S60.113(a)(2) to a particular geologic setting when such an action is deemed appropriate.
(b) Definition of Groundwater.
Three commenters addressed the Commission's proposed definition of i
the term " groundwater" as meaning "all water below the Earth's surface".
Two of these commenters, citing possible confusion amnng the public and scientific community stated that the Commission should not define j
" groundwater" in this manner, but rather should limit the use of the term to water within the saturated zone.
In contrast, one commenter commended NRC on this definition, but noted that it may not be consistent with the definition of the term included in the proposed EPA environmental i
standards -- 40 CFR 191.
In its proposed rule EPA defined " groundwater" i
as " water below the land surface in a zone of saturation" (47 FR 58205, December 29,1982).
While the Commission recognizes that limiting the use of the term " groundwater" to water within the saturated zone may 14 Enclosure A.
[7590-01]
currently be a more widely accepted practice, the Commission also notes-that numerous members of the scientific community routinely use the term groundwater in the same context as the Commission proposed.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the arguments presented by the i
commenters on this issue and has decided to retain the definition of groundwater with one minor change--the phrase " Earth's surface" has been replaced by " land surface".
This change was made for the sake of clarity and internal consistency with wording in the definition of the term
" unsaturated zone".
The Commission's decision was based on the fact 1
I that, at present, no unique definition of the term " groundwater" appears to be universally accepted in the technical community.
Therefore, the j
Commission has not actually redefined the term " groundwater" as one commenter suggested but rather has adopted one of the commonly used j
definitions of the term that is most consistent with the Commission's intent concerning the provisions related to groundwater throughout the Part 60 regulation.
With respect to the differences between the definition of the term " groundwater" adopted by the Commission and that proposed by EPA, the Commission notes that it does not consider the two definitions to be inconsistent since the scope of the definition adopted in 660.2 will encompass water within the zone of saturation as well as water within the unsaturated zone.
As noted above, the Commission considers it necessary to adopt a broader definition of the term
" groundwater" in order to maintain consistency with previous Commission usage of this term and to effectively apply the provisions of 2
10 CFR Part 60 to the regulation of HLW disposal within unsaturated as well as saturated geologic media.
Further, since EPA has not yet promulgated its final environmental standards, the Commission cannot i
15 Enclosure A-
4 anticipate whether or how " groundwater" will actually be defined in the i'
final EPA regulation.
i I
(c) Definition of the " unsaturated zone."
The Commission's proposed definition was derived from U.S.
j Geological Survey (USGS) Water Supply Paper 1988.
Two commenters noted that the phrase " deepest water table" introduced confusion into the i
definition of the term " unsaturated zone" (S60.2).
The Commission had inferred that the phrase " deepest water table" as used by the USGS referred to the regional watcr table and hence adopted this same phraseology in the definition of the term " unsaturated zone" set forth in j
the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 60.
However, in light of
[
confusion expressed by commenters which may be due partially to the 1
}
incorrect inference by some that the phrase " deepest water table" i
referred to local rather than regional water tables, the definition of 1
term " unsaturated zone" has been modified.
To clarify the Commission's f
original intent, the phrase " deepest water table" has been replaced by
{
" regional water table" in the final amendments.
(A conforming change has a
also been made to the definition of the term " saturated zone").
4 Additionally, the phrase " water in this zone is under less than i
atmospheric pressure" has been rewritten as " fluid pressure in this zone 1
is less than atmospheric pressure" for the sake of technical clarity, i
The Commission has attempted to maintain internal consistency with the j'
definitions of hydrogeologic terms presented in USGS Water Supply Paper 1988 wherever practicable and for this reason has not adopted any of the i
alternative definitions of the term " unsaturated zone" suggested by the 1
l~
commenters, i
i i.
l II' j
16 Enclosure A.
i-l 3
l i
[7590-01)
(d)
Favorable Siting Conditions.
560.122(b)(2).
The term " low hydraulic potential" has been replaced with " low hydraulic gradient" in S60.122(b)(2)(iii) as suggested by one commenter for the sake of technical accuracy.
S60,122(b)(7).
In addition to comments received in response to the 1
Commission's specific request for input on its questions related to groundwater travel time calculations in the unsaturated zone, the subject of groundwater travel time was also addressed by two commenters on J
j proposedS60.122(b)(7).
The issues raised by these two commenters merit discussion here although they have resulted in no change to the rule.
The provisions of S60.122(b)(7) have the effect of identifying pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time along the fastest path of j
likely radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the accessible environment that substantially exceeds 1,000 years as a favorable siting i
criteria for both the saturated and unsaturated zones.
Previously these i
provisions (formerly designated as $60.122(b)(2)(iv)) applied only to sites within the saturated zone.
One commenter on proposed S60,122(b)(7) opposed the application of this provision to the unsaturated zone on the grounds that the determina-tion of groundwater travel time in the unsaturated zone may not be neces-sary nor always be possible.
Under such circumstances, this commenter argued, inability to demonstrate that groundwater travel time j
substantially exceeds 1,000 years should not amount to the absence of a favorable condition.
The issue of groundwater travel time in the unsaturated zone has already been discussed in detail in the above 1
J section on Groundwater Travel Time Calculations and will not be repeated here.
With respect to the second part of this comment the Commission j-4 17 Enclosure A
[7590-01]
i i
reiterates its position set forth in the Supplementary Information to the final 10 CFR Part 60 technical criteria (48 FR 28201) that a site is not disqualified as a result of the absence of a favorable siting condition.
A second commenter on S60.122(b)(7) expressed the view that for a HLW repository within the unsaturated zone, minimizing leachate flux would appear to be at least as important as maximizing groundwater travel i
time.
To that end, this commenter felt that it might be more appropriate 1
to specify as a favorable siting condition a dual "either/or" criterion such that groundwater travel time is greater than 1,000 years or groundwater flux through the host rock at a proposed site is less than some average rate.
This rate, it was argued, could be based on nuclide solubility, leach rate criteria, and population exposure criteria.
The commenter stated that whichever criterion was ultimately selected it should be based upon an areally integrated or averaged calculation, over an area on the order of the cross-sectional area of the repository normal to the direction of expected flux regardless of hydrogeologic zone to help reduce controversy concerning how the " fastest pathway" can be determined.
For a discussion of the concept of applying a dual criterion of either groundwater travel time or groundwater flux see the above sec-tion entitled Groundwater Travel Time Calculations.
Minor corrections have been made to the provisions of S60.122(b)(8) for the sake of clarity and technical accuracy as a result of the comments received.
The phrase "and nearly constant" has been deleted from S60.122(b)(8)(i) and a typographical error in the word " overlying" l
has been corrected.
18 Enclosure A l
[7590-01)
(e)
Potentially Adverse Conditions.
S60.122(c)(9).
This provision of the final technical criteria identified groundwater conditions in the host rock that are not reducing as a potentially adverse condition for the saturated zone.
One commenter on the proposed amendments stated that a parallel provision should be provided for the unsaturated zone.
The Commission considers this argu-ment to have merit and has modified the final amendments accordingly.
Rather than create an additional provision, the Commission has deleted the qualifying phrase "for disposal in the saturated zone" from existing 660.122(c)(9) to ensure that this provision will be applicable equally to groundwater conditions in the saturated and unsaturated zones.
S60.122(c)(23).
Minor editorial changes have been made as suggested by one commenter, for the sake of clarity.
S60.122(c)(24).
During the development of the proposed amendments (47 FR 5935, February 16, 1984) the Commission's staff identified vapor transport of contaminants as a potential concern associated with HLW disposal in the unsaturated zone.
The Commission noted that in unsaturated geologic media, water is transported in both liquid and vapor phases.
The relative contribution of transport via both these phases and their direction of movement with respect to a geologic repository was deemed to directly influence the containment of contaminants.
Vapor transport, particularly when a thermal gradient is imposed, may provide a possible mechanism for radionuclide migration from a geologic repository in unsaturated geologic media.
This issue was discussed at length by the Commission in the proposed amendments and in draft NUREG-1046.
The comments received on the discussion of vapor transport and on the wording of the proposed amendment S60.122(c)(24) indicated a need for the 19 Enclosure A-
[7590-01]
Commission to clarify its intent with respect to vapor transport.
The issue of vapor transport of contaminants is a relatively new issue that has grown out of scientific investigations of the feasibility of HLW disposal in unsaturated geologic media.
Since most scientific studies related to HLW disposal within the unsaturated zone have been initiated very recently, many of the associated issues have not as yet been examined in any great detail.
The Commission recognized that vapor formation may not necessarily constitute an adverse condition for a particular geologic repository site, but, given the fact tilat vapor transport could provide a mechanism for radionuclide transport within the unsaturated zone, it wanted the opportunity to evaluate whether or not vapor transport could adversely affect a geologic repository system.
To that end the Commission identified the potential for vapor transport of radionuclides from an underground facility located in the unsaturated zone to the accessible environment as a potentially adverse condition in the proposed amendments (S60.122(c)(24)).
The Commission has not reached any conclusions on vapor transport, as one commenter incorrectly inferred, but rather is currently sponsoring research on vapor transport in unsaturated fractured rock in an effort to better understand this subject.
Some confusion was expressed by the commenters with respect to the Commission's use of the term " vapor transport".
In particular, one commenter stated that S60.122(c)(24), as written, was ambiguous and meaningless.
The term " vapor transport" as used in the proposed amend-ments referred to both water vapor and the gaseous state of some constit-uent contaminants.
A second commenter on this issue suggested that the Commission add quantitative clarifications to this provision since the 20 Enclosure A.
i I
[7590-01]
proposed wording allowed no patential vapor transport of radionuclides by molecular diffusion (i.e., transport at a microscopic level due to concentration gradients) or convective transport (i.e., transport due to temperature or density gradients).
The same commenter noted that while the flux values associated with these two transport processes might be miniscule, they would not be zero at any unsaturated site.
The Commission does not consider it appropriate to add quantitative clarifications to S60.122(c)(24) because the movement of radionuclides in the gaseous state is, to a large extent, dependent on site-and design-specific parameters.
The Commission considers the movement of radionuclides in the gaseous state may oe a potentially important site-and design-related process and will retain the opportunity to evaluate i
whether or not such a process will adversely affect the geologic i
repository system. However, to alleviate the confusion surrounding proposed S60.122(c)(24), the wording of this provision has been extensively modified in the final amendments.
Reference to " vapor transport" has been deleted, and this provision now solely addresses the potential for the movement of radionuclides in a gaseous state through air-filled pore spaces of an unsaturated geologic medium to the accessible environment as a potentially adverse condition.
The Commission believes the revised wording will more accurately convey its original intent and should remove any ambiguity associated with the previous wording, such as one commenter's query of where the vapor transport is occurring and when it is important.
The Commission agrees with the commenter who indicated that vapor transport may also occur in geologic repositories sited in the saturated 4
zone until resaturation occurs.
A temporary, localized, unsaturated 21 Enclosure A
[7590-01]
region could form around an underground facility within the saturated zone as a result of activities related to construction and operation of a geologic repository (e.g. dewatering of shafts and drifts).
To date, the issue of vapor transport has not been raised for a geologic repository within the saturated zone primarily because such a phenomenon would be expected to be encompassed within a much larger saturated region, that is, vapor transport might only be expected to occur in that portion of the host rock where the voids are not completely filled or refilled with groundwater.
Further, it is anticipated that the time required for waste package integrity (300-1,000 yrs) will generally exceed the post-closure time required for resaturation of a geologic repository within the saturated zone (assumed by the NRC staff to occur within a few hundred years following permanent closure).
Therefore, the Commission does not consider it necessary at this time to identify vapor transport as a patentially adverse condition for HLW disposal within the saturated zone.
However, if future research in the area of vapor transport challenges these current assumptions, the Commission may decide to broaden the provisions of S60.122(c)(24) to include both the saturated and unsaturated zones.
(f) Design Criteria.
Changes were made to provisions of the final technical criteria related to design criteria.
The provisions of 660.133(f) have been modified to more closely identify the concept of a potential for creating a preferential pathway for groundwater to contact the waste packages.
This change was prompted by a commenter's observation that as originally worded, this provision might not be internally consistent with new l
I 22 Enclosure A.
[7590-01]
S60.122(b)(8)(iv) which identifies a host rock that provides for free drainage as a favorable hydrogeologic condition in the unsaturated zone.
Similar word changes have been made to the provisions of S60.134(b) for consistency with S60.122(b)(8)(iv).
Additionally, the phrase
" radioactive waste migration" has been changed to "radionuclide migration" in both 660,133(f) and S60.134(b) for the sake of technical accuracy.
The changes should ensure that these provisions will be equally applicable to geologic repositories within either the saturated or unsaturated zone, and will more accurately convey the Commission's original intent.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the promulgation of these criteria does not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any environmental review under subparagraph (E) or (F) of Section 102(2) of such Act.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT The final rule contains no new or amended recordkeeping, reporting or application requirement, or any other type of information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L.96-511).
23 Enclosure A-
[7590-01]
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a signifi-cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The only entity subject to regulation under this rule is the U.S. Department of Energy, which is not a small entity as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 60 1
High-level waste, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Nuclear mate-rials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
ISSUANCE For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and 5 U.S.C.
553, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is adopting the following amend-ments to 10 CFR Part 60.
24 Enclosure A.
[7590-01]
PART 60 - DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES IN GE0 LOGIC REPOSITORIES 1.
The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
Secs. 51, 53, 62, 63, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2092,2093,2095,2111,2201,2232,2233);
secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat.
1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5842, 5846); secs. 10 and 14.
Pub. L.95-601, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 2021a and 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 121, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273), SS 60.71 to 60.75 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
2.
Section 60.2 is amended by adding two new definitions in proper alphabetical sequence and revising an existing definition:
6 60.2 Definitions.
" Groundwater" means all water which occurs below the land surface.
" Saturated zone" means that part of the earth's crust beneath the regional water table in which all voids, large and small, are ideally filled with water under pressure greater than atmospheric.
25 Enclosure A.
[7590-01]
i
" Unsaturated zone" means the zone between the land surface and the regional water table.
Generally, fluid pressure in this zone is less than atmospheric pressure, and some of the voids may contain air or other gases at atmospheric pressure.
Beneath flooded areas or in perched water bodies the fluid pressure locally may be greater than atmospheric.
3.
Section 60.122 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (c)(9), redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(iv) as (b)(7), and adding new paragraphs (b)(8), (c)(22), (23) and (24) to read as follows:
S 60.122 Siting criteria.
(b) l (2)
(iii) Low vertical permeability and low hydraulic gradient between the host rock and the surrounding hydrogeologic units.
(7) Pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time along the fastest path of likely radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the acces-I sible environment that substantially exceeds 1,000 years.
(8) For disposal in the unsaturated zone, hydrogeologic conditions that provide--
(i) Low moisture flux in the host rock and in the overlying and underlying hydrogeologic units; (ii) A water table sufficiently below the underground facility such that fully saturated voids contiguous with the water table do not encounter the underground facility; l
i 26 Enclosure A.
[7590-01]
(iii) A laterally extensive low permeability hydrogeologic unit above the host rock that would inhibit the downward movement of water or divert f
downward moving water to a location beyond the limits of the underground f
facility; (iv) A host rock that provides for free drainage; or (v) A climatic regime in which the average annual historic precipi-tation is a small percentage of the average annual potential evapotranspiration.
(c) ***
i (9) Groundwater conditions in the host rock that are not reducing.
{
l l
(22) Potential for the water table to rise sufficiently so as to cause saturation of an underground facility located in the unsaturated zone.
(23) Potential for existing or future perched water bodies that may saturate portions of the underground facility or provide a faster flow path from an underground facility located in the unsaturated zone to the accessible environment.
(24) Potential for the movement of radionuclides in a gaseous state through air-filled pore spaces of an unsaturated geologic medium to the accessible environment.
4.
Section 60.133 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
S 60.133 Additional design criteria for the underground facility.
27 Enclosure A-
[7590-01]
(f) Rock excavation.
The design of the underground facility shall incorporate excavation methods that will limit the potential for creating a preferential pathway for groundwater to contact the waste packages or radionuclide migration to the accessible environment.
A A
A A
A 4
5.
Section 60,134 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
S 60.134 Design of seals for shafts and boreholes, j
i (b)
(1) The potential for creating a preferential pathway for ground-l water to contact the waste packages or (2) for radionuclide migration through existing pathways.
Dated at Washington, DC, this
' day of
, 1985.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
a i
i 28 Enclosure A-
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ED0 CONCERNING ONGOING RULEMAKING FINAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60 RELATED TO THE UNSATURATED ZONE The RES task leader recomends that the rulemaking action on the final amendments be continued and that the staff paper be forwarded to the Comission in a timely manner.
This recommendation is based upon the following items of information:
a)
In June 1983, the Comission stated its intent to publish specific technical criteria for HLW disposal in the unsaturated zone.
b)
The proposed rulemaking package developed in response to this Comission directive was unanimously accepted (without any suggested changes) by the Comissioners in January 1984 and was published for coment in February 1984. Additionally, the technical support document--
NUREG-1046 was published for public coment during the same month.
NRC received a total of 14 coment letters on these two documents, which generally supported the NRC position.
c)
The ameNments were revised in light of the public coments received. Generally, these revisions consisted of minor word changes for the sake of technical clarity and internal consistency. New amended wording for' provisions containing design criteria were also adopted in response to points raised by the comenters.
d)
The amendments were reviewed against the DOE Siting Guidelines to detennine whether any inconsistencies existed between the NRC and DOE j
documents.
e)
Close interaction between RES and. NMSS technical staff existed i
during the review of public coments and the development of the final j
amendments to assure that the amendments and supporting documents were i
responsive to the concerns of the licensing office.
f)
A draft version of the final rulemaking package was reviewed by the ACRS during July and August, 1984. A copy of the ACRS coments on the rulemaking is provided as ' Enclosure F in the staff paper.
g)
DOE has stated its intention to consider HLW disposal in sites within the unsaturated zone as well as the saturated zone. The final rulemaking package would ensure that the provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 can be equally applied to all potential geologic repository sites, regardless of the hydrogeologic zone in which they are located.
h)
NMSS has already concurred in the rulemaking package (see 11-23-84 memo from J. G. Davis to R. B. Minogue) and ELD has no legal objection.
I
5 TASK LEADER EVALUATION i
REGULATORY REVIEW 10 CFR PART 60 FINAL AMENDMENTS RELATED TO HLW DISPOSAL WITHIN THE UNSATURATED ZONE 1.
Screening Process:
a)
Issue to be addressed:
10 CFR Part 60 - " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories" as currently written (48 FR 28194) was primarily developed for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes (HLW) within the hydrogeologic region termed the saturated zone. The provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 were originally directed towards the saturated zone because at the time they were being developed the licensee -- the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) -- was only considering potential repository sites at sufficient depths to be contained within the saturated zone.
Existing provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 are generally applicable to disposal within either the saturated or unsaturated zone. However, minor modifications are still needed to ensure that the rule applies equally to sites in both hydrogeologic zones.
b)
Necessity and Urgency for addressing the issue:
Modifications to 10 CFR Part 60 are contained in the recommended final amendments. These recommended amendments will assure that NRC regulations address considerations relevant to all geologic repositories whether sited in the saturated or unsaturated zone.
These amendments were developed in response to a statement made by the Commission in June 1983 that technical criteria which apply specifically to the unsaturated zone would be issued shortly for public comment (48 FR 28203).
o On February 16, 1984, NRC published for comment proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 related to the unsaturated zone (49 FR 5934).
In conjunction with the proposed amendments NRC published draft NUREG-1046--
Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in the Unsaturated Zone:
Technical Considerations for public comment.
In response to its solicitation of public input on the proposed amendments and draft NUREG-1046 NRC received a total of 14 comment letters. These letters represented the views of other Federal agencies, States, representatives of industry and public interest groups.
In general, these commenters were supportive of both NRC's decision to consider the licensing of HLW disposal in the unsaturated zone and of the provisions set forth in the proposed amendments. The NRC staff considered all comments received on the proposed amendments when developing the recommended final amendments.
With respect to the question of urgency the RES task leader notes that one of the nine potentially acceptable sites for the first repository formally identified by DOE is Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
In the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Yucca Mountain site (DOE /RW-0012; December, 1984) DOE stated that the proposed repository horizon at the Yucca Mountain site is 1
1
hydrologically distinct from the other eight sites because it is in the dry, unsaturated zone above the water table (D0E/RW-0012, p5).
- Further, DOE named the Yucca Mo'untain site as one of three sites that are preferred for characterization (D0E/RW-0012, p7). Therefore, the RES task leader suggests that the amendments be forwarded for Commission consideration in a timely manner to ensure that NRC has regulations in place that are equally applicable to all sites named by D0E.
c.
Alternatives to Rulenaking In the Regulatory Analysis prepared in support of the recommended amendments, three alternative actions to rulemaking were identified:
(1) Leave the final provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 intact.
(2) Develop an entirely separate rule to apply specifically to the unsaturated zone.
(3) Publish additional guidelines for HLW disposal in the unsaturated zone as a regulatory guide.
Alternative 1:
Leave the ornvisions of the final rule - 10 CFR Part 60 intact.
Potentially, this alternative would have few associated impacts since it would not represent any change in the status quo.
DOE could still file a license application for a geologic repository within the unsaturated zone under the existing provisions of 10 CFR Part 60.
In considering such an application NRC would need to determine if the proposed site conformed with the provisions of the technical criteria set forth in Part 60.
However, certain of these existing provisions may be technically inappropriate for an unsaturated zone site and could result in inappropriate analyses of the site-specific data. Therefore, this alternative could result in a certain degree of technical ambiguity which could complicate and delay the license review process.
Alternative 2: Develop a completely new regulation specifically limited to disposal of HLW within the unsaturated zone.
It would be possible for NRC to develop a parallel regulation to 10 CFR Part 60 which would set forth provisions specifically limited to disposal of HLW within the unsaturated zone. This alternative would offer no preferred benefits to the proposed action, and would drastically increase the amount of time and money associated with this type of action.
Reviews of 10 CFR Part 60 by both the public commenters and the NRC staff indicated that only minor changes to the final technical criteria were necessary to assure that the rule is equally applicable to HLW disposal in either the saturated or unsaturated zone.
Therefore, the RES task leader considers that there would be no obvious benefit to pursuing this 1
alternative.
2
Alternative 3:
Publish additional criteria for HLW disposal in the unsaturated zone as a regulatory guide.
If this alternative were adopted, disposal within the saturated zone would still be comprehensively governed by the regulations of 10 CFR Part 60, while disposal in the unsaturated zone would be governed both by the provisions of Part 60 and by additional guidance provided in a regulatory guide.
Providing additional technical criteria in a regulatory guide would not achieve the NRC objective of establishing equally applicable provisions for HLW disposal within both the saturated and the unsaturated zones.
d)
How the issue will be addressed throuah rulemaking:
The reconmended final amendments would provide NRC with the maximum flexibility with respect to reviewing license applications for HLW disposal in geologic repositories whether sited in the saturated or unsaturated zone.
The amendments were originally developed after consideration of the public comments received on the proposed 10 CFR Part 60 technical criteria (46 FR 35280). Many of the points raised by commenters with respect to modifying 10 CFR Part 60 to apply to both the saturated and the unsaturated zones were accommodated in the final technical criteria (48 FR 28194) in response to comments received on other issues. The final technical criteria were reviewed in light of these comments and the NRC staff considered the minor modifications presented as proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 (49 FR 5934) sufficient to make the rule equally applicable to reviewing license appli~ cations submitted for HLW disposal in either hydrogeologic zone. This view generally was supported by the public commenters on the proposed amendments, e)
Cost / Benefits The impacts associated with this action (i.e., promulgating the final amendments) are expected to be minimal.
The impacts associated with disposal of HLW in geologic repositories within the unsaturated zone should be comparable with saturated zone repositories since the general performance objectives for the natural and engineered barriers apply to each hydrogeologic zone. The addition of the final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 should result in no changes to the radiological safety conse-quences or to the impacts relating to safeguards, operations, economics, environment or general information collection associated with HLW disposal in the saturated zone.
f)
NRC Resources and Scheduling:
The cost of the final rulemaking action to NRC would be approximately 1.0 man year. This time estimate primarily accounts for staff time spent on rulemaking activities including preparation of supporting documentation, analysis of public comment on the proposed amendments and development of the final amendments as well as future expenditures of staff time associated with the initiation of the formal, final rulemaking process and the publication of the final amendments.
Since resource needs to implement 10 CFR Part 60 have been reflected in programmatic budget requests, no significant new resource expenditures are expected to be associated with issuance of these amendments.
3
If scheduled on the Commission agenda, the RES task leader recommends that this paper be considered at an open meeting. While no specific circumstances require Comission action by a particular date, the Commission should be aware that DOE is currently considering Yucca Mountain, Nevada (an unsaturated zone site) as a potential repository site.
2.
Quality Control Evaluation:
a)
Review against existing NRC procedures and guidelines:
The attached staff paper has been reviewed for compliance with the EDO Procedures Manual (October 1984 rev.).
The final recommended rulemaking action is consistent with the Commission policy on managing nuclear waste provided on pp 15-16 of the NRC Policy and Planning Guidance for 1984 (NUREG-0885).
ADM has reviewed the draft FRN for compliance with Federal Register publication standards (see attached 11-5-84 and 12-14-84 memos from J. M. Felton to C. Ostrowski).
The regulatory analysis which accompanied the proposed amendments has been updated as Enclosure E to the staff paper.
The CRGR Requirements have not been applied to this rulemaking action since 10 CFR Part 60 applies only to disposal of HLW in geologic repositories by DOE and does not impose any regulatory requirements upon "one or more classes of power reactors".
A draft FRN was submitted to the Office of Public Affairs in September,1984.
OPA determined that a public affairs announcement was not necessary for these amendments, b)
Adequacy of technical data to support the rule:
Attached is a copy of the 11-2-83 meno from S. Trubatch, 0GC to C. Ostrowski, RES concerning the technical support for the proposed amendments on the unsaturated zone forwarded to the Commission as SECY-83-444.
(The RES task leader notes that the technical data prepared in support of the proposed amendments remains as part of the public record for the rulemaking action).
Further, the principal technical support document for the amendments was published for public comment as draft NUREG-1046 specifically to obtain public feedback on the adequacy of the technical bases for the amendments. Copies of this document were sent to the U.S. Geological Survey as well as to other interested parties.
The public comments submitted to NRC on draft NUREG-1046 are contained in Enclosure D (p. 39-41) of the staff paper.
RES staff are currently revising draft NUREG-1046 in light of these comments and as a result of recently available information derived both from RES sponsored research and the scientific literature. A hydrogeologic consultant is assisting RES staff in revising the technical background sections of this NUREG report.
4
c)
Consistency of the rule with applicable policies and planning guidance:
The RES task leader has concluded that the recommended final amendments are consistent with the Commission's intent stated at 48 FR 28203.
No indications that the recommended final amendments are not consistent with Commission policies or Waste Management program plans were voiced either during the proposed rulemaking process or during the concurrence process for final rulemaking.
d)
Importance of rule relative to accomplishing NRC's mandate:
The recommended final amendments are of a minor policy nature. They have been developed to facilitLte the licensing review process for a geologic repository that may be located in unsaturated geologic media.
3.
Recommendations:
The RES task leader recommends that the rulemaking action on the final amendments be continued and that the staff paper be forwarded to the Commission in a timely manner. This recommendation is based upon the following items of information:
a)
In June 1983, the Commission stated its intent to publish specific technical criteria for HLW disposal in the unsaturated zone, b)
The proposed rulemaking package developed in response to this Commission directive was unanimously accepted (without any suggested changes) by the Commissioners in January 1984 and was published for comment in February 1984. Additionally, the technical support document--
NUREG-1046 was published for public comment during the same month NRC received a total of 14 coment letters on these two documents, which generally supported the NRC position.
c)
The amendments were revised in light of the public comments received. Generally, these revisions consisted of minor word changes for the sake of technical clarity and internal consistency. New amended wording for provisions containing design criteria were also adopted in response to points raised by the commenters.
d)
The amendments were reviewed against the DOE Siting Guidelines to determine whether any inconsistencies existed between the NRC and DOE documents.
e)
Close interaction between RES and NMSS technical staff existed during the review of public comments and the development of the final amencments to assure that the amendments and supporting documents were responsive to the concerns of the licensing office.
f)
A draft version of the final rulemaking package was reviewed by the ACRS during July and August, 1984. A copy of the ACRS comments on the rulemaking is provided as Enclosure F in the staff paper.
5
g)
DOE has stated its intention to consider HLW disposal in sites within the unsaturated zone as well as the saturated zone. The final rulemaking I
package would ensure that the provisions of 10 CFR Part 60' can be equally applied to all potential geologic repository sites, regardless of the
- hydrogeologic zone in which they are located.
h)
NMSS has already concurred in the rulemaking package (see 11-23-84 memo from J. G. Davis to R. B. Minogue) and ELD has no legal objection.
4 6
N A
i 1
4 i
4 k
i i
i I
1 i
l 6
df
'g UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'+,
p
....+
DEC 141984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Colleen Ostrowski Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F FINAL RULE AMENDING 10 CFR PART 60 We have reviewed the final rule amending Part 60 to include criteria for the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes within an unsaturated zone.
Enclosed is a marked copy.
In response to your concern regarding the use of Federal Register (FR) cites in this rule; note that in several places in the Supplementary Information section that we have made changes. These changes are necessary to conform with the FR publication requirements.
The Environmental Impact Statement is incomplete.
We have inserted a revised statement which reflects the Commission's recent revisions to Part 51.
You should check with OELD to verify that this statement is appropriate for this rule.
If you have any questions, please call John Philips, Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, on extension 27086.
17 J.'M.
Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated i
,pwiuq'o 8
~g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
5 E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
NOV 51984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Colleen Ostrowski Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F FINAL RULE AMENDING 10 CFR PART 60 The Division of Rules and Records has reviewed the final rule and concurs subject to the modifications contained in the enclosed marked copy.
Specifically, note that throughout the Supplementary Information section, reference is made to other Federal Register (FR) publications.
The full FR cite, which includes the FR page number and date of the publication, is needed in several places for these references.
A statement concerning environmental impact is inserted to reflect the Commission's recent revisions to 10 CFR Part 51.
You should check with ELD or OGC to ensure that this statement is appropriate for this final rule.
We forwarded a copy of this rule to Steve Scott of TIDC for review of reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
That Office will contact you regarding the paperwork statement.
Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification and amendatory instruction number three are slightly revised.
If you have any questions about our comments, please contact John Philips, Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, on extension 7086.
/ A'
. M. Felton, Director ivision of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated
- cO m?*
UNITED STATES
[
(f j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION if, p 2-WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 November 2, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Colleen Ostrowski, RES FROM:
1 Sheldon L. Trubatch, OGC
SUBJECT:
10 CFR PART 60 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (SECY-83-444) l I have reviewed t.':e proposed amendments and believe that the proposed rule ir ene of the best I have ever seen.
It addresses the principal issues and relates the decisions on specific requirements to the resolution of those issues.
The rulemaking package is also well-documented and, thus, appears to meet the most stringent legal requirements for notice.
For these reasons, I believe that this rulemaking package should be used as a model for evaluation the proce-dural aspects of proposed technical rules.
l i
f
0 ne 4
uq h
UNITED STATES
[
'g
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,...../
NOV 2 3 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards
SUBJECT:
0FFICE CONCURRENCE ON FINAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60 RELATED TO HLW DISPOSAL WITHIN THE UNSATURATED ZONE This memorandum is in response to~your request for office concurrence on the final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 related to the unsaturated zone.
I concur in the final amendment to 10 CFR Part 60 and Commission Paper with the understanding that RES will make the changes that we have recommended in the attached mark-up. We have discussed these changes with your staff and ELD's staff.
(
fJ hn G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards
Enclosure:
Mark-up of Comission Paper and 10 CFR Part 60 l
i J
.,_,n
~
~,
e I
e SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
--.,-n,.n...,,-
REGULATORY ANALYSIS 10 CFR PART 60 1.
Statement of the Problem 1
10 CFR Part 60 - " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories," as currently written (48 FR 28194), was primarily developed l
for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes (HLW) within the hydrogeologic region termed the saturated zone. The provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 were originally directed towards the saturated zone because at the time they were being developed the licensee -- the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) -- was only considering potential repository sites at sufficient depths to be contained within the saturated zone.
The saturated zone, as defined in existing 10 CFR 60.2 means "that part of the earth's crust beneath the deepest water table in which all voids, large and small, are ideally filled with water under pressure greater than atmospheric" (48 FR 28218).
1 4
Commenters on the proposed 10 CFR Part 60 technical criteria (46 FR 35280) viewed this limitation as unduly restrictive, and considered geologic disposal within the unsaturated zone to be a realistic alternative to disposal within the saturated zone. Additionally, in its comment letter on the proposed technical criteria DOE, noting that opportunities may arise for exploratory studies in unsaturated geologic media, requested that NRC ensure that 10 CFR Part 60 will apply to all geologic media.
Since DOE may submit site characterization plans to NRC fc.* potential repository sites that may be situated within the unsaturated zone, it is necessary to modify the appropriate provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 in a timely manner so that the NRC may review license applications that may be submitted for geologic repositories within the unsaturated zone.
The term " Unsaturated zone" as used by NRC means "the zone between the land surface and the regional water table.
Generally, fluid pressure in this zone is less than atmospheric pressure, and some of the voids 1
Enclosure E
cay contain air or other gases at atmospheric pressure.
Beneath flooded areas or in perched water bcdies the water pressure locally may be greater than atmospheric."
Existing provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 are generally applicable to disposal within either the saturated or unsaturated zone.
However, minor modifications are still necessary to ensure that the rule applies equally to sites in both hydrogeologic zones.
On February 16, 1984, NRC published for comment proposed anendments to 10 CFR Part. 60 related to the unsaturated zone (49 FR 5934).
In response to its solicitation of public input on the proposed amendments NRC received 14 comment letters. These letters represented the views of other Federal agencies, bcates, representatives of industry and public interest groups.
In general these commenters were supportive of both NRC's decision to consider the licensing of HLW disposal in the unsaturated zone and the provisions set forth in the proposed amendments.
The public comment letters primarily addressed questions posed by NRC on groundwater travel time calculations in the unsaturated zone, and suggested minor word changes for the sake of clarity and technical accuracy.
The final amendments should not result in any additional costs to DOE, and will clarify the Commission's regulations concerning the licensing of HLW disposal in unsaturated geologic media.
2.
Objectives The objective of the proposed regulatory action is to broaden the scope of 10 CFR Part 60 to cover licensing of the disposal of HLW within the unsaturated zone.
3.
Alternatives (1) Leave the final provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 intact.
(2) Develop an entirely separate rule to apply to the unsaturated zone.
2 Enclosure E
(3) Publish proposed guidelines for HLW disposal in the unsaturated zone as a regulatory geide.
4.
Consequences (a) Proposed Action:
Publish final amendments to make 10 CFR Part 60 equally applicable to license applications for HLW repositories in both the saturated and unsaturated zones.
The final amendments would provide NRC with the maximum flexibility with respect to reviewing license applications for HLW disposal with the miniuum expenditure of time or money. The amendments were developed after considera-tion of the public comments received on the proposed 10 CFR Part 60 technical criteria (46 FR 35280). Many of the points raised by commenters with respect to modifying 10 CFR Part 60 to apply to both the saturated and the unsaturated zones were accommodated in the final technical criteria (48 FR 28194) in response to comments received on other issues.
The final technical criteria were reviewed in light of these comments and the staff considered the minor mcdifications presented as proposed amendments (49 FR 5934) sufficient to make the rule equally applicable to reviewing license applications submitted for HLW disposal in either hydrogeologic zone.
This view generally was supported by the public commenters on the proposed amendments relating to the unsaturated zone.
The impacts associated with this action (i.e., promulgating the final amend-ments) are minimal.
The impacts associated with disposal of HLW in geologic repositories within the unsaturated zone should be comparable with saturated zone repositories since the general performance objectives for the natural and engineered barriers apply to each hydrogeologic zone. The addition of the i
final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 should result in r.o changes to the radio-logical safety consequences or to the impacts relating to safeguards, operations, economics, environments or general information collection associated with disposal in the saturated zone.
Finally, the cost of the proposed action to NRC would be negligible, i 1
3 Enclosure E
(b) Alternative 1:
Leave the provisions of the final rule - 10 CFR Part 60 intact.
As noted previously, public comments on the proposed technical criteria (46 FR 35280) requested that NRC modify its original decision to limit the technical criteria to HLW repositories within the saturated zone.
- Further, public comments on the proposed amendments published in February,1984 reinforced the view that disposal of HLW within the unsaturated zcne should be considered.
NRC received comment letters from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Geological Survey supporting the concept of HLW dispcsal within the unsaturated zone.
Potentially, this alternative would have few associated impacts since it would not represent any change in the status quo.
DOE could still file a license application for a geologic repository within the unsaturated zone under the existing provisions of 10 CFR Part 60.
In considering such an application NRC would need to determine if the proposed site conformed with the provisions of the technical criteria set forth in Part 60.
However, certain of these existing provisions may be technically inappropriate fur an unsaturated zone site and could result in inappropriate analyses of the site-specific data.
Therefore, this alternative could result in a certain degree of technical ambiguity which could complicate and delay the license review process.
(c) Alternative 2:
Develop a separate regulation for disposal of HLW within the unsaturated zone.
It would be possible for NRC to develop a parallel regulation to 10 CFR Part 60 which would set forth provisions for disposal of HLW within the unsaturated zone.
This alternative would offer no preferred benefits to the proposed action, and would drastically increase the amount of time and money associated with this type of action.
Reviews of 10 CFR Part 60 by both the public commenters and the NRC staff indi-cated that only minor changes to the final technical criteria are necessary to 4
Enclosure E
ensure that the rule is equally applicable to HLW disposal in either the satu-rated or unsaturated zone.
Therefore, the staff considers that there would be no justifiable reason for developing a new parallel regulation.
(d) Alternative 3:
Publish additional criteria for disposal in the unsaturated zone as a regulatory guide.
If this alternative were adopted, disposal within the saturated zone would still be comprehensively governed by the regulations of 10 CFR Part 60, while disposal in the unsaturated zone would need to receive additional guidance in the form of a regulatory guide.
There would be no legal requirements to be met in the latter instance. Therefore, the regulatory guide approach would not achieve the objective of equally applicable provisions for HLW disposal within both the saturated and unsaturated zones.
5.
Decision Rationale The NRC staff has evaluated the proposed action and three alternative courses of action in light of the public comments received on the proposed technical criteria as well as the staff's review of the issues involved in disposal within the unsaturated zone.
The staff prepared a technical support document
-- draft NUREG-1046 which explored pertinent issues and presented a review of the provisions of the final rule - 10 CFR Part 60 with respect to these issues.
The public ccmment letters on the proposed unsaturated zone amendments (49 FR 5934) and draft NUREG-1046 were reviewed in detail.
Generally, the Commission's approach was favorably viewed by these commenters.
Some changes and clarifications were made in the rule as a result of the comments received.
Additionally, draft NUREG-1046 will be revised to reflect changes made as a result of public comments, and will be published as a final NUREG report.
The final amendments contain provisions for modifying those sections of 10 CFR Part 60 related to the definitions, siting criteria and design requirements.
The NRC staff considers the proposed action as the most direct and cost -
effective method of ensuring that the provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 are equally applicable to HLW disposal within the saturated and unsaturated zone.
5 Enclosure E
9 EICu
[9 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
y*
g ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 2
f W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 h
,V*'
/
August 14, 1984 j
f WM Record File WM Project MC E l Docket No.
honorable Nunzio J. Palladino POR Chairman LPOR U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Distribution:
Washington, DC 20555 g g g /m._ggy g-rce /2J ~Tr72_
Dear Dr. Pallacino:
(Return fo WM. 62,TSS) __
g
SUBJECT:
ACRS COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMEN 0MENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60,
" DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIDACTIVE WASTES IN GE0 LOGIC REPOSITORIES" 9-11, 1984, the Advisory Comittee on During its 292nd meeting, August Reactor Safeguards discussed the amendments proposed by the NRC Staff to j
expand the coverage of 10 CFR Part 60, " Disposal of High-Level Radioac-l tive Wastes in Geologic Repositories," to include disposal in the unsaturated zone.
This matter was also a subject of discussion during meetings of our Waste Management Subcomittee on July 11 and August 8, 1984.
In presenting the proposed change to the ACRS, the NRC Staff stated that the expansion in the scope of 10 CFR 60 to include disposal within the unsaturated zone should not be interpreted as meaning that they favor the disposal of high-level wastes in this zone.
The NRC Staff is simply recognizing that disposal in the unsaturateo zone is a possible alterna-tive to disposal in the saturated zone.
The only matters on which we had questions were the definitions of certain terms in the proposed amendments.
We have been informed that the NRC Staff intenas to modify the proposec amendments to address these matters.
We concur in the amendments as modified, j
Sincerely, I
en a
E 5
/
U Z
2.4
- J +sse w
e a
Je C. Ebersole g
g Chairman
[
a gu
[
mr Ref&ences:
I
~ Draf t memo for the Comissioners from William J. Dircks,
Subject:
5 1.
10 CFR Part 60--Disposal of High-Level Racioactive Wastes in Geo-logic Repositories--Final Amendments, transmitted to ACRS July 2, 1984 2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, " Disposal of High-Level Radio-l active Wastes in the bnsaturated Zone:
Technical Considerations,"
Draf t USNRC Report for Coment, NUREG-1046, dated February 1984
[
Enclosure F
- l
lionorable Nunzio J. Palladino August 14, 1984 Note from Colleen Ostrowski, Waste hanagement Branch, Division of 3.
Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES, to R. C. Tang, ACRS, Revisions to Draft 10 CFR Part 60 Final Amendments Related
Subject:
to Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in the Unsaturated Zone dated August 3, 1984 l
I
9 i
USER OFFICE CONCURRENCE r
0(/.-
\\
o ua
'o UNITED STATES
[.'
O, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7;
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s
WM DOCKET CONTROL CENTE!'
FEB 11 G85
'85 FE011 P4:28 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert E. Browning, Director Division of Waste Management, NMSS FROM:
Karl R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES
SUBJECT:
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO ED0 CONCERNING WHETHER AND HOW TO CONTINUE WITH ONG0ING RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY RES--FINAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60 RELATED TO THE UNSATURATED ZONE Enclosed for your concurrence are draft recommendations supported by a draft office review concerning whether and how to continue with an o igoing rulemaking sponsored by RES for which your office is identified as the usar office.
The rulemaking package was forwarded to the EDO on January 15, 1985, and has been returned to RES pending the submittal of a completed regulatory review. A copy of the rulemaking package was provided to your office on January 16, 1985.
This memorandum constitutes my concurrence in the enclosed draft recomendations.
I plan to dispatch this memorandum with the enclosed draft recommendations to the Director, RES, within two weeks from the above date.
Please provide your concurrence by returning this memorandum along with the enclosed form.
A Karl R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES
Enclosure:
As stated VEi krcrHrie -h n't Pregct i /67 B
- c..., y*
p9 j
LPC,N _
l Dhtributica:
~5??> ' $6 le.
, fl]l1 4
.BTS c $1owLJwn -% c/d (Rcitra to V!M,023-S5) _ _ __
gz i
Receipt acknowledged. No Comment.
<x Receipt acknowledged.
Comment as follows:
1.
This rulemaking is needed by the licensing office to provide definitive guidance to 00E in its considerat, ion of the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site as a potential high-level waste repository.
2.
This rulemaking was initiated in response to extensin public comment on the existing Part 60 rule and has been committed to by the Commission.
3.
The bulk of the staff and contractor resources have already been expended.
4.
The staff paper contains a determination that the final post siting guidelines are not in conflict with the draft final amendments to Part 60 with regard to disposal in the unsaturated zone.
Robert E. Browniny,' DirectqrV Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards t