|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:Ac.hkJT-occe DR G NA_ | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| UNITED STATES O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of:
| |
| ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR )
| |
| WASTE )
| |
| )
| |
| SECOND MEETING )
| |
| O Pages: 209 through 443 , peg
| |
| , s r. <s-,-~
| |
| r,
| |
| , 3 ,7,,,._,.,,, ;
| |
| t I
| |
| Place: Washington, D.C. ", !
| |
| Date: July 22, 1988 j\ _ ,, ,
| |
| ............... .-.===========================""""""""""""8 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION opcw Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 O Washington, D.C. 20005 ggo7 90oos 8007:2 MUN PDR ADVCM N AC WC l:E 3.0002 PDL
| |
| | |
| 209
| |
| ('T v
| |
| UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COHMISSION ADVISORY COMMITIEE ON tRTlEAR NE'IE In the matter of: )
| |
| )
| |
| )
| |
| )
| |
| )
| |
| SECOND MEETING )
| |
| Friday, July 22, 1988 Room No. 1046 1717 H Street, N.W.
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20555 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m.
| |
| BEFORE: DR. DADE W. MOELLER 73
| |
| () Chairman, ACNW Professor of Engineering in Environmental Health Associate Dean for Continuing Education School of Public Health liarvard University Boston, Massachusetts ACNW MEMBER:
| |
| DR. MARTIN J. STEINDLER Director, Chemical Technology Division Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois ACNW CONSULTANTS:
| |
| M. W. CARTEi's R. F. POSTER R. L. KATHREN ACRS MEMBER:
| |
| I'l
| |
| \> lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| b l l
| |
| i 210
| |
| .( -
| |
| DR. PAUL G.-SHEWMON Professor, Metallurgical Engineering Laboratory ,
| |
| Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio NRC STAFF:
| |
| ROBERT M. BERNERG l RICHARD CUNNINGHAM DONALD COOL KITTY DRAGONETTE ZOLTAN ROSZTOCZY WILLIAM LAHS JOHN TRAPP ,
| |
| JOHN ROBERTS LEE ROUSE JOHN LINEHAN PHILIP JUSTUS RAYMOND F. FRALEY H. STANLEY SCHOFER ROBERT BROWNING DOE STAFF ,
| |
| C:) ;
| |
| KEITH KLEIN CHARLES HEAD DWIGHT SHELOR ,
| |
| GREGORY HARTKOFPT l ED RENGIER ,
| |
| I ,
| |
| t L
| |
| i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4888
| |
| | |
| 1 211 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 0:30 a.m.
| |
| 3 CilAIRMAN MOELLER: The meeting will now come to 4 order.
| |
| 5 This is the second day of the second meeting of the 6 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. The topics that we will 7 be covering today include environmental monitoring of low-8 level waste facilities. Th.,t will be an interaction with the -
| |
| 9 NRC staff. Secondly, a discussion of the Center for Nuclear 10 Waste Regulatory Analyses. That will be, I believe, a 11 discussion not only with people from the center but also again 12 from the NRC high-level waste division. And thirdly we'll 13 hear a report on EPA's standards for a high-level waste O
| |
| \l 14 geologic repository, and Dan Egan will be here from agency to 15 discuss that with us. As you know, they had a standard and 16 then there were court decisions and so forth relative to it.
| |
| 17 Then this afternoon we'll have the briefings on the 10 site visits that we're going to make in two weeks in South 19 Carolina. Then the final item today will be to go into an 20 executive session and to discuss and to review any reports 21 that we'll write as a result of this meeting and also to 22 discuss future activities of this committee.
| |
| 23 To move along then, we'll begin with the first 24 subject, environmental monitoring of low-level waste 2S facilities, and to introduce that subject we have John
| |
| ( lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4008
| |
| | |
| 212 O
| |
| # 1 Surmeier from the Division of Low-Level Waste and 2 Decommissioning.
| |
| 3 MR. SURMEIER: Thank you very much, Dr. Moeller. I'm 4 John Surmeier, the Branch Chief for the Technical Branch in 5 Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning. The person who is going 6 to be giving the presentation today is Dr. John Starmer. He 7 is the section leader for the siting section within my branch.
| |
| 8 Professionally, his training is as a geochemist.
| |
| 9 Before Dr. Starmer starts his presentation, I'd like 10 to briefly say as background that the Branch Draft Technical 11 Position on environmental monitoring was published in November 12 of last year and after it was published, because of priorities 13 on resources and other activities, we made a decision that we 14 were going to have to go and phase that particular thing out, 15 other than just going with the draft at that time.
| |
| 16 Unfortunately, the staff member who prepared the 17 material, who worked for Dr. Starmer, recently resigned from 18 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so Dr. Starmer will talk to 19 you in general about the Branch Technical Position. Some 20 questions hich you may ask, he may not be able to provide a 21 detailed answer for at this point in time, but I'm sure we can 22 get an answer to you.
| |
| 23 I'd like to introduce Dr. Starmer and he can give 24 the presentation.
| |
| 25 MR. STARMER: As John mentioned, I'm the section lioritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| N 213 O 1 leader of the siting section. Many aspects of environmental 2 monitoring fall under my purview or the purview of my section.
| |
| 3 Also, as he mentioned, Mike Young who is the person who 4 finalized this document and had a lot to do with it, analyzed 5 the comments, is no Jonger with the Commission.
| |
| 6 I'll be presenting in order something like this, 7 I'll try to give you a little bit of background as to what we 8 were trying to do with the technical position, what the 9 regulatory basis for environmental monitoring is, a little bit 10 about what is in the technical position for any of you who 11 didn't get a chance to read it, and go through a little bit 12 about what the comments, the comments we received and some of (S 13 the thoughts we've had based either on the comments or some
| |
| \_/
| |
| 14 further work that has been done for the Commission by a 15 contractor in the area of environmental monitoring, and then 16 sort of summarize what I've said.
| |
| 17 Recognize that this is a draft Technical Position.
| |
| 18 It was published for comment or notice in the Federal Register 19 last November. I think it was about a 45 day comment period 20 ' that ended in December. We intended at that time to publish 21 the document in final form, taking into consideration the 22 comments, by the end of January. There are several things 23 that got in the way of that, but principally review of the DOE 24 UMTRAP program have caused some reshifting of our resources.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Is there an analysis of all of
| |
| \ lioritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| < 214 I1
| |
| \# 1 the public comments?
| |
| 2 MR. STARMER: I will present that towards the end, 3 as I mentioned.
| |
| 4 I would like to emphasize that this document !.s a 5 guidance document. It is not a regulatory requirement in and 6 of itself. Its purpose is also not to be specific. It was 7 never designed to be a handbook on specific sampling 8 techniques, for example, which staff would find acceptable.
| |
| 9 It was really to look in, to present the concepts, and so that 10 people could look at a brcad overview of what would really 11 fulfill the regulatory requirements in the staff's opinion.
| |
| 12 I would point out that there is quite a bit of fs 13 detail on specific sampling, things to sample for, things like
| |
| ( 14 that, in the staff standard review plan under the acceptance 15 criteria. Those are in sections on site characterization, on 16 operations, enclosure in NUREG 1200.
| |
| 17 We recently in our work on alternatives have had the 18 Pacific Northwest Laboratories look into monitoring for 19 alternatives. In the prracess they did a very good job of 20 bringing together all sorts of considerations for monitoring 21 for low-level waste facilities. That, unfortunately, is caught 22 up in an asbestos problem in the Phillips building. They 23 can't print it. It's at the printer. The printing presses 24 have been stopped by asbestos, and I don't think it's asbestos 25 in the gears. That will be NUREG CR 5054 when it is printed.
| |
| j O IIeritago Usporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 215 A
| |
| 1 Again, to emphasize why this was not designed to be 2 a handbook and that it isn't, I .iill show you what the last 3 handbook on environmental monitoring for low-level waste 4 disposal facilities, which is a DOE product, looks like. It's 5 massive. We felt that because documents of this type exist, 6 there are documents, for example, from EPA on a practical 7 quide for groundwater sampling, specific aspects; or on 8 measurements for environmental radiation measurements from 9 NCRP, that it really wasn't appropriate. So what we're trying 10 to do is give a framework.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Excuse me. The DOE guide, is 12 that the one that PNL put out? The one you just cited.
| |
| 13 MR. STARMER: I believe, although it's been some (V-)
| |
| 14 time. This was done by Argonne.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The Pacific Northwest Lab has put 16 out a detailed DOE guide for environmental --
| |
| 17 MR. KATHREN: I think that's a different document 18 that you have reference to.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: It's the one that Jack Corley --
| |
| 20 MR. KATHREN: Yes, with a red cover. I think it has 21 a red cover.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I don't know.
| |
| 23 MR. KATHREN: That's a totally different document.
| |
| 24 It's not at all related to what I think Dr. Starmer is 25 referring to.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-1888
| |
| | |
| I 216 1
| |
| O
| |
| '' 1 MR. STARMER: At any rate, if it were appropriate, 2 as I mentioned, and I will point out, one of the things we 3 would hope to do in improving if you will, if we were to 4 finalize the draft technical position, would be to include 5 many of the references that are in the PNL document. It's a 6 very very complete bibliography on monitoring for low-level 7 waste and one of the documents that would be referenced would 0 be this one. If it was appropriate, I'm sure it wouP' have 9 been referenced by the PNL study at that time.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, and in the NRC 11 environmental statements that used to be routinely issued each 12 time a nuclear power plant received a CP or an OL, there were 13 detailed tables telling you what samples to collect and at 14 what frequency, and what to do with them and so forth. So the 15 NRC has lots of guidance on this subject. It wasn't low-level 16 waste sites, but it was nuclear power plant sites.
| |
| 17 MR. KATHREN: I think this NRC guidance has been, I 18 don't want to say codified because that isn't the right word.
| |
| 19 Collated, perhaps, into some of the regulatory guides as well.
| |
| 20 CRAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes.
| |
| 21 MR. STARMER: Again, where it's appropriate it's 22 been referenced in our documents. I'll give you an example.
| |
| 23 In an early version of this draft document there was reference 24 made to continuous gamma ray monitoring, and our people in our 25 research department who are very familiar with monitoring and O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4000
| |
| | |
| 217 O 1 monitoring requirements for reactors, pointed out that it's 2 probably not appropriate for a low-level waste site.
| |
| 3 One, it's quite an expensive sort of thing to keep 4 up. And two, it's doubtful that the source term is there.
| |
| 5 Three, and I'm repeating what someone else has told me, the 6 third thing is if you have a release of a very large source 7 term from a reactor, it is very very useful to have very 8 accurate information on that because combined with the very 9 complex and complete atmospheric sampling around a plant, you 10 can really do a lot with it. Where at the level that is 11 expected in a monitoring program for low-level waste site 12 would be implemented, it is less clear that there would be a 13 worthwhile result from trit sort of a monitoring. And that's 14 only one example. There may be others.
| |
| 15 And again, there has been an attempt to incorporate 16 those monitoring aspects from the reactor program that were 17 appropriate for low-level waste.
| |
| i 18 MR. FOSTER: Let me be sure I understand the '
| |
| 19 purpose. As I understand it, this docuinent would be one of 20 the things that an applicant to a state would look at to 21 incorporate into perhapr the equivalent of technical specs 22 relative to a low-level site as far as requirements. Then 23 that would be ordinarily reviewed by the state agency that has 24 overview for approval as contrasted with NRC per se getting 25 into a -- ;
| |
| O lieritage Reporting Corporat.lon (202) 628-4888 t
| |
| | |
| 218
| |
| ()#
| |
| 1 MR. STARMER: Well maybe it would be useful at that 2 point, I think this might answer your question. One of the 3 things I'd like to do is to say what are the requirements, the 4 regulatory requirements for monitoring. Environmental 5 monitoring.
| |
| 6 MR. FOSTER: But whose requirements?
| |
| 7 MR. STARMER: We have a regulation, it was 8 promulgated I believe in 1981 and went into effect in 1982.
| |
| 9 10 CFR Part 61, by which we would regulate low-level waste 10 disposal. Any site or any applicant that came to the NRC.
| |
| 11 Agreement states can, under the Agreement State Program which 12 is under the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs I 13 believe, can regulate low-level waste. If they have received 14 agreement state status tor disposal, they would be the agency 15 that licensed the site, 16 MR. FOSTER: That's my point.
| |
| 17 MR. STARMER: Yes. And currently the three 18 operating sites are licensed by agreement states. So that 19 when you go to Barnwell you will be going to a site that is 20 licensed by the agreement state.
| |
| 21 This guidanor is not binding on agreement states.
| |
| 22 It is not a matter of compatibility. But certain requirements 23 in Part 61, and among them the technical requirements, are 24 matters of compatibility so they have to have a program which 25 would be equivalent to what we would require. In that respect O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 219 O 1 I would see this as explaining what an adequate program is at 2 the conceptual level, not how many samples of what 3 radionuclide to measure for any particular site.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: So this really is not something 5 you'd put in the tcch specs. It's more, as you say, 6 philosophy or overall guidance.
| |
| 7 MR. STARMER: Yes, you're correct. This would not, 8 and first of all they are not technical specifications for a 9 low-level waste site. They would be license conditions. And 10 as I would point out, there are two basic, there are actually 11 three sections of Part 61 that apply to monitoring. The third 12 one is paragraph 29, Section 29, which talks about closure and 13 observation, post closure obser,ation so that could be. I O 14 did not emphasize that because the important things are first 15 61.12(1).
| |
| 16 61.12 in general tells the things that an applicant 17 must submit, the analyses, the descriptions of programs, and 2
| |
| 18 (1) tells what the program for monitoring in a general way 19 should do. It should provide data to evaluate health and 20 environmental impacts, one. And importantly, it also should
| |
| : 21 define, and this is what the licensee would submit. I think 22 this is what you're getting at.
| |
| 23 MR. FOSTER: That's right, yes.
| |
| 24 MR. STARMER: It would have a plan at each stage for 25 taking corrective action. In other words, it you see
| |
| ( lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| 220 0 1 something exceeded. I believe, and I'm not that familiar with 2 tech specs, but I think that's the sort of thing. This would 3 probably be written into the license as a license condition 4 based on the application.
| |
| 5 MR. SMITH: If it's a non-agreement state, and I 6 recognize you don't have any right now that are operating low-7 level facilities, but if one did come along they would submit 8 their application directly to your group?
| |
| 9 MR. STARMER: Yes.
| |
| 10 MR. SMITH: If it's an agreement state, who makes 11 the determination at 11RC? Who evaluates the state's program 12 to make the determination that that operation, that program is 13 compatible with 11RC7 O 14 MR. STARMER: It's the Office of State Programs 15 specifically.
| |
| 16 MR. SMITH: I know t's that office, but do they 17 have people in there with that competency, or do they turn to 18 you?
| |
| 19 MR. SURMEIER: Dr. Smith, they're going to be 20 briefing you this afternoon at 1:00 o' clock on the Agreement 21 State Program, 11RC , but we provide input. We provide 22 technical input when they go down to South Carolina, or if 23 they go out to the state of Washington. We will provide 24 technical assistance to the office of State Programs to work 25 with them en this.
| |
| O V lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 221 0 1 MR. SMITil I've heard that before, but I'll hold 2 it.
| |
| 3 MR. STARMER: I must say just as an example of that, 4 during last week I spent a day and a half working closely with 5 some people on criteria for review of an Agreement State 6 Program, I've forgotten exactly what they call it, but their 7 low-level waste disposal program. So we do interact --
| |
| 8 MR. SMITH: I'll hold it.
| |
| 9 MR. STARMER: You might want to ask them what they 10 think of our interaction but --
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well on that let me alert you to 12 questions that the committee is beginning to develop on this 13 subject, and Cliff is expressing them quite well. Subsequent
| |
| ,O 14 to the last meeting, and you did not appear, but we talked a 15 little bit about this same thing and we heard what you just 16 told us, so subsequent to the meeting I had heard at the last 17 meeting that California was moving ahead and they had picked a 18 site for a possible low-level waste disposal facility within
| |
| * 19 that state, and they were going to, apparently California is 20 an Agreement State and they were golng to license this thing.
| |
| 21 So I went home happy.
| |
| 22 But I called then and said I want to know a little 23 more on my own about California's internal rad protection 24 program, so I said how many people do you have who are going j l
| |
| 25 to take. care of this low-level waste site? The licensing and O' lieritage Reporting Corporation l
| |
| l (202) 628-4088 l
| |
| | |
| 222 G
| |
| \ r
| |
| '~'
| |
| I the reviews and all the evaluation. They said between two and 2 three. So I'm going to have some more questions. I just 3 don't see how two to three people can do everything that needs 4 to be done. But I'm willing to be shown.
| |
| 5 It's not your problem.
| |
| 6 MR. STARMER: I think I could give you the answer, 7 but I think I'd rather let someone else do that.
| |
| 8 CilAIRMAN MOELLER: Bach, one other thing. You used 9 a couple of words that I want to be sure I write down 10 correctly. You said for a low-level waste site it would not 11 be technical specifications, it would be something else?
| |
| 12 MR. STARMER: License conditions?
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN POELLER: License conditions. Thank you.
| |
| O 14 MR. STARMER: They're conditions placed on the 15 license, or as part of the license. In effect a license turns 16 out to be a set of conditions by which you allow them to do 17 something.
| |
| i 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you, 19 MR. STARMER: It might be useful to request a copy 20 of a license --
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And to see those conditions.
| |
| 22 MR. STARMER: In fact, I'll give you a personal 23 suggestion. Before you go to Barnwel? you should have a copy 24 of the current license to understand what it looks like and a
| |
| 25 what it does.
| |
| O lieritage Iteporting Corporation (202) 628-4tl8Il
| |
| | |
| 223 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Owen, will you note that and be 2 sure we see it?
| |
| 3 Thank you.
| |
| 4 MR. STARMER: Then I would point out that 5 10 CFR 61.53 really is the guts of the requirements for an 6 environmental monitoring program. Among other things it 7 requires pre-operational data collec i U n It requires 8 specifically plans be presented for s.rective measures if 9 there is an excursion. It specifically requires monitoring i
| |
| 10 during the construction period, operations period, and the i 11 post-closure period. It states that the reason for this to 11 provide early warning of release.
| |
| 13 The whole basis or the whole reason for a monitoring
| |
| ( 14 program is in effect to provide this operational data to 15 ensure that you are operating within limits but there is this 16 emphasis on early warning, if you will, and that the 17 corrective measures need to be built into the plan.
| |
| 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: ',:e of our consultants who is not 19 here at this meeting but was here at our last meeting, told us 20 that he was working on and had some ideas for monitoring which 21 would not only give you early warning of a release, but he ,
| |
| 22 claimed he was working on procedures which would help you 23 anticipate a release before it even occurred.
| |
| 24 MR. STARMER: Again, I can't comment on the 25 approach. It seems like it would be a very good idea. I would lieritage Reperting Corporation (202) 628-4000 i
| |
| | |
| t 224 h 1 point out that this would be the ideal.
| |
| 2 Anything that's an indicator, and I'll be talking
| |
| : 3. and when I start to talk a little~ bit about what you would 4' monitor, just briefly, anything that's an indicator you should
| |
| ~5 be looking at if you can. I would also. point out, and this 6 may get back to something that you brought up earlier.
| |
| 7 Environmental monitoring, an environmental monitoring program 8 really is aimed at releases so that it does not'look at 9 protection of workers which is required under 10 CFR 61.43, 10 and it does not pertain to monitoring of waste containers, 11 1 equipment, materials, trucks, transportation vehicles required r
| |
| 12 under parts of 10 CFR Part 20. This is for an environmental 13 monitoring, and it really has to do with releases of 3
| |
| s m/
| |
| .14 radioactivity to the environment and to protect the public 15 health and safety.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Again, under their condition for 17 the license they would have to obviously monitor the exposure 18 of their work.
| |
| 19 MR. STARMER: Right. I would also point out that 20 in terms of tech specs and how they do things like that, very 21 often there will be a company operating document which will be 22 incorporated into the license by reference. If they don't 23 operate acc . ding to their agreed to or their specified 24 procedures, then they could be cited. So that may be closer
| |
| .25 to tech spece.
| |
| A U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4808 L
| |
| | |
| -225 Us -1 This is.just to bring'you back to the subject of 2 what we're talking about. In terms of what I'd like.to just 3 tell you briefly about what's in the document. I tried-to-4 tell.you about that the purpose is to give some concepts. We 5 don't go into a. great-deal of detail on exactly what 6 radionuclides or whatever to measure, but we do point out 7 that, try to define it and in that definition we're looking at 8 chemical, physical biotic data in the environs, and again 9 we're trying to look at thinge that will indicate adequate 10 performance. So that is a definition or environmental 11 monitoring.
| |
| 12 .The other two important things that are covered in 13 the document are what to monitor, in other words pathways, and 14 when to monitor them. I'd like to go over that just briefly.
| |
| 15 We do specify generally the principal pathways to be 16 monitored are groundwater, soil, surface water, stream 17 sediment, air, flora, and fauna, and it is not an exclusive 18 set. Again, if there wore specific things to be monitored 19 they would come up in the application itself. An example
| |
| -20 might be for a structure involved in one of the alternative 21 methods of disposal, there may be monitoring that would be 22 done of the physical properties of that structure to 23 illustrate that actually this structure is still behaving in
| |
| '4 the manner it was expected to. Again, it would not be 25 specifically looking at, in this case, a radionuclide in terms D
| |
| V lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l 226 n
| |
| ( )
| |
| 1 of a release, but again, looking for indicators early on.
| |
| 2 MR. STEINDLER: Are there any principal pathways 3 that are not being monitored?
| |
| 4 MR. STARMER: No, I would say not. Unless, if 5 somebody can tell me ue missed one we'll put it in there.
| |
| 6 Again, my point there is we're always open to suggestions. We 7 did not get any suggestions from any of the people who 8 commented that we missed any, but if you think of one, we'd 9 certainly not --
| |
| 10 MR. STEINDLER: On the contrary, that's not my 11 point. My point is, it strikes me that if you're in fact 12 trying to develop a paper that discusses policy, you've taken 13 a fairly simple route by saying we're going to cover the
| |
| \7 ,)
| |
| 14 water, the world, the whole universe. And in case we missed a 15 part of the universe, we'll throw it in. That doesn't sound 16 very selective. It doesn't sound like you're defining a 17 philosophy or a principal that is very useful, does it?
| |
| 18 MR. STARMER: I think the philosophy that is 19 generally presented here is that this is not prescriptive, and 20 that the licensee is expected to provide a basis for those 21 pathways which he analyzes, and if he chooses not to analyze a 22 pathway then he should provide a basis for not analyzing that 23 pathway, and it's that simplo.
| |
| 24 MR. STEINDLER: Is it your intent that somewhere in 25 this document there should be a rationale given by your office
| |
| \/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 227
| |
| [?} 1. that defines why he should analyze a particular pathway?
| |
| 2 MR. STARMER: I believe that'is covered.for each 3' pathway, what.one would, expect. At one time it was much mere 4 prescriptive and included things like flora and fauna. Thou 5 shalt on'a quarterly basis or as opportunity-presents, monitor 6 road kills. That sort of really prescriptive material has 7 been taken out, and for gcod reason I believe. Yet there are 8 some indications that in areas where you might expect the 9 groundwater moisture pathway to be important that monitoring 10 of flvta, in particular on trees or plants, can be a very 11 effective method of discovering early on whether there's a 12 problem.
| |
| 13 It may be that if you don't expect a great deal in O 14 the way of plants and moisture transport or gaceous transport, 15 you would want to write into your application that we feel it 16 is not practical to monitor flora in this area because there 17 isn't going to be any.
| |
| 18 Now it turns out that if you look at the monitoring 19 programs in place at, for example, the commercial site at 20 Hanford, they monitor most of these things on a fairly regular 21 basis. They would not, in general however, monitor road 22 kills. There was never any suggestion that they should or 23 that they would be required to.
| |
| 24 So again, it is supposed to be illustrative of the 25 sorts of things that people could do fairly comprehensive.
| |
| O Ileritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 220 1 There is explanation in the document as to why one might do 2 any aspect.
| |
| 3 MR. STEINDLER: Let me draw a distinction for you 4 between what really is a prescription and the sorts of things 5 people could do, and those are your words, on one side; and 6 the reason for or the basic underlying rationele or the policy 7 as to what should be done. As you go on, I think I'm going to 8 try and draw for you some distinctions between the two, 9 because it's my contention what you have is a prescriptive 10 document even though you say it is not prescriptive. It's 11 prescriptive in the sense that it doesn't give you, at least 12 didn't give me, an underlying feeling as to why you are doing g3 13 what you're doing, or what ultimately you're trying to L) 14 accomplish, with the one exception that is you need some kind 15 of warning. Those are the only comments I've been able to 16 find in here.
| |
| 17 MR. STARMER: If you can be specific sir, I would 18 appreciate that.
| |
| 19 MR. STEINDLER: I will try and be specific.
| |
| 20 MR. STARMER: It would be very helpful.
| |
| 21 MR. FOSTER: I'm not sure this is the time to bring 22 it up, but maybe it is. Yesterday, we spent a lot of time 23 talking about below regulatory concern, and a staff document 24 which out some numbers on that like one millirem per 25 individual per year. I'm wondering it people are thinking f%,
| |
| b Ileritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4008 1
| |
| | |
| 229 01 1 ahead at'all to how that-may interact with a monitoring 2 program such as this. If an applicant could show.at the 3 outset that some of these pathways by no rational process 4 would ever result in a dose which exceeded below regulatory.
| |
| s 5 concern, then the question is does that particular pathway 6 need to be monitored?
| |
| 7 .MR. STARMER: .Again, the purpose of a monitoring 8 program is to indicate performance, or to provide an 9 indication of performance. If you were to show, in other 10 words, I believe what you would be trying to show is not that 11 it would be a pathway which would produce a dose of below 12 regulatory concern, one millirem or whatever, but that it 13 would not provide any useful information on the performance of 14 the facility.
| |
| 15 MR. POSTER: An example would be corhaps radio 16 iodine in milk and the sampling of dairy products which I 17 think your document includes. If it could be shown that there 18 is insufficient iodine in the burial ground or that the way in 19 which this could be released was such that you would never 20 reach a one millirem per year exposure to the thyroid, it 21 seems to me reasonable that you could exclude monitoring of 22 dairy products, as one exampl .
| |
| 23 MR. STARMER: Well again, as an example, if you were 24 getting an indication of a half a millirem dose there would be o 25 some indication that there was something wrong at your IIeritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 230 f3/
| |
| s 1 facility, particularly if you didn't, you know. Now if there 2 were A, no radio iodine disposed of in the facility; and D, 3 there were no cows within a 100 mile radius; I think you could 4 make a very good case to any rational person that you didn't 5 need to monitor cow's milk. Now I'm not sure, but the process 6 by which you make that finding I think is there, is 7 available.
| |
| 9 As I mentioned this is not prescription, it is not 9 regulation. You don't have to do anything that's in a 10 guidance document.
| |
| 11 MR. FOSTER: I'm with Dr. Steindler. It seems to me 12 it's this kind of thing which would be helpful to have in the 73 13 document.
| |
| U 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And actually, Richard, as you 15 talk we expressed or the staff expressed that one millirem 16 yesterday as an effective does equivalent, so you could have 17 ten millirem to the thyroid which would be about one 18 effective, an you could forget it, which they've really got to 19 think these things through.
| |
| 20 MR. KATHREN: You said something, and the flavor in 21 the document is that the purpose of this environmental 22 monitoring program is exclusively for establishing conformance 23 with the regulations. I have a little trouble with that 24 because I think an environmental monitoring program really 25 does more than that. There's perhaps a philosophical O Ileritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 231 O l' ~ difference here,'and _you just said it again, that the purpose 2 of a monitoring program'was to assure that your operations are 3 in conformance with the regs.
| |
| 4 Isn't one of the purposes, I would think,-to be a 5 predictor of possible non-compliance later on and not just 6 -verify that you're complying? Or did I mis-hear you?
| |
| 7 MR. STARMER: I don't know, and maybe I didn't 8 emphasize it, but I thought that we were monitoring during 9 construction, operations, post closure, to provide early 10 ' warning of releases. In other words, it's an indicator of 11 performance. But I think maybe I was misunderstood. What I 12 was trying to say was this, that we're trying to look at 13 performance and we're trying to fi.nd out early on if there's O 14 an indicator that something is going wrong. This would 15 preferably be before someone received a dose-that was over one 16 millirem or over 25 millirem or whatever the regul'atory 17 requirement was, because the other part of the monitoring 18 program, in other words it's not just a measurement program, 19 it has a mitigation aspect of well if I see something going 20 wrong I want to fix it.
| |
| 21 Now if you're going to try and fix something, the 22 concept would be to do that as early as possible. Therefore, 23 if there is, I agree that tf there is no source term and if 24 there are no cows around to produce milk that it would not be 25 very practical to use that. But if they were there and there O IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| }
| |
| | |
| 232 1 was a possibility that radio lodine would be released and if 2 1.t's a good thing to measure and not too much trouble, it 3 seems like it would be remiss not to be measuring that.
| |
| 4 MR. KATHREN: ~Along those same lines, Dr. Steindler 5 asked are there principal pathways that are not included?
| |
| 6 Yes, there is one.
| |
| 7 MR. STEINDLER: What is it?
| |
| 8 MR. KATHREN: Population.
| |
| 9 MR. STEINDLER: Population?
| |
| 10 MR. KATHREN: Unless you include the humans in with 11 the fauna you'd need to look at the population and land use in 12 the vicinity of the facility. That's an important aspect that eg 13 I think is absent from this philosophy.
| |
| O 14 For example, if there are no cows wJthin a 100 mile 15 radius when you start, but a year later you've got a dairy 16 farm located down wind next door, and maybe they are bringing 17 in iodine, although that's short lived, but just to use that 18 as an illustration.
| |
| l
| |
| ! 19 So I would suggest that there might be some 20 attention paid to the land use and population in the vicinity 21 of the facility.
| |
| 22 I'd also like to make a point about your 23 prescriptive statement. Just some of the comments I made when 24 I read this, you said it wasn't prescriptive and yet there are 25 very specific things in here, you should wash a sample before lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4688
| |
| | |
| I -
| |
| 233 1 you analyze it to get rid of contamination. To me,-that's a 2 vs.f specific and prescriptive statement.
| |
| : 3. MR. STARMER: Well, compared to what it used to be, 4 it's relatively non-prescriptive. If you feel it's too 5 prescriptive, if you can indicate where, we.will.see if we can 6 make it less prescriptive.
| |
| 7 MR. KATHREN: I don't know what it was compared-to, 8 I'm not comparing it to what it used to be.
| |
| I'm just looking.
| |
| 9 at the document as it stands now.
| |
| 10 MR. STARMER: Well this document has had a long and 11- active life. IEbelieve some-first drafts were produced in 12 1980 It's gone through many hands, so.
| |
| 13 MR. KATHREN: Just as a final point, what was a 14 little disturbing to me vas to find that, maybe I'll put it 15 this way. There's been a great deal written on environmental 16 monitoring, and Dr. Moeller has referred to some of those 17 documents. There are some excellent, and I think you referred 18 to one of them, regulatory guides that have been prepared. I 19 don't get the same flavor in reading this as in the other 20 documents, if I can say it that way.
| |
| 21 MR. STARMER: Again, if you can make some 22 suggestions as to specific documents that you think we should s
| |
| 23 incorporate or concepts, I'd be more than willing to work with 24 you.
| |
| 25 MR. KATHREN: Very good. I'll see you at the break O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 234 10 1 maybe and'we can discuss it.
| |
| 2 :MR. STARMER: This document, first of all, is a 3 draft document. It was put out for comment. And as I 4- ' mentioned, we.had comments from the point of that it's not 5 prescriptive enough, to my God, if we institute any of this it 6 will drive us out of business. So I think, and somecof the 7 comments are that it doesn't give enough information, as'I'll 8 point out when I get to that point, some of the comments that.
| |
| 9 we've had.
| |
| 10 I'd like just briefly to talk about another ll_ important aspect and it has to do a little bit with this 12 emphasis, what you measure and when. One aspect, if you don't 13 have pathway it wouldn't make much sense to do it, but.there 14 would be changing emphasis during time. One of the concepts 15 that is associated or presented in the document is that there 16 are basically three phases: c' pre-operational ~ phase, an 17 operational phase which also may include some construction, 18 and a post-operational monitoring phace.
| |
| 19 In the pre-operational monitoring phase you 20 basically are trying to obtain data which will provide you a 21 baseline. It also is conducted during that time when you are 22 characterizing the site, so you will find prescribed in the 23 regulation measurements of some things like geochemistry, 24 geology, and seismology which are not necessarily things you 25 will continue to monitor, but in the early monitoring stage O IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| . _ . . . ~ . . . - _ . - .. . - . -. . -
| |
| 235
| |
| .p
| |
| 'd 1 you'll be looking at som, things that are-not directly 2 associated with releases, but may affect releases, may havu-3 . affect on the performance of the facility.
| |
| 4 'During the operational monitoring phase the emphasis S- will change somewhat. You're going to be looking more in-6 terms of releases th'at might be caused by an accident.
| |
| 7 Something you see happen and then you're going to be 8 monitoring the actual behavior of the site as you try to clean 9 it up or as you see this migrating. You-will also probably 10 change your emphasis somewhat during.the life of a sito, 11 There is really not much expectation that anything is going to 12 fail and that there will be releases due to disposal very very 13 early in the site. That chance of failure of.a disposal-unit
| |
| .O. 14 increases with-time and with the number of disposal units that 15 are finished, so that you will be placing more and more 16 emphasis on the pathways that would be important if there is a 17 release due to failure of a disposal unit or part of a 18 disposal unit.
| |
| 19 During the post-operational monitoring period you're 20 going to be looking at things that would happen basically due 21 to degradation of disposal cells. This is something that l
| |
| 22 takes place over time. I would point out because of 23 radioactive decay the actual radionuclides that you may use as 24 indicators and be monitoring for would change with time. Your 25 indicators aay cbange and this should be taken into O IIeritage Reporting Corporation .
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| o 236 l
| |
| ' f')
| |
| i I
| |
| I consideration as you design your program.
| |
| -2. CHATRMAN MOELLER: Excuse me. What were the PO's, 3~ incompliance with the PO's?
| |
| 4 'MR. STARMER: Performance: objectives. Performance 5- objectives are basically in this case the performance 6 cbjectives for release.
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN MC3LLER: Thank you, l 8 MR. STARMER: One important point that should be ,
| |
| 9 brought out, and it needs to be brought out because it needs 10 to be taken into consider 6 tion early in the design and as you 11 are characterizing a site and collecting data early in the 12 program, is to have a quality assurance program or a quality 13 control program. The point here is that 10 CFR 61 doesn't ,
| |
| 14 require quality assurance, but it turns out the best-way to 15 demonstrate that you have an adequate quality control program 16 is to have a quality assurance program because that's what a 17 quality a.ssurance program really is.
| |
| 18 This is a list of the commentors. Overall we 19 received individual comments that totalled well over 100. I 20 don't have the most recent, the most recent commentor were 21 some comments we just received from Washington Department of 22 Ecology, but ae've received comments from all of these people.
| |
| 23 The PNL had this contract, as I mentioned, on monitoring.
| |
| 24 They have commented on our document and provided some good 25 input.
| |
| O liericage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i i
| |
| 1 3
| |
| 237 l i
| |
| n'' 1 MR. SMITH: .A question. In any of these comments 2 did you discern:whether or not any of these commentors had any 3 questions about what the purpose of this document was? Did 4 they seem.to be clear about what it is you were trying.to do?
| |
| 5 MR. KATHREN: 10n the next slide.
| |
| 6 MR. STARMSR: I would point out --
| |
| 7 MR. SMITH: This just-says unclear objectives.
| |
| 8 MR. STARMER: Let me explain. I was going to 9 briefly go down through these.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Incidentally, we asked earJier
| |
| ; 11 and you said of course, you would give us a summary of the 12 comments which.you're doing now, but have they been written up 13 and could we be provided with a written summary? Could we see 14 the comments in a written summary?
| |
| -15 MR. STARMER: This is the summary of the. comments 16 that we have w?itten. This would be the format that we would 17 use. In other words, they've been grouped. If you would like 18 copies of the complete set of comments, that would be 19 possible. If you are going to comment'on this I would 20 appreciate your commenting on it and then looking at the 21 comments. I think that would be more effective. You see what 22 my point would be there.
| |
| 23 MR. SMITH: But what you've done is just grouped 24 them in this basis. You haven't written down a summary of what 25 the 21, you haven't written down anywhere a summary of what lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 4 238
| |
| .D G
| |
| 1 those 21 people --
| |
| 2 MR. STARMER: There were 21 people that commented 3 that a-one yeer monitoring period is~ adequate, end I must say 4 that as I mentioned, this was an earlier compilation because 5 we just got the Washington Department of Ecology comments, and 6 they commented that it was woefully inadequate. So it can be-7 22 comments to that effect.
| |
| 8 Now if you will, I can sort of talk a little bit to 9 each one of those, but that, at this point, is the most effort-10 we've been able to put into this document.
| |
| 11 MR. SMITH: Okay. That's okay.
| |
| 12 MR. STARMER: Again, if we can get back to the 13 second comment which is one that interests me, some of the 14 people say you're not-specific enough. You don't tell us what 15 to monitor for, you don't tell us how frequently to monitor, 16 you don't tell us where to put the wells. Other people said 17 you put much too stringent requirements on us, it's much too 18 prescriptive, and doing this will bankrupt our operation. We 19 couldn't possibly develop a dispossl facility and implement 20 those sorts of monitoring requirements.
| |
| 21 I would point out from my point of view, being 22 familiar with the monitoring programs of Barnwell and at 23 Hanford, and I won't speak to the tievada site because the 24 Nevada site has some other problems. They're being relicensed 25 at this point. One of the problems there, I believe, is the O lleritoge Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 239
| |
| , s
| |
| '~'
| |
| 1 monitoring program. But the two sites, the one in Washington 2 and the one in South Carolina probably exceed what we suggest 3 is adequate in this document if you take it on face value and 4 say these are the sorts of things you should do to have the 5 plans in place, and then based on what is commonly accepted 6 as adequate sampling, statistical sampling and things like 7 that, if you look at it from a technical point of view you can 8 make a finding or staff can make a finding that their program 9 is adequate.
| |
| 10 They're doing it, they're making money, and they may 11 not be happy about it, but they include that as a cost of 12 doing business.
| |
| 13 MR. STEINDLER: Where on this list do I find the set i
| |
| us 14 of comments that say you're being way too prescriptive, you're 15 going to bankrupt us?
| |
| 16 MR. STARMER: I believe it's in the technical 17 comments on the sampling, number of monitoring stations, lack 18 of specificity. I don't know that --
| |
| 19 MR. SMITH: So you're saying that some of those 32 20 thought you were asking for too much, and some thought you 21 weren't asking very much is what you're sayino.
| |
| 22 MR. STARMER: Yes. This was an attempt to capsulize 23 this for a public meeting and try to give you a flavor of the 24 comments. I was trying to then verbalize some of the nuances 25 and point out that there is variability. Some people are very
| |
| /^i l lieritage Reportina Corporation (202) 62G-4888
| |
| | |
| ~240
| |
| '(N'''
| |
| much in favor of.the technical position; some people are.
| |
| 11 2 pretty much opposed to it. The. flavor, if you will, of some
| |
| :3 of them would almost indicate that they didn't really think-4- they really needed to. monitor. This is a position that could 5 be taken, but I' don't think it's a-very supportable position.
| |
| 6 CilAIRMAN MOELLER: And what I think we should be 7 sure the record shows is that you have indicated that although 8 you have analyzed this, the Low-Level Waste Division staff has ,
| |
| 9 not had the time to write up the more detailed, lengthy 10 analysis that you ultimately will do.
| |
| 11 MR. STARMER: I don't believe that that's --
| |
| 12 CilAIREMI MOELLER: Oh, that's not true?
| |
| '13 MR. SURMEIER: As I told you, Dr. Moeller, as of i
| |
| O 14 February of this year, we quit doing work, we basically said 15 no more work, direction from top, no more work in this area 16 because there are other priorities within the division. So 17 even the compilation here was done by the person who has left 18 the agency on the weekends. He was still trying to move 19 forward with it. But the work as far as actually devoting work 20 to it as of February, we no longer were providing any support 21 whatsoever on this.
| |
| 22 CilAIRilAN MOELLER: Thank you, i 23 MR. SMITH: Do you think, tliough, that more work 24 needs to be done? Or is it that you're not doing it because 25 you have other priorities and don't have any resources to do O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| . ~ . . - - - . - . - .
| |
| | |
| e.
| |
| 241 1h 1- it?
| |
| 2 MR. SURMEIER:' There are higher priorities, Dr.
| |
| 3 Smith, we believe'within the division. But I think, again,
| |
| ~
| |
| '4 monitoring.from both a public health and safety and also from 5 a perspective of comfortableness of the public accepting a 6 disposal site, I think it's an important area to do.
| |
| 7 Now we do have in our regulation explicit words 8 about doing monitoring, and I think it's somewhat clear of 9 what we are expecting. We think it would be useful to provide 10 a broader, more detailed description. If we got too 11 prescriptive, then we've got problems about basically saying ,
| |
| 12 we're in violation of what the regulation says because the 13 regulation is pretty general. But if you provide guidance and 14 try to provide a framework, you can I think help people along 15 without necessarily_saying you have to do it that way.
| |
| 16 MR. SMITH: Let me make sure I understand what ,
| |
| 17 you're saying. You think this is obviously a very important 18 topic, but you have other priorities -- ;
| |
| 19 MR. SURMEIER: That are more important.
| |
| , 20 MR. SMITH: That are more important. But if you had 21 the resources, clearly you would do some more on this. l 22 MR. SURMEIER: That's correct.
| |
| 23 MR. STARMER: If I cotild juGt continue, the last i l
| |
| 24 thing is what we would do. l 4- !
| |
| 25 MR. SMITH: Let me just ask, the priorities are set R
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 242 1 by?
| |
| 2 MR. SURHEIER: Are set by me to an extent, by my 3 management to an extent. The real problem we ran into this 4 year is because of the DOE uranium mill training reclamation, 5 the UMTRAP program, that people who could work on here'were 6 also the groundwater hydrologists, the specialists who 7 basically we needed very very cadly to make sure that the DOE 8 program was not going to be held up. So there was just no way 9 in the world that we could continue to work on this at any 10 level.
| |
| 11 When we published it in November of last year the 12 individual working on this was working on it in a very small 13 portion of his time and had taken a very long time to even get 14 to that level, and we decided we were going to put it out as 15 draft for public comment just to at least try to get some 16 momentum and at least to have you have an opportunity to take 17 a look at it.
| |
| 18 MR. STARMER: I would point out if we had our 19 druthers we would do some work, and here are some of the 20 things we would like to do.
| |
| 21 One is to look at individual comments, and I think 22 we would really appreciate getting some very specific comments 23 from you.
| |
| 24 For example, if something is too prescriptive, or 25 you feel it's too prescriptive, let us know. We'll see. If O
| |
| lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4080
| |
| | |
| 243
| |
| .)
| |
| I we still feel it isn't, we would try to.tell you why we feel 2 it isn't too prescriptive, but if it's not specific enough, 3 again we have to take into consideration how far we can-go ,
| |
| 4 before we're writing a handbook on monitoring and those sorts 5 of things.
| |
| 6 In an attempt to help a potential licensee know 7 what's available to them, and again to refer to some of this 8 important documentation which has not been adequately 9 referenced, was e concept that we would add references in the 10 biblicgraphies in some form as an appendix from the NUREG that 11 was put together for us by Pacific Northwest Labs.
| |
| 12 MR. STEINDLER: I guess I'm a little bit troubled.by 13 why you think a potential applicant would require that kind of 14 support. I can't imagine that you would grant a license.or 15 even a state would grant a license to an organization that 16 wasn't sufficiently technically competent to already be 17 reasonably familiar with what's in the literature. I can't 18 imagine somebody granting an operating license to a reactor to 19 folks who don't know very much about what's available on 20 reactor techniques and technology and science and engineering.
| |
| 21 MR. STARMER: So your suggestion would be that we 22 don't provide any more guidance.
| |
| 23 MR. STEINDLER: What I'm saying is I'm a little 24 surprised that you think it's required. You're the folks that 25 are out there in the field dealing with the world at large.
| |
| O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4080 s . . , _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ . .
| |
| : m. _ -
| |
| -244 A
| |
| kJ 1 That's not an' area that I can claim any expertise in. Why do 2 you think it is necessary for you to do that? Do you find the 3 folks you're dealing with --
| |
| 4 MR. STARMER: I don't believe I can address that.
| |
| 5 MR. SURMEIER: John, talk to them about the meeting 6 you had with the state representatives down in the South and 7 their interest in this area.
| |
| 8 MR. STARMER: I suppose if you think about it, we're 9 talking on a pretty technical level here. I would assume that 10 the technical people know exactly what is needed. However, 11 there is a great deal of administrative interest in this sort 12 of thing, and part of this is to illustrate to people what it 13 is that, for example. One of the problems that I've observed 14 in, and not necessarily the meeting that John was referring 15 to, but I have observed in public meetings is a lack of 16 knowledge of the public on what is known about the behavior of ,
| |
| 17 radionuclides in the environment.
| |
| 18 If there is never anything put out by the regulatory 19 agency that illustrates to those people that there is some 20 knowledge and that it is not some sort of an occult thing, l 21 that there is guidance which, if you will, while these other 22 people know what they need to do, gives them direction and 23 suggests what we find is important, that it is as serious a i i
| |
| 24 problem in terms of progress to progress towards the 25 Congressionally mandated requirements to develop disposal IIeritage Reporting Corporation ''
| |
| (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| d 245 1 capacity as if we don't, if we don't do it we might as well 2 stand back and watch these people go up in flames.
| |
| '3 And it's not necessarily that I'm trying to preach 4 to a group of people that I would hope would develop a 5 monitoring program for a potential licensee either for us or 6 for the state, but it is to illustrate and define what the
| |
| '7 body of knowledge is, and what the requirements are, and what 8 conceptually is an adequate monitoring program.
| |
| 9 MR. STEINDLER: If your point : hat you previously 10 made is addressed not to the operators or potential licensees, ,
| |
| 11 then I certainly have no argument with what you said. My
| |
| , 12 concern was that I thought I heard you say that you were 13 really putting this together for the potential licensees.
| |
| 14 MR. STARMER: It certainly is for them too, but it 15 does not imply that they don't know what they're doing. It is 16 to try to provide them a framework within which to operate.
| |
| 17 If we can provide them some help, I personally cannot see any 18 problem with that, nor do I see an implication that they are 19 necessarily incompetent.
| |
| 20 MR. SMITH: I'm getting a little confused, perhaps.
| |
| 21 Let's say that I'm applying for a license to operate a low-22 level site and one of the requirements in the application will 23 be to describe what our environmental monitoring program would 24 be. To ti.: extent that what it is that you're putting out is
| |
| : 25 rather detailed, that makes things a heck of a lot clearer and O IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) G20-4000
| |
| ~ - .. _ . _ ____..__
| |
| | |
| 246 1 easier for me.
| |
| 2 I guess my question is, is this supposed to 3 represent. what the minimum requirements are?-
| |
| 4 MR. STARMER: No, as I mentioned at the beginning, 5 this is to provide. guidance, the conceptual framework --
| |
| 6 MR. SMITH: I hear that, but let me go a little 7 further. I can spin my wheels an awful lot in putting 8 together an environmental monitoring program-that may or may 9 not be anywhere near what you folks want when you sit down end 10 start reviewing it. If I'm the public.and I'm looking at your 11 document I say golly, this thing is awfully loose. It's 12 awfully vague. It isn't very clear.
| |
| g 13 One of the problems I've noted with NRC in the past G
| |
| 14 in this area, before your time, is that the potential licensee 15 doesn't really know what the agency wants.
| |
| 16 MR. STARMER: I would say probably what I said at 17 the beginning of this talk. There is more specific information 18 on what is found to be applicable and adequate in NUREG 1200 19 which describes in more detail what we would be reviewing and 20 what we would find acceptable under standard review plans for 21 a monitoring program whether it's pre-operational, 22 operational, and post-clocure. I was trying to say there are 23 handbooks on how to do this, specifically aimed at low-level 24 waste site. We have reviewed those, we've referenced them as 25 a help. Maybe we shouldn't do this. I think I'm getting a O Ileritago Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4800
| |
| | |
| .. . . ~
| |
| I I
| |
| 247 O 1- direction Faat advice is not to provide any more information, 2 but we thought it would be very useful to. share our knowledge 3 of the literature that we paid good contractor money for with 4 potential applicants to make sure they don't miss something 5 that might be important to their considerations.
| |
| 6 MR. SMITH: I don't disagree there. Would the 7 literature that you're referring to, though, specifically talk 8 about an environmental monitoring program for a low-level 9 radioactive waste site?
| |
| 10 MR. STARMER: Yes, among other things. Some of.it 11 la more general. Some or it, as I mentioned, I'll give you an 12 example. Sampling, groundwater sampling le not something that 13 ts specifically done for low-level waste disposal sites.
| |
| 14 Hydrologists sample for hazardous constituents. They sample 15 wells to find out whether the water is hard or not, whether 16 you need to have a water softener. There are various things.
| |
| It is not something that is unknown, and in fact a book like 17 18 this will~give you some very good information on what are 19 acceptable sampling techniques. This happens to be an EPA 20 document. It is not specifically directed at sampling for 21 low-level waste sites. However, the information and the 22 techniques are accepted in the hydrology community.
| |
| 23 When it comes to measurement of environmental 24 samples for radioactivity, this is not something that's 25 unknown. There are NCRP publications that go into great O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 248
| |
| 'O 1 detail. Our thought was that these could be referenced and 2 would help people understand what', it's like referencing an 3 ASTM code or an ASME code that these things are generally not 4 codified ~at this time and therefore you have to go to the 5 professional literature to say these are the sorts of 6 techniques that are found adequate.
| |
| 7 I don't know whether that helps. Again, the' purpose 8 was not to produce a handbook on environmental monitoring for 9 low-level waste sites, but to provide more information than 10 the four paragraphs or five paragraphs which are very broad in 11 the regulation. I think if you carry-that to the extreme, you 12 can say in the regulation it basically only requires you to ,
| |
| 13 have a program that looks at pre-operational things, post- !
| |
| 14 operational things, operational things, and have a mitigation 15 plan.
| |
| 16 This document was designed to give people an idea of 17 what that program should look like when you presented it. I 18 think if you look in the standard review plans you will find 19 increasing detail as to what NRC would find acceptable. I 20 think if you go finally to the literature you can find the 21 absolute details of statistics for sampling, techniques, 22 baller design techniques for sampling, how to sample to reduce 23 contamination between samples, and things of that sort. This 24 document was not designed as a handbook. I think that's the 25 important thing to understand.
| |
| O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 249 y
| |
| (
| |
| 1 MR. STEINDLER: Are there any regulatory guides that j 2 exist that have bearing on environmental monitoring for low--
| |
| 3 level waste sites?
| |
| 4 MR. STARMER: -There are. regulatory guides that have 5 bearing oncit, and we have been somewhat reluctant to cite 6 those because of the things like requirements in those, or 7 they aren't requirements, but guidance that an applicant 8 should have, a continuous gamma ray monitor that are much too, 9 probably not appropriate for low-level waste. And even though 10 you write in your document where you write in the guidance, 11 you say look at Reg Guide 1.109 or whatever might be the Reg l 12 Guide number, and take those parts which are applicable, you 13 really haven't, in.my opinion, done much for the applicant.
| |
| 14 Now you can take issue with that. I will accept 15 that, but that was the position that we took when we developed 16 this.
| |
| 17 MR. STEINDLER: Has the staff entertained any
| |
| '8 thought about putting together a regulatory guide specifically
| |
| : 1. tailored or addressing only those issue hat are sensible for 20 environmental monitoring?
| |
| 21 MR. STARMER: In the process to produce a regulatory 22 guide, some start at the top and start out at draft regulatory 23 guides. Often they start out as a Branch Technical Position 24 and then are sent to research to be turned into a regulatory 25 guide.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 250 0 1 At this point since we can't even L aalize our 2 Branch Technical' Position, I'm not sure, one approach might be 3 to send the draft to research with the comments that we 4 received to this point, our thoughts on how it might be 5 improved, and see whether they could do anything. I cannot 6 speak for them in terms of resources.
| |
| 7 MR. SMITH: I guess the thing that concerns me, not 8 picking on your presentation, your position, but ultimately 9 nuclear waste is going to be disposed of either in a low-level 10 site or in a deep geologic repository. We all know the 11 public's concern about this. It seems to me that there's 12 nothing more important than making sure that it's explicitly 13 clear what it is we're going to require in environmental 14 monitoring either at a low-level site or a high-level site.
| |
| 15' Therefore, if it's an agency resource problem to do the job 16 right, then that needs to float up to the top. I just think 17 this is too darned important to not do it as right, as 18 detailed as is necessary.
| |
| 19 I understand your problem. But i'm saying --
| |
| 20 MR. STARMER: I think both John and I agree with you 21 entirely, but what can I say?
| |
| <22 MR. SMITH: It doesn't require a statement.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You have one or two more slides 24 and then we'll take up the questions.
| |
| 25 MR. STARMER: I think we've sort of summarized it O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| -_ ~ , . .
| |
| 251 1 already. We'd like to move forward. We've got the technical 2 position out so that these people can comment, tel us what 3- they like and don't like. I would say in general it's been 4 pretty' favorable. There are specific things that people don't 5 like. I can understand that. We'd like to address those 6 concerns.
| |
| 7 However, I must say this, people that are involved 8 in this have been relatively appreciative. Maybe not of all-9 aspects, but relatively, they like the fact that we've got 10 something out on the street. At least they know what were
| |
| , 11 thinking.
| |
| 12 As I say, they may disagree, but they can get their g- 13 hands and fingers into something.
| |
| V 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Richard, do you have a comment?"
| |
| 15 MR. FOSTER: A few kind of disjointed ones. Relative 16 to the objectives of the document itself, it seemed to me that .
| |
| 17 the list that you had over on page 20 under monitoring 18 constituent levels, there's a group of things there called 19 radiological and non-radiological constituents, but under that 20 is not a bad list of what the thing is really trying to do.
| |
| 21 It seems to me that something like that ought to be elevated 22 up toward the front.
| |
| ; 23 In reading through, you make frequent, not you but 1-24 whoever wrote it make frequent reference to this non-1 25 radiological non-hazardous species and monitoring those.
| |
| Heritage Heporting Corporation (202) 620-4800
| |
| | |
| 252
| |
| [)
| |
| 1 Until a person realizes that the reason for doing that is 2 probably a detection of some early release, you wonder why 3 it's there. It almost seems to have as much status as 4 monitoring for the radiolog3 cal things themselves. So I th.tnk S at the outset it warrants saying we're not really worried 6 about those things, but we can use them as an indicator.
| |
| 7 One feature that is commonly left out of all of the 8 documents that describe what you should do in monitoring, is 9 how you should present the results. I have the continued 10 impression that when those things are reported they're usually 11 in tabular form, maybe reported each quarter, maybe in some 12 extreme cases each month, and some poor radiological officer f~. 13 for the state, maybe one of two in California, glances at b 14 these things and all he sees is the current numbers which are 15 there, and he doesn't have time to try to relate this to what 16 it should be or what it was before.
| |
| 17 It seems to me there ought to be a prescription that 18 monitoring data ought to be plotted on some sort of a chart 19 that shows what the situation was that existed before, if 20 there are control levels thct you don't want to exceed, or if 21 you exceed go into an action level. Those are a couple of 22 permanent bars on the chart. But in my experience a dot on a 23 chart with historica] reference to what went before is an 24 awful lot easier to make an interpretation of than to see a 25 i lece of raw data written in a table.
| |
| '-) lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| | |
| 253 O-
| |
| 'O 1 MR.- STARMER: I might suggest you ask the state of-The 2 South Carolina to go over their monitoring-program.
| |
| 3 Radiological Health Department --
| |
| 4' MR. FOSTER: They have such a thing?
| |
| 5 MR. STARMER: I think you might be very happy with 6 what they're doing. They plot data monthly. They compare ~lt 7 to action levels.
| |
| 8 MR. FOSTER: That s_ good.
| |
| 9 MR. STARMER: I $aess the thing I'd say there is, 10 you say we should be prescriptive. Again, the way we intended 11 to regulate in the low-level waste area is through the license 12 conditions and through refe rence to procedures, and I agree fg 13 entirely with you, I think one of the things that impressed us V 14 about their program was Gris looking. I think if you think 15 about it for a second, the implication that they have to have l 16 a program for mitigating a problem means they have to have 17 action levels and tell you what they're going to do at those
| |
| ; 18 action levels. Probably the only way you can effectively do 19 that is to do it the way you're describing.
| |
| 20 Now as I say, one of the things you might wanc to 21 delve into when you visit the state people in South Carolina 22 is look at what they do with their monitoring data.
| |
| 23 MR. FOSTER: I personally consider that that phase 24 of the program is sufficiently important that it ought to be 25 mentioned in --
| |
| O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| .254 O 1 MR. STARMER: Yes, that's a very good point.
| |
| 2 MR. FOSTER: There's one other document that you 3 don't have in your list. Perhaps you looked at it. That is 4 there is an ANSI-standard out on environmental monitoring 5 'which is ANSI /ANS 18.5 which was developed in 1982. It's a 6 . consensus standard. If memory serves me correct Jerry Klein 7 was on that particular committee at that time representing the 8 NRC.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Other comments?
| |
| 10 Let me make a couple, and you've asked for written 11 comments from the committee so I think we need to, even though 12 we're past time'we need to go into this in enough depth so we 13 can prepare some.
| |
| 14 Perhaps you covered it in here, but would you 15 refresh my memory. Did you alert or remind the licensee of 16 the importance to know the habits? Ron Kathren touched upon 17 it, but the use of the land surrounding the site and the 18 habits of thu people near the site.
| |
| 19 MR. STARMER: I don't think we specifically pointed 20 that out. I think his point probably, we could interpret what 21 you were talking about as that sort of a thing. In other 72 words, if nobody drinks --
| |
| 23 MR. KATHREN: The issue is --
| |
| 24 MR. STARMER: Right, if nobody keeps cows you aren't 25 going to do it, but also if people eat particular types of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-488E
| |
| | |
| 255 m
| |
| U 1 things. Is that what you were getting at?
| |
| 2 MR. KATHREN: My comment was broader than that. You 3 need, or an applicant needs to have as a baseline a population 4 and land use survey. That has to be done periodically 5 throughout the operational life of the facility to ensure that 6 your monitoring program is relevant.
| |
| 7 MR. STARMER: I think I know what you're talking 8 about, and we may be talking around it, but the idea is not in 9 the document at this time explicitly.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: One other one I noticed you did 11 not mention, and I realize you were trying not to be 12 prescriptive, but you did not mention the use of non-13 indigenous media. You mention the flora and fauna that's Os 14 there. Ron Kathren said the people who are there or the 15 groundwater or what not, but frequently in monitoring, people 16 do put in their own indicators or materials which will collect 17 radionuclides and show their presence there if indeed they've 18 ben released. I'm thinking of steel wool that you put into a 19 stream. We used to put tea bags into a stream because tea 20 will absorb certain key radionuclides, and so forth.
| |
| 21 I don't know whether that's, well to name what to 22 use would be prescriptive, but just the concept of non-23 indigenous media might be worthy of consideration.
| |
| 24 MR. STARMER: I wouldn't say it wouldn't but I'd 25 have to look and see where you could put something like that
| |
| (~h
| |
| '/
| |
| lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 256 O l- in.
| |
| 2- CHAIRMAN MOELLER: There's some wording, and I' 3 realize this is.a nit, but go to_page 20, and I read it 4 several_ times because I could not understand it. Near the top
| |
| : '5 of the page, in fact in line five, you say that "the 6 monitoring program for fauna should never involve the 7 harvesting of rare, endangered," let's just skip the next 8 _ couple of words, "species." Well I'm happy with that. _You 9 don't want to kill some-rare endangered species just in order 10 to, page 19, I'm sorry. Page 19 line five. "It should never 11 involve the harvesting of rare, endangered... species." .Then 12 you say "or locally important species." I would want to r 13 sample the locally important species.
| |
| %q 2/
| |
| _, 14 MR. STARMER: I'm not sure, but_I believe locally 15 important species is sort of like a subset or the next step 16 down from endangared species, but I'm not sure. I'd have to 17 check into that. I can't speak to that, I ' m s or ry .
| |
| 18 CH1.IRMAN MOELLER: Again, maybe the word fauna has 19 some key aspect to it that I'm missing.
| |
| 20 You did cover QA or QC. I had raised that point.
| |
| 21 Marty, what do you have?
| |
| 22 MR. STEINDLER: Help me out on page six. You talk 23 about parametric statistical characteristics. Could you tell i
| |
| ^
| |
| 24 me what that is? Line five of the action levels, the section 25 on page six.
| |
| O lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4880
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| e 257 1~ MR. STARMER: -That's things like' standard deviation. ;
| |
| 2' Parametric statistics is generally those statistics based on 3 data. Non-perametric statistics is more like presence / absence 4 sort of things. It's the sort of thing that~was mentioned-5 where you would be plotting things, you would have action 6 levels, you might use something like the average outgoing 7 quality technique, quality control to determine say a two 8 .sigman level as an action level. Another approach I think 9 that's covered in there is just using some small multiple or 10 some part of the background. That's what's meant there.
| |
| 11 MR. STEINDLER: I've got several conceptual 12 problems, but one of them, on the next page we've just come 13 off a discussion'on anticipated and unanticipated events. The 14- bottom of page seven you talk about the notion that the ,
| |
| 15 submittal of a thorough corrective action plan indicates that 16 the licensee is considering possible unanticipated events. It 17 strikes me that that's not quite right. The licensee is in 18 fact considering the what if's which are anticipated.
| |
| 19 MR. STARMER: Again, I think there may have been aa 20 attempt, you don't anticipato something happening, but it 21 could. If we're --
| |
| 22 MR. STEINDLEF: Fine, if you use it in that context 23 then I'll go away quietly. ;
| |
| 24 MR. SURMEIER: We will clor'fy that. There will not 25 be unanticipated events at least in this document.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| .s.
| |
| 258 O
| |
| u 1 MR. STEINDLER: You should read the transcript of 2 yesterday's meeting.
| |
| 3 Let me ask a question on what is required. One 4 talks about in this. document in quite a few places'about non-5 radiological constituents. Does the NRC or do the licensing' 6 bodies in the states require monitoring for non-radiological 7 constituents?
| |
| 8 MR. STARMER: Under the Atomic Energy Act we on]y 9 regulate source by-products, special nuclear material, 10 therefore we can't require somebody to look at the impact of-11 say toluene. And in effect, we exclude it from the site.
| |
| 12 However, we're finding more and more because of things called 13 mixed waste which have been at least disposed of, some of 14 these that there are potentials.
| |
| 15 The hazardous sorts of constituents, we can't 16 require anybody to monitor for those. The non-hazardous 1 17 constituents we can't require anybody to monitor for those.
| |
| 18 But I would point out, going back to our discussion on 1 19 indicators, that there are some things that are relatively 20 easy to measure that give you an indication of performance 21 early on. This is, again, just one of those concepts of 22 monitoring. If it's not clear in here maybe we need to look 23 at that. But the point is, it's very typical to monitor 24 things like pil. Very often things that go into these things 25 have a pH that's significantly different from ground water.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800
| |
| | |
| s 6
| |
| 259 1 It's possible to look for things like total dissolved organic
| |
| - 2- carbon, TOC. It's not an extremely expensive test to do but 3 it could indicate there is some sort of a problem developing.
| |
| 4 The same thing with T0X which is chlorinated hydrocarbons 5 which is things typical of many of the hazardous constituents.
| |
| ~
| |
| 6 It's not an extremely expensive thing to include in your suite-7 of generally monitored constituents.
| |
| 8 I think what we have said is we recommend that you 9 consider seriously including these'in the suite of things that 10 you're monitoring. I think what it does for the active site, 11 for example, is it allows them to go back and say look, we've 12 been monitoring for these things. We've got a good operation, 13 we haven't found any. It really is sort of something that we 14 can't require them to do, and again it's sort of guidance.
| |
| 15 It's something we think would be a very good idea to consider 16 and do.
| |
| 17 MR. STEINDLER: Is it common practice to identify 18 those in the source term in the input to the burial ground?
| |
| 19 MR. STARMER: Again, that gets mixed up with mixed 20 waste. I didn't mean that as a pun. But the requirements for
| |
| . 21 mixed waste and the problems that's causing are really getting 22 down to the point where it's starting to be required on the .
| |
| 23 manifest. Somebody either certifies that there are no 24 hazardous constituents, and it's interesting there are some 25 things you really wouldn't want to be leaking out of any sort O IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| .-.- . _ .. _ __ . _ _ _ - . . _ . , . . . _.-. ~,
| |
| | |
| 260_.
| |
| O 1 of a disposal facility into the ground water that aren't 2 hazardous, but they have to specify that there aren't any, or 3 describe what they are. As soon as they describe what they 4 are they become mixed waste and I don't know what you do with 5 them.
| |
| But there is more attention being paid to that al I 6
| |
| 7 the time. But I would point out, we don'. regulate hazardous 8 materials. EPA regulates those. j 9 MR. KATHREN: I'd just like to make one last 10 comment. Several places in here you make mer tion of, .and it's 11 prescriptive, of gross alpha and beta monitoring. I would 12 just comment that in many instances gross alpha and/or gross 13 beta monitoring are inadequate for the task, and one might use
| |
| -14 other means such as spectroscopy to better evaluate the 15 environmental radioactivity.
| |
| 16 It would seem.that you should be careful in saying, 17 making statements like as a minimum one should do a gross 18 alpha and gross beta when that may be unnecessary because 19 they're doing other things that give better information.
| |
| 20 MR. STARMER: I would very much appreciate some 21 input in that area because it's one of those areas where I f 22 think we said we really ought to tell them generally sort of 23 what the minimum is, and that seemed to be at the time we 24 specified it, an acceptable minimum. If you can give us some 25 better thoughts on why that's not good or some way to O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
| |
| | |
| 261 (3
| |
| (/ 1 supplement it, I think we'd appreciato that.
| |
| 2 MR. KATHREN: I'll just use one quick specific. For 3 example, on page 21 you talk about as a minimum media should 4 be sampled for gross alpha activity, gross beta activity, and 5 tritium in water and vegetation. Gross beta, for example, may 6 be very mislending. Gross alpha even worse in error because 7 it may not tell you anything really. What you may really want 8 to look for say in a site that has some alpha emitter buried 9 in it like radium, for example, you may specifically want to 10 look for the radium or one of the daughter products. It may 11 tell you a lot more than the gross alpha which will vary as a 12 function of the natural radioactivity in the air. That's all 13 I'm getting at.
| |
| O 14 So to say as a minimum you should do this may not 15 really be necessary.
| |
| 16 MR. STARMER: Again, I can't really speak too much 17 to it, but I think the concept was you can do gamma 18 spectroscopy, the equipment is there and some really sensitive 19 sorts of things, that some of these other things are a little 20 bit more difficult. But if you can give us some ideas that 21 are really up to date, I'd appreciate it.
| |
| 22 MR. KATHREN: I think we can talk at the break and 23 not consume a lot of time on specifics.
| |
| 24 MR. STARMER: Okay.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: A couple of other comments, and O
| |
| \> '
| |
| lloritage Roporting Corporation (202) 628-4808
| |
| | |
| IT
| |
| ,3 262 0 1 then~ Cliff, well I think we're going to have to wrap it up.
| |
| 2 On page-three, I think I have the page right now, 3 the.first full paragraph. You were talking about not being 4 prescriptive. Well you say-25 millirem whole body, 75 to the 5 thyroid and 25 to any other organ.
| |
| 6 MR. STARMER: That's the regulation. The regulation 7 in this case is prescriptive.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You're being very prescriptive. I 9 would suggest, and I haven't thought this through, that you 10 might even say meet applicable. regulations. I say that 11 because you have underwdy the revision of 10 CFR 20 and I 12 realize these are EPA regulations that you're citing here, 13 but --
| |
| 0 14 MR. STARMER: No, this is Part 61.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well it's an EPA regulation 16 incorporated in the --
| |
| 17 MR. STARMER: No, EPA has not promulgated their 18 stendards yet. These are Part 61.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Then Part 61 will need to be 20 rewritten or modified to make it compatible with 10 CFR 20 21 once the new revision is done. I think I'm correct in saying 22 that. And 25 millirem whole body, this may be rewritten to 23 say 25 millirem effective dose equivalent. Then if it does, 24 the thyroid and the other organ doses would have to be
| |
| -25 adjusted. That's a comment, i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| . . . . . . . - - . . _., ,. 1 I
| |
| 263 O 1 On page eight, I have one other comment.' Well' I-2 have many but let me give this-one and quit. In the second 3 and third'11nes on page eight, well even starting at the first 4 line~, it says "Operational monitoring shall emphasize the 5 measurement of short. term releases that either present an 6 immediate health and safety problem or..."
| |
| 7 I cannot-visualize a releaJe from a low-level waste.
| |
| 8 facility that could create, and this is a radiation release.
| |
| 9 It's not toxic organics or something, or arsenic. A 10 radioactive material release that presents an immediate health 11- and safety problem. ,
| |
| 12 Dick, can you help me?
| |
| 13 MR. FOSTER: 1 interpret that as perhaps being 14 associated with unloading a truck and having an accident with '
| |
| 15 a container or something of that sort.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOEL1ER: Do you see that yoing off-site?
| |
| 17 MR. STARMER: nct necessarily --
| |
| ; 18 MR. KATHREN: You'll have low-level variables.
| |
| 19 MR. STARMER: If it's an accident, it's one of those 20 unanticipated events which we aren't going to talk about.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Cliff, did you have --
| |
| 22 MR. SMITil: No, I'm okay.
| |
| ; 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay, I think unless there are 24 other comments, I would just ask committee members' 25 consultants to be thinki.9 and this afternoon we'll try to put i
| |
| i
| |
| \ lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4000 i
| |
| l k
| |
| | |
| 264 O- 1 together a short letter. I don't think that we will, or I'm 2- almost certain we-will not give you paragraph by paragraph, a-3 - typo on page six or things like that. We'd ask that you look 4- at the transcript for details, but we'll try to give you some 5 broad comments.
| |
| 6 MR. STARMER: Could I just encourage any one of you 7 individually that's got a markup that you can throw on the-8 xerox machine and send it to us, or send us some comments, 9 we'd appreciate it.
| |
| ) 10 Again, it's not a very active project, but certainly 11 we feel it's important. If we can get input to it, if we get 12 a go-ahead we'd be much more ready to hit the ground running.
| |
| 13 CliAIRMAN MOELLER: Let me thank you for your i
| |
| O 14 patJ3nce with us. I know certainly if I were up there and 15 people are attacking soniething that I consider rather secred, 16 it can be upsetting at times.
| |
| 17 MR. STARMER: I did this for five years with larger l- 18 groups of people who are much more critical.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank. you again.
| |
| ! 20 With that, we'll take a break.
| |
| ~
| |
| 21 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
| |
| ! 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Could we come to order please?
| |
| l 23 The next item on our agenda is the presentation on 24 the Center for Nuclear waste Regulatory Analyses, and I 25 understand that Joe Bunting will be our man. Jce?
| |
| l- lieritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| l l
| |
| L
| |
| | |
| k-265 O 1 MR. BUNTING: I am Joe Bunting from the Division of 2 High-Level Waste. We have a two part briefing here today.
| |
| 3 'We're going to ' cry to give you.a little bit of an 4 understanding of why we went about to set up an FFRDC and Mr.
| |
| 5 Latz, the President of the Center, will follow me and give you 6 a little bit of the status of what's happened in the nine
| |
| [ 7 months since we've set this thing up.
| |
| 8 We provided you a background paper. that laid out the
| |
| ~
| |
| 9 rather lengthy chronology of how we got to where we are. I had 10 not intended to go through that background paper, but instead 11 just to hit some of the highlights.
| |
| 12 It was my purpose to establish a common 13 under: standing of what an FFRDC is, the responsibilities and O 14 obligations that NRC assumed when it set one up. And if at 15 any time you think you've got that common understanding, I'm 16 ready to sit down and let Mr. Latz take over and tell you i 17 what's been done since he signed the contract.
| |
| 18 The establishment of an FFRDC involves an exception 19 t7 the normal procurement regulations, and it's governed by 1 20 the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal 21 Procurement Policy who we did meet with, both the budget 22 examiners, the federal procurement policy people, as well as 23 the Office of Scientific and Technical Policy.
| |
| 24 The two principal differences I guess I'd like to 25 focus on is how conflict of interest and long term continuity I (
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ~. , . .- .- .
| |
| o t
| |
| 266 ;
| |
| ~
| |
| 5([) 1 .are achieved with an FFRDC different than how it would be done 2 in a normal contract.
| |
| 3 Normally in one of our typical contracts today we The-
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 learn about. conflict of interest after the fact.
| |
| i 5 contractor is required to notify us when he does take on
| |
| ; 6 another contract that sould place'him in a conflict position. -
| |
| 7 Our options at that time are to either accept the conflict or. .
| |
| 8 control what the contractor would do, restrict, or to 9 terminate, t
| |
| 10 With an FFRDC, we control the conflict before the 11 fact. When you set up an FFRDC, by regulation the FFRDC can 12 work only for the government, and only for those government 13 agencies that the.NRC in this case would permit. In addition, !
| |
| I s 14 in our contract with the Southwest Research Institute, we have i
| |
| i 15' an additional requirement that affords us a 30 day, opportunity 16 to review any contract that has a potential for conflict of i 17 interest, and the NRC has veto authority over any contract :
| |
| 18 that the Institute naay want to take that the NRC believes 19 would be a conflict. So we can avoid conflicts now ahead of 20 time and not have to deal with them after they've already 21 occurred.
| |
| 22 On long term continuity with a normal contract you i
| |
| 23 are out recompeting every five years. That's the maximum term l
| |
| l 24 that the government allows you to contract for. So every fivo 4
| |
| 25 years you must go out and you must recompete, and there is no ;
| |
| I
| |
| ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| | |
| 267 O('s 1 certainty that the contractor you ve been dealing with will 2 win the award. With an FFRDC, since we set this thing up 3 through competition in the first place, it's at the sponsor's 4 option, that is NRC's option, whether to recompete or not. As 5 long as we are satisfied with the performance of the 6 contractor we can extend the contract for additional periods 7 of performance.
| |
| t 8 CilAIRMAN MOELLER: How do you determine that you're 9 getting a good price in later years?
| |
| 10 MR. BUNTING: If you're talking about hours and cost 11 per man hour you know what those are compared to other folks 12 so you always have that comparison. One of the things you 13 might want to know is this contract is a cost-plus zero based 14 figure. The only fee the contractor gets is what the NRC 15 decides it should get on an award, and that is non-negotiable.
| |
| 16 So we evaluate the contractor twice a year and the 17 Federal Acquisition Regulations guidance indicates that it 18 would take about two to three percent of fee to cover costs 19 which are not allowed by the Federal Accounting Regulations.
| |
| 20 So you see if we were to hold them to zero-based fee, not only 21 is he getting no fee, but he's having to eat quite a bit of 22 cost. So we think we have the motivation factor there to make 23 sure we do get a good price, good work for the money we put in 24 there.
| |
| 25 One of the requirements you'll see later is there is C). ,,eritage negert1,g cergeratie, (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 268 A i
| |
| \'#
| |
| 1 a requirement that the government be in a position to 2 technically monitor and direct the contractor. Absent that, 3 there is no guarantee at all.
| |
| 4 MR. SMITH: Joe, on the conflict of interest issue, 5 who makes the initial determination that there might be a 6 conflict of interest? In other words, as I heard you, the 7 research center is going after other contracts than just what 8 they have with NRC, and at some point they say well this one 9 might be a conflict, we should send this over to NRC. Is that 10 the way it works?
| |
| 11 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir.
| |
| 12 MR. SMITH: Because there could be a situation where 73 13 they decide there's no potential conflict here so we don't
| |
| \_/
| |
| 14 need to send it to NRC, but then later you discovered hey, 15 there is a conflict of interest.
| |
| 36 MR. BUNTING: In that case we can, my understanding, 17 we can force them to divest themselves of that contract.
| |
| 18 We've already been notified at least on one occasion 19 of a potential conflict. It was reviewed by NRC and we did 20 give them permission to go contract for it. But we have 21 called out to them that any contract with the Department of 22 Energy in the high-level waste area is a conflict. In this 23 case it was a contract, subcontract to another private 24 contractor who held a contract with DOE in uranium mill 25 tailings, as I recall, and that came to us for review and we lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 269 O 1 did permit them to do that. Now that's tP1 Institute, not the 2 FFRDC. Two separate pieces here.
| |
| 3 You have the contractor and the FFRDC is an 4 autonomous unit set up and operated by the contractor. The 5 people who are in the FFRDC can work for no'one but us. So 6 we're not talking-about them working on this other piece of 7 work. We're talking about the rest of the contractor working 8 on the other piece of work. >
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Forrest?
| |
| 10 MR. REMICK: That answered the question I had. It 11 does affect the parent organization then.
| |
| 12 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir.
| |
| 13 MR. REMICK: That's pretty severe.
| |
| 14 I'd like to make a comment on the long term 15 continuity of contract to technical excellence. What you said 16 is true of FFRDC's in the past, it's true today but it's about 17 ready to be changed. In the DOD Authorization Act which is on 18 the President's desk, is a section which would take FFRDC's 19 operated by colleges and universities and make them go out on 20 competitive bid. I won't make my personal observation. But 21 that could affect some, or will affect some FFRDC's.
| |
| 22 MR. BUNTING: I wasn't aware of that.
| |
| 23 MR. REM 14 ' It's kind of a last uinute addition to 24 the DOD Authorization Act.
| |
| 25 MR. STEINDLER: Are there some federal ground rules O lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) G20-4000
| |
| | |
| b i
| |
| 270.
| |
| o 1 that define how-a decision is made concerning conflict of 2 interest? For example, the thing you just cited seemed like
| |
| .3 second order or third order to me, and I guess one could raise ;
| |
| 4 the issue, has somebody made a clear determination of what the 5 federal ground rules are for this?
| |
| 6 MR. BUNTING: To my knowledge there does not exist 7 anywhere something written down that one can go to to say this ,
| |
| 8 is or is not a conflict of interest. There are guidance ;
| |
| l' 9 spelled out in an NRC manual chapter for what constitutes t
| |
| 10 conflict of interest here. However, it --
| |
| 11 MR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. When yov say here, what i 12 do you mean by here? .
| |
| 4 13 MR. BUNTING: Here in NRC. Tho conflict of interest j O 14 vo're talking about goes beyond what w4s in the manual t
| |
| i 15 chapter. The conflict of interest we're talking about that 16 the manual chapter covers has to do with an unfair competJtive >
| |
| 17 advantage in contracting and things like that, and a !
| |
| 18 predilemoton for bias. The things we're talking about here 19 would have to do with a conflict of interest in the licensing proceeding itself where your techni<:a1 expert would be called 20 i 21 into question becauce he's working for both sides. That's not .
| |
| 22 covered by the manual chapter.
| |
| ! 23 In the case of how we're working it here with our 2
| |
| 24 lawyers, wo are hiring, the Center is hiring people who have 25 worked for the Department of Energy. We have come up with i
| |
| lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 ,
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| L 271 b(m 1 conflict of interest procedures they must follow. The 2 fundame' ital issue is that the individual not be asked to 3 review er work on anything that he himself prepared or worked 4 on while he was working at the other place. Whether it be 5 DOE, DOE's contractor, or whatever. That doesn't mean he 6 can't work for us on something else.
| |
| 7 The notion is that you don't want to have him review 8 work he's already done for someone else, and then review it 9 for you.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Can former NRC employees join the 11 FFRDC7 12 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir, s 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And again, the requirements --
| |
| d 14 MR. BUNTING: Whatever requi.;ements the NRC has for 15 any other contractor would apply here.
| |
| 16 Two points I'd like to leave you with. We did 17 publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register and 18 Commerce Business Daily recording the Commission's intent to 19 set up this FFRDC. We laid out our rationale for why we 20 wanted to do it. We received about 30 comments. Most of 21 those, as a matter of fact, all but two, were favorable and 22 supported our conclusions. We only had two that disagreed 23 with the conclusions.
| |
| 24 We also published at the same time a draft of the 25 statement of work and the evaluation criteria, and we received i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 272
| |
| ' Our final RFP package I think was I a lot of comments on that.
| |
| 2 improved significantly by virtue of those comments.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: What was the source of those 4 comments, for instance?
| |
| 5 MR. BUNTING: Who do they come from?
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes.
| |
| 7 MR. BUNTING: A lot came from colleges, 8 universities; a lot came from business corporations; and just 9 plain John Doe's drote in.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 11 MR. REMICK: One of the national labs, too.
| |
| 12 MR. SMITH: I was just curious, you don't have to 13 name them, but the two that were not in favor of this
| |
| ( 14 approach, what was their --
| |
| 15 MR. BUNTING: One was a DOE national lab, and one 16 was one of our current contractors who mignt lose out.
| |
| 17 MR. REMICK: If I recall, one of the national labs 18 also commented you should not allow a university to contract 19 or they would never be able to carry out --
| |
| 20 MR. BUNTING: That's right.
| |
| 21 I want to point out to you that the qualifications 22 and characteristics and policy regarding the FFRDC contained 23 in that policy memo 84-1. I believe we are only the second 24 FFRDC that was established by competition after this policy 25 was enumerated. The first one was an Air Force software O
| |
| O lleritage Rep % ting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
| |
| J
| |
| | |
| Y 273
| |
| ( ,
| |
| 1 engineering institute who we drew heavily on their experience 2 in putting our RFP and package together.
| |
| 3 Mk. REMICK: Incidentally, they're one of the ones 4 who will be af'.ected by the DOD Authorization section I 5 referred to.
| |
| 6 FIR . BUNTING: But F'".ce an FFRDC is an exception, 7 the sponsor must exercise care that its management of the 8 FFRDC meets certain criteria. The center is managed as an 9 autonomous unit by SWRI which is itself a non-profit 10 organization. I mentioned before, it's a zero-based fee with 11 on award fee determined by the Commission. And I might point 12 out to you that we, in the contract, I think it's up to about
| |
| <s 13 a third of the award fee would be set aside for independent
| |
| ( )
| |
| ~~
| |
| 14 research and development by members of the FFRDC on topics of 15 their choosing as long as J ' ' within the charter of the 16 center.
| |
| 17 I've already discussed the conflict of interest 18 provisions. I do want to point out that the contract calls for 19 a 20-p]ils year relationship that's envisioned between the 20 Commission and the Center to get through the entire licensing 21 procedure, proceedings.
| |
| 22 And I do want to call your attention now that the 23 charter for the conter is limited to high-level waste only, so 24 it onl" covers a port. ion of those activilleo for which this 25 committee has jurisdiction.
| |
| O IIeritago Hrporting Corporation (202) 620-4000
| |
| | |
| 274 O 1 MR. REMICK: Is there any possibility that might 2 change with time?
| |
| 3 MR. BUNTING: I guess anything is always possible.
| |
| 4 If you wanted to change it you would have to put forth the 5 argument to OMB and others as to why you do need this 6 conflict of interest free and long term continuity for 7 whatever else you want to extend it to. Then you would have 8 to go through the notice and comment period, 90 days in the 9 Federal Register, and then deal with the comments you get out 10 of that, and then modify the contract assuming everything is 11 successful.
| |
| 12 MR. FOSTER: You mentioned that up to a third of the 13 effort by the staff could be discretionary within the 14 organization.
| |
| 15 MR. BUNTING: I want to clarify that, sir. I said 16 up to a third of the award fee would be set aside. Not a 17 t')ird of the entire ef fort, but only a third of the award fee.
| |
| 18 In other words, every six months we meet and we grant the 19 contractor se award fee based on our evaluation of his 20 mana-ament performance. Then up to a third of it, it's a 21 sliding scale depending on how much he gets, if he gets the 22 max then a third of that can be set aside, retained, and when 23 you get enough you can start oft on your own independent 24 project 3.
| |
| 25 MR. FOSTER: That's somewhat equivalent to his IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l 275 1 profit.
| |
| ; 2 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir. I wanted to call out that -
| |
| 3 it's a fee and not a profit since there are no stockholders 6 4 and --
| |
| 5 MR. FOSTER: I understand. Are there ground rules 6 if a patent should come out of that particular effort, who, 7 does the government still get that? l 8 MS. MASON: If it falls under the contract it would 9 have to go through our attorneys. Depending on what it was, i 10 it would have to go_through our. attorneys. ,
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Excuse me. Could you give us 12 your name for the record?
| |
| 13 MS. MASON: My name is Mary Mason, Division of !
| |
| 14 Contracts. ;
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 16 MR. KATHREN: Does the contractor decido how much, f
| |
| 17 you say up to a third, can the contractor say I'm not going to !
| |
| 18 turn any of it -- f 19 MR. BUNTING: No, no, the contractor has a sliding l 1
| |
| 20 scale in there. If he gets this much fee, then this much has 21 to go into the set-aside. If he gets the max fee, then a 22 third goes into the set-aside.
| |
| 23 MR. KATilREN: That's commendable, ,
| |
| 24 MR. STEINDLER: Did you say that that fee is a few 25 percent of the total operating cost?
| |
| O i
| |
| lieritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 )
| |
| i i
| |
| m
| |
| * 276 f3
| |
| ''- 1 MR. BUNTING: .Yes, the fee is always a percent of 2 the funds that were expended in the past six months. t 3 MR. STEINDLER: What is the order of magnitude of 4 that percentage?
| |
| 5 MR. BUNTING: Zero to eight percent.
| |
| 6 MR. STEINDLER: Thank you.
| |
| 7 MR. BUNTING: Since the agency has chosen to sponsor 8 an FFRDC, the Center, it assumes the responsibility to create 9 the climate that will allow management to be successful.
| |
| 10 There are a couple of important changes here that I'd like to 11 call your attention to.
| |
| 12 In the past, in dealing with national laboratories gs 13 and large contractors, NRC has sort of been operating on the 14 margin. We're a small part of whatever that contractor or the 15 lab's business is. Here, we're the total. So it means an 16 entirely different concept for us in how we have to operate.
| |
| 17 We set the thing up. It's dedicated to us. It has no support 18 other than from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| 19 I'd like to point out also, that for the very first 20 time we've established a special relationship of an FFRDC and 21 for the first time we have a single contractor now who has 22 complete visibility of NRC's total high-level waste program 23 and is charged with making an independent assessment and 24 recommendations to us.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: If, now or later as you go along, O
| |
| O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 277 1 you could be more specific on exactly what it is they're going 2 to be doing, that would help us.
| |
| 3 MR. BUNTING: .Yes sir.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 5 MR. BUNTING: In our early discussions with the 6 Office of Management and Budget, we did agree to establish 7 this by competition as opposed to trying to latch on to one 8 that was already in existence. There were nine bidders which 9 you see up here. The Source Evaluation Panel conducted and 10 documented its evaluation over some six-plus months including 11 on-site inspection and negotiations with the top three 12 bidders. SWRI with support from its subcontractors who were 7- 13 nuclear waste consultants in a TASCA won the evaluation and a V 14 contract was awarded on October 15, 1987.
| |
| 15 I hope you can appreciate that we're starting from 16 ground zero, from scratch, and trying to get a big fly wheel 17 in movement here. This chart had a little bit of strategy of 18 how we planned to get from scratch and get up to running.
| |
| 19 On the bottom here you'll see a funding plan. This 20 funding plan was specified in the RFP and in the contract.
| |
| 21 It's no mystery to anyone: $3.6 for year one, moving up to 22 $11 million in year five, and a tive year total of $42.5 23 million. This represents a fraction of less than half of the 24 total budget in year one, moving up to almost the total 25 budget in year four and five, lleritage Iteporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 278 O' 1 So we had planned on basically a three year phase 2 in, and during that time period the existing contractors we 3- currently have would be phased out, and there would be a 4 technology transfer from the existing contractors into the 5 center. You can se that we principally tried to shelter the 6 center in year one from having to support reactive production 7 schedule kind of work like reviewing the consultative draft, 8 sit characterization plan, for instance.
| |
| 9 This-is my last chart, and then Mr. Latz will tell 10 you what the center is doing.
| |
| 11 In year one we asked the, I believe I had in your 12 package there one of the handouts from the Waste Systems 13 Engineering and Integration statement of work. We had asked O 14 the contractor to develop what we call a program of 15 architecture that was to go through all of the regulations 16 section by section, and write down what the regulatory 17 requirement is, what kind of elemento of proof would be 18 required to demonstrate that, and what kind of compliance, 19 determination, methodology, would one need to be able to show 20 that you've met those. And link those together with 21 schedules, budgets, what have you, for NRC, and keep track of 22 what DOE might be doing to satisfy those as well.
| |
| 23 In addition to that first year task, we also laid on 24 the contractor four specific research projects that totalled a 25 little over a million dollars. That was an integrated waste
| |
| -) lleritage Iteporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 279 O
| |
| '~#
| |
| 1 package, a project in geochemistry, a project in seismic and 2 rock mechanics, and one in thermohydrologics. i 3 We had a demonstration on April 20th, I think it 4 was, took a number of the senior staff from NRC out to the 5 Center and they gave us a demonstration of how far they had 6 come at that time in putting together this program 7 architecture. -
| |
| 8 I need to call your attention to the fact that 9 before we let the contractor start work, you make him plan, 10 and we planned for about three months. We now have shelves 11 like this of plans that we are now executing. So he really 12 didn't get started on this effort until February. So it was a 13 February / March effort that we looped at in April. And I think 14 everyone was quite pleased with that, and we can now give 15 demonstrations of that computer-supported effort here using 16 long line down to the center. The thing is housed on their 17 computer. It's our intent, I believe, that when we brief the 18 Commission on August 15th, at least to give a glimpse of that.
| |
| 19 That completes my part of it. Unless you have i 20 questions we'll let Mr. Latz --
| |
| 21 MR. REMICK: May the contractor subcontract efforts?
| |
| 22 MR. BUNTING: I'm sorry?
| |
| 23 MR. REMICK: Are they permitted to subcontract 24 efforts?
| |
| 25 MR. BUNTING: Yes, lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800
| |
| | |
| 280 1 MR. REMICK: Are they subcontracting efforts?
| |
| 2 ' MR . BUNTING: Yes.
| |
| 3 MR. REMICK: How do you maintain the conflict of 4 interest --
| |
| 5 MR. BUNTING: We use the same conflict of interest ,
| |
| 6 procedures that we have for the Center with the 7 subcontractors. When the two principal subcontractors. bought 8 in on the proposal, they agreed to the same provisions as did 9 Southwest Research Institute.
| |
| 10 MR. REMICK: So these are people who were in the 11 original proposal?
| |
| 12 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir.
| |
| . 13 MR. REMICK: May they subcontract outside those who 14 were originally in?
| |
| 15 MR. BUNTING: 'Yes sir, they can. They have to go 16 through the same conflict of interest procedures. They way 17 also have consultants. One of the things they have done in 18- response to our query is to identify areas where t, hey're 19 either weak because they don't have that expertise or don't 20 have enough, and have gone out and identified consultante, 21 have screened the consultants for conflict of interest 22 proceedings, and in some cases have actually entered into 23 agreement with the consultants to put them in a position to be 24 able to have a fast response as we get into the reactive work 25 in here too.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| : a. . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . ._ ._ _ _ _ _ .. - . _ . . _
| |
| | |
| 281 01 1 MR. REMICK: Must those subcontracting. organizations 2 and consultants say I shall never work'for DOE high-level 3 waste programs, or just that I am not now? ,
| |
| J 4- MR. BUNTING: They have to say I'm not now, and if
| |
| ~
| |
| 5 they ever are, then they're out. We can't preclude theu from
| |
| .6 ever doing it.
| |
| 7 MR. REMICK: That seems reasonable. But don't you 8 run the risk that some years down when there's a hearing, 9 these-people who were your subcontractors or your consultants, 10 at a subsequent time did DOE work and their credibility might 11 be lost in the hearing process?
| |
| 12 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir. There is nothing that is 13 fool proof. We've done the-very best we can. We're hoping O 14 that-in every what we call core aren where we require the man 15 full time, he will be a full time member of the Center. In 16 areas where we only need the pe son partially, then we can't 17 afford to have hin full time, so he will be forever a 18 consultant. We do run that risk on those few occasions.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN M0ELLERt To help me understand too, the 20 Center is located at the Southwest Research Institute. Now 21 they do many other things other than this.
| |
| 22' MR. DUNTING: Yes sir.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You're just saying the component 24 there or the division, the section, whatever it is, is totally 25- -yours.
| |
| Heritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ,. . , . _ _ .. .- . .- =_ - -
| |
| 282 1 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir.
| |
| 2 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: How were the initial projects 3 chosen? You~said they had'to develop a program and you've 1
| |
| 4 told us about this computer thing they set up. How was that 5 selected as the first --
| |
| 6 MR. BUNTING: The RFP itself, the thing we sent out 7 for the people to propose on, laid out the projec. here.
| |
| 8 We told them we wanted this thing developed in the first two 9 years, and in the first year we didn't want them working on
| |
| ~
| |
| 10 the reactive piece of t.he project. Sc that was laid out'to 11 them. We also sent them two specific research proposals,-and 12 the other two have been added since we signed the contract. ;
| |
| ,- 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Those again, were known ahead of
| |
| "' 14 tina ?
| |
| 15 MR. BUNTIMG: Two of them were known ahead of time.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: How were the second two nelected?
| |
| 17 MR. BUNTING: They were selected by resourch, NRC 18 researtn. The Center is not yet in a position to be able to 19 make a judgment about what should or shouldn't be. This was 20 at the kick-off meeting, the very first day, October 26th, 11 21 days after we signed the contract. The Office of Research'at 22 that time had four projects that they wanted them to work on.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: What level of input did the 24 Division of High-Level Waste have into the selection of those 25 projects?
| |
| ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 4 283 O 1 MR. BUNTIHG: I'd..like to say this is a fully 2 coordinated team ef fort between the Division of liigh-Level 3 Waste _and Research.
| |
| I
| |
| '4 CilAIRMAN MOELLER: Did they get the $3.6 the first 5 year?
| |
| 6 MR. BUNTING: .Yes sir, they've actually gotten, will 7 get about $4.7 instead of the $3.6. About $1.2 million of.
| |
| 8 that is research. The rest of it is NMSS with the majority of 9 it being high-level waste, and only a small portion, less than
| |
| .10 $170,000 in transportation. That additional money also is 11 supposed to carry them through an additional two months, 12 through November, during this time when we're waiting-for.the 13 Appropriations Bill to pass and money to flow again to the O 14 contractor.
| |
| 15 MR. SMITH: I'm curious in ternis of the interf ace 16 between the Center and the FFRDC and NRC. Is there one 17 individual at NRC that is the raain contact, program officer, 18 contract officer?
| |
| 19 MR. BUNTIliG: Yes sir. That's me.
| |
| 20 MR. SMITH: Okay.
| |
| 21 MR. BUNTING. My good right arm is my contracting 22 officer Mary Mason, sitting right there by you.
| |
| l
| |
| [ 23 Thu program is now divided into technical areas like 24 geologic setting, engineered barrier, research, repository 25 design construction and operation, quality assurance. Each Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| I 284
| |
| (,,h 1 one of those has a program element manager who is responsible 2 for writing out the technical details of what the contractor 3 is to do and for monitoring the work that the contractor is 4 actually performing.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: In some of the NRC either weekly 6 reports or somewhere, we read articles or short paragraphs 7 that implied that th nature of the work of the Center was 8 changing from what was originsily envisioned. That originally 9 it was going to be technical and now it's going to be more 10 looking at management or regulations. Did we misread this?
| |
| 11 MR. BUNTING: All I know is I never wrote anything 12 like that, and no one ever coordinated with ine.
| |
| ,_ 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: So you say it's going to be
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 technical?
| |
| 15 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir.
| |
| 16 MR. STEINDLER: If you- original goal was to assure 17 long term continuity of contracted technical excellence and 18 the Conter is allowed to subcontiact work, how do you 19 reconcile these two?
| |
| 20 MR. BUNTING: We can only, nothing is perfect as I 21 tried to indicate to Dr. Remick. For everything where we need 22 long term, continuous support, we intend that that be 23 performed by the Center. The two subcontractors that you 24 saw up here were a, if that's what you're referring to for 25 instance, --
| |
| k_)g IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4000
| |
| | |
| 285
| |
| ./m-
| |
| '' ') '
| |
| i 1 MR. STEINDLER:
| |
| No, I was referring to the statement 2 in response to a quest.'.onLas to whether or not the Center can 3 subcontract work, and the answer is apparently yes.
| |
| 4 MR.-BUNTING: Well yes, but there are some specific 5 limitations. You can contract for extra arms and: leg.,. You 6 cannot subcontract for the principal technical know]adge.
| |
| 7 That must remain in the Center. An FFRDC, to be au FFRDC, has 8 to be-the warehouse of the technical expertise.
| |
| 9 MR. STEINDLER: Ian't that a rather fine 10 distinction?- Since I assume with arms and legs also comes a 11 head --
| |
| 12 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir, but supposedly the Center is 13- managing that and integrating that, and willing to stand up to O 14 that work. ,
| |
| 15 MR. FOSTER: Is th!.s work all paper study ~ type 16' things, or d7es it include hardware?
| |
| 17 MP. BUNTING: It includes research.
| |
| 18 MR. FOSTPR: Bench typs research or development type '
| |
| 19 operation? Any biology in it?
| |
| 20 MR. BUNTING: I doit' t believe so right now.
| |
| 21 MR. LATZ: Not prec ently defined e It may well be in 22 the future.
| |
| 23 MR. REMICK: To what extent do you look to the 24 Center for help in policy matters?
| |
| 25 MR. BUNTING: Only in looking at, we do have an O- Heritage Reporting arporation (202) 628-Aa88
| |
| | |
| 286 g
| |
| 1 office here in Washington which I need to t911 you about.
| |
| 2 There's a small office located in Crystal C ty. I think it 3 has about four people in it, or will have four people this 4 year. We do intend, and there is a program element in there, 5 to do studies and analyses and give us policy options, 6 recommendations, evaluations of different policy options.
| |
| 7 MR. REMICK: Can you give me examples of some policy 8 options that they might look into?
| |
| 9 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir. There are, what we are 10 finding in going through this program architecture development 11 right now is there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty 12 associated with the words that are in 10 CFR 60 and other 13 regulations. Once the words are clarified there is still some
| |
| ()
| |
| 14 uncertainty about how do you prove it, what does it 1ean. For 15 instance, substantially complete. So there are various 16 regulatory approaches one could take to try and solve that, so 17 that would be one case that we could turn to the Center and 18 look for different options of how we could address that 19 problem.
| |
| 20 MR. REMICK: Where do you draw the line between 21 policy issues that should be your regulatory staff and the 22 policy issues which you would turn over to the Center?
| |
| 23 MR. BUNTING: I hope you understand that the Center 24 makes recommendations to the staff and the staff evaluates 25 those and makes the decisions. We may very well go back and p)
| |
| (_ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i 287 0
| |
| 1 say your recommendation is not' supported by your analysis.
| |
| 2 We're not asking the Center to make the decisions.
| |
| 3 MR. STEINDLER: One other question, at-least from 4 me. Do you have input to or control over the personnel 5 arrangements that the Center makes, specifically contractual 6 arrangements with its staff?
| |
| 7 MR. BUNTING: I'm trying to get'behind your 8 question, 9 MR. STEINDLER: It's not very opaque, I don't think.
| |
| 10 For example, if the Center hires John Doe to do a particular 11 activity and he works at the Center for two years and decides 12 that he either doesn't like the climate or the environment in 13 which he works and then promptly takes off and goes to work 14 for the Department of Energy. Is there an issue that you as 15 the nominal operators of this Center can imroce on this 16 employee?
| |
| 17 MR. BUNTING: Not that I'm aware of.
| |
| 18' MR. STEINDLER: So the continuity is based to some 19 extent on the fond hope that the staff of the Center will be 20 retained at the Center?
| |
| 21 MR. BUNTING: Yes.
| |
| 22 MR. STEINDLER: There are no other controls that 23 you've imposed or can exercise on that subject?
| |
| 24 MR. BUNTING: No cir. What we did in the RFP was to 25 ask for innovative ways to motivate and retain the staff, and
| |
| ( lieritage Reporting Corporation l
| |
| l (202) 628-4888
| |
| }
| |
| | |
| 288 I what was proposed by the contractor in terms of setting aside 2 their particular part of the award fee was one of the measures.
| |
| 3 he had of holding something out that would be desirable on-the 4 part of the staff, making them want to work there. So we 5 clearly have to be successful in creating the environment to 6 retain them. We just can't order them to be there.
| |
| 7 MR. STEINDLER: If one of the staff members of that 8 Center elects or has a desire to do part-time teaching at a 9 university, would that staff member in your eyes be prevented 10 from doing so?
| |
| 11 MR. BUNTING: No sir.
| |
| 12 MR. REMICK: If I could build on Marty's question,~I 13 can understand how you could not preclude a Center employee O 14 going to work for DOE, but it is conceivable that you might 15 look closely at a DOE empJ oyee coming to work at the Center, 16 and any provis;'.ons in there.
| |
| 17 MR. BUNTING: Absolutely.
| |
| 18 MR. REMICK: For example, DOD has currently, and I'm 19 not defending it necessarily, if you hired a former DOD 4
| |
| 20 employee they have a committee, some kind of an ethics 21 committee that situation hast o go thrcugh to look at. Is 22 there any kind of --
| |
| 23 MR. BUNTING: Yes.
| |
| 24 MR. REMICK: You do have this built into your 25 contract?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 289 1 MR. BUNTING: Yes. And one'of_the very first things 2 they were required to do was to come up with those conflict of 3 interest procedures. They were staffed here at NRC and with 4 our lawyers, and the lawyers had quite a few comments to make 5- on them. They were approved. So everyen^ that comes into-the 6 Center has to go through that procedure. It's done by the 7 Center, not by us.
| |
| 8 MR. REMICK: Thank you.
| |
| 9 MR. FOSTER: Your budgeting plans here that you 10 provided us, year one to year five at a specific dollar value.
| |
| 11 for each one of those years. Is that sort of a target level, 12- a guaranteed level?
| |
| fg 13 MR. BUNTING: In order in the RFP to convey to the G bidders what we had in mind of what the Center might be at 14 15 some future point, we gave them our best honest gut answer 16 that we had for a five year budget plan. So we had intended 17 what you saw there in the out years was a combination of both 18 .the NMS3 funds and the research funds, and that's essentially 19 somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of the total budget being 20 reflected in the FFRDC in those years.
| |
| 21 MR. FOSTER: But they're just sort of best 22 estimates, and when you get down to the individual year then 23 you --
| |
| 24 MR. BUNTING: That's correct. There's no guarantee.
| |
| 25 MR. FOSTER: You'll renegotiate on a contract by O IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ._ . ._ -, _ = . _ . _ _ . . . _ . _. _ __ _ _ .. _
| |
| L 290 O
| |
| 4 V 1 contract piece.
| |
| 2 MR. . BUNTING: That's right. This is a completion 3 type contract, not a level of effort, not a best effort. So ,
| |
| 4 it' requires us to lay- our work out ahead of time at the 5 beginning of the year. They come back to us with detailed 6 proposals of how they will do that. If our priorities change 7 during the course of the year, then we have to reallocate that 8 work. It's not a question of us holding the money and doling 9 it out as-the year goes along. We try to get the whole 10 program laid out at the beginning of the year. But the 11 funding levels you saw there, they're not guaranteed and 12 they're certainly subject to Congressional approval, 13- Congressional authorization.
| |
| O 14 MR. FOSTER: Are these line items in the 15 Congressional budget?
| |
| 16 MR. BUNTING: No sir.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Let's move on then. Thank you, 18 Joe.
| |
| 19 MR. LATZ: I'm John Latz, President of the Conter.
| |
| 20 Mr. Bunting is a hard act to follow. In recent months I find 21 myself following him quite frequently, and I find it very 22 difficult to measure up to the standards he first sets.
| |
| 23 Let me say first of all we're grateful for the 24- opportunity to visit with you this morning. We will make a 25 little presentation, but value most of all the dialogue that O Heritage Reporting Corporation (i?02) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 291 r" ,
| |
| .t -
| |
| 1 you may wish to engage in.
| |
| 2 I would like to note, not at the outset, I will 3- address-later in your dialogue with Mr. Bunting you raised 4 several issues: conflict of interest; internal research, at 5 least what we call internal research; and the retention of 6 staff. I would like before I'm through to make a few comments 7 on those issues.
| |
| 8 MR. REMICK: Might I ask you somewhere in your 9 presentation to tell us where you have holes in the expertise 10 in your organization. For example, geochemistry, do you have 11 strengths there. In other words, why do you subcontract.
| |
| 12 MR. LATZ: I'd be happy to. That's a very 13 pertinent, germane issue to the Center at this stage in its
| |
| --O 14 life, and I'd be very happy to address those.
| |
| 15 Let me say to you that the Southwest Research 16 Institute I think is the second largest not for profit applied 17 rascarch enterprise in the cauntry, pre-dated I think in
| |
| .18 history only by that one in history which is larger. The 1
| |
| 19 Institute was founded in 1947. It sits today on a 765 acre 20 campus. It employs almost 2300 people. Its current annual 21 volume is just a li+tle over $160 million.
| |
| 22 The Institute has developed a reputation of which 23 it's justly proud. I would be happy to invite any questions 24 about the Institute as well, but my remarks will be focused 25 narrowly this morning on the Center.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 292 1 I brought along, unfortunately I only have one copy, 2: but-I. brought along for your perusal and to leave with you, a 3 copy of the 40th Annual Report of Southwest Research Institute 4 and I would invite your perusal.of it.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: How long have you' worked for the.
| |
| 6 Institute?
| |
| 7 MR. LATZ: I joined the Institute on October 26, 8 '1987. I'd be happy to tell you where my grandaddy came from 9 if you want to go back into that. Whatever you're comfortable 10 with, I'm comfortable with.
| |
| 11 As I cay, it will be difficult to follow Mr.
| |
| 12 Bunting, but we will quickly give you a rundown at the risk of 13 some repetition, perhaps, of the points which Mr. Bunting has g,
| |
| U 14 made.
| |
| 15 The estabJishment of an FFRDC fills three purposes 16 that Mr. Bunting alluded to. It provides for the assistance 17 tihich the NRC needs in the implementation of the geologic 18 repository program in fulfilling its mission. It provides 19 that assistance in free of conflict of interest situations.
| |
| 20 It provides an institutional continuity, a long term 21 continuity. And it provides a central capability to which the 22 NRC program staff may look.
| |
| 23 MR. REMICK: If I may ask a question that just comes 24 to mind, and I'm corry for interrupting.
| |
| 25 MR. LATZ: Please do.
| |
| ( lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
| |
| | |
| 293 O l- MR. REMICK: Are employees of the Center employees 2 :of.the Center or employees of the Institute?
| |
| 3 MR. LATZ: They are both.
| |
| 4 MR. REMICK: But they are hired by the Institute,.I-5 assume.
| |
| 6 MR. LATZ: They are hired by the Institute, 7- participate in the Institute's employee benefits.
| |
| 8 MR. REMICK: So salary scales and things would be 9 comparable to.--
| |
| : 10. MR. LATZ: Yes. Which I might add are commensurate 11 'with the applied research establishments of the country.
| |
| 12 There was an earlier question as to what measure might be 13 employed as to-the equity of those costs. I can simply say to 73 V you that the. Institute comports to the general standards of 14 15 the applied research establishments.
| |
| 16 MR. REMICK: What surveys do you use? The Batella 17 salary surveys or that type --
| |
| 18 MR. LATZ: Yes.
| |
| 19 MR. KATHREN: You said you had $160 million --
| |
| 20 MR. LATZ: Annual volume.
| |
| 21 MR. KATHREN: And 2300 employees.
| |
| 22' MR. LATZ: Yes.
| |
| 23 11R . KATHREN: That computes to somewhat less than 24 $70,000 per employee.
| |
| 25 MR. LATZ: Your arithmetic is great this morning.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| .l 294 j~h
| |
| \- 1 MR. .KATHREN: You can thank Hewlett-Packard for 2 that, not me.
| |
| 3 MR. LATZ: I wouldn't attempt to dispute that.
| |
| 4 MR. KATHREN: But that seems to be a fairly low 5 number even say for a university, for example.
| |
| 6 MR.~REMICK: I assume the 2300 include clerical-7 employees, all employees.
| |
| 8 MR. LATZ: Absolutely.
| |
| 9 MR. REMICK: Not just professional staff.
| |
| 10 MR. KATHREN: 'Are these full time equivalents?
| |
| 11 MR.'LATZ: Yes, FTE's. But yes indeed, it does 12 include the clerical and non-technical staff, technical staff, -
| |
| '13
| |
| ~
| |
| non-professional, sub-professional. One of the divisions of -
| |
| 0 14 the Institute operates the Belvoir Fuels Laboratory, and in 15 that instance there are a number of relatively, a large number 16 of technicians that fall on the lower end of the salary scale.
| |
| 17 MR.'REMICK: What ar the number of professionals in
| |
| - 18 the~ Institute?
| |
| 1 19 MR. LATZ: Just under 1000. ,
| |
| 20 CHAIBMAN MOELLER: Do employees move from the Center 21 into other units of the Institute?
| |
| 22- MR. LATZ: They move from the institute into the 23 Center Mr. Dunting covered that earlier, and I guess if I 24 mrc.* I'd like to reiterate, because I think it's absolutely.
| |
| 25 crucial. The commitment of the Institute is to aid the Center
| |
| ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| .1
| |
| | |
| 295 O 'l in acquiring those professionals the-Center.needs to. fulfill
| |
| : 2. its mission. The employees of the Center are not. free. I say 3 free,-none of us today is enslaved, but-they are not free as a 4 matter of course'to move from the Center to the Institute.-
| |
| 5- That would be a very exceptional circumstance if that'happens.
| |
| 6 The early objectives of the Center as Mr. Bunting
| |
| -7 has outlined, and we are in our tenth month now. The first 8 year the clear charge to function pro-actively. To:get' smart 9 about the program. Assemble and acquire the talent that is 10 essential to the core staff. Develop program architecture, ,
| |
| -11 and I will speak to that in a few moments. Develop the 12 Center's management plan so that the NRC may have some 13 confidence that the Center is indeed being properly managed.
| |
| O 14 Develop the Center's five year plan which we hope.beyond-the !
| |
| 15 usual five year. plan.which is preeminently occupied with 16 dollars and numbers, will encompass the staffing strategy as
| |
| : i. 17 well. Develop the systems engineering management plan which 18 guides the developnent of the program architecture. And as t
| |
| 19 Mr. Bunting has told you, the principal charge of the first 20 two years is the development, completion, and maintenance of 21 the program architecture fo. the entire licensing process.
| |
| 22 MR. STEINDLER: I guess I'm a little confused. I 23 assume that the folks ir. the Center have not had a great deal 24 of direct high-level waste research experience, and that they 25 are in the process of starting up, as you say, becoming smart.
| |
| () lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| . .- . _ _ - . ~ . . .
| |
| 296
| |
| ~O- ~ 1 If that-is a correct assumption, and knowing a little bit 2 about the problems.that both_NRC and DOE has in maintaining a
| |
| : 3. research track that looks like it's aimed at a central goal
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 'for more than six months, how is it that you folks are going 5 to construct a program architecture that presumably lasts for-6 some number of years? How'do you do that?
| |
| 7 MR. LATZ: I guess perhaps, I intended later,.but 8 this is probably as good a time as any.
| |
| 9 MR. STEINDLER: Well --
| |
| 10 MR. LATZ: No, that's fine. To discuss those buzz 11 words "program architecture."
| |
| 12 Program architecture is a systems description and we_
| |
| 13 are in developing it, attempting to create a systems approach
| |
| .O 14 to a soft system. -The same rigorous systems engineering 15 approach that is brought to the development of hardware 16 systems we are attempting to bring to the soft system that is 17 the universe of the statutos, the regulations, and the 18 guidelines of all of the federal agencies and other 19 institutional entitles involved in the program. So they 20 fairly well shape the components of the program architecture.
| |
| 21 I don't know that that elucidates it completely, but 22 it's a very difficult thing to sum up in just two or three 23 sentences. We'll try a little more later on.
| |
| 24 The Center organization is presently thusly. (Slide 25 shown)
| |
| ( lieritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 297 P3 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Could you briefly tell us where
| |
| .2 'some of the key' people came from? Like you said.you joined it t 3 in '87. Where were you before that?
| |
| 4 -MR. LATZ: I had spent half of the previous 14 years 5 in government with the Department'of-Interior. The other half 6 of that time I was. Senior Vice President of Getty Oil's 7 pipeline subsidiary. . Prior to that I had my own engineering 8 management consulting business in Texas, for five years. And 9 prior to that, I was with U.S. Steel Corporation for 20 years.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 11 MR. LATZ: Martin Goland is the President of the 12 -Institute. I report directly to Mr. Goland.
| |
| 13 Directly underneath me is Dr. Wesley Patrick. Dr.
| |
| 14 Patrick is a Missouri School of Mines mining engineer who came ,
| |
| 15 to us from the WHIP project. He came also in October of last 16 year. Previous to his time at WHIP he was with Lawrence 17 Livermoor. Very knowledgeable programmatically, and an 18 excellent geoscientist. We're very fortunate to have him.
| |
| 19 Allen Whiting is Director of the Waste Systems e
| |
| 20 Engineering and integration. Allen has been with Southwest 21 Research Institute for 25 years or a little longer. He's been 22 involved principally in the non-destructive evaluation 23 sciences and technology. It has been one of the more visible 24 -divisions of the Institute. They have been at the very [
| |
| 25 forefront of non-destructive evaluation including the I lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4000
| |
| | |
| 290 10' 1 evaluation of nuclear reactor containment vessels.
| |
| 2- We have Dr. John Russell'who is the Manager of our 3 Geologic Setting. He came to us last October. Was a 4 professor of-geology at Texas A&I University.
| |
| 5 Dr. Prasad Nair who happens to be here today,-has-6 been with the Institute for some 10 or 12 years. He's been 7 involved in reactor technology previous to that. Dr. Nair is 8 Manager of our Engineerdd Barrier Systems, is intimately 9 involved in two of the four research projects which we will.be 10- initiating this year under our contract..
| |
| 11 The other people are long time employees of ,
| |
| 12 Southwest Research Institute with particular skills suited to 13 the Center's functioning.
| |
| 14 MR. REMICK: Could you expand upon Mr. Adler's 15 functions? It says Office of Policy, Regulatory Analysis, and 16 Coordination?
| |
| 17 MR. LATZ: Yes. In your dialogue with Mr. Bunting I 18 think you inquired to the function of policy. I would like to 19 add to what Mr. Bunting said that the Center's role is not the 20 determination of policy. It's not even the analysis of policy 21 per se. But it is analysis, analytical work which can be of 22 benefit to the NRC High-Level Waste Division in its 23 formulation of its own policy.
| |
| 24 The Washington staff under Mr. Adler, Mr. Adler is 25 also with us today if you wish to inquire about his ancestry, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
| |
| : n. . . .- . .. . . . ~ . .
| |
| 299 1 I'm sure he'd'be happy to tell you. He has been with the 2 Institute for-10 years. He spent a career with the Navy out 3 of Annapolis prior to that. He has in:his office Dr. Ruth 4 Weiner, a chemist who has joined us from Western Washington 5 University; Dr. Pat Brown who is with' us here'today. Dr.
| |
| 6 Brown came to us just recently from the Department of Energy 7 . Salt Project at Hereford, Texas. I believe Dr. Brown was with 8 one of the principal contractors of DOE at that time. And Mr.
| |
| 9 Stephen Specter who was with the Department of Interior as a 10 regulatory analyst.
| |
| 11 We view the role of the Washington office as giving ,
| |
| ~
| |
| 12 the kind of. technical perspective to policy and regulation 13 with which the NRC High-Level Waste Program is and will be 14 confronted in the. future. We think the office can be of 15 service to the program, and with the exportise~and experience 16 .that it brings to it in the rather dynamic environment that 17 the program is going to find itself in in the year' ahead.
| |
| 18 MR. REMICK: Could you give a couple of examples of 19 what that office is doing currently? Specific examples?
| |
| 20 MR. LATZ: Yes, two. We were asked, we were tasked 21 by the program management to look at the implications 22 programmatically, institutionally, of the Nuclear Waste Policy 23 Amendments Act of last December. We did that.
| |
| 24 Secondly, we were asked to perform an analysis of 25 one component of the regulations which alludes to the natural Heritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 300 1- resources which would be impacted or which conversely may 2- ~ impact the repository.. That particular' analysis was narrowly 3- drawn to methodologies and principals who would determine those methodologies for establishing the presence of natural 4
| |
| 5 resources in the repository area. Those are two recent 6 examples.
| |
| : 7. MR. REMICK: Thank you.
| |
| 8 MR. LATZ: I will not belabor, but simply show you 9 the Center's principle modus operandi which is that of the 10 Institute. The Institute has a culture of the individual.
| |
| 11 The entrepreneurial individual. Our task basically will be 12 managed by a principal investigator who will have the 13 resources made available to him to do, complete the O 14 assignment. Centralizes the responsibility, accountability 15 for a definitive work product.
| |
| 16 Again, perhaps by duplication of what Mr. Bunting 17 has already lald'on you, these are the Center's general 18 objectives. I won't bother reading them to you. They're in 19 the handout that you have.
| |
| 20 Mr. Bunting alluded to the early tasks. Year one, ,
| |
| : i. 21 develop and maintain the program architecture. Develop a 22 computer capability. We have done that, or are in the process
| |
| : 23 of doing it. If any of you can avail yourselves of the 24 opportunity as Mr. Bunting alluded, on August 15th, to witness 25 the demonstration that we propose to make to the full
| |
| . ( IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
| |
| | |
| 301-l' Commission,-we propose to give a demonstration on Milestone 10
| |
| :2 which is a status report on the development of the program 3 architecture to date.
| |
| 4- Gecond year tasks, and we're coming up to that time 5 .now in the process Mr..Bonting alluded to in the preparation
| |
| .6 of operations plans, the planning for year two. But! generally 7 the RFP and the contract document enumerate these as principal 8 initiatives in year two.
| |
| 9 MR. REMICK: Getting back to your key milestones, I 10 see there were several things here, and I think January 15th.
| |
| 11 I had heard a_ rumor, and I don't know if it's true, that one 12 of your first reports was due in at 4:30 p.m. or something 13 like that, and it didn't quite arrive, and that's not 14 creditable toward the award fee. Is there any truth to those 15 rumors?
| |
| 16- MR. LATZ: I really think that's an unfair 17 characterization of the environment that exists and the 18 relationship that exists between the NRC and the Center.
| |
| 19 Absolutely unfair.
| |
| 20 MR. REMICK: I'm glad to hear that.
| |
| 21 MR. LATZ: We've had nothing but the very best of 22 program management exercised by the NRC over the Center. The 23 very best.
| |
| 24 MR. REMICK: Good.
| |
| 25 MR. LATZ: These are key milestones in the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| a 302
| |
| (
| |
| \#
| |
| 1 development of the Center. fir . Bunting has alluded to most of 2 them. The planning dacuments to Mr. Bunting alluded are 3 ..erated with their submission dates. I will say that as part 4 of that excellent program management, nothing is perfunctory.
| |
| 5 If something is submitted it is subjected to the ultimate 6 scrutiny, to the benefit of all involved and the program 7 itself.
| |
| 8 More of the same, bringing us up to the current 9 time. It's so current that we're talking about next week 10 already. I think Dr. Silverberg was saying this morning that 11 the blanks on the July 'G8, one or two of those may be today.
| |
| 12 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for m 13 us to get a copy of the overall research plan?
| |
| k')s 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We're getting nods of agreement.
| |
| 15 MR. LATZ: This fun looking chart attempts to 16 represent the practice of systems engineering brought to bear 17 on the high-level waste program. We are in its development 18 somewhere to this point. That's where we demonstrated to Mr. .
| |
| 19 Bunting and Mr. Browing on April 20th our Milestone 18 which 20 basically is the very skeleton of what the ultimate system 21 would look like. It's far from perfected, but demonstrated 22 that such a system can indeed work. We're convinced of it and 23 I believe the program management staft is convinced of it.
| |
| 24 At their direction we are redirecting or refocusing 25 the intensity of our current effort to bring those site (9
| |
| m/ Heritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| 303 1 constrained elements through the entire process by the end.of 2 .this year.with the hope that it would become useful at the 3 earliest possible time to the NRC- staf f in evaluating the site 4 characterization of the plan-that DOE is scheduled to lay down 5 some time around the first of the year. But you can see it 6 has all the classic loops attendant to a systems engineering 7 program.
| |
| 8 MR. STEINDLER: In your milestone charts, I'm 9 looking for an approval of the QA plan, and I don't see it.
| |
| 10 MR. LATZ: You don't see the approval of the QA 11 plan?
| |
| 12 MR. STEINDLER: Yes, am I missing something?
| |
| 13 MR. LATZ: No, you're not missing it. It's not O 14 finally approved. It has been evolving from its first 15 submission. We do have in place approval and in place a QA 16 plan for that work which is currently going on, eo that all 17 the work that is' presently being done is done with. quality 18 assurance. But the ultimate final QA plan that will 19 encompass all of the work of the center in the out years is <
| |
| 20 still being developed with the help of the NRC staff. We're 21 very close to finalizing it.
| |
| 22 MR. LATZ: Very good.
| |
| 23 We started out on October 26th with 11 professionals 24 and one clerical. We now have 20 professionals, 6 clerical.
| |
| 25 The end of the year we will be to a total of 29; the end of
| |
| ( IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 304 d,-m 1: year two we-project somewhere_between 35 and 45. The level of 2 funding to which you earlier alluded with the help of Hewlett-3 Packard, at the out years is around~65.
| |
| '4 MR. SMITH: Do'you have any idea how many 5 professional people will be working as part of this team who 6 are associated with your subcontractors?
| |
| 7 MR. LATZ: Yes, I would wish to speak to that now if 8 I may, Dr. Smith.
| |
| 9 The questions were placed to Mr. Bunting about
| |
| - l'0 subcontracting, the latitude with subcontracting. I think the 11 NRC in its request for proposal very realistically, very 12 wisely understood that that perfect world did not exist and 13 made accommodations or allowances for that.
| |
| O 14 Southwest Research Institute I eaa say in all 15 humility, is probably unsurpassed in the material cciences.
| |
| 16 It has other strengths. Very strong in non-destructive 17 evaluations, technology; very strong in space physics. Its 18 principal weakness for this program was in the geosciences.
| |
| 19 We are moving to get past that.
| |
| 20 The benefits of a captured FFRDC to the NRC is 21 indeed that it will become a, will be, but it has to become, 22 an entity of all the expertise that is needed for its program 23 application. The contract gave us the latitude, gives us the 24 latitude to utilize programmatically experienced and competent l l
| |
| 25 subcontractors for the first three years, after which the NRC i l
| |
| p/
| |
| \- IIoritage Reporting Corporation i
| |
| i (202) 628-4888 :
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 305
| |
| -(1
| |
| - ' 1 expects us to be sufficiently competently staffed in all of-
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 the affected disciplines. We are moving very aggressively to 3 do that, but in the interim we are using people who are 4 programmatically experienced and very well respected 5 scientists.
| |
| 6 With respect to the total competence of the Center 7 staff, to be cost effective the Center will avoid the 8 retention on permanent core staff of people who cannot be 9 fully occupied, gainfully occupied full time. To that extent, 10 those rather micro-professional disciplines, I'll cite as an 11 example volcanism. We might need one-tenth of an FTE of that 12 kind of discipline. We would look to the outside for a 13 subcontractor or consultant. We will continue to perform in O 14 that fashion. But we do have the objective of being 15 essentially self-sufficient by the end of the third year.
| |
| 16 MR. SMITH: I was just sort of looking for, you.show 17 33 to 37 professionals there by '89. Are we talking maybe 33 18 to 37 professionals with the subcontractors also?
| |
| 19 MR. LATZ: No sir. The subcontractors, the talent 20 represented in the subcontractor pool, consultant pool, would 21 be in addition to that, Dr. Smith.
| |
| 22 MR. SMITil: I know it would be in addition to the 33 23 to 37, but how much? Are we talking.
| |
| 24 MR. BUNTING: The level of effort on subcontractors 25 this year is something less than $300,000 out of the $4.7 O IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4088
| |
| | |
| 306
| |
| ,a f' ') 1 million. Is that the kind of --
| |
| 2 MR. BUNTING: That's what I'm looking for.
| |
| 3 MR. SMITH: In other words, who's driving the car.
| |
| 4 That's what I'm looking for.
| |
| 5 MR. LATZ: That grows slightly in the second year 6 and then tapers off in the third year.
| |
| 7 MR. FOSTER: Do you expect a particular professional 8 to be working on more than one project simultaneously?
| |
| 9 MR. LATZ: Absolutely.
| |
| 10 MR. FOSTER: Would that be inside the Center as 11 contrasted with --
| |
| 12 MR. LATZ: Yes. Dr. Nair, who is with us today is 13 our element manager for the engineered barrier systems area, I_si
| |
| (/ and will also be functioning as the Center's principe.1 14 15 investigator on the integrated waste package research work.
| |
| 16 M3. FOSTER: A different question, are there some 17 particular facilities at the Center that will be in high 5
| |
| 18 demand that will be anared? Laboratory tyte facilittes sharcd 19 between the Center and timse of the rest. of the Institute?
| |
| 20 MR. LATZ: Absolutely, yes. All four of the 21 research project plans initiated this year will utilize some 22 Institute facilities, yes indeed.
| |
| 23 MR. FOSTER: Do you have a mechanism for sorting out 24 who's > , st? What's the priority? Which project gets the 25 priority 7
| |
| ('s
| |
| (_) lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4800
| |
| | |
| 307
| |
| 'd' 1 MR. LATZ: We're number one. I'm big enough to make 2 us number one. Martin Goland is committed not only to me but 3 to the NRC. We're number one.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Do you --
| |
| 5 MR. LATZ: But excuse me, I'm being a little bit 6 flip and facetious, but the dedication of the Institute to 7 this program is unqualified. But the Institute's facilities 8 are also quite extensive. We have several electron 9 microscopes. We can take our choice of any one of them.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Will the Center subcontract to 11 Southwest Research Institute on any projects?
| |
| 12 MR. LATZ: The answer to that legalistically is no.
| |
| 13 The basic contract provides for the Center's utilization of 7_
| |
| V 14 the talent and facilities of the Institute.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: That's part of your st:?angths?
| |
| 16 MR. LATZ: Yes sir.
| |
| 17 MR. STEINDLER: If you find it necessary, as I 18 gather you've just said you raay, to have some of your key 19 people cover more than one discipline, general area or topic, 20 how do you intend to provide for some licensing board before 21 which you may be asked to testify for assurance that this 22 person is indeed a sound enough expert in the field about to 23 be testified on to have him qualify? I ask that largely 24 because normally when somebody says this is an expert, we are 25 looking at a person whose relatively narrow field of activity O
| |
| (_/ lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-1880 l
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| 308 1 has been a lifetime occupation and certainly not spread.out 2 very far.
| |
| 3 HMR. LATZ: I guess we're speaking past each other 4 with respect to the width of the spectrum. If I understand 5 your question, the reputation, the argument ad holmium-of the 6 individual who might be asked to testify, his credentials 7 would have to be acceptable.
| |
| 8 To that extent, and to the question of the issue of 9 experience, length of experience, I would cite Dr. Nair who 3s 10 with us as a material scientist who is fully competent to 11 address all' aspects of the enoineered barrier systems as well 12 as to be the principal investigator on the integrated waste 13 package corrosion studies. So I think that's tho' kind of
| |
| -O 14 spectrum that I'm speaking of when I say that they will be 15 doing more than one thing.
| |
| 16 Is that a fair enough answer sir?
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Other questions or comments?
| |
| 18 MR. REMICK: You indicated that Southwest Research 19 Institute, one of your areas of weakness is the geosciences.
| |
| 20 Can I infer then correctly that your subcontractors are 21 providing mostly geoscience type --
| |
| 22 MR. LATZ: You .nay indeed infer that, and that would 23 be a correct inferenco. And we are moving aggressively to 24 acquire in-house staff. We recently acquired an eminent 25 geochemist, Dr. William Murphy from Berkeley who had done some Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 F
| |
| p M his A -
| |
| | |
| f 309
| |
| '1
| |
| 'V 1 work up at Hanford.- Programmatically knowledgeable. He is 2 nationally recognized as a geochemist.
| |
| 3 MR. REMICK: 'You do not anticipate then'being in 4 difficulty in adding people in the geosciences? I think the 5 NRC has-had difficulty acquiring and retaining people in those 6 areas because of broad opportunities elsewhere.
| |
| 7 MR. LATZ: I guess it's no secret that probably the 8 hottest professional field in remuneration today is that of 9 the geohydrologists what with all of the super fund work and 10 people that have interest in that. We've turned down several 11 -geohydrologists, but we've not found'the one geohydrologist 12 that we're ready to settle for. We have found a geochemist.
| |
| 13 as a matter of fact, we have the opportunity to hire another
| |
| ' O 14 eminent geochemist who wishes to leave Oak Ridge. We have not 15 moved to address a conflict of interest with respect to that 16 gentleman which is a point, if I may, I would like to move to.
| |
| 17 You had some dialogue with Mr. Bunting about conflict of 10 interest.
| |
| 19 We think we have a pretty clear understanding of f
| |
| 20 what our contractual requirements are. We've established a 21 conflict of interest procedure, one of the very first things 22 that Mr. Bunting alluded to that we did. I chair the conflict 23 of interest committee. We convene that committee to review 24 all prospective individuals for employment, and all 25 prospective individuals either as consultants or members of a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| t
| |
| [ 310
| |
| -0 1
| |
| ~
| |
| subcontractor who would be asked to do specific work for.the
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 Center, 3 Our basic guideline is that they be free of'anything 4 which would impair their objectivity in addressing the-fuel 5 cycle. One nuance of that is with the' Nuclear Waste Policy 6 Amendments Act of last December, subsequent to the formation 7 of the Center. We found a pool of talent that became 8 available by virtue of the narrowing to the one site.
| |
| .9 There were a couple of very promising individuals.we 10 would like to have considered for employment with the' Center, 11 but it turns out they were involved in generic consensus 12 development' for the Department of Energy, and having been 13 thusly involved, we thought they were thuo tainted with the O 14 Department of Energy position. We're trying to be very 15 sensitive to this.
| |
| 16 MR. REMICK: Are any of the people on your conflict 17 of interest committee at all familiar with the NRC hearing 18 process and the type of challenges one might encounter?
| |
| 19 MR. LATZ: I think some of us have shed our blood in 20 other arenas, but narrowly to the NRC licensing process, no.
| |
| 21 MR. REMICK: There are hearings and there are 22 hearings, and I trust somebody knows that these are 23 adjudicatory type hearings --
| |
| 24 MR. LATZ: Yes, and we have people who have been 25 involved in other --
| |
| k) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| g 4 - d iA l J
| |
| \
| |
| 311 1 MR. REMICK: They're not public information game 2 type hearings.
| |
| 3- MR. LATZ: We have people on_ staff who have been 4 involved-in other adjudicatory hearings: ICC, FERC, those 5 types. But not the NRC.
| |
| 6 MR. SMITH: Do you currently have contracts with the 7 EPA in the area of hazardous waste?
| |
| 8 MR. LATZ: We are doing a pilot program, the 9 Institute not the Center.
| |
| 10 MR. SMITH: Yes, I'm talking about the Institute.
| |
| 11 MR. LATZ: The Institute is doing the pilot chemical 12 weapons burn on Johnson Island for DOD under EPA's 13 surveillance, out no contracts that I am presently aware of 14 with EPA.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any other questions or comments?
| |
| 4 16 MR. LATZ: If I may, there was another issue in your 17 dialogue with Mr. Bunting about retention of staff. I simply 18 wanted to say that the retention in recent years of staff at 19 the Institute as a whole is reflected in a turnover rate 20 within the Institute of less than seven percent, which we 21 think measures quite well.
| |
| 22 MR. STEINDLER: What is the average age of your 23 professional staff at the Institute?
| |
| 24 MR. LATZ: I don't have an exact answer to that, 25 sir. I can provide it to you. But it runs the gamut. Our.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| -. - ~
| |
| ds
| |
| -312 0 1 leadership is growing ancient. Our high competence is 2 dominated by the young. I think that probably is reflectise 3 of society generally.
| |
| 4 (Laughter) 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: That would be'a high note on 6 which to bring this to a conclusion unless you have someLmore 7 comments.
| |
| 8 MR. LATZ: I only wish again to thank you for your 9 kindness in allowing us to be here today.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you for your presentation.
| |
| 11 I think you said a lot in-a few words. We appreciate it.- In 12 fact you've almost put us back on time.
| |
| 13 We'll move on then, thanks once again to John Latz O 14 and to Joe Bunting for being here.
| |
| 15 MR. BROWNING: I might just add one note to this.
| |
| 16 We did have the review by the Performance Evaluation Board of l 17 their performance for the six month period and it was 18 unanimous that they were doing an outstanding job for us up to 19 this point in time, and we did award them the maximum eight 20 percent fee which translates to about $100,000. So far, we're 21 very, very pleased.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: That's good to hear.
| |
| 23 MR. STEINDLER: Let me ask you a question, Bob. Was 24 the award fee system procedure sought by you or by the Center?
| |
| l 25 Why did you impose it?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 313
| |
| ''/ 1 MR. BROWNING: I'll defer to Mr. Bunting on that.
| |
| 2 PR. BUNTING: It was sought by us. Some of the 3 comments we had received from our notice of intent was how 4 would you --
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Would you use a microphone 6 please?
| |
| 7 MR. BUNTING: We imposed the --
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You're cognizant of the rather 9 significant debate that goes on in various quarters about the 10 cost benefit ratio of that system of awarding folks, and you 11 believe you came down on the positive side?
| |
| 12 MR. BUNTING: Yes sir. I've used it before myself fs 13 and found it to be very helpful.
| |
| U 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any other items on that?
| |
| 15 (No response) 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Then we'll move on to the last 17 presentation for this morning. That will be by Dan Egan from 18 the Office of Radiation Programs within the U.S. Environmental 19 Protection Agency. The subject will be EPA Standards for the 20 High-7,evel Waste Geologic Repository.
| |
| 21 MR. EGAN: Good morning, Dr. Moeller. We'll need a 22 couple of minutes to get the slides set up.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay, let's take a two minut,t 24 stretch while we set up the projector.
| |
| 25 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
| |
| l
| |
| ! [)
| |
| x_- 18eritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| .. 314
| |
| ..p
| |
| 'l 1 CHAIRMAN ~MOELLER: This meeting will come to order.
| |
| 2 We'll pick up now with the subject of the 3 discussion, the EPA Standards. Welcome to Dan Egan.
| |
| '4 MR. EGAN: Thank you, Dr. Moeller.
| |
| 5 What I'm going to do this morning is just give-the 6 committee a brief overview of what happened in the EPA rule
| |
| -7 making historically, where it's left us todey, and what our 8 plans fcr putting Humpty Dumpty back trgether-again, if you 9 will, are for the immediate future. This is not a technical 10 presentation. I'm not going to ao into any depth into the 11 analysis supporting the rule or the technical justifications 12 for various issues and points of view that we took. I'd be 13 glad to do that in a later meeting of the committee, but my O 14 purpose today is just to give you an overview of the rule 15 making process itself and where we stand in that part of the 16 issue.
| |
| 17 The slides, as I explained to Dr. .to311er, we are 18 working our way through the verities of making our own slides 19 on personal computers. We're not quite there yet, but we're 20 getting there. For those of you who can't read it, we do have 21 everything that's on a slide is in hard copies, of which I 22 think there is an ample quantity in the back. So we don't 23 mean this to be an eye test. We should be able to struggle 24 through with it ono way or the other. There is only one slido 25 I don't have up nere 1 have to walk through. It is in the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| j 315 r"s t
| |
| V) 1 hard copy.
| |
| 2 I think this is about as focused as it's going to 3 get. For those of you, Dr. Moeller being among them, who are 4 on the same technological excursion as we are, this is 5 polychrome film which is the Instamatic 35. We are beginning 6 to believe that we recommend that you use the non-instamatic 7 film. It gets a little sharper and it voids that type of 8 question from your audience, and this is not that big a room 9 to project a slide on either. So lessons learned, if you 10 will, about not policy issues but othe r things.
| |
| 11 Stepping back for a moment, looking at the role for 12 a moment of EPA in the national high-level and I may add
| |
| ,s 13 cransuranic waste disposal programs, although the Nuclear
| |
| '] 14 Regulatory Commission is not a big player in transuranic waste 15 disposal programs. Actually EPA's effort started in fact in 16 1976. Sometimes it's a little forgotten that the big 17 expansion in the waste disposal program occurred at the end 18 of the Ford Administration. EPA's effort, as was the 19 expanded NRC effort, and DOC's substantial influx of money 20 and impetus, was provided at the end of the Ford 21 Administration in '76. That percolated along for awhile until 22 Congress finally started to lose patience.
| |
| 23 In 1982 Congress passed, the beginning of 1983 24 Presitent Reagan signed into law the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 25 of 1962. Now what that Act did for EPA is without adding any Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| a.;
| |
| 316 O~ 1 authority, because we were still operating under the authority.
| |
| : 2. the Agency received from the-Atomic Energy Act when it was 3 formulated, but without adding authority Congress mandated 4 that the standards for high-level waste disposal be 5 promulgated by January 1984, one year'after enactment of that 6 Act.
| |
| 7 As we know now and will be-. talking later, of course 8 it was promulgated later and remanded, the Nuclear Waste 9 Policy Amendments Act of 1987 in the Senate version addressed 10 the question of reestablishing a date for promulgation of the 11 remanded standards. That bill as passed by the Senate last 12 year had a new date in it. As I recall it was 1991. That 13 date, however, as many other things, was lost in the O 14 conference action. Remember, that bill was not a separate 15 bill. It was passed as part of the Omnibus Appropriations 16 process, so the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 is 17 silent on any changes in role for EPA. Therefore, as we read 18 it, the mandate still exists and the Act as passed in 1982, 19 and since we were remanded by the Court, as personally I see 20 it, we are still in violation of the deadline established by 21 the Act of 1982. Several years in violation, I might add.
| |
| 22 Besides that role, establishing of the Nuclear Waste 23 Policy Acts, the 40 CFR 191 Subpart B has a significant role 24 in some other venues. First of all, it is a basis of written 25 agreements between the State of New Mexico and the Department IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| L l 317 l
| |
| 1 of Energy.for-how the conduct of the WIPP, the development of 2 that facility, will be conducted. Reflecting that, there are 3 bills.being considered by both the House and the Senate now 4 that are associated with the withdrawal of the land for:the 5 WIPP that would reestablish a date for the standards for 6 transuranic waste, which since we view this as one regulation 7 by also bringing along the standards for high-level waste as 8 well.
| |
| 9 The version of that bill that is being written by 10 Senators Domenici and Bingaman of New Mexico would require a 11 proposal of a revised rule by 18 months after enactment of the 12 Act and promulgation of the final standards by three years g- 13 after enactment of'that Act, assuming of course, that it does L! 14 pass both houses, survives conference, and would be enacted by 15 the President before this session of Congress ends.
| |
| 16 So there is an attempt, certainly in the context of 17 the WIPP facility, to reestablish a Congressional deadlineJfor 18 the development of these standards beyond the already existing 19 mandate derived from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.'
| |
| . J'll now go briefly to talk about the promulgation 21 of the rule up to the point of August '85 where we actually 22 issued regulations. And the next chart is in your hard copy 23 but is not on the screen. I'll review this rori quickly.
| |
| 24 Some of the key issues we addressed as we developed 25 the proposed and then final tale in the early '80s. A Heritage Iteporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| -318 .
| |
| O
| |
| \/ 1 critical argument which many of you in the room from NRC I 2 remember well,'wasithe need for-qualitative assurance 3 requirements. combined with the numerical standards. Much 4 blood was let on that particular issue. If you recall the
| |
| .5 ultimate resolution of-that question was that we would have 6 qualitative assurance requirements in EPA's rule. NRC, they.
| |
| 7 . would not apply to NRC licensed facilities, but with the
| |
| 'O agreement that NRC would develop comparable provisions and 9 implement those in their regulations. I'll describe a little 10 later, that process went as far as it should have gone to the 11 point where the rule was remanded. NRC was in.the process of-12 a rule making to accomplish that which was suspended at the 13 time these standards were remanded by the Court.
| |
| O. 14 Another important issue we had to deal with in the 15 . proposed development of the rule was the length of time for 16 which containment requirements should apply. As you know, the 17 final standards set limits on integrated releases for 10,000 18 years after disposal. I revisit this issue not because it's 19 an issue, because it's not. I'm always fairly impressed by i 20 the fact that that particular time horizon has become 21 relatively set in stone over the years with one notable 22 exception which I'll discuss at the end. It has not been a t-23' serious bone of contention within the United States among the 24 various parties, and was not an issue that was challenged or 25 in any other way criticized by the Court when the rule was
| |
| ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4000
| |
| | |
| 319 1 remanded. So that remains one of the hallmarks of the bill,
| |
| ~
| |
| '2 and one that at the momont we have.no particular reason to-3 revisit or change. There is no real' body of record 4 criticizing that time' frame -- in our rule making process.
| |
| 5 How well we protec*ed populations in terms of 6 population risks from those integrated releases,-was an issue-7 during the rule making. The EPA was criticized for_ limiting 8 health risks to levels that were overly stringent by the 9 Scientific Advisory Board of the EPA. I've left, as part of a 10_ package of information I've left with the committee staff that 11 will be made available to the members subsequently, a copy of 12 that SAB report that was issued'in 1984 that documents the 13 reasons for their criticisms. We did not heed that particular l
| |
| (:) 14 criticism. The agency retained a level of stringency that we 15 had had in the proposed rule, which was also that in the final 16 rule, which in terms of health effects as best one wants to 17 talk about health effects over 10,000 years, was that the 18 residual releases including those from accidental events in a 19 repository would have caused no more than 1000 extra 20 fatalities over the entire 10,000 year period from disposal of 21 approximately 100,000 metric tons of spent fuel or its 22 equivalent in terms of other forms of waste. Again, to 23 restate the number in average of less than a tenth of a death 24 per year over that time frame.
| |
| 25 Beyond that, that being the primary numerical lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| d -- +-a a j 4 r4.
| |
| 320 1 standards that we have always included in the rule, during-the 2 process of developing the rule EPA was fairly heavily 3 criticized-tar a panel of the National Academy of Sciences
| |
| : 4. -headed up by Dr. Tom Pigford for not including in the rule 5 any, first of all they criticized the reliance on population 6 risk based on numbers entirely and suggested that we should 7 rather limit exposures to maximally exposed individuals 8 essentially over all time, pointing out that there was no 9 particular radiological break point, if you will, at 10,000 10 years. And in fact, materials were definitely hazardous, as 11 indeer? 'ney are, for hundreds of thousands of years after 12 disposal.
| |
| 13 The NAS report basically says that the standards O 14 should not be one that limits population risk, but should be 15 one that limits maximum individual risks and should do so for 16 essentially all time.
| |
| 17 CilAIRMAN MOELLER: Would you repeat that sentence, 18 because it pertains to another subject which we dealt with 19 yesterday that they were not, you did not need to address 20 population. You should address --
| |
| 21 MR. EGAN: The National Academy's report now, and I 22 should be specific given other reports the NAS has issued, it 23 really has to be focused on this particular panoi headed by 24 Dr. Pigford. That particular message was very clear that they 25 were not at all supportive of our standards in limiting risk
| |
| ( lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
| |
| [
| |
| | |
| 321 0 'l tx) populations. Instead, they argued that we should be 2 limiting risks to the maximally exposed individual. They, as
| |
| '3 I recall, gave some hints of potential limits, but the bigger 4 issue is not the level at which you're limiting the risk, but 5 .the fact that that's the target for the regulation.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank'you.
| |
| , 7 MR. EGAN: And also that there should be no, that 8- they saw no reason-to place a limit on time over which those 9 regulations apply. Clearly they implied that 10,000 years was 10 not long enough. That was the essence of the Academy's 11 report.
| |
| 12 That had some effect on our final rule because we-13 did add a provision to the final rule that in part addressed O 14 that criticism by limiting exposure to individuals, and 15 limiting concentrations'in certain classes of ground water for 16 1,000 years after disposal, which was somewhat more stringent 17 than a corresponding recommendation by EPA's Scientific 18 Advisory Board in the report that was issued in 1984. That 19 becomes important shortly when I talk about the remand of'the 20 rule. Those provisions that were added turned out to be the 21- heart of why the rule was remanded.
| |
| 22 Another issue in developing a proposed rule was 23 given that we had focused our analyses very much on geologic
| |
| , 24 disposal of commercial high-level radioactive waste, which i
| |
| 25 were more or less adequate at least at that time for l
| |
| () Iteritage Reporting corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 322
| |
| ~
| |
| 1, addressing disposal of transuranic waste and geologic ,
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 repositories, we-did not expend any analytical effort into
| |
| {
| |
| 3 addressing other potential disposal problems. For example, )
| |
| waste in single cell tanks, some other special problems that 4 -
| |
| 5 the Department of Energy may have with certain types of high-6 level wastes.
| |
| 7 What wound up in the final rule, as I'll show-in a ,
| |
| 8 minute, was a provision that basically in now way provided any-
| |
| _i 9 type of a waiver or special treatment.for those wastes other 10 than it recognized a potential for a probl,em and happened to 11 set minimum rule making requirements for any potential ,
| |
| 12 revisions to the rule that might need to be taken for those ;
| |
| 13 types of waste. But that was, again, a fairly critical issue O 14 in the development of the_ final rule. '
| |
| 15 To get back to the slide I've got up on the screen, 16 just to hit some of the high points of the process that led to 17 promulgation of 40 CFR 191. As I mentioned before, the ;
| |
| 18 Nuclear Waste Policy Act provided a deadline for promulgation 19 of the standard January 1984. Surprise, surprise, EPA didn't 20 make that date. That will not be the first Congressional date ,
| |
| 21 the agency has missed. After awhile, the Natural Resources 22 Defense Council sued EPA to force compliance with the Nuclear 23 Waste Policy Act and -- of the NRDC is in the audience today, 24 who was part of this suit. This was something of a friendly 25 suit, as one might understand, as opposed to some other suits.
| |
| ( Heritagu Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 323
| |
| (~)'
| |
| 1 EPA and NRDC agreed to a consent order from the 2 Court based on that,'and the suit was resolved by agreeing 3 that we would promulgate the rule on August 15, 1985. In the 4 process of getting to that date we developed, and I would 5 argue a pretty firm consensus, perhaps more firm than I've 6 ever seen before, among the three federal agencies involved:
| |
| 7 DOE, NRC, and EPA, about the content of the final rule. Later 8 on we were criticized bv that. You had, to me, the somewhat 9 pleasant side of seeing the three agencies basically saying 10 the same thing, we all like that rule. Other people were very 11 critical of it.
| |
| 12 All of which led to meeting the promulgation, the 13 consent order on August 15, 1985. The rule was signed by Lee O 14 Thomas in my presence up in the West Tower of Waterside Mall.
| |
| 15 One may note that court orders get taken a little more 16 seriously than Congressional deadlines, because this promptly 17 got met on time and to the minute.
| |
| 18 As of August 15, 1985, I was looking for work 19 because EPA was out of the business at that point. As we 20 speak now, the agency has no implementation authority for its 21 standards. We merely set them. In the case of NRC licenses, 22 the NRC implements the standards. In the case of f aci.1
| |
| * ties 23 not licensed by NRC under existing law, DOE is responsible for 24 implementing the standards upon itself.
| |
| \
| |
| \ 25 Before I go further, let me just review quickly O
| |
| d lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 324 C)
| |
| '- 1 again, cover a few of the milestones, the portions of the 2 rule.
| |
| 3 There were two parts. Subpart A which dealt with 4 operations during management and storage, which was fairly 5 unremarkable. What we did here was for NRC fuel cycle 6 facilities, basically extended the same limitations EPA had 7 established many years ago for other cycle, facilities on the 8 nuclear fuel cycle to waste management storage and disposal 9 facilities. Extended Part 190, if you will, to be uniform 10 coverage across facilities that had been left out when that 11 rule had been developed.
| |
| 12 We also for the first time under the Atomic Energy fs 13 Act added those limits for DOE waste management and storage
| |
| \
| |
| 14 facilities. Those limits were somewhat different because we 15 wanted those to reflect the agreements we reached with the 16 department on the Clean Air Act, which again was a similar 17 rule. The dose limits that applied to NRC licensed facilities 18 in some ways are based on the outdated radiological models.
| |
| 19 However, we did not change them because we didn't want to 20 reopen the Part 190 rule making, and the two were so-21 implemented in such a way that choosing different limits for 22 the two parts would be very difficult to actually apply.
| |
| 23 That's basically all I want to say about Subpart A. It 24 exists. Tht ''s what it is.
| |
| 25 Subpart B wac where the real interest has always tieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4000
| |
| | |
| 4 1
| |
| l 325 i
| |
| (~)
| |
| \' 1 been in the standards for disposal. The rule as promulgated 2 in August '85 had four substantive and one procedural part.
| |
| 3 The containment requirements, the limits on numerical releases 4 over a 10,000 year period per unit at the -- waste disposed 5 of. The assurance requirements were a set of qualitative 6 principles that we believe are very important because they 7 reflect the fact that 10,000 yearv is a heck of a long timo 8 to try to project anything and there are some common sense, 9 non-quantitative things you should do to reflect the 10 uncertainties inherent in that kind of a process.
| |
| 11 The two new sections, new in terms of added to the 12 final rule as opposed to the proposed rule, were a limit of 25 13 millirems whole body and equivalent organ doses to individuals n'
| |
| 14 who might be exposed outside the boundaries of a waste 15 disposal facility from, and this is another critical point, 16 from normal operations, expected operations of the facility,
| |
| -17 expected process of the facility, for the first 1,000 years 18 after disposal.
| |
| 19 The second new provision was the limitation on 20 concentrations in certain categories of ground water, and 21 these were very restricted. In class one they're equivalent 22 to class one aquifers of the time. The limitation to class 23 one aquifers is perhaps most notable in t. hat it would have 24 applied inside the controlled area of the facility if there 25 was such an aquifer within the boundaries of the facility.
| |
| O)
| |
| (_ lieritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4000
| |
| | |
| f i
| |
| 326 l O' '1 That was'probably the most'important feature of that. In some '
| |
| 2 ways it tended to provide a strong regulatory impetus to not 3 put one of these facilities where one of these type of ,.
| |
| 4 aquifers were, which'is fine with us. We think that's a heck 5 of a good idea. In fact,-if we had the authority to flat out 3 6 prohibit that, we would.,.But generally applicable standards 7 as Jim Wolf who is somewhere in the audience will remind me, 8 are intended to be numerical' limits on exposures or releases.
| |
| 1 9 Exposures to people or releases of material. -They cannot be 10 straight forward sentences like "Thou shalt not dispose of X j 11 at Y." Sometimes the more common sense thing isn't allowed-us f 12 by the structure of tb9 authorities we have to work under. !
| |
| 13 Finally, the fifth of the significant sections under
| |
| ( 14 the subpart B were the alternative rule making provisions, if 15 we needed to change the rule in response to any particular 16 problems that the Department of Energy might have. l 17 That was what we did on August 15th of '85, and we g 18 all went about our ways in different things. NRDC, among 19 other plaintiffs, filed suits. As I recall there's a 60 day
| |
| , 20 window after you promulgate a rule that you can file a suit.
| |
| 21 A whole host of suits got filed on day 59. liRDC was one of 22 them; several states sued. The suits were ultimately ,
| |
| 23 consolidated in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston 24 which heard the arguments for the case. On July 14, 1987 the l l
| |
| 25 First Circuit came out with a decision which vacated the
| |
| () lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| h 9
| |
| 327 ,
| |
| -p#
| |
| n 'l -entire rule at that point-and remanded the rule back to 2 consideration for the agency. '
| |
| 3 To take care of one minor point before I get en with.
| |
| '4 it, the agency appealed the vacating of the entire rule. As 5 I'll point out later, only two sections were found defective 6- by-the court. Two parts of the disposal standards. We asked
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 that the court reinstate all but those two sections. The !
| |
| 8 court gave us half a loaf. The court did not choose to .
| |
| 9 reinstate any part of Subpart B. The-entire section remains ,
| |
| 10 vacated. However, the court did reinstate Subpart A. So what i 11 you have in place now in 40 CFR 191, you do have in place 12 standards for management and storage. They were reinstated by 4.
| |
| 13 the court some time after the vacation order came. None of O 14 Subpart B survives. The entire portion was vacated.
| |
| 15 The reasons for that are indicated on the chart in. i 16 your handout. First of all we got tro prizes that arbitrary ,
| |
| 17 and capricious is the best prize a court can give you if f
| |
| 18 they're going to throw your rule out.
| |
| 19 The first one of these was on the grounds that the 20 individual protection requirements, remember that does limit 21 of 25 millirems. The court found that we had inadequately 22 justified why that should be different than the dose limits j 23 established for drinking water supplies under the Safe 24 Drinking Water Act, particularly because the court felt that i 1
| |
| 25 they did not see a compelling reason why this type of disposal !
| |
| l Heritage Hoporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 320 kg -
| |
| 1 should not be considered underground injection control as 2 envisioned under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and since the 3 court thought it could be interpreted to be that, it didn't 4 understand why the rules weren't consistent with the limits 5 established under the Underground Injection Control Program 6 under the Safe Drinking Water Act. So therefore, they said 7 huh uh, we don't buy that. That's arbitrary and capricious 8 and inconsistent with the regulations you've established 9 elsewhere under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
| |
| 10 Secondly, the court did not accept as adequate our 11 justification for why we had limited the duration of the 12 individual exposure and by implication the ground water 13 protection requirements to 1000 years after disposal. Kind of 14 unstated in the court's opinion was why not 10,000, but they 15 basically said we don't understand your limitation to 1,000 16 years and you've inadequately explained that, and we find your 17 action therefore to be arbitrary and capricious. On those two 18 grounds, found both those sections defective.
| |
| 19 A little less severe finding by the court, but 20 nonetheless adequate to get it thrown out, was that in the 21 ground water protection sections, 191.16, we included in that 22 a ground water classification scheme that was derived from the 23 agency's ground water policy strategy that had been published 24 some time before. The court did not so much find that 25 defective as it found that there had not been adequate
| |
| /~T
| |
| (_) lleritage Iteporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 329
| |
| , 1 opportunity for public notice and comment on that 2 classification scheme, and remanded Section 191.16 back to the-3 agency not for being arliltrary and capricious, but for 4- additional notice and comment on the provisions included 5 therein.
| |
| 6 So there are lots of other things covered in the 7 ruling which is about two-thirds or three-quarters of an inch 8- thick, but the high points are right here, and these are the 9 key issues of the rule rejected by the court.
| |
| 10 You'll note, as I said before, that only two of the 11 five substantive sections of the disposal standards are 12 directly involved here, 191.15 and 191.16. However, the court i
| |
| 13 .did see fit, because they interpreted the possibility, O 14 admittedly we said in the preamble that there may be 15 relationships between the sections to remand not just these 16 wo but to vacate the entire Subpart, remand the whole thing 1
| |
| 17 back to EPA to reconsider it.
| |
| 4 18 Now that we're at that point, we're now in the 19 process of trying to start the program back up again, to some 20 extent scraping away for resources to do that because the
| |
| ; 21 agency had not planned, in fact had no responsibility for ;
| |
| 22 further staffing of this problem beyond the promulgation of 23 August '85. But these are some of the first steps of things 24 we're going to consider in developing a new rule, basically ,
| |
| 25 repromulgating Subpart B.
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 330 1 A very key one that I want to come back to, 2 underground injection control as - envisioned by the Safe 3 Drinking Water Act, certainly we think and as' envisioned by 4 most of the people you'll hear walking around EPA, was 5 intended to apply to processes where liquids or~ fluids of some 6 kind were pumped down deep wells, around ground water sources, 7 and there was a. provision to try to protect those ground water 8 -sources from being endangered.
| |
| 9 To allege that geologic disposal of the packages we 10 consider either under high-level or transuranic waste 11 disposal, emplacement of those in a mined geologic repository 12 is equivalent to and therefore what Congress intended in the 13 Safe Drinking Water Act, at least in my opinion, involves a O 14 certain suspension-of reality.
| |
| 15 The agency pretty much, this is just not my opinion 16 any more, guys, the agency is pretty much developing the 17 position, and has recently published language associated with 18 the RCRA rule that basically makes it clear the EPA's 19 interpretation and intention is that this type of disposal is 20 not underground injection and therefore QED is not covered by 21 the underground injection control program of the State 22 Drinking Water Act. That will be one of the first issues we 23 tried to explain in great detail in the proposed rule and 24 subsequently we hope the final rule, is to decouple this 25 disposal from the regulatory provisions of the Safe Drinking
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 331 1 Water Act that addresses underground injection control.
| |
| 2 Note that I have not said anything to date about^the 3 _ levels of risk we may regulate to. That is a related but 4 different question. But what we're saying hero is the S underground injection control program in the agency's belief, 6 does not extend to this type of disposal.
| |
| 7 Another import' ant thing _we think it's time to do-8 from our perspective as.part of developing a rule is -- it's 9 been over a decade now we've been working on this, the United 10 States as a country was largely ahead of other nations in the 11 world in having to address the regulatory problems and 12 political and social problems if you will, in actually going 13 ahead and disposing of these types of wastes. Other countries 14 have worked on the technical aspects of the issue, but as far 15 as the free world goes anyway.- There has been relatively 16 little progress in other countries upon setting up the 17 regulatory and accountability structures, if you will, within 18 their governments of proceeding with disposal of this 19 material.
| |
| 20 That has changed as time has marched on to where 21 some other countries are starting to wrestle with the same 22 questions that we had, both intellectual and otherwise. We 23 think a very useful step to take pretty early in our process 24 of redoing the rule would be to hold a conference on 25 international disposal policies not from a technologist's lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 332 ;
| |
| 1 point of view, because we've all heard a lot of that, and not 2 really from an industrial point of view., But we want to get 3 the government regulators. The NRC equivalents, the EPA 4 equivalents, the DOE. equivalents down and sit around a table 5 and say how are you guys going to do this? We've got some 6 serious inconsistencies in this country in the way we 7 - philosophically regulate disposal of nuclear wastes and 8 chemically but non-nuclear hazardous wastes. There are some 9 fundamenta1Ldifferences in philosophies that underlie those !
| |
| 10 rules that we run into time a:el time again as we- struggle with 11 them. And that's just U.S. There are certainly lots of 12 potential differences and lots to be learned from perhaps 13 other countries as well, so we want to explore that database a 14 little bit and-explore the opinions of those that have to deal 15 with that not just on nuclear waste but on chemically 16 hazardous waste too. !
| |
| 17 I'll talk more about that later because I'm going to .
| |
| ; 10 end up with a discussion of the International Atomic Energy 1
| |
| 19 Agency's report on nuclear waste disposal standards abut --
| |
| 20 MR. STEINDLER: What does that have to do with the I
| |
| 21 court case? Anything?
| |
| l 22 MR. EGAN: For one thing, the time frame perhaps. A t l 23 thousand years versus ten thousand. The other thing is the j 24 relative weight to be given to limiting population risks l
| |
| ! 25 versus individual risks which I'll point out in about three I
| |
| ! Heritage Reporting Corporation -
| |
| (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| | |
| 333 1 more slides, we are rather at odds with recommended policies 2 of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We here is not we 3 EPA, it's we U.S. Government and international agencies, which 4 I think is a fairly significant issue we need to deal with.
| |
| 5 Further in the rule making process, just to go 6 through the procedural things, we will consider hopefully 7 establishing this point. We will look at a range of options j 8 for different levels of protections for individuals. Mind you 9 I said that getting away from the UIC by r.o means meant that 10 we necessarily walked away from that four millirem per year 11 limitation. That is the regulatory limit for drinking water 1 12 supplies established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and 13 which people have to live with under the underground injection O 14 control program. We will look at that as one option.
| |
| 15 Certainly the version of the rule that we ultimately 16 promulgate will look at another option and possibly several 17 others as well.
| |
| 18 We'll also consider some different options for 19 groundwater classifications. What groundwater has to meet 20 certain standards, because there is a fair amount of ferment 21 about that that goes on about that as well. There are lots of 22 technical issues to be decided there.
| |
| 23 We'll be addressing the issue of time frame. In a 24 thousand years appropriate as we thought it was when we 25 promulgated the final rulo? Should some other time frame be
| |
| ( lieritage Iteporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| . ,g . ._ _ - ~_ . . .
| |
| I 334 1 considered? Options in all these areas will be considered in 2 the proposed rule. I can't tell you exactly which ones ;
| |
| 3 because we haven't done that work yet, but we'll definitely !
| |
| 4 propose a range of options and seek comments on what people t
| |
| 5 think should be the approach taken in the final rule.
| |
| I 6 As we go along with that process we'll also be 7 paying attention to things going on in other rule makings. [
| |
| 8 There era limits on individual risks that are being considered .
| |
| 9 under the NESHAPS or Clean Air Act standards, and some policy 10 cutting decisions are in the process, euts are being made r 11 there. j 12 We also expect to have out on the street relatively 13 shortly proposed rules for low-level waste disposal which God !
| |
| O 14 bless the EPA's own rules, had better be consistent one with .
| |
| 15 the other unless we start arguing.about other people's !
| |
| 16 consistency. We also have some rule making actions going on 17 in the Uranium Recovery, whatever UMTRCA stands for, Act, and [
| |
| 4 r
| |
| . 18 we want to be sure we're consistent there as well. !
| |
| 19 And two kind of look over NRC shoulder things, we, !
| |
| l
| |
| ! 20 with one known difference, we had generally pretty much agreed i
| |
| . 21 with NRC's approach to the implementation of our assurance [
| |
| 22 requirements. We had said in our final Federal Register !
| |
| 23 notice that when NRC finished that procer,s we would go back l l
| |
| 24 and look at what they'd done and basically see 11 they had i i
| |
| 25 adequately reflected what we thought were the important :
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4080 i
| |
| , i
| |
| | |
| i i
| |
| 335- '
| |
| 1 principles in that. As NRC goes forward with its rule making 2 we will continue to review that as well.
| |
| 3_ Also in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, NRC is 4 charged with developing a definition of high-level waste which
| |
| -i 5 is fairly important to Part 191.
| |
| Unlike the NRC rules that !
| |
| i t
| |
| 6 applies to a type of disposal method. Our rules are applying 1 7 to types of waste. So what you define as high-level waste 8 affects the applicability of Part 191, vis-a-vis say Part 193 9 which will be 'he low-level waste end. So it's particularly 10 important to us to know, since in this case we have 11 essentially delegated to NRC through Congressional action, the 12 definition of what the rule applies to. We want to watch 13 real carefully what that definition becomes.
| |
| (:) 14 NRC has on the street now, as you know, a proposed j
| |
| r 15 implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act High-Level l 16 Waste definition which we have reviewed and are in the ,
| |
| 17 process of sending comments over to the ANCI. I think the 18 comment period just closed recently and we're probably late, }
| |
| 19 but that's not the first time either.
| |
| 20 So those are some of the actions we will be taking 21 in developing a revised rule.
| |
| 22 Now, back to Dr. Steindler's question. So what 23 about all this individual protection stuff? A report, which 24 by the way is in front of the members of the committee right 25 now, is a report dated I believe November 1907 which is from Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| , l I
| |
| l 336
| |
| (') 1 .the International Atomic Energy Agancy. It is draft' report.
| |
| 2 My understanding is it's not yet been approved by IAEA but-it 3 i trly f ar along in the - committee developraent process. It 4 unusual,- I suspect, if there are~ major technical 5 ns to this report yet.
| |
| 6 What this report is is a recommendation to the 7 member nations of the IAEA as to what their policies should be 8 !or standards for geologic disposal of high-level radioactive 9 waste. What this report recommends are several things we 10 think are very good, and a few things we're concerned about.
| |
| 11 First of all, and starting off with the very good 12 parts first, there is, we think, a very reassuring and welcome 13 support of the qualitative assurance requirements of the type 14 we had in our final rule that appears in the IAEA report.
| |
| 15 There is a very clear stepping away from any concept of 16 leaving responsibility for the safety for these waves to 17 future generations. A very explicit breaking with any attempt 18 to rely on institutional controls for more than a short period 19 of time after that. In general, virtually all of the key 20 qualf.ative provisions we had in our final rule are adequately 21 reflected, in some cases perhaps even reinforced in the IAEA 22 report.
| |
| 23 Lest we end on criticisms that I'll make of this 24 report later on, I want to emphasize it is a major, major 25 accomplishment and I think an important step taken by IAEA lioritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4000 f
| |
| | |
| q 337
| |
| .O '
| |
| ''d 1 and one we're very glad to see.
| |
| 2 There are differences, which I think matter a lot
| |
| '' First of all, the'IAEA report is rather more receptive 3 too.
| |
| 4 to t"e idea of limiting population risk than Pigford's NAS 5 panel was. However, it's still fairly clear that the.IAEA 6 report looks to limitations on maximum exposures to 7 individuals of a critical group as the primary regulatory 8 thrust. That is that your primary numerical standards should 9 not be to populatic.s, but should be to the maximum annual 10 exposures, to individual in the critical group as the primary 11 regulatory target. ,
| |
| 12 Furthermore, the IAEA report is, I think at best 13- vague on what the time frame ohould be for those limitations.
| |
| 7-
| |
| - - 14 It certainly doesn't set a particular time frame, and it 15 somewhat leaves hanging the question of where a cutoff should 16 occur, but certainly there is nothing like an endorsement of 17 10,000 years in a numerical time frame in that regard.
| |
| 18 What the report is fairly explicit at, which perhaps 19 I find the most concerning, is the report goes further to say 20 that those limits on individual exposures should apply not 21 just to expected performance of a repository which is ":.at 22 those sections in 191 apply to, but should app]' as well to 23 accidental exposures of individuals, recognizing that those 24 will occur with certain probabilities and that limitation is l
| |
| 25 not onto the exposure but to the risk. The exposure times the l ) lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| -338
| |
| (~h
| |
| ^l 1 probability of the. occurrence of the exposure. In other 2 words, probability. times consequence weighted limitation of 3 individual risk, for accidental events and for an indefinitely 4 long period of time.
| |
| 5 That in short form is a summary of what that report 6 recommends for quantitative standards. It is in philosophy 7 very similar to, although not identical to, the NAS report 8 produced by Dr. Pigford's panel.
| |
| 9 MR. STEINDLER: In the case of long term waste 10 disposal, how do they define critical group?
| |
| 11 MR. EGAN: I'm not sure about that. I'll have to go 12 back and get an answer for that. There are couple of people 13 who participated in that. I did not. I'll get an answer back 7,
| |
| V 14 -to you for the record. I personally don't know.
| |
| 15 One of the conce,rns we had about that, and we stated 16 it pretty explicitly in our final preamble, is we don't have 17 any objection to the intent of the report, we think it's l 18 reasonably noble, however, when one has to write regulations 19 demonstrating compliance with those regulations in the face of 20 appropriate challenges to the validity of the quantitative 21 analysis you're doing, we have thought that for a song time 22 doing integrated releases over 10,000 years considering 23 accidents in total releases was not an easy process t, get 24 through a regulatory setting.
| |
| 25 We see the structure outlined here both by NAS and
| |
| ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| | |
| 339
| |
| ] 1- IAEA as being, in my almost objective; judgment, orders of.
| |
| 2 magnitude more difficult to implement and to carry off in a-3 regulatory setting. The point is to.get to proving, assuming 4 you have a goodfdisposal facility, proving that it is, and 5 meeting the ;tgulatory testi you have to comply with. It's 6 been my personal opinion, and-I would add I think generally-7 supported by the individuals in the U.S. federal agencies 8 involved, that where we stopped was an adequate and 9 substantive test of the repository to have.to make, but to go 10 further in the direction the IAEA is. proposing is in fect 11 ' making it a possible no-end game that you can never prove 12 compliance, therefore, you can never dispose of.
| |
| _ 13 We're sure that was not the motivation of the-IAEA,
| |
| \- 14 and certainly it's not a group that had intended to be 15 obstructionist in any way that we could see. But it is a 16 concern we have.
| |
| 17 One of the issues we would like to pursue at the 18 type of workshop or conference I was proposing, in other
| |
| -19 words, okay, given this report, I would love to be the 20 questioner, not the questionee, as to how do you do this?
| |
| 21 Let's play the rule making game. How do y0u defend the 22 calculations? Remember the IAEA report correctly, I maintain, 23 does not allow you to rely on institutional controls. You 24 can't say individual A can't drill over the repository and set 25 up a water supply there. For every analysis I've locked at,
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| . . , . - _ - . .__ -- - = ~ _ . - ~ . . . _ - .
| |
| 340 f
| |
| l 1 if an individual'is drawing water off the vicinity of a 2- ' repository, if there is water.there to be drawn, for time ,
| |
| , 3 immemorial the doses are unacceptable under anybody's 4 definition of acceptability. I'm not talking millirem doses 5 here, I'm talking rems.
| |
| 6 This is a very simp 1. fact, when you conceritrate 7 billions of curies in a relatively small place, which again, 8 we endorse the concept of this disposal, don't get me wrong.
| |
| 9 But when you isolate billions of curies in a relat.vely small 10 geologic environmant, there will be inevitably, if there is 11 any water at all, some dissolution, even a tiny fraction. And 12 if you give that 100,000 years to perk, you're going to get 13 some nasty looking water in there. If somebody is unfortunate O 14 enough to drink that water, I don't see any way that's going 15 to be an acceptable does under any circumstances.
| |
| 16 To assume that you can regulate that into something 17 else I think calls into question the entire enterpr1< f 18 geologic disposal unless you can find absolutely dr, tes.
| |
| 19 Again, a wonderful theory, we've yet to find it. Maybe Yucca 20 Mountain being virtually in an unsaturated zone is the driest 21 I've seen, but it remains to be tested too.
| |
| 2 22 Our point is not that the IAEA has any bad agendas 23 here, but we don't think this is a practical way to go, and 24 again the consensus the U.S. federal agency has reached was in 25 that direction when we promulgated the final ruling. I raise
| |
| () I!eritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 341 i .
| |
| 1 it for your consideration because it's.something.that I think
| |
| '2 -you should be aware of, and I think it's an important issue in' 3 .the long term evolution of our rule, and for that matter.some
| |
| ~
| |
| .4- of our sister countries, too and how they proceed with the'ir 5 disposal activities.
| |
| 6 To end just with a quick overview of what I would 7 hope may be a topic laf a later presentation to the Commission, 8 a quick forecast of some'of the analytical efforts we see as 9 necessary to support our redevelopment limitations for both 10 individual and possibly population doses. One thing we need 11_ to spend a lot of work on~is long term projections of ground 12 water concentrations and the resulting individual exposures 13 for our, as Congress called it, Yucca Mountain. God bless'it, 14 that's it. Unsaturated tuft.
| |
| 15 The analytical tools here are not, how should we-16 say, widely accepted yet as to how one does that calculation.
| |
| 17 You have some real-important questions about what type of 18 source term is picked up by water percolating down through the 19 unsaturated zone, how much is picked up, how rapidly ~1t gets 20 to the underling aquifer, if at all. And quantitatively doing 21 those calculations is certainly an area that's in a state of 22 flux right now. We need to be part of that because we need to 23 have some idea of how well or poorly, depending upon your 24 point of view, Yucca Mountain can do in terms of protecting 25 individuals from exposures over these time frames.
| |
| ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 342 1- Secondly, both because we didn't.do much of it in 2' the previous rule making, and also because of the intense-3 Congressional interest now and appropriate interest in the-4~ WIPP site, which'looks like it will be the first site to 5- implement some regulations, we'll do much more detailed 6 regulations and much more detailed performance assessment of 7 the WIPP site in its enterprise as being a repository for 8 transuranic wacte which will make us look at some leach' rates 9 and waste behaviors we didn't consider very strongly in the 10 previously rule making activity.
| |
| 11 In doing this, we'll be aided, we hope by~ lots of 12 people, but one group we will be aided by is'a group that DOE
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 has established to basically interact with us on a technical e
| |
| 14 level. We're not talking policy here. We're talking 15 analytical models. Called the technical review group which 16 was in response to our informal request that we have a
| |
| -17 vehicle to interact with the DOE analytical community. There 18 are four separate ones that are represented on this-group:
| |
| 19 one associated with WIPP, one associated with Yucca Mountain,.
| |
| ; 20 one associated with the Hanford site, and the fourth one is l
| |
| l 21 associated with a group that's considering the possibility of 2L an intermediate disposal facility somewhere between geologic 23 repositories and low-level waste sites for certain categories
| |
| . 24 of transuranic wastes.
| |
| 25 It's not necessary a DOE decision to provide that I
| |
| IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
| |
| | |
| 343
| |
| >- 1 way, but they're considering the possibility and they've got 2 ' analytical efforts forthcoming appropriately. It's-intended
| |
| .1 3 to be an open process. It's not substantively started yet, 4 but certainly we want to share and hope the NRC staff will be 5 interested _in interacting with us as we go forth there as 6 well.
| |
| 7 A lot of analytical work has been accomplished since 8 'we promulgated the Rule 185, but there's still a lot to do. We 9 want to make that as open and as constructive a process as we 10~ possibly can.
| |
| 11 That ends my formal presentation. I'll be glad to 12 take any questions the committee may have.
| |
| 13 MR. SHEWMON: The latter part of your presentation
| |
| .O 14 with regard to inadvertent entry or whatever you want to call 15 it, could in principle be defended against with a better 16 package, something which I think the Swedes have done an 17 appreciably better job of than the U.S. package that I've 18 heard of to date.
| |
| 19 Is that something, that is reliance on a better 20 package something which is prohibited, that is taking credit 21 for is prohibited in here, or will you comment on what's 22 allowed or is credible?
| |
| 23 MR. EGAN: By virtue of not having worked in the 24 field most of the last couple of years, some of the technical 25 information I pass on may be dated as the NRC staff -- But
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 344 g
| |
| ~
| |
| l 1 there is certainly nothing in our package that prohibits the 2 use of engineered barriers of any good quality, or of any low 3 quality either, although we certainly endorse'in -- an 4 important part of the package and have been very vocal about 1
| |
| 5 that support. Nothing in our rule establishes minimum or 6 maximum limits on how the engineered _ barriers should perform 7 except that there should multiple barriers. That is very 8 clearly stated.
| |
| 9 My understanding, and this is where_my knowledge may 10 be dated, it's my understanding that the Swedes had a 11 wonderful theoretical' design of a copper canister that would 12 last until the end of the earth. A theoretical design is one 13 thing. Building the little bugger and proving it will last
| |
| .O 14 that long, and costing the thing out is quite another matter.
| |
| 15 It was not my impression that any actual honest to God tin 16 bending had occurred. That was a copper canister with a 17 special electrolytically refined copper for the purity needed 18 to show the length of exposures, length of containment,.
| |
| 19 rather. It was also in a fairly benign granite ground water 20 environment which is the media they've got to consider there.
| |
| 21 So in response to a Swedish governnent initiative, 22 they were able to show that yes, technologically extremely 23 good protection was possible. Not that it was cost effective 1
| |
| 24 or necessarily proved that it was doable, but they could do
| |
| ; 25 that. NRC has been addressing the question of waste package l
| |
| () IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| , l l
| |
| 345 1 behavior over long periods of time. We'l1 certainly.look at 2 that as we go along. But there's nothing that prohibits it, 3 and I think the controls are great if you can afford them an 4 they make sense and you can produce them,.all-che better~ .
| |
| 5 MR. SHEWMON: hit costs money, but it's an absolutely 6 impermeable package because they make it out of powder and 7 center it. And there are a certain number of naturally 8 occurring deposits and things not a lot different from that 9 that indeed might even be, it's tough to do 10,000 year 10 experiments in one year as you well know.
| |
| 11 MR. EGAN:~ And certainly we will consider that. As 12 I said, in considering options for different extensions, 13 engineered barriers make a tremendous difference for g-V 14 individual protection requirements. We will consider the 15 capabilities of different technologies to support levels of 16 protection both in terms'ef level and also duration, which I 17 think is usually a more sensitive issues. We'll consider how 18 well people have done in achieving, or could achievo package 19 of lifetime types that were promised by the Swedish reports.
| |
| 20 I haven't done any of that work yet. All I can say is we'll l
| |
| i j 21 look at it and see how well it can be done.
| |
| l 22 MR. FMITH: Can you tell us what your time frame is?
| |
| 23 Considering the importance of this and how much is dependent 24 upon it.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: When do you think your standards lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L1
| |
| | |
| 4 346
| |
| \
| |
| (l
| |
| '- 1. will be issued?
| |
| 2 MR. EGAN:. I'have to give you embiguous answers to
| |
| ~
| |
| 3 that, but I'll give you the whole range and you can figure out 4 where the answer was, where the pea went under the shill.
| |
| 5 If.we have resources is the issue. The remand for 6 these standards happened to hit the agency shortly after the 7 1989 budget request was finalized. Therefore, EPA's budget 8 request to Congress for FY89 has zero resources requested for 9 high-level radioactive waste. Unfortunately there was no room 10 in the budget, these have not been fat budget years, to go 11 back und add anything once the court remand occurred. So the 12 baseline EPA budget for '89 has zip. At that rate, it takes
| |
| . 3 13 a long time to get the standard out.
| |
| )
| |
| 14 , MR. SMITH: .That starts in October.
| |
| 15 MR. EGAN: That's correct.
| |
| 16 Now that's the worst answer, to get your attention.
| |
| 17 The Domenici-Bingaman Bill, which if course is being driven by 18 the WIPP facility, has dates in it, as I said before, a 19 proposal within 18 months and promulgation within three years.
| |
| 20 Given the amount of resources we think are necessary which are 21 not terribly huge, and Domenici's people are trying to take 22 care of that as well in a supplemental appropriation, we think 23 thsse dates are supportable.
| |
| 24 So I think it's reasonable when talking about a 25 final rule in place in three years or less from the date we (k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| _ _ ~ _ ._ __ ._ _ _ _. . _ _
| |
| | |
| 347'
| |
| .-s 1 get some resources and the Congressional or Administrative get 2 thee forth to do it. I'm always the optimist, I think it can -
| |
| 3 be done sooner. My boss always reminds me that I've been a 4 few years off-in'some of my other.eatimates, so let's.not-get 5 too carried away. But there are always more issues to deal 6 with than you think there were, it always gets more 7 complicated than you think it will be. But I'd like to think 8 this won't be anything like the first one. Remember, the 9 first one took nine years. I'd like to think we'll do better 10 than'that.
| |
| 11 I-think you're talking optimistically two, 12 realistically three years from that after promulgation, 13 ~ assuming the resources --
| |
| 0 14 MR. SMITH: Assuming you had the resources.now.
| |
| 15 MR. EGAN: In FY89. We have enough to keep the 16 store moving, and we're doing our program planning'in FY88 17 now. Basically we scarfed up those resources from around the 18 agency. You walk around with your tin cup and you go beat up 19 people.
| |
| 20 But if we don't get the resources in '89, but we're 21 promised them in '90, then you've basically got to slip that 22 thing a year or so. That's the time frame.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You mentioned the Congressional 24 consideration of EPA's authority with regard to WIPP. Could 25 you say that again?
| |
| () lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1 348 q'
| |
| # 1 MR. EGAN: Sure. The authority as it has always 2 existed at EPA for generally applicable standards under the-3 Atomic Energy Act.had EPA setting the standards, but EPA had 4 no responsibility.for implementing the standards. For.NRC 5 licensed facilities, that job fell to NRC. For facilities not 6 licensed by NRC-that job fell to DOE. Initially the Atomic 7 Energy Commission under all these things. Ultimately the DCE.
| |
| 8 The specter-if you will, of the Department of-Energy 9 implementing its own standards upon itself for the WIPP site 10 has proven to be politically unpalatable in that climate, so 11 that what is in the Land Withdrawal Bills for WIPP are 12 provisions that in and of theinselves have largely been agreed 13 to. The bill still may fail for other reasons, but these 0- 14 provisions have largely been agreed to. The EPA will be 15 assigned a new authority to actually be responsible for 16 determining compliance with the EPA standards for the WIPP 17 facility. So in short form, we would become the analogy to 18 NRC for Yucca Mountain. EPA would have the same 19 responsibility for the WIPP facility.
| |
| 20 I emphasize that is not now in existence and will
| |
| : 21. not exist unless these bills pass both the House and Senate 22 and are agreed to in conference and are signed by the 23 President. Otherwise that will not occur. But if those 24 things occur, that's whac's in the making in those bills.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: A couple of other questions. In
| |
| ( .
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| .4 l
| |
| l 349 T
| |
| . (]# 1 terms of-ground water protection, what requirements do you 2 have under consideration?
| |
| 3 MR. EGAN: In terms of ground water protection, I-4 think the important issue there is that in the promulgated ~
| |
| 5 rule we limited concentrations in ground water to those 6 established by the Safe Drinking Water Act for class one 7 aquifers.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: In the types of ground water that.
| |
| 9 would be protected, they have to be of a quality useful for 10 drinking and so forth?
| |
| 11 MR. EGAN: That's one of the things we'll be looking
| |
| -12 at. The question of quality in terms of chemical 13 contamination is pretty well. established. It's 10,000 parts f-V 14 per million -- solids. That number has been relatively locked 15 .in stone by legislative histories and precedents of use. That 16 issue is not so much there. The issue is in the quantity of 17 water available from a particular type of source. There 18- issues get, and by no means is there any agreement as to what 19 those levels should be.
| |
| 20 The agency, not my office, but other parts of the 21 agency are in the process of developing very detailed guidance 22 for exactly what types of ground water should meet exactly 23 what types of limits. And for those of you that have worked 24 the ground water business before, that is not a trivial 25 collection of technical issues to sort through, but we'll be
| |
| ) IIerita' e Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l 1
| |
| l
| |
| ,1 350 l
| |
| ($1 :1 looking at alternatives there, and there's whole range of
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 them. The low-level waste rule we expect will. hit'the street 3 well before the high-level waste rule will. They'll also be
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 - addressing those types of alternatives,-that type of issue as
| |
| -5 - well.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: In terms of protection of people, 7- what individual protection limit are you thinking about, and 8 are you going to go to the effective dose equivalent approach?.
| |
| 9 MR. EGAN: For the last question, I sure hope so.
| |
| 10 We've been tardy on that in a number of areas, and it's 11 certainly the appropriate way to go, we think.
| |
| 12 In terms of dose. limits, I don't want this to be a 13 definitive comment, but things you can certainly guess at 14 would be whatever is in the Safe Drinking Water Act now or 15 what is revised, that is not effective dose equivalent as you 16 know, and it probably should be. That's another rule making 17 thing we should be looking at, but I think we'd certainly look 18- at a limit that would be consistent with the Safe Drinking 19 Water Act as an alternative. We'll look at what we 20 promulgated in August of '85 as an alternative. Whether we'll 21 have additional alternatives right now, nothing immediately 22 comes to mind, but there may be some.
| |
| . 23 Also there may be ways of combining those iri o 24 different sets. This I'll state as a persone' tew at this 25 point, but I personally think the limits established in the
| |
| () IIeritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| .(202) 628-4888
| |
| --w- --e
| |
| | |
| 351 1 Safe Drinking Water Act are appropriate for situations in 2 which you have potentially large populations exposed. Where 3 you have a potentially very small population exposed like 4 maybe one or ten, I think those levels-may be too restrictive, 5 1.e., you can't justify the environmental benefits from the 6 costs of achievino them. Therefore, a higher, perhaps that 7 which we promulgated in August of '85 may be appropriate. But 8 that again, is kind of an early sketch of wh'at might be a 9 scheme we would use. It is by no means necessarily the 10 correct one.
| |
| 11 I say that it isn't necessarily four versus 12 twenty-five. IT may be four for certain situations and 13 twenty-five in different situations, or some other number.
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And the drinking water standards, 15 of course, are for nation-wide consumption.
| |
| 16 MR. EGAN: Yes. Technically, I like to remind 17 people, the Drinking Water standards apply to the output of 18 public drinking water supplies, not the ground water in most 19 cases. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act that's what they're 20 applied to.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The four millirem, is that an 22 organ dose?
| |
| 23 MR. EGAN: Yes. It is an organ dose, plus a whole 24 body dose. The organ dose is usually by far more restrictive, 25 and that's one of the things that's being reconsidered.
| |
| () lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| s - 5 >- . . ~~2. . u - . - -+ . k4e s 4
| |
| 352
| |
| (] -1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Over what time period would the 2 ground water and individual protection requirements apply?
| |
| 3 MR. EGAN: I'm not sure that I know. Certainly what 4 we promulgated and something we'll look at again. We're not 5 going to look at anything shorter. There's no sympathy for 6 making it less than 1,000 years. We may look at longer time 7 periods, but I would hesitate to hazard a guess as to what 8 they would be at this point.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You've already said you do not 10 agree that a high-level waste repository is equivalent to 11 underground injection. Having said that,.would you briefly 12 summarize once again why you think that position is justified?
| |
| 13 I agree with'you, but --
| |
| 14 MR. EGAN: Certainly the picture Congress had in its 15 mind, as we understand it, and what picture Congress ever has 16 in its mind is what Congress has in its mind, but what we 17 understand they were after were materials, usually liquid 18- though conceivably slurries.of solids. In fact some 19 interesting cases where lots of small little particulates, 20 kind of a stream, are pumped into a pipe from the surface down 21 to the ground and injected, if you will, under the ground, 22 usually substantially more deeply than say burial, and can 23 endanger, by virtue of being so injected, various types of 24 ground water supplies either from above or below, depending on 25 where you're injecting it.
| |
| . lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 353
| |
| ( }. 1 Implicit in that is all the people are up at the top 2 of the surface and-the stuff is being pumped down. We all 3 know what we're talking about, you can' pump water down a hole 4 in your front yard.
| |
| 5 To characterize a facility where you're digging a 6 big shaft and big tunnels underground, we've got equipment 7 that dwarfs commercial buses running around in tunnels 8 underneath the ground placing stuff with cotillion people 9 watching it, looking at it, having radiological safety checks, 10 able to inspect the place where you're putting the waste and 11 the condition of the material. To equate that to what 12 Congress was talkifig about in their underground injection 13 control strikes me as s suspension of the laws of many things.
| |
| 14 The argument in favor of it, just to give some lip 15 service to that, is that it is underground. It's hard to call 16 it injection, but it's underground. And it is true that over 17 time, if there's-any water there, some material will dissolve 18 and therefore there will be some liquid eventually. No matter 19 what you put down there, if you leave it long enough and 20 you've for some liquid, some of it will dissolve. Whether 21 that makes it underground injection and therefore subject to 22 the same standards, I don't think so. But the position is 23 that it is some liquid flowing at some point and you did put 24 it underground.
| |
| 25 So like I say, the agency, and not just our office,
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 354 1 'many. offices in the agency have looked at.that and said this 2 doesn't look right. So that in and of.itself'doesn't mean 3 .that you shouldn't apply the Safe Drinking Water Limits to 24 everything, but.I don't think it means that's' underwater-5 injection control.
| |
| 6 MR. SMITH: If the court has remanded this to the 7 agency and one of the reasons that they've used in 8 particularly Subpart B is this reason of underground, then how
| |
| '9 do you get around that?
| |
| 10 MR. EGAN: Good question. The court didn't say that 11 it was underground injection control. The court said you 12 haven't explained to our justification why it isn't. .Go back 13 and explain it.
| |
| O 14 MR. SMITH: So that's.what you're --
| |
| 15 MR. EGAN:- The court did not make a finding that 16 high-level waste disposal was underground injection. The 17 court said that we had not adequately justified why it was 18 not. The court thought there was reasonable argument that 19 'there was, and that the agency needed to address same.
| |
| 20 Certainly the court is leaning that way. This 21 -particular decision, and court decisions are not always the 22 most unambiguous things in the world, those court decisions 23 certainly mako lots of noises about how this looks like 24 underground injection control if.
| |
| 25 MR. SMITH: Did NRDC, was that their position?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| 355
| |
| >y~
| |
| /\-/ 1 MR. EGAN: I think so. NRDC is' shaking-its head 2 yes.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I have here.the exact quote of 4 what the court ~said. "We conclude that the primary disposal 5- method being considered, underground repositories, would 6 likely constitute an underground injection under the 7 SDWA," --
| |
| 8 MR.1EGAN: Safe Drinking Water Act.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay.
| |
| 10 MR. EGAN:' If you'll watch that phrase very 11 carefully, there was a phrase "would likely." I'll emphasize 12 that my words were underlined a lot, and I'll underline the 13 court's. -It doesn't say "is" it says "would likely," and 14 basically says the administrator, basically the court says 15 explain to us how come this isn't, and that's what we're about 16 is explaining in part why it isn't.
| |
| 17 MR. FOSTER: In your last slide you pointed out the 18- Yucca-Mountain site situation where you've'got an unsaturated 19 soil type thing. Do you anticipate that in your new rules 20 that there will be something there that will aid the people 21 who are making site characterizations so that they can get the 22 right kind of stuff to apply against the movement?
| |
| 23 MR. EGAll: The right kind of data you mean? 1 24 haven't got a real good answer to your question. I'd like to 25 think so, but that's one of the things we'll have to work with
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
| |
| | |
| 356
| |
| : 1. NRC staff on a lot to see what technical issues associated 2 .with determining compliance for that site would be. We want 3- . t-o go out of our way to make sure that while we provide 4- adequate pr'otection, we think exemplary protection'to public 5 health and the environment, that we don't set up a rule that 6 becomes impossible to-ever reach closure on. That does
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 involve addressing the question of okay, you've got the rule, 8 why don't you'go out and field the measure, or analyze, to 9 show you meet it. That's one of the reasons we've always kept 10 very close contact with NRC as we develop the rules as we go 11 along.
| |
| 12 Since frankly, I haven't worked much on the 13 unsaturateds and I'm just relearning the technical turf, but 14 there will be a lot of interaction with NRC staff to avoid a 15 mismatch if at all possible, and we've been pretty successful 16 in that direction in the past.
| |
| 17 That's a long winded yes, we hope we will because 18 that's kind of the purpose is to develop a set of standards' 19 that is adequately protected and can be enforced. It doesn't 20 do you any good if you don't have standards you can use, 21 unless you don't want to disclose at all which is a whole 22 other set of topics, which raises its own set of environmental 23 questions.
| |
| 24 Our intent is to develop practically applicable 25 standards, which is where my concern about this IAEA thing
| |
| () lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| g e *L _w4 +a.Ca 4sp.. - _ JL. _ , p$ m p -___ _.a .Ea, w; ,,L :__X4 i 4 f_. , , . - , ,
| |
| s 357 ,
| |
| goes.
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 I don't'think that goes to practically applicable 2- standards. But that's a horse of another color.
| |
| 3: CHAIRMAN-MOELLER: I have one last-question which is "4 sort of three parts. You have your containment requirements 5 and you have the supporting analyses, and I have three sub-1: 6 questions having used that as a preface.
| |
| } 7 Do you contemplate any changes in those due to Yucca 8 Mountain now being the single site?
| |
| 9 MR. EGAN: We'll go back and look at it. It's not 10 our primary focus. The court did charge us with the problem 11 of if we change any part of the portions of the rule, to go.
| |
| 12 .back and look at the inter-relationships, the different 13 sections of the rule, to make sure there are no 14 inconsistencies that are developed there.
| |
| 15 Just as kind of my own curiosity and general N 16 persnicketiness, I'll go back and look at how well Yucca 17 Mountain should be able to do in terms of integrated releasea 18 as well as individual exposure over 10,000 years.
| |
| 19 There is nothing in the rule making record that
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 really pushes us real hard to make the limits more restrictive 21 -than they are. If anything, we're in the flying in the face 22 of people that were telling us they were too restrictive.
| |
| 23 There weren't too many commentors on the previous rule that 24 said that the 1,000 over 10,000 years was too liberal, that it 25 should be notched down. There were some. There wasn't a big
| |
| () lioritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 358
| |
| \# 1 body of comment there.
| |
| 2 And there is nothing, from what I know about Yucca 3 Mountain now as we speak, that indicates that site should have 4 any particular problems meeting the integrated release limits.
| |
| 5 But I'd like to know that a little better. We did some very 6 cursory analyses at Yucca Mountain. One of the things the 7 committee will get is a copy of our background information 8 document that was produced with the rule promulgated in August 9 of '85. You'll see TUFF in there as one of the media we 10 looked at, and we did do some analysis of it. But I never 11 present any of our analyses ae the most sophisticated on the 12 block. Of the ones we did, the TUFF was the worst, because we
| |
| . 13 knew the least about it. Everybody did. We'd like to go
| |
| \'')
| |
| 14 revisit that to see if there's any surprises there and to see 15 if there's any, just to make sure there's not a problem. We 16 don't think there is, but I've learned enough in this business 17 that what I think may be the case every once in awhile comes 18 up and bites me in the tail.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: A second sub-part. In the 20 November '87 issue of IIealth Physics there was a paper 21 critiquing your environmental pathway model. Has this caused 22 you, or will it cause you to go back and reexamine?
| |
| 23 MR. EGAN: We'll have to go back and look at all of 24 that. I frankly haven't spent that much time on that. But we 25 will go back and look at the validity of all the technical l () lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 5 359 p-
| |
| - d 1 models that we do. Do an update of everything.
| |
| 2 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Have you given any thought to-3 modifying or. eliminating the probabilistic approach in the 4 model or in the standards?
| |
| : 5. MR. EGAN: No. Not only have I personally not given 6 'any thought to that, I interpret the IAEA as saying get in 7 that briar pit some more. Not only do I do population, they 8 would, basically the IAEA doesn't give a hoot about population 9 exposures, but.if you're talking about doing probabilistic 10 analysis of individual exposures, that's, doing the integrated 11 release is a cake walk. I think that's a total'look at all 12 the things that can happen to your repository, I think is an 13 important part of judging the adequacy of a facility like 14 this. I happen not to think that you can practically do that 15 for individual exposures. But I feel very strongly that 16 looking at something other than just normal releases is 17 essential for this type of facility.
| |
| 18 As you can tell by my answer, I have no sympathy 19 whatsoever for eliminating that provision of the rule.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any other questions or comments?
| |
| 21 (No response) 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We are running somewhat behind 23 time, not due to you, Dan, but in general. So with that, let 24 me thank you for coming and giving us this briefing.
| |
| 25 i:R . EGAN: I enjoyed it, and look forward to making
| |
| ! ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| 360 '
| |
| p) 1 presentations as you may need from us in the future.
| |
| 2 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you. We've always enjoyed
| |
| ~
| |
| 3 our relationship with you.
| |
| 4 With that, we'll take a one hour recess for lunch.
| |
| 5 (Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m. the meeting was recessed, 6 to reconvene at 2:00 p.m. this same day, Friday, 22 July, 7 1988.)
| |
| o N_
| |
| ) IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| L 361 P
| |
| d- - 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 2:03.p.m.
| |
| lt CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The meeting will resume.
| |
| 4 .This' afternoon we have the. pleasure of hearing a 5 presentation on the low-level waste disposal activities in the 6 State of South Carolina, and this is to brief us for the visit 7 which we'll be making down there in two weeks.
| |
| 8 We have the status of the agreement program, the 9 Agreement-State Program. That will lead off for 30 minutes.
| |
| . 10. Then the State of South Carolina Radiological Protection 11 Program. Thirdly, a discussion of U.S. DOE defense waste 12 which will relate to our visit to the Savannah River Plant.
| |
| 13 Then fourthly, the B7rnwell low-level disposal facility. And
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 incidentally, we did see the television tape yesterday of that 15 facility. And lastly, the presentation on the LN Technologies 16 facilities.
| |
| 17 So we'll lead off with Mr. Nussbaumer on the state 18 program. Welcome, it's a pleasure to.have you.
| |
| 19 I might say as you go up there that I went, I won't 20 tell you how long, but I did attend the University of South 21 Carolina in Columbia. I list that on my resume.
| |
| 22 MR. NUSSBAUMER: We thought it would be useful to 23 give an overview of the NRC Agreement State Program because 24 three current low-level waste disposal sites cre regulated by 25 agreement states, and the potential for the number of future
| |
| ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 362 1
| |
| 1 low-level waste disposal sites being developed will also be'in 2 agreement states.
| |
| 3 The Agreement State Program'was initiated-in 1959 4 upon initiative from states in general who requested-the 5 Congress for some role in regulating atomic energy. Prior to 6 that time the regulation of atomic energy 'aaterials was 7 limited to the federal government, the A+.omic Energy 8 Commission.
| |
| I 9 To recognize the interest of the states, the 10 Congress amended Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act which 11 established a cooperative program in the development of 12 radiation standards and provided a mechanism for the transfer 13 of certain NRC authority to the states for their regulation.
| |
| O 14 The section was modified in 1978 to direct the NRC 15 to periodically review the Agreement State Programs for 16 adequacy to protect public health and safety, and 17 compatibility with the NRC program.
| |
| 18 The original Atomic Energy Act Amendment had a 19 provision that permitted the AEC/NRC to revoke an agreement-20 where the state was not carrying out the authority so as to 21 protect public health and safety, provided it notified the o 22 Governor and held a hearing.
| |
| 23 In 1980 an additional authority was provided to the 24 NRC to suspend temporarily all or part of an agreement where 25 the state failed to take action in an emergency that the NRC l
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| J 363 O
| |
| ~# 1 felt was necessary.
| |
| ~
| |
| 2- The NRC has never found it necessary to exercise 3 either-one of those two reserve authorities.
| |
| 4 'With the passage of the amendment in 1959, there was 5 immediate interest on the part of several states on becoming 6 agreement states. Some of the reasons were promotion of 7 agreement state status by the NRC, a state rights philosophy, 8 activities of the Southern State Energy Board and the Western 9 Interstate Nuclear Board, both organizations of which promoted 10 agreement state status. Finally at that time the Department 11 of Health, Education, and Welfare was providing category funds 12 to states for development of radiation control programs. This 13 money helped in developing programs that would qualify for O 14 agreement state status.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You don't happen to remember 16 offhand which the first state was to become an agreement 17 state?
| |
| 18 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes, the first state was Kentucky 19 in 1962. I have a viewgraph later which will show the order 20 in which the states entered.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 22 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Some of the advantages of agreement 23 state status as we see it is first of all it fulfills the 24 intent of the amendment to the Atomic Energy Act. It provides 25 an incentive for the state to develop a program to control all
| |
| () lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 4 364
| |
| /
| |
| (/ 1 sources of radiation including X-ray and what we refer to as 2 NOARM, naturally occurring and accelerator produced materials.
| |
| 3 ,And it's consistint with the state interests in regulating.the 4 nuclaar industry or having a role in that regulation.- Since 5 they have a central program, that enhances the core of
| |
| ~6 knowledgeable people in radiation safety at the state level 7 and provides a. single regulatory agency for most users. That 8 essentially NRC has no regulatory jurisdiction over NOARM and 9 the states do. The state then can regulate the Atomic Em'rg-10 Act materials and NOARM in one comprehensive program.
| |
| 11 Finally, it allows the states to make licensing 1 d6cisions that can better take into account the local 13 conditions surrounding the particular facility for which a 14 license is being requested.
| |
| 15 MR. CARTER: Are you going to address the advantages 16 of not being an agreement state? I gather there are almost 50 17 percent of them that aren't, and I just wondered about that as-18 well as what you anticipate are going to be any significant 19 changes one way or the other, either more states --
| |
| 20 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes, we'll touch on that.
| |
| 21 Some of the disadvantages, and I guess some of the 22 reasons that some of the non-agreement states have not elected 23 to become agreement states, has to do with the cost. It costs 24 the states money to run the program. The Act did not have any 25 provisions by which the NRC could fund a state for having an
| |
| -( ) IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l}'
| |
| -365-4 a
| |
| 's> ' 1 . agreement.. In other words they have to come up with the funds.
| |
| 2 out of their o.rn financial mechanisms either by general 3- _ appropriations or charging fees. The fee system has caught on 4 and most of the agreement states now charge license and 5 inspection fees as a mechanism of supporting the program.
| |
| 6 Some states support it 100 percent with fees, and other 7 support it various percentages. But it helps them when they
| |
| ~
| |
| 8 ;got to the legislature if they're supporting at least part of 9' the program through license fees.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The NRC, for a non-agreement 11 state, the NRC.does not charge, do they?
| |
| 12 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes, they do.
| |
| _ 13 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: They do charge for an inspection?
| |
| \/ 14 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes. We have an elaborate fee 15 system both for reactors and materials.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I knew you had for licensing, and 17 you do have, if you inspect a hospital you charge them?
| |
| 18 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes sir. That was added I think ;
| |
| 19 about three or four years ago wh'en we were required to 20 increase the percentage of recovery of our costs through Lees.
| |
| 21 Before I get into the requirements for the 22 agreements, to answer Dr. Carter's question about why some of 23 the non-agreement states we have today have not become 24 agreement states, I guess my view is it's mainly because they 25 haven't had the initiative and the support of upper management
| |
| () lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 i
| |
| | |
| .366 1 in the legislature to spend the m>ney to set up the program.
| |
| 2 But what we're seeing now is a change in that philosophy 3 because of. low-level waste.
| |
| 4 The non-agreement states who have been designated 5 -who will expect to be' host states for a low-level waste 6 disposal facility have all passed legislation or are working 7 on it for agreement state status. In other words, they want.
| |
| 8 to regulate their own low-level waste disposal facility and in
| |
| '9 doing so most of them are going fer the entire range of 10 materials as well as low-level waste, although we do allow an 11 agreement just for low-level waste disposal. We think that's 12 somewhat impractical and if they're going to be an agreement' 13 state they ought to take all the materials as well so they can 14 regulate the waste generators.
| |
| 15 So-there is a renewed interest. Some of the states, 16 fairly large states that held back from being an agreement 17 state over the years like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and 18 Michigan, have now recently passed legislation and will be 19 pursuing agreement state status.
| |
| 20 This matter, I might mention, was recently reviewed 21 by the Commission. One of the goals in the five year plan of 22 the NRC is to encourage more agreement states. This has to do 23 with the general success of the program and the fact that the 24 agreement state program saves the NRC resources. Our estimate 25 at the present time is that we're saving about 135 FTE by lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| n 367 1 ha91ng the states regulate 65 percent of the material 2 licensees which the NRC otherwise would have to regulate if
| |
| .3' there were no agreement states.
| |
| .4 q Some of the rc~uirements for entering into the 5 agreement, these.are specified in'the Act. They state the 6 Governor has to write a letter to the NRC Chairman certifying 7 the state has an adequate program to protect public health and 8 safety. The Governor has to certify the state's desire to 9 assume this responsibility.
| |
| 10 For our part, we have a Commission policy statement 11 which sets forth the criteria that we use in evaluating a 12 state's proposal for agreement state status. I have just 13 indicated some of the main topics that are covered there. A 14 state must have comprehensive radiation protection standards, 15 that is standards which are identical to 10 CFR Part 20. They 16 have to have a licensing program for the materials es opposed, 17 for example, to a registration program. Inspection and 18 enforcement program. Adequate number of trained perscnnel.
| |
| 19 Administrative procedures for holding hearings and givi.ng fair 20 and impartial treatment to applicants and others.
| |
| 21 Arrangements for discontinuing NRC jurisdiction, that is a 22 smooth transfer of licenses from the NRC to the state control.
| |
| 23 And we have specified some additional criteria for states l 24 regulating uranium or thorium mill tailings to comply with the 25 Mill Tailings Act. And finally, the criteria provide a
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202.) 620-4880
| |
| | |
| l 368 i.
| |
| -1 limited agreement option for low-level waste.
| |
| 2 MR. SMITH: What does that mean? That last bullet.
| |
| 3 MR. NUSSBAUMER: The last one is an option that the 4 state could get an agreement to regulate just low-level waste 5 disposal and not the hospitals and industrial firms and so on.
| |
| 6 In the event they_want to just take that one part.
| |
| 7 MR. KATHREN: I just was curious, you said you saved
| |
| : 8. 135.fu11 time equivalents?
| |
| 9 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes sir.
| |
| 10- MR. KATHREN: How many full time equivalents do the 11 states use to do that same amount of work? Do you have any 12 idea?-
| |
| 13 MR. :USSBAUMER: I think the states have on the O -14 order of, and it's hard to break it down in just the agreement 15 program because we're looking at the radiation program as a 16 whole, but I think the last time we looked at it we estimated 17 about 200 professional FTE's, if you will, health 18 physics / radiation protection types, which includes more than 39 the agreement state program. It will be higher because, as 20 I'll show you later, in general the states inspect certain 21 licensees more frequently than the NRC. Therefore, they would 22 spend more effort on that part of the program.
| |
| 23 MR. KATIIREN : They're doing other phases also. You 24 already pointed out the X-ray and the NOARM that are not NRC.
| |
| 25 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Right.
| |
| lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| -369
| |
| :O
| |
| ~
| |
| l MR. KATHREN: Which I suspect, by the way, is at.
| |
| 2 .least half of their work load, so maybe there is an efficiency 3 in doing it that way.
| |
| 4 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Actually it should come out pretty 5 much the same because we have a staffing guideline for the 6 general agreement state program. Not low-level waste, but one 7 FTE per 100 licenses. The NRC meets that guideline, andlaf 8 course that's the one we use in reviewing the state program, 9 so they should be pretty much the same I would say.
| |
| 10 MR. POSTER: On that general vein, if-NRC does the 11 inspection for the state, is that done by the Regional 12 Compliance Offices, or does that come out of headquarters?
| |
| .13 MR. NUSSBAUMER: NRC doesn't inspect for the states.
| |
| O 14 The NRC has no authority in an agreement state --
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: No, he means non-agreement, do 16 the Regional Offices handle it.
| |
| 17 MR. NUSSBAUMER: I'm sorry. In a non-agreement l 't state both the licensing and the inspection is done out of the 19 Regional Offices, Regional NRC Offices, yes sir.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And where the state is an 21 agreement state, do they all have roughly the same fines, 22 dollar levels as the NRC? Or do states tine at different 23 levels?
| |
| 24 MR. NUSSBAUMER: It's variable. The penalties are 25 variable.
| |
| ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a
| |
| | |
| 370 Q
| |
| 'l 1. CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Do all agreement states have-2 penalties?
| |
| 3 .. MR . NUSSBAUMER: No, not all of them.- The civil 4 penalty option is one that we encourage, but is not one we've-5 made a matter of compatibility at this-time. They do have to 6 have the authority,-though to suspend or revoke a license.
| |
| 7 MR. CARTER: On the last one there, do you 8 anticipate that any states will opt to just do the low-level 9 waste and not become agreement states if they're now non-10 agreement states?
| |
| 11 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Pennsylvania has indicated that 12 they pursue this in two steps. The first step would be for 13 low-level waste only, and then they would amend the agreement O 14 later to include all the other aspects of' regulation. That's 15 due to the fact that with their salary schedule they have 16 difficult attracting health physicists in the Pennsylvania 17 region. So they have no problem hiring the kind of talents 18 they need for low-level waste disposal, but for the general 19 health physicists they would use in hospitals and radiography 20 and so on, they have trouble competing.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Cliff Smith?
| |
| 22 MR. SMITil: I was just going to mention that one of 23 the things that you run into from some of the licensees who 24 are in an agreement state, in a non-agreement state is what 25 they feel is unfair competition in the sense that their l
| |
| () Ileritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ., .~ -- . _
| |
| 371
| |
| 'l competitor who is an agreement state, may not get fined.
| |
| '2 If they're in a non-agreement state then they've got to deal 3 with NRC. But their competitor may be an agreement state and 4 it may be, depending on the state, it may be a whole,different 5 ~s ituation.
| |
| 6 When I headed that task force, Don, we heard that 7 complaint consistently.
| |
| 8' MR. NUSSBAUMER: It can work both ways.
| |
| 9 MR. SMITH: Sure.
| |
| 10 MR. STEINDLER: You may come up to this later on, 11 but how does the NRC keep score on the_ efficiency or efficacy 12 of the state inspection enforcement regulatory programs? Or 13 does it?
| |
| O 14. MR. NUSSBAUMER: We have a set of, which I'll get 15 to, a set of' review guidelines for state programs. They have 16 indicators for inspection and enforcement.
| |
| 17 MR. STEINDLER: Fine.
| |
| 18 MR. NUSSBAUMER: From the NRC standpoint, to enter 19 into an agreement we must find that the state program is 20 compatible with the NRC's, that it is adequate to protect 21 public health and safety. We must publish the proposal and 72 the agreement in the Federal Register four times, four 23 consecutivo weeks. We're authorized, of course, to cooperate 24 in the formulation of radiation standards with the state and 25 provide training and technical assistance to the states which
| |
| ( ). lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808 l
| |
| | |
| t 372 0 1 I'll discuss later. And then for the states'that want 2 authority to regulate milling and mill tailings, we have to 3 mako findings that they meet the requirements of the mill
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 tailings acts which are in 274(o)oof the Atomic Energy Act.
| |
| 5 Finally, there are some additional criteria for states wishing 6 to regulate low-level waste _ disposal such as they have to have 7 a provision that the land on which the disposal facility is
| |
| -8 located is owned by a federal or state government.
| |
| 9 Certain things are reserved to NRC and are n( t part 10 of the agreement program. I've listed some of these on the 11 next slide. Federal agencies, production and utilization 12 facilities which would be your reactors in enrichment or fuel 13 reprocessing plants; imports and exports; ocean disposal which 14 is not occurring today; high-level waste handling and 15 _ disposal; consumer products; critical quantities of special 16 nuclear material; off-shore water, that's typically 17 radiography; then certain aspects of mill tailings management 18 reserved to NRC. For example, we have to agree to the 19 termination of any license in an agreement state for mill 20 tailings operation and ensure that all the requirements are 21 met.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: How is a nuclear power plant a 23 production facility? Where does it fall in?
| |
| 24 MR. NUSSBAUMER: A nuclear power plant usually is a 25 utilization facility, unless it's purpose is to produce
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 1 i
| |
| )
| |
| 373 1 special nuclear material.
| |
| MR. .KATHREN: I think there-is~an interesting 3 ' situation where a nuclear plant may also fall under state
| |
| -4 purview in that some of its sources, the by-product material 5 so-called, NOARM, whatever, may have to have a ntate license 6 as well.- So there may be a dichotomy.there.
| |
| ~
| |
| : 7. MR. NUSSBAUMER: No, Ron, we take the position, and 8 this is expressed in Part 150 which implements all of this,
| |
| ~
| |
| 9 that any activities that relate.to the operation of the 10 reactor or any waste activities involving treatment or storage 11 are NRC jurisdiction.
| |
| 12 MR. KATHREN:- Does that include say radiography 13 operations that may be incidental to the --
| |
| - O. 14 MR. NUSSBAUMER: No, that's an exception.
| |
| .15 Radiography operations at the site of a reactor in an 16 agreement state would be under state jurisdiction, right.
| |
| 17 MR. CARTER: The neutron sources, for example, which 18 may be --
| |
| 19 MR. NUSSBAUMER: That would be NRC.
| |
| 20 MR. CARTER: If they were related to the reactor, 21 yeah.
| |
| -22 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Of course we wouldn't regulate 23 radium, but if they were americium beryllium, for example, 24 that would be under NRC at the site of the reactor.
| |
| 25 MR. FOSTER: Don, at least for the agreement state
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 374 1- -NRC kind of keeps books on non-compliance of events for things 2 like mis-administrative dose-in hospitals and radiographic 3 accidents and things of this sort. Is'thero any arrangement-
| |
| '4 whereby the agreement states that are following those things 5 ; feed those kind of statistics into a central point?
| |
| '6 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes. First of all, any serious 7 accidents in an agreement state facility the state, in 8 addition to responding, reports that to the NRC Regional 9 Office. Agreement states participate in the abnormal 10 occurrence reports. In other words, if they have an incident 11 that meets the reporting requirements for an abnormal 12 occurrence, they write it up and send it in and it gets 13 published in our quarterly abnormal occurrence report to O 14 Congress.
| |
| 15 They also send in information on all other incidents 16 which we feed into our Office of Analysis and Operational 17 Data, so that when they collect incident data they have the 18 NRC and the agreement state, and we can get a nationwide 19 picture of trends and so on.
| |
| 20 Cl! AIRMAN MOELLER: One quickie, I know you have lots to cover. Where are research reactors? Which line are they covered? I presume --
| |
| 23 MR. NUSSBAUMER: I believe they would also be a 24 utilization facility. That's a particular term I find in the 25 Atomic Energy Act.
| |
| Ileritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| 375
| |
| / .
| |
| k_/ 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: All right.
| |
| 2 MR. NUSSBAUMER: The agreement document itself, of 3 course, as an effective date for transfer. authority. There is 4 an agreement on.best efforts on the part of the Commission and 5 the states for maintaining compatibility. That's both in 6 regulations and in programs. We retain authority in addition
| |
| -7 to the other items I mentioned, over common defense and 8 security and the safeguards for special nuclear material, 9 provides for reciprocal recognition of certain licensees like 10- radiographers who travel from one jurisdiction to another.
| |
| 11 And of course it has a termination provision and where 12 applicable, certain conditions regarding mill tailings 1
| |
| .13 regulations.
| |
| O 14 MR. SMITH: Might I ask you what are the provisions 15 of the termination of environment, what does NRC have to do if 16 it wanted to terminate it?
| |
| 17 MR. NUSSBAUMER: The termination refers to the 18 provisions in the Atomic Energy Act that says we can revoke an 19 agreement if we find the state is not carrying out the 20 programs so as to protect public health and safety. And the 21 agreement document itself references that section so they're 22 on notice that there is that reserve authority that we have.
| |
| 23 MR. SMITH: But it's not that simple, as I 24 understand it. In terms of actually doing it.
| |
| 25 MR. NUSSBAUMER: In actually doing it, we have to
| |
| ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| s 376~
| |
| O., 1 notify the Governor and set the matter down for a hearing.
| |
| 2 MR. SMITH: That's what I thought, i
| |
| 3 MR. NUSSBAUMER: The approach we take where we have 4 serious problems with a state is to discuss them with the 5 Governor'and~ seek corrective action through that means.- The 6 way I feel about it, either a state wants to be an agreement 7 state and run the program, or they don't. If they don't want 8 to or are incapable, then they should turn it back, and they 9 do have that privilege of saying we don't want to do it any
| |
| ~1'O more and turn the program back to the NRC.
| |
| 11 MR. CARTER: That's happened in several cases, 12 hasn't it?
| |
| 13 MR. NUSSBAUMER: It's never happened for a full O 14 agreement state, no. It happened once in the case of a mill 15 tailings program in New Mexico where the state for various 16 reasons was incapable of adopting regulations for mill 17 tailings that were equivalent to NRC and EPA's and so they 18 said since we can never come up to your standards we're just 19 going to give up the program. There were some budgeting 20 -problems as well that went along with that.
| |
| 21 MR. STEINDLER: In the case of your third bullet up 22- there, what is your interaction with Department of Energy and 23 Department of Defense in those areas? I guess I was under the 24 impression that the Department of Energy and Defense handle 25 all of the issues that deal with their safeguards and that you j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 377 Q
| |
| 5# 1 don't get involved in --
| |
| 2 MR. NUSSBAUMER: We don't got involved in anything 3 that has any common defense and security aspects to it, i because that's regulated by the NRC directly. Typically it 5 would apply to the safeguard program for greater than critical 6 amounts of SNM, special nuclear material, which the states 7 don't get to regulate anyway.
| |
| 8 MR. STEINDLER: I guess I was asking how come the 9 NRC regulates defense issues? I thought in fact that was left 10 to the Department of Energy.
| |
| 11 MR. NUSSBAUMER: That's not the case for private 12 sector facilities under license. We have accountability and 13 physical protection requirements for certain quantities of I-s''] 14 special nuclear material, and we have physical protection 15 requirements for reactors. We call that safeguards. There 16 may be a link to common defense and security there as well, 17 but the purpose being to preclude material getting out of 18 facilities in an uncontrolled fashion where you could have 19 prablems with illegal nuclear weapons and that kind of thing.
| |
| 20 We have a very comprehensive safeguard system over 21 special nuclear material and reactors.
| |
| 22 MR. CARTER: Don't you also interface with the DOE 23 in inoperable metal tailings --
| |
| 24 MR. NUSSBAUMER: The NRC does, yes. This Agreement 25 State Program does not get involved in that. The NMSS staff 1
| |
| (~) l
| |
| \m) Heritage Reporting Corporation .
| |
| (202) 628-4880 l 1
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| =i 1378
| |
| '.O -1 is required under the Mill Tailings Act to. concur in all DOE 2 . Title I remedial action programs for mill tailings.
| |
| 31 This a slide that gives'the order in which the 4' various states entered the program. You can see, it was 5 fairly vigorous in the '60s, and then tapered off in the '70s, 6- and now we're seeing some renewed interest in the '80s. We.
| |
| 7- have. Utah in '84; Iowa ih '86; and Illinois in '87.
| |
| 8 'MR. KATHREN: There's never been a state that's 9 exited from the program?
| |
| 10 MR. NUSSBAUMER: That's correct.
| |
| 11 MR. CARTER: I didn't add those up, but what is it, 12 about-30 agreement states?
| |
| 13 >
| |
| MR. NUSSBAUMER: Twenty-nine.
| |
| O 14 This is a picture of the distribution of the 15 agreement states. Most of the non-agreement states, as you 1 can see, for some reason are concentrated around the Great 17 Lakes there and the Midwest and up in the Northeast.
| |
| 18 MR. KATHREN: Excuse me, they have to be a state.
| |
| 19 What about Puerto Rico? You do Puerto Rico then?
| |
| 20 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Puerto Rico would qualify but 21 they're not --
| |
| 22 MR. KATHREN Okay. Thank you.
| |
| 23 MR. NUSSDAUMER: This next slide gives the 24 indication of how the number of licenses has been split 25 between NRC and the agreement states with time. At the
| |
| ( lloritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 379 1 present time-about 65 percent agreement ~ states and 35 percent.-
| |
| 2 NRC. As you can see, the NRC portion has' remained relatively 3 constant, while the state portion has.shown the growth.
| |
| 4 After we enter into the agreement there is a 5 comprehensive program tb.at we-have with the 29 agreement 6 states which consists of four basic parts. One is exchange of 7 information where we supply them with the guides we develop, 8 regulations in draft form for their comment and so on, things 9 that help them run their program in an effective manner. In 10 certain instances where-they request it, we provide technical 11 assistance in reviewing unusual types of applications, for 12 performing types of analysis.that a given state doesn't 13 normally have to do. We have a rather comprehensive training 14 program for'the agreement states, and I'll show you more about 15 that later. Finally, we have the periodic on-site reviews of 16 the agreement state program which we conduct with our staff 17 and the regional' people.
| |
| 18 I might mention at this point that most of this 19 program is carried out through our regional offices. We have 20 an agreement state officer in each region. Richard Woodruff 21 from Region 2 is here with us today. They are the individuals 22 that have the primary responsibility for doing the periodic 23 reviews.
| |
| 24 All of the individuals on the agreement state staff 25 are health physicists. There are one in each regional office
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 380 0 1 and seven at headquarters, and about' half.of those are 2 ' certified by the American Board of Health Physics.
| |
| 3 As I'said, the exchange of.information includes 4 licensing statistics --
| |
| 5 MR. STEINDLER: Could I go back to that previous one 6 about the on-site reviews?
| |
| 7 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes.
| |
| 8 MR. STEINDLER: Are these done against a set of 9 standards?
| |
| 10 ILT. NUSSBAUMER: Yes, these are done against a 11 Commission policy statembnt which contains a document called 12 Guidelines for Review of Agreement State Programs. I have a 13 slide'on that a little later which outlines the elements of O 14 that.
| |
| 15 MR. STEINDLER: Okay.
| |
| 16 MR. NUSSBAUMER: We exchange information on reports 17 of unusual events, abnormal occurrences. We receive copies of 18 all licenses issued by the agreement states which we review 19 for unusual things that might como up, and we pick out certain 20 ones to specifically do a case study of during our periodic 21 reviews. That's how we identity which cases we want to look 22 at during our review. Then we exchange copies of sealed 23 source and device evaluation records, and then finally we have 24 an annual all agreement state meeting with the program 25 directors of the agreement states, usually in the fall, where
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 381 O \2 1 we discuss topics of mutual interest in panel discussions.
| |
| 2 That typically includes low-level waste, transportation, 3 operating events, things like that.
| |
| 4 The technical assistance we provide can range 5 anywhere from phone calls to minor casework, questions on 6 licensing policy, inspection practices, interpretations of 7 regulations. We review the draft regulations of the agreement 8 states for compatibility. We will help them on major casework 9 such as a low-level waste disposal facility. We do provide 10 on-site assistance where it seems appropriate. And I want to 11 stress, we don't do this just with our staff which is really 12 not adequate to handle that technical assistance in some 13 cases, so we're free to call on the capabilities of the NRC as O 14 a whole. Typically most of our support comes from NMSS. They 15 help us with technical assistance. They participate in our 16 periodic reviews. And on occasion will use some of the 17 talents of NRR and ADOE as well as our legal staff.
| |
| 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Excuse me, Mr. Nussbaumer. Some 19 of the subsequent speakers have planes to catch and will need 20 to meet a strict schedule. So any of this that you can move 21 along fast on, please do so.
| |
| 22 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Okay.
| |
| 23 I'll just give you an idea of typical training 24 courses we put on each year for the agreement states. I guess 25 what I'd like to mention is that these courses are not static.
| |
| lleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| (
| |
| 382
| |
| -I 1 We revise them every year and we add new courses as the need l 2 arises.
| |
| 3 This is a slide that talks about the guidelines.
| |
| 4 they cover licensing and regulations, organization of the 5- program, its management administration, personnel in both 6- their-qualifications and the staffing level, and finally the 7 licensing and compliance. In that regard we review selected 0 license. files. We accompany state inspectors when they do 9 their inspections to see if they're looking at the right 10 -things.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: On what frequency do you do that? ,
| |
| 12 MR. NUSSBAUMER: The frequency is 18 to 24 months 13 unless there are particular problems. This year we've (E) 14 instituted what we call a:6 in-between visit where we just drop 15 in for one or two days to check on program status. I don't i
| |
| 16 hnow how Hayward feels, but 18-24 months is a long time 17 without seeing anybody from NRC.
| |
| 18 Our experience -- i 19 MR. CARTER: Is that months or years?
| |
| 20 (Laughter) l 21 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Months.
| |
| 22 Our experience has been that overall the states 23 generally conduct effective programs. Over 90 percent of our 24 individual indicators in the guidelines are met. When major l 25 program deficiencies are noted we provide technical advice and ,
| |
| ?
| |
| 5
| |
| () - Heritage Reporting Corporation '
| |
| (202) 628-4888 L
| |
| | |
| 383
| |
| /q
| |
| ' '/
| |
| 1 assistance.
| |
| 2 The main areas we have of concern are the 3 maintaining of adequate staff levels. There is a high 4 turnover of people in agreement states which is what makes our 5 training program so crucial to them.
| |
| 6 MR. SMITH: Is that primarily coordinated with 7 salaries?
| |
| 8 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes. Salary structure is the main 9 problem there.
| |
| 10 Then the areas where we think the agreement states 11 excel is that in spite of the turnover they have a highly 12 trained staff, not only through our courses but their own gg 13 training programs, and they do conduct more frequent V 14 inspections.
| |
| 15 With that, I think the next few slides I have were 16 specific to the kind of assistance we would give on low-level 17 waste, but I think I'll defer on that in view of time. If 18 there are any questions on that aspect I'll be glad te answer 19 them.
| |
| 20 MR. CARTER: I had a question not on that part, but 21 I was just curious as to how the system worked. For example, 22 if the agreement states were concerned about, for example, 23 general licensing, we have problems with -- that are still 24 lingering. Would that sort of corscern come through your 25 program?
| |
| IIeritage Iteport. von (202) b -
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| l
| |
| .1 i
| |
| 384
| |
| . I 1 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Yes-sir.
| |
| 2 MR. CARTER: Has it?
| |
| 3 MR. NUSSBAUMER' States have been concerned with the-4 general license program for some time, as the NRC staff has.
| |
| 5 There has been a study of the general license and how to 6 improve it, it has been ongoing now for a few years and is 7 going to be expanded and focused. There was also a 8 recommendation of the review group we had which Dr. Smith was 9 on, to see what could be done to tighten up the controls in 10 the general license area.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you very much.
| |
| 12 I'm sure after we visit South Carolina and gain 13 first-hand knowledge we'll undoubtedly want to talk to you 4
| |
| O 14 again.
| |
| 15 MR. NUSSBAUMER: I'd be happy to do that.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Dr. Parry reminds me that during
| |
| . 17 our site visit in South Carolina there were indications that 18 someone from Region 2 might join us. Is that still true?
| |
| 19 MR. WOODRUFF: Yes, I'll be there.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Could you give your name and 21 stand up to the microphone?
| |
| 22 MR. WOODRUFF: Richard Woodruff, state 23 representative.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 25 Okay, then we'll move ahead and the next item is the lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
| |
| | |
| 385
| |
| '-) 1 presentation by the South Carolina group from the Bureau of 2 Radiological Health there, Hayward Schealy. Welcome back.
| |
| 3 MR. SCHEALY: Mr. Chairman and members of the 4 committee, it's a pleasure to be here this afternoon to 5 discuss with you South Carolina's radiological health program.
| |
| 6 First I'll just talk a little bit about myself and 7 give you just a little briefing on that. Then I'll go into 8 some transparencies and talk about the overall program that we 9 have in South Carolina.
| |
| 10 I'm a native South Carolinian. After receiving my 11 formal education in the state I did a little hitch in the Navy 12 and in 1954 I joined forces at the Savannah River Plant and
| |
| , 13 stayed there until 1961. I worked in the waste area at the 14 Savannah River Plant and many health physics projects that I 15 was on down there at that time.
| |
| 16 In 1961 I joined the Carolinas / Virginia Nuclear 17 Power Associates. It was a commercial company financed by 18 four utilities. In this facility I was also in health physics 19 work, and I was licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission to 20 operate the power reactor which I received over 900 reactor 21 console hours.
| |
| 22 In 1967 I joined the state and at that time the 23 state policy makers wanted to develop a low-level waste burial 24 facility. They thought one at that time was needed in the 25 Southeast. I believe there were five operating sites in the
| |
| () IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 386
| |
| () 1 United States at that time. They felt if we were going to 2 have a burial site in South Carolina that there were two 3 conditions that were imposed on this. One was that the state 4 own the property that was to be used, and also that they had 5 regulatory authority over that operation. So that's really 6 motivated our becoming an agreement state which we did in 7 September of 1969.
| |
| 8 Before I proceed with my transparencies, I would 9 like to indicate and introduce to you one of my staff members, 10 Virgil Autry, who is here with me this afternoon. Virgil has 11 direct, every day supervision over staff of inspectors and 12 engineers that oversee the Barnwell low-level site operation.
| |
| 13 And I might say that Virgil is also a native South Carolinian, 5
| |
| 14 and he also received prior nuclear experience, I believe, in 15 the Army with their nuclear program for a number of years.
| |
| 16 With that, I'll start trying to get these up here so 17 I can talk from these transparencies.
| |
| 18 In South Carolina, we geographically are a small 19 state. We're the smallest state in the Southeast. We are 20 heavily nuclear oriented. We have major nuclear facilities in 21 the state and we have of course the Savannah River plant 22 complex in this area of the state barring the Savannah River.
| |
| 23 And as you will see when you come down and visit the site, the 24 Chem-Nuclear low-level waste burial site is located very close 25 to the Savannah River Plant.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| (_ (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| 387
| |
| () 1 We have scamt!d 9 like seven commercial operating 2 nuclear power plants in the state, and we produce I think over 3 50 percent of our electrical generation is from nuclear power 4 in South Carolina.
| |
| 5 . We have various facilities. We have the three 6 Oconee Reactars; two over the Catalba; we have the VC Summer 7 Station above Columbia; and the Carolina Power and Light H.B.
| |
| 8 Robinson Unit II over at Hartsville. We have a very large 9 complex, the Charleston Navy Shipyard. We have a major 10 nuclear polaris facility there and a shipyard to repair some 11 of the Navy's nuclear subs.
| |
| 12 We also have three radiators in the state. We have 13 the Carolina metal facility near Barnwell, South Carolina. We 6
| |
| (,) 14 have a Westinghouse Service Center up closs to Greeneville, 15 and it goes on and on. But we do have quite a few nuclear 16 facilities in South Carolina.
| |
| 17 My operation is located in Columbia which is near 18 the center of the state, and all of our activity is conducted 19 out of the central office in Columbia. We do not have 20 district offices like some states have, however we do have a 21 resident inspector at Barnwell that is a native Barnwell 22 county resident that does some of the inspection work down 23 there.
| |
| 24 We have 27 professional positions. We have 5 25 support staff: secretaries and clerks that I do not show on Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 388
| |
| () 1 this organization chart. We have our Bureau Chief and we have 2 three divisions in the Bureau. Virgil Autry is the director 3 of this division here that has responsibility over the 4 licensing program, the agreement state program, the waste 5 burial facility, and also transportation.
| |
| 6 I have a budget this year of $1.2 million. I am a 7 bureau within the Department of Health and Environmental 8 Control. The Environmental Control has five bureaus. We have 9 the Bureau of the Solid and Hazardous Waste, Bureau of Air 10 Quality, Bureau of Waste Water, and I think there's one more 11 bureau. I don't remember that one, but there are five, five 12 bureaus.
| |
| 13 The Commissioner of the Department is contracted by
| |
| () 14 a governing board which has a representative from each 15 Congressional District, and that board member is appointed by 16 the Governor to serve as a policy board to the Department.
| |
| 17 We have Deputy Commissioners of each program in the 18 Department of Health and Environmental Control. I report to a 19 Deputy Commissioner. This gives you an idea of how we're 20 organized.
| |
| 21 This program here is the Environmental Surveillance 22 Program. This is the X-ray, which we call electronic 23 products. Then we have this division over here.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: In terms of environmental 25 monitoring, this committee reviewed this morning a proposed
| |
| (~'
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 389
| |
| (~h A ). 1 Branch Technical Position on the monitoring of low-level waste 2 facilities. Would you find a document of that nature of use 3 to you? Or are you familiar with what the NRC is doing in 4 trying to develop that?
| |
| 5 MR. SCREALY: Guidance? Yes, we are familiar with 6 that. I think we're having some input into this program, 7 because we did pre-operational radiological monitoring at the 8 Barnwell facility even before it was built. I'll discuss a 9 little bit more later on our environmental program.
| |
| 10 Just a quick overview of the Division of Electronic 11 Products. We feel we have a balanced radiological health 12 program in the state that we try to cover all sources of 13 radiation. Of course this is the X-ray program where we
| |
| () 14 register all facilities. We do review of shielding plans, 15 architectural plans. We inspect facilities. We do follow up.
| |
| 16 We identify problems, reduce exposure. We have impounded some 17 250 pieces of X-ray equipment since this program was 18 implemented in about 1970 that could not be brought up to 19 standards, so we had to disallow the use of those.
| |
| 20 We have annual fees on all of our X-ray registrants, 21 and we register all X-ray equipment in the stats. We just 22 received a certification for a calibration facility from the 23 Competence in Radiation Control Program of the National Bureau 24 of Standards. We have been working on this for some five or 25 six years where we can calibrate X-ray survey instruments and Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| | |
| 390
| |
| () 1 also beta gamma survey instruments with a gamma source.
| |
| 2 I think there's one other state that has really got 3 this certification and is actually operating that facility, 4 and that's the state of Illinois.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: How many X-ray units do you have?
| |
| 6 MR. SCHEALY: We have about 2,500 in the state.
| |
| 7 MR. STEINDLER: Do you license your own cobalt 60 8 source for your calibration?
| |
| 9 MR. SCHEALY: Yes. We are the regulatory body that 10 licenses all radiation sources that are not regulated by the 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| 12 The next division I'll discuss with you is the 13 Division of Radiological and Environmental Monitoring. This
| |
| () 14 is a program that really started in South Carolina back in 15 about 1956. They started a program monitoring fall out from 16 these weapon testing programs. This expanded in the late '50s 17 and early ' 60s based on a recommendation of the Savannah River 18 Advisory Council that was formed at this time that the state 19 monitor the Savannah River, below the Savannah River Plant.
| |
| 20 This program has continued over the years. We have gotten 21 support for our radiological monitoring program from state 22 funds and from federal funds.
| |
| 23 We identify and quantify releases of -- to the 24 environment; we collect and analyze samples such as water, 25 milk, vegetation, fish, oil, air, soil. Credentials, we just Heritage Reporting Corporation Os (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| e 391 r
| |
| !. 1 recently had a review by NRC of our environmental program and 2 the reason for this is because we have a contract with NRC to 3 monitor around their commercial nuclear power p.', ants in the 4 state and we've been doing this for ten years for NRC. They 5 don't give us this money unless they know they're getting 6 good information, and believe me, they do a thorough review of 7 our radiological capabilities, our whole procedures that wo 8 use.
| |
| 9 I have here, and I've given Dr. Parry a report of 10 our last review which was done on January 26, 1988. This will 11 be made available to you. It talks about the overall program 12 status, the staff, our training, and our instrumentation, and 13' our performance under this contract. This is something that
| |
| () 14 we undergo each year. This contract is renewed every three 15 years. We send our technical staff to Idaho for training, and 16 other places they have gotten specialized training.
| |
| 17 MR. FOSTER: Is that in addition to or instead of 18 monitoring by the utilities themselver?
| |
| 19 MR. SCHEALY: The utilities monitor also. But this 20 is the independent --
| |
| 21 MR. FOSTER: This is in addition to that.
| |
| 22 MR. SCHEALY: That's correct.
| |
| 23 MR. CARTER: Can I ask you a question about your 24 budget? You mentioned the overall budget. Does that include 25 your licensing fees to contract with the NRC and things of Heritage Reporting Corporation n (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 392 g
| |
| '\_/ 1 this sort?
| |
| 2 MR. SCHEALY: Yes. We also have a contract with FDA 3 on our X-ray program that helps finance that. This is a 4 contract that we renew every three years. It's based on the 5 X-ray equipment meeting certain federal standards. We do this 6 for FDA instead of them coming in the state and doing it 7 themselves. He do it for them under contract.
| |
| 8 MR. CARTEF.; What's the distribution of your budget 9 from the state per se, appropriation within the state versus 10 the other aspects of it. The licensing and contracts and so 11 forth. Do you have an idea roughly what it is?
| |
| 12 MR. SCHEALY: What our contracts furnish?
| |
| 13 MR. CARTER: Yeah, is your budget 60 percent state, m
| |
| _) 14 40 percent contracts or --
| |
| l 15 MR. SCHEALY: No , it's probably a 5 20 percent 16 federal and the majority of our funds are frot fees.
| |
| 17 Registration fees and licensing fees. We were not the first 18 state to start a fee program, but we were up there close to 19 the first.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: So it would be 20 percent federal 21 and how much fee? Is half of the rest?
| |
| l 22 MR. SCHEALY: Fees, probably about 50 to 60 percent.
| |
| l 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And then the state appropriate 30 l
| |
| 24 percent or so?
| |
| 25 MR. SCHEALY: Yes. I'll discuss where we get our
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 E
| |
| | |
| 393
| |
| \ 1 specific fees from. We have transport permit fees that we use 2 that a shipper has to buy a permit from the state before they 3 can bring waste into the state and those kind of things.
| |
| 4 That's all revenue kind of things.
| |
| 5 CRAIRMAN MOELLER: In the other bureaus I guess they 6 are that you mentioned on waste water and air pollution and so 7 forth, do they collect fees also?
| |
| 8 MR. SCHEALY: They havo recently started a program 9 where they're trying to implcment, for issuing NPDS permits 10 and these kinde of things, yes. They're trying, but to be 11 honest with you, they' re getting a good bit of resistance at 12 this time from the industry. But they're moving forward with 13 that. There is a state law that they start implementing such 14 a program to help finance this.
| |
| l( )
| |
| 15 Our laboratory sources are traced from the National 16 Bureau of Standards, and we also are reviewed by EPA. Every 17 three years they review our program.
| |
| 18 MR. STEINDLER: Do you do any hazardous chemical 19 monitoring?
| |
| 20 MR. SCHEALY: At the Barnwell site?
| |
| 21 MR. STEINDLER: In any site within your laboratory 22 complex.
| |
| 23 MR. SCHEALY: No, our laboratory is geared for 24 radiological analysis.
| |
| 25 MR. STEINDLER: Only radiological?
| |
| g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 394
| |
| () 1 MR. SCHEALY: That's correct.
| |
| 2 MR. STEINDLER: So the EPA certification deals with 3 radiological and not chemical?
| |
| 4 MR. SCHEALY: Ms, under the Safe Drinking Water Act 5 we do all the radiological monitoring in the state for them.
| |
| 6 They come and review our laboratory procedures and write us a 7 nice letter back saying you either meet these standards or 8 don't.
| |
| 9 If I go too fast, just slow me up. Sometimes I get 10 going too fast.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You people from the South do talk 12 rather rapidly.
| |
| 13 (Laughter)
| |
| () 14 MR. SCHEALY: You being a University of South 15 Carolina gamecock, I guess you still --
| |
| 16 (Laughter) 17 MR. SCHEALY: I had forgotten that. You told me 18 that once before.
| |
| 19 We're getting to talk about Virgil's program which 20 is the Agreement State Program. I was with the state in 1969 21 when we became an agreement state, and we drove over to 22 Atlanta, Georgia and picked up all the AEC at that time 23 licenses, which we had 115 transferred to us at that time.
| |
| 24 Now we have approximately 250 licensees in the statc: This 25 includes your medical licenses, your industrial seal source
| |
| /^g Heritage Reporting Corporation l (J (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 395
| |
| () 1 gauges, and your academic licenses.
| |
| 2 By the way, we have been quite pleased with the 3 Agreement State Program in South Carclina. It really gave us 4 a handle on getting control over radium. Just starting this 5 licensing program, and believe me, we disallowed the use and 6 sent to Montgomery, Alabama some 450 milligrams of radium that 7 we found over the state. I think that hss since been sent out 8 of the state of Alabama, but that's the way we got rid of it.
| |
| 9 Our licensees are pleased that they can call Virgil and myself 10 in Columbia and ask questions about any problems they have 11 with a seal source. They send in for an amendment for a 12 medical use that's been approved and we usually, unless there
| |
| '3 are some problems with that amendment request, can turn this
| |
| () 14 around in about two weeks time.
| |
| 15 I understand, Don, sometimes it takes six months 16 with NRC to do the same thing. Am I correct?
| |
| 17 MR. NUSSBAUMER: Sometimes, 18 MR. SCHEALY: Maybe longer sometimes.
| |
| 19 We feel we have brought this to a focal point in the
| |
| ; 20 state and to one group that does regulate the use of these 21 kind of materials. There are quite a few of them used.
| |
| 22 We license and inspect the use of radioactive 23 materials. That is done by health physicists who are trained 24 to do this. We have a waste transportation enforcement 25 section. We have compliance, documentation, and inspection of i
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation O' (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 396 m)
| |
| (, 1 transportation of radioactive materials. We do rtdioactive 2 waste and materials compliance engineering section which is a 3 separate section in this division, and they review and inspect 4 on-site activities at the low-level waste disposal facility in 5 Barnwell.
| |
| 6 Believe me, these engineers and health physicists 7 are involved in that operation on a daily basis. It's nothing 8 that we go down, there's not such a thing as we go down maybe 9 once a month or six months, we're there every day looking at 10 trench designs. We're discussing solidification medias. It's 11 a whole gamut of things that you have to be involved with on a 12 daily basis. We talk to NRC low-level waste branch 13 practically on a daily basis. Don can verify to that, and
| |
| () 14 Kathy. We have to work together in this. We discuss things 15 with Chem-Nuc. We meet with them frequently to discuss 16 problems we have and solutions and things that are going on at 17 the site.
| |
| 18 I think once you visit the site'and visit us in 19 Columbia you'll have a better appreciation of all that's 20 involved.
| |
| 21 Any questions on this viewgraph?
| |
| 22 How am I doing on time?
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You have another six months.
| |
| 24 MR. SCHEALY: I can do it.
| |
| 25 (Laughter)
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 397 ss/ 1 MR. CARTER: How much of your resources are involved 2 in your Barnwell operation?
| |
| 3 MR. SCHEALY: That's a good quest.4on. Counting my 4 time, Virgil's time, our engineers and health physicists 5 including the site inspectors, now this is not counting time 6 that we discuss things with NRC or I might consult with our 7 state geologists about something. We have approximately six 8 man years. That includes the environmental monitoring, 9 picking up samples around the burial site, on the burial site 10 and around the perimeter of the burial site. The chemist's 11 time to analyze these samples. It would be approximately six 12 man years per year.
| |
| 13 We don't have any fat in our program, and our people 13
| |
| (-) 14 work, but they're on the go all the time picking up samples, 15 analyzing. In fact we probably analyze something over 10,000 16 samples a year in our laboratory.
| |
| 17 CRAIRMAN MOELLER: Do you have a centralized lab?
| |
| 18 MR. SCHEALY: Yes. My laboratory's under my 19 control. And we have a mobile lab that we have some of the 20 latest equipment in it that can be had. We use this mobile 21 lab on our fixed nuclear exercise around our power plants.
| |
| 22 All of our people are trained, even my X-ray inspectors, are 23 trained as to how to do laboratory analysis. They know where l 24 to pick up samples. This is part of our cross-training 25 program.
| |
| l
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 398
| |
| ((..3) 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And like when a nuclear power 2 plant has an emergency exercise, are your people involved in 3 that?
| |
| 4 MR. SCHEALY: All 27 of them. 'Everybody knows what 5 they're supposed to do. They can fall in. They know what 6 their responsibilities are, what their duty assignments are, 7 and we undergo these exercises once or twice a year. In fact 8 we'll be undergoing one with the Savannah River Plant next 9 year. We have one or two of these every ye ar because of the 10 number of facilities we have in the state. And this is a 11 federal requirement that the state has to have one of these 12 exercises for the utility to maintain their operating license.
| |
| 13 That was part of the next slide there, radiological
| |
| /~'T
| |
| (_/ 14 emergency response. We have not had many real incidents to 15 respond to, but we do undergo these exercises. Unless Mel 16 calls me at 2:00 o' clock in the morning, or calls Virgil. But 17 it's been pretty quiet recently, except for the cloning 210 18 source.
| |
| 19 MR. CARTER: We'd like to keep it that way.
| |
| 20 MR. SCHEALY: I agree.
| |
| 21 We're getting closer and closer to this low-level 22 waste.
| |
| 23 Transportation of low-level waste. Naturally that's 24 to the Barnwell facility in Barnwell county. Back in 1980, 25 Governor Riley signed into law our Waste Transportation and i
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation l
| |
| z;
| |
| '- (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 399
| |
| <s
| |
| !) 1 Disposal Act which gave us a lot of authority we didn't have 2 before. It gave us permitting authority where when one wants 3 to ship into the state they first have to buy a permit from 4 the state to do it. If Commonwealth Edison wante to ship 5 waste to us, they buy a permit to transport waste. That's not 6 a permit to bury the waste, that's to transport it into or 7 within the state of South Carolina.
| |
| 8 They have to have a proof of liability insurance in 9 case of an accident while moving this waste. They have to 10 give us pre-notification 72 hours in advance before that 11 shipment comes into the state. They have to designate on a 12 manifest that's updated once it comes to the site what the 13 nature of this waste is. It's a very comprehensive manifest.
| |
| () 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And are they restricted to 15 certain highways?
| |
| 16 MR. SCHEALY: Not necessarily, but we like to know 17 the primary roads that they're travelling on. We have not 18 felt it was necessary to do that yet.
| |
| 19 Then we, of course, inspect each and every shipment l
| |
| 10 that comes into the site. It is inspected. We have an i
| |
| 21 enforcement program with civil penalties. We can fire 22 anywhere from $1,000 to $25,000. We have fined sore $25,000.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: What, for example, did they do?
| |
| l
| |
| ; 24 MR. SCHEALY: This particular shipment had just l
| |
| l 25 about everything wrong in the book. It was a shipment that g Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| ('/
| |
| (_ (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 400 A_/ 1 did not customarily ship to the site, and they just had not 2 prepared and identified the waste. They had liquide in the 3 waste, the waste was not properly manifested. We camt down 4 hard on these folks. We can suspend their permit anywhire 5 from 30 days to a year until they prove to us that they can do 6 better in the future.
| |
| 7 MR, KATHREN: On transportation, I take it there are 8 special requirements, maybe single use vehicles and certain 9 cafety inspections that the vehicles are required to --
| |
| 10 MR. SCHEALY: We've adopted DOT regulations in this 11 respect.
| |
| 12 MR. KATHREN: Do you inspect at the state border for 13 out of state shipments?
| |
| () 14 MR. SCHEALY: No, we have never felt that inspecting 15 anything at the state border would gain anything. We really 16 never have. But we do inspect it when it arrives at the site.
| |
| 17 We do not inspect it at the border.
| |
| 18 We can suspect a permittee for 30 days to a year 19 until they bring in information that clears up their 20 violation. I can tell you now, that we had quite a few 21 violations back in the '80s, the early '80s, and I think in 22 the past year we've had four or five enforcement actions, and 23 it has really improved. We've gotten rid of those old carbon 24 steel liners that were leaking coming into the site. They had l
| |
| 25 holes in them. They'd pull them out of a cask and water would l
| |
| ^
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation l
| |
| [L} (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 401
| |
| () 1 be coming out of them. Or they'd be coming into the site 2 leaking. Fortunately, we didn't contaminate anything, but it 3 was a scary situation so we went to a different kind of liner.
| |
| 4 We felt those things were very unsafe.
| |
| 5 MR. CARTER: How many individual transportation 6 companies are companies that transport low-level wasto are 7 involved at any given time? Half a dozen or --
| |
| 8 MR. SCHEALY: Well, Chem-Nuclear is the primary 9 carrier of this waste. We have Tri-State, and we have 10 Hickman, we have U.S. Ecology. Those are some of the primary 11 ones. And most of all of our shipments to the site are power 12 plants, are utilities. The majority of our plants comes from 13 the nuclear power industry. It may not particularly be a
| |
| () 14 nuclear reactor, it could be a fuel fabrication facility like 15 we have Westinghouse in Columbia, one of the largest in the 16 world I understand. And of course they have one in North 17 Carolina, the GE plant up in Wilmington. But the majority of 18 our waste comes from the nuclear power industry. We have some 19 others, but it's a small amount.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: In what states, how far West do 21 you receive shipments from?
| |
| 22 MR. SCHEALY: We receive waste from California, from 23 all over the United States.
| |
| 24 MR. CARTER: Does any come in by train?
| |
| 25 MR. SCHEALY: No sir, all of it is trucked into the p Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| \ (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| l 402
| |
| /~T
| |
| (_/ 1 site. There are no rail shipments whatsoever. There are no 2 rail facilities there to accommodate that.
| |
| 3 BGl. CARTER: Have thore been any major changes in 4 the material that you receive or accept at the site?
| |
| 5 MR. SCHEALY: Has there been any change?
| |
| 6 MR. CARTER: Yeah, I'm thinking back whether you 7 accepted radium at one time and don't now or --
| |
| 8 MR. SCHEALY: No , we never did accept radium. We 9 conditioned our license in 1971 to prohibit transuranics or 10 anything like that. That was when the hearings on the Allied 11 General plant were in progress which is just within a 12 hollering distance down the road from the Chem-Nuclear plant.
| |
| 13 We didn't at that time feel it would be appropriate for the
| |
| ' q_
| |
| O) 14 fuel reprocessing plant to do business with that low-level 15 burial site. So we conditioned that license at that time to 16 prohibit any of that waste coming in to the low-level waste 17 burial site. Of course the OL was never issued to Allied l 18 General and that never did become a real issue.
| |
| l
| |
| '19 What we wanted to have was a truly low-level waste 20 burial site with good engineered trenches, good surface water 21 management, and good waste form to put into the ground.
| |
| 22 Believe me, we have come a long ways since 1971 on waste form 23 characterization and things like this. Of course NRC has done 24 a lot of work in developing this Part 61 of which we had some 25 input into.
| |
| (T Heritage ReporL2ng Corporation
| |
| %/ (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 403
| |
| () 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Do you use Part 617 Or do you 2 have some enhancements of it?
| |
| 3 MR, SCHEALY: At this time we comply with all of the 4 Part 61 requirements. We are more restrictive in certain 5 areas, like free standing water. Part 61 allows one percent 6 by volume. We allow a half a percent by volume. We feel that 7 the waste will get damp and be moist in the ground, but we 8 don't want to bury liquids and we do not want water getting 9 into the burial trenches. We think that a good surface water 10 management program is very critical, and you'll be able to see 11 this when you're down at the burial site.
| |
| 12 But back when we first started this burial site 13 there was a condition, and I personally visited the other 14 burial sites in the United States. I was familiar with waste I( )
| |
| 15 management before I came to the state, and I saw conditions at 16 some of these other sites that I did not like what I saw. We 17 felt that we didn't want to do, actually I think we learned 18 from other people's experience, not saying we were any smarter 19 than they were, but they had been through some of these things 20 and we could observe what they had done and we took advantage 21 of that.
| |
| 22 This is a very active program. We have a bank of 23 PC's on board that we keep up with all of the waste that's 24 buried from all over the United States. We can retrieve what 25 any particular state, any utility, or shipment in the state is Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| H 1
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| 404 1 I
| |
| l
| |
| ('')%
| |
| \ 1 shipped. A lot of this is under the requirements of the 1985 1 l
| |
| 2 Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act which requires the host 3 state to do this. Virgil there can within a few minutes time >
| |
| l 4 have on my desk the entire waste, where it came from, how i
| |
| 5 much, how many curies, millicuries or whatever from all over G the United States. We can retrieve all that information. We 7 have it available. All this information is in turn being sent 8 to a national terminal in Idaho with EG&G and they're supposed 9 to be able to give it to any state or regional compact that 10 wants this information. Chem-Nuclear can do the same thing.
| |
| 11 But we verify all this at the burial site, and this is all 12 entered into a computer. You'll get to view that too, when j 13 you're down.
| |
| Il, x,, 14 I just covered the Part 61 compatibility. We have 15 all this in place. I think one of the positive things we've 16 seen from this Part 61 is we have seen and Chem-Nuclear has 17 verified this, that the occupation exposure to workers at the 18 site has decreased. We're very pleased with that. That's one 19 positive thing that's coming out of this. I think this is 20 based on the waste form and classification of some of this 21 waste and how we're segregating it at the burial site.
| |
| 22 We have license reviews, of course compliance 23 inspections. We have engineering reviews of HIC approvals, 24 waste processes, and then site construction. This is a 25 continuing, ongoing program. It's a never ending process.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation O' (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 405
| |
| () 1 MR. STEINDLER: Who does your engineering reviews?
| |
| 2 MR. SCHEALY: We have several engineers, mechanical 3 engineers on the staff. If we get to the point where we feel 4 uncomfortable about looking at some geology or hydrology 5 aspect of the site, we have available to us state geologists 6 and also in the environmental quality program we have 7 geologista and hydrologists that we can ask to give us support 8 if we feel like we need it so that I don't have to go out and 9 try to hire geologists and hydrologists for maybe needing them 10 a couple of times a year or something like that. But we do 11 fall back on resources that we have within the Department.
| |
| 12 We do environmental reviews that Chem-Nuclear is 13 required to submit to us. We do studies of hydrology and
| |
| () 14 geology, environmental sampling surveillance. We've done non-15 radiological monitoring. Oak Ridge National Lab has done some 16 of that for us and also Brookhaven National Lab. We do ground 17 water on-site and off-site and at the boundary. We do surface 18 water, air, TLD, soil, and vegetation. These are all standard 19 programs very similar to what we would do around a nuclear 20 power plant under NRC contract. The TLD's are the same. The 21 air monitoring devices are basically the same. Like I say, 22 this is an ongoing, continuing program. And we also have 23 monitors around the Savannah River Plant.
| |
| 24 MR. FOSTER: What comprises your non-radiological 25 monitoring, and why do you do it?
| |
| ( (~T Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| %/ (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 406 tm I
| |
| 's,) 1 MR. SCHEALY: We wanted to verify that we did not 2 have any problems with chemicals at the site, organics or 3 anything like that, inorganics. I guess we did this some six 4 or eight years ago.
| |
| 5 MR. FOSTER: Have you discontinued that now?
| |
| 6 MR. SCHEALY: Yes sir, we have. We did not find 7 any.
| |
| 8 The budget of my program is state funds that I 9 believe we mentioned while ago. Licensing fees about 50 10 percent, and then we have federal contracts, NRC, and FDA.
| |
| 11 Closure of a site. Chem-Nuclear is required to 12 submit to us every five years an updated decommission or 13 stabilization plan which we have a current copy on file. As I 14 said while ago, this property that Chem-Nuclear buries on is 15 owned by the state of South Carolina. Our State Budget 16 Control Board is the landlord of this site which the Governor 17 is Chairman of the State Budget Control Board, so naturally he 18 has & lot of interest in what goes on at the burial site. The 19 state owns it and leases it back to Chem-Nuclear to operate 20 on.
| |
| 21 We have a Decommissioning Fund which was set up into 22 a trust fund, and it's currently $3.6 million. This is a 23 decommissioning stabilization fund that if necessary can be 24 used after 1992 after the site closes for any action that the 25 state feels like needs to be done. If this fund is not used,
| |
| (~' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 407 g)
| |
| (_ 1 it's my understanding that it will revert back to the company.
| |
| 2 We have an extended care, this is the Perpetual Care 3 and Maintenance Fund, which is currently $32 million and it is 4 projected by 1992 that it will be $45 million and probably in 5 excess of $45 million. This is to more or less take care of 6 the site for extended care into the future. We have a plan 7 submitted and under review with determining agents and 8 responsibilities and future site use under consideration. We 9 have several options that we are looking at for use of the 10 site after it's decommissioned and turned over to the state 11 for perpetual care.
| |
| 12 The company now has a project that they are studying 13 with 7,000 Christmas trees on site. These are Virginia pines.
| |
| ,f (j 14 It looks like that will certainly be one of the options that 15 can be used. They have a fairly shallow tap root. Probably 16 mostly about 12 inches deep, and they extend laterally out a 17 good many feet, but this is something that you'll see when you 18 visit the site.
| |
| 19 Of course the site has been looked at for the 20 possibility of cattle grazing, a golf course, and these kind 21 of things. But the Christmas tree growing looks very good, 22 very promising.
| |
| 23 MR. FOSTER: How many more years do you think the 24 site is going to operate before you close it?
| |
| 25 MR. SCHEALY: Currently it's a state law that the
| |
| /~N Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| \-) (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 408 1 site close down on January 1, 1993. That's the state law at 2 this time. So that's what we're going on right now.
| |
| 3 I've run out of slides. I welcome you to Columbia.
| |
| 4 Anything we can do for you --
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We look forward to it.
| |
| 6 Mel Carter has a question and then we'll wrap it up.
| |
| 7 MR. CARTER: A couple of quick questions. One, I 8 think the history of the s!.te has been that you have been 9 blessed with the support of the administration since the site 10 has been there, is that correct?
| |
| 11 MR. SCHEALY: That's correct.
| |
| 12 MR. CARTER: The other thing, I wonder if you'd 13 comment a little bit because that one, as far as I'm
| |
| () 14 concerned, is certainly an example of one of the two that have 15 been successful. A lot of them have gone out of existence.
| |
| 16 There were problems at the other ones. So if you had to 17 summarize, what have you folks done right that other people 18 might profit from over in South Carolina, when we get into the l
| |
| l 19 compact operations?
| |
| l 20 MR. SCHEALY: One thing now, I think South 21 Carolinians and Barnwcll county residents are right on the 22 fringes of the Savannah River Plant, feel comfortable with a 23 nuclear facility such as a burial ground in their community.
| |
| 24 We more or less told Chem-Nuclear in the early stages of this 25 that we wanted this to be an open site, no high securities and Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| \
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 409 (m-) 1 all this kind of stuff, that anyone could come in there and 2 see what was going on. The public was invited at any time.
| |
| 3 We feel that has worked. We've had a tremendous amount of 4 visitors over the years. School children, women's 5 organizations and what not, university types have been in and 6 actually seen ho.. the waste is handled. We've had a lot of 7 foreign visitors to the site.
| |
| 8 I don't know. We had I guess a lot of luck in some 9 respects, and we just stayed right on top of it. But you have 10 to have support of your policy makers in your state. We had 11 that. It was their decision that they wanted this burial 12 site. Thuy gave us the responsibility to get the thing 13 licensed and regulated and a lot of times I've been real
| |
| () 14 frustrated maybe that I didn't get support right when I i 15 thought I should, but they usually come around, but that's 16 just the bureaucracy that you have to work through.
| |
| 17 I did not mention the fact that in 1980 we asked NRC 18 to do an environmental assessment of the low-level burial 19 site, and this is published in a NUREG report 0879. It's in 20 conformance with 10 CFR Part 51 which dictates --
| |
| 21 requirements. It's done in conformance with that. I'd like 22 to go on record as presenting this to the committee. I think 23 it's a very good report. It summarizes all aspects of it. It 24 summarizes the ten years that USGS spent at the site after it 25 became operational in 1975. USGS came into the site in 1975 l
| |
| psse Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 410
| |
| () 1 and the state in '85. It looks at the socio-economic impact 2 of the operation. It takes in all those kind of things. It's 3 a very good report that you should be made aware of that does 4 exist.
| |
| 5 We did another report ourselves. It's not quite as 6 comprehensive as this report, but we've used this on many 7 occasions for our legislatures that want to know a little 8 something about the Barnwell site, some of their aides, it's 9 very helpful. We sent this around to quite a few people. It 10 just talks about what we do in respect to the Barnwell site.
| |
| 11 I'll leave that with you.
| |
| 12 Unless you have any further questions, that's all I 13 have.
| |
| ()
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank ycu very much, and to 15 repeat, we look forward to visiting.
| |
| 16 MR. SCHEALY: We look forward to having you.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We are completed with two of five 18 presentations scheduled for the afternoon. Let me ask if any 19 of the remaining people who are each scheduled for 30 minutes 20 would be tremendously upset if we took a ten minute break?
| |
| 21 Does anyone have a plane to catch or something that would 22 interfere?
| |
| 23 (No response) 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Let's take ten minutes.
| |
| 25 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
| |
| l x Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 411
| |
| ( ,) , 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The meeting will resume, and 2 we're going to move ahead with the middle presentation which 3 is by Tom Hindman from the U.S. Department of Energy, and he 4 will be giving us a preview of what we're going to see at 5 Savannah River. Tom, it's a pleasure to welcome you.
| |
| 6 MR. HINDMAN: Thank you very much, sir.
| |
| 7 I will discuss for just a short time the overall 8 defense waste management program within the Department of 9 Energy using part of a presentation I prepared for a utility 10 group a few months back, and then focus in on some of the 11 things that you will be seeing at the Savannah River Plant.
| |
| 12 I am Director of the Office of Defense Waste and 13 Transportation Management here in Washington. To further
| |
| () 14 confuse things, though, I am from South Carolina. I don't know 15 how it happened that we're having this alumni association 16 meeting today.
| |
| , 17 (Laughter) 18 The defense program background comes from back in 19 the late '40s or early '50s which started at the Manhattan 20 Engineering District on through the AEC/ERDA and now is the 21 Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs within the Department 22 of Energy. The defense program has had a responsibility for 23 all facets of production of nuclear weapons and materials for 24 national defense. It covers a large complex and a dozen 25 states.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation ON (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 412
| |
| ) 1 Essentially every operation within the Office of 2 Defense Programs does create waste, and our office is 3 responsible for the management of these wastes.
| |
| 4 We're organized and I report to the Deputy Assistant 5 Secretary for Nuclear Materials and have the four groups that 6 are shown on here reporting to me.
| |
| 7 Just to show that our operations do pretty well 8 cover from one part of the country to the other, --
| |
| 9 MR. SMITH: Can you put that one back real quick?
| |
| 10 MR. HINDMAN: Yes sir. This shows high-level waste 11 and TRU waste generation and storage sites.
| |
| 12 MR. SMITH: Thank you.
| |
| 13 MR, EIMDMAN: The primary goal of our effort of
| |
| () 14 course is to safely store, process, transport, and ultimately 15 dispose of radioactive and hazardous waste generated primarily 16 from the production of nuclear materials. I would mention 17 that we, and I'll say a couple more words about it, we do have 18 a new program within our responsibility, and that is 19 environmental restoration of inactive facilities, and the key 20 here is inactive. We are not responsible for the waste 21 streams from ongoing production operations, but rather for 22 facilities that have been shut down, closed down, old burial 23 grounds, things like this. It's a rather large program that 24 is new on our plate.
| |
| 25 Again, the five areas of our responsibility are Heritage Reporting Corporation Os (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| \
| |
| 413
| |
| () 1 treatment, storage, disposal, transportation, and now 2 environmental restoration.
| |
| 3 MR. SMITH: la that like --
| |
| 4 MR. HINDMAN: Essentially the same thing. It's the 5 clean up of contaminated, whether it's radioactive, hazardous, 6 or both, within the DP complex.
| |
| 7 Low-level waste inventory la currently in the 8 neighborhood of 2.1 million cubic meters. This is material 9 most of which has been buried in shallow land burial.
| |
| 10 TRU waste which is not an NRC defined waste but does 11 have transuranics in it, prior to 1970 all of that material 12 was buried in shallow land burials. Post '70 it has been 13 stored in a retrievable manner pending geologic isolation.
| |
| () 14 The inventory of the stored material is 91,000 cubic meters.
| |
| 15 Ultimate disposal of this material is planned to be 16 in the waste isolation pilot plant in a salt formation near 17 Carlsbad, New Mexico. That particular facility is scheduled to 18 open during the last quarter of this calendar year.
| |
| 19 High-level waste which in the defense part of the 20 world is reprocessed, is the residue of reprocessing. Not 21 fuel elements per se as the commercial side, but the 22 reprocessed material. It's stored as liquid, salts, sledges, 23 and in one instance specifically Idaho stored as a calcine.
| |
| 24 By law it does require permanent geologic isolation and the 25 inventory is 355,000 cubic meters.
| |
| ("}
| |
| A/
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 414 m
| |
| (_) 1 An example of the way high-level waste liquids are 2 stored is in underground storage tanks, and this is a 3 construction photograph before the earth backfill has been put 4 around these tanks. Approximately a million gallons each.
| |
| 5 This is at the Richland facility.
| |
| 6 The plan is to construct a vitrification plant at 7 Richland similar to the one you will be seeing at Savannah 8 River in August which will take this liquid waste and convert 9 it to a vitrified product.
| |
| 10 In our FY88 appropriations and authorizations from 11 Congress, Defense Programs was directed to consolidate all of 12 its environmental restoration activities into a single 13 location, namely into the part of the budget that Defense
| |
| () 14 Waste Management receives its funds. Previously each 15 operating program had its own ER program. It was all put into 16 my office in late '87.
| |
| 17 The key, as I said earlier, is inactive sites.
| |
| 18 We're driven here by regulatory requirements both from the 19 Atomic Energy Act and also RCRA, CERCLA, and SARA.
| |
| 20 Three phases are the site discovery and assessment.
| |
| 21 In other words finding out what you have in a contaminated 22 site. Then going through studies to determine what the best 23 alternatives are for clean up. Then selecting a remedial 24 action.
| |
| 25 Different from the rest of the programs, defense Heritage Reporting Corporation L
| |
| s_/ (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| I i
| |
| 415 i
| |
| () 1 programs at least. The states and EPA drive this process. We 1
| |
| 2 don't internally drive it. We are vory much under the control l 3 of EPA and the agreement states in which alternatives we 4 select, the time schedules on which we clean up sites, and 5 schedules and costs are very much controlled by the outside in 6 this particular area.
| |
| 7 Challenge means problem in this particular context.
| |
| 8 What are the problems we have? We don't feel we have a major 9 problem insofar as a need for major technological 10 breakthroughs. The processes to solidify high-level waste 11 have pretty well been settled in on. There's still a lot of 12 engineering work going on to go from the basic data to actual 13 execution. Even in the environmental restoration we don't see
| |
| () 14 a lot of development work in terms of basic R&D that needs to 15 be done, but rather take processes that have been developed 16 and apply them to our own needs. The challenge is to get the 17 organizational management and engineering resources marshalled 18 to do what we need to do.
| |
| 19 The regulatory environment is extremely complex. We 20 are not operating solely under the Atomic Energy Act, but 21 because of the fact that essentially all radioactive wastes 22 have a hazardous component, we're under the joint rules from 23 EPA and agreement states as well as the Atomic Energy Act. As 24 I mentioned earlier, the EPA and states do have regulatory 25 initiative as well as enforcement authority over us.
| |
| r~s Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| (,) (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| 416
| |
| (~\
| |
| ( ,) 1 Like anybody in the nuclear business today we do 2 have a skeptical public to deal with. That's a problem we 3 have to recognize and try to be more open with the public and 4 allow public processes to help us make the decision as we 5 move. Any program anywhere has budget problems. How do you 6 pace your activities in consonant with available budgets?
| |
| 7 This is always an ongoing process. Again, the lack of, in 8 some of operations, detailed agreements with the states, as 9 far as our RCRA, CERCLA requirements, and the progressive 10 nature of this activity to put it simply, you don't know how 11 big your problem is in environmental restoration until you put 12 a shovel in the ground and really see what's there.
| |
| 13 We mentioned what our budget is and has been not r)
| |
| ( 14 more, from not certainly the detailed numbers, but rather the 15 trend. From ' 87 to ' 89 we've gone up in excess of 30 percent 16 from $701 million to $936 million. But notice that the 17 environmental restoration part has increased well over 100 18 percent and waste operations and projects up 50 percent. The 19 reason for this increase in operations and projects is that we 20 do have a lot of new facilities now coming on-line or soon to 21 come on-line such as the WIPP that I mentioned earlier, and 22 the DNPF that you will be seeing in South Carolina.
| |
| 23 We are making progress in moving the high-level 24 waste towards geological disposal. Operation of WIPP is 25 supposed to begin next quarter. We' re continuing safe Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 417
| |
| ) 1 disposal of low-level waste. I mentioned the environmental 2 restoration program a few times. And not for this group, but 3 as.part of my responsibility, we do have transportation 4 management.
| |
| 5 Major challenges are the uncertainties in funding 6 needs and the problems associated with regulatory environment, 7 and the large scope of this undertaking and particularly 8 public acceptance.
| |
| 9 I would like to mention some documents that will be 10 available which I plan to send to you. All of our activities 11 in the high-level waste and TRU waste were outlined in a 12 planning document that was prepared in 1983, the Defense Waste 13 Management Plan, as requested by Congress and sent to them in
| |
| () 14 1983. It clearly outlines the plans the department has in the 15 area of high-level waste and TRU waste, and that's 16 supplemented annually by a program implementation plan. I 17 will get copies of that to you to show you how far we are 18 along on the road map that was established in '83.
| |
| 19 MR. CARTER: Could I ask you a question about the 20 TRU?
| |
| 21 MR. HINDMAN: Yes sir.
| |
| 22 MR. CARTER: Is the present plan that all of the TRU, 23 that's stored at the moment retrievably will go to WIPP or --
| |
| 24 MR. HINDMAH: Yes sir, that is correct.
| |
| '25 MR. SMITH: Low-level waste burial sites, DOE Heritage Reporting Corporation O- (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 418 1 facilities, are you required now, are you now required to get 2 a permit from either EPA or the state depending on whether or 3 not it's a state-run program?
| |
| 4 MR.,HINDMAN: No sir. The only permits we're 5 required to get would be if it was a hazardous or mixed waste 6 disposal. If it's strictly low-level radioactive waste 7 without a hazardous component, no. And I wanted to mention 8 that.
| |
| 9 MR. SMITH: Who makes that determination then, 10 whether it's strictly radioactive and not a mixed?
| |
| 11 -
| |
| MR. HINDMAN: It's based on analysis of the material 12 that's going in, but it's done by our DOE contractors with 13 some outside, any audits would be performed within the DOE
| |
| () 14 system such as NRC.
| |
| 15 MR. SMITH: When you get into restoration and you 16 start digging up some of these old sites or fixing those up 17 like that one in Oak Ridge, then you are into a mixed waste 18 situation.
| |
| 19 MR. HINDMAN: Absolutely.
| |
| 20 MR. SMITH: And you have to get a permit.
| |
| 21 MR. HINDMAN: EPA or in that case the state of 22 Tennessee will be clearly and deeply involved, yes sir.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: When we're down at Savannah River 24 in two weeks will see the low-level disposal facility?
| |
| 25 MR. HINDMAN: Yes sir. You'll see really a Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| | |
| 419 s
| |
| 1 microcosm of everything I've talked about here. High-level, 2 low-level, as well as the TRU.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MCELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 4 MR. HINDMAN: One other thing I would like f.s 5 mention, we are publishing a revision to the DOE order on 6 waste management. This in the commercial sector is about the 7 same as an NRC CFR type document. It tells our operations how 8 they will operate. The significanca of it is it moves DOE, 9 particularly in the low-level waste operation, into the 40 CFR 10 161 requirements. We're putting the same level of 11 requirements on ourselves that NRC puts on the private sector.
| |
| 12 And we go a little bit further in terms of ground water 13 protection by bringing a lot of EPA requirements into this.
| |
| () 14 And just as soon as it's published, it's in circulation now 15 for Secretarial approval, I'll also provide copies to you.
| |
| 16 Real quick on Savannah River. Tanks under 17 construction before the backfill has been put around them:
| |
| 18 1.2 million gallon tanks; double shell so that there's an 19 annulus to provide double containment. This is an old waste 20 tank after construction, and you can see that it's been bermed 21 over with several feet of earth and covered then with either 22 asphalt or concrete.
| |
| 23 This is a high level waste evaporator in the waste 24 tank farm as the waste is received from the processing, the 25 fuel reprocessing facility, it goes into a tank and is stored i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 420 m after
| |
| \,) . 1 for approximately a year. During this time, this le 2 neutralization. During this time the solid materials 3 precipitate to the bottom of the tank leaving a supernate of 4 liquid, primarily salts and the radioactive constituent of 5 which is primarily cesium. This supernate water is evaperated 6 and then the resulting salt stored separately. This is what 7 those two things look like. You can't see it, but high-level 8 waste sludge looks like very used motor oil and the salt in 9 the tanks just looks about like you would expect it to.
| |
| 10 This is an artist's conception of the defense waste 11 processing facility, the center building being one where the 12 liquid waste and sludge is received, mixed with glass, melted 13 in a furnace, and poured into stainless steel canisters. This
| |
| () 14 building is where the canisters will be stored pending 15 availability of a processing facility. This building will 16 hold, I think it's ten year's worth of production. It's 17 either five or ten. I think it's ten year's worth of ,
| |
| 18 production. If, and we now know that a repository will not be 19 available by the time this building is filled, this building 20 can be reproduced however many times over it nesda to be.
| |
| 21 This is from the same angle, a construction 22 photograph that was taken recently so you can see that they 23 are well underway towards an early start up in the ecrly ' 90s.
| |
| 24 A close up of the vitrification building itself. I think 25 since this was taken it's been sealed in, but you will be able i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation ss/ (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 421 1 to walk through the processing building while you're there, 2 .because it has not yet been --
| |
| 3 MR. SMITH: Who's tne contractor on thac?
| |
| 4 MR. HINDMAN: Dupont of course is the prime 5 contractor and has overall design responsibilities, but they 6 have used Morrison-Knudson as the construction contractor, 7 Bechtel as the deeign contractor, and several other people-in 8 lesser roles throughout. They will be giving you a lot of 9 detail on that.
| |
| 10 This is simply a part of the burial ground for low-11 level waste at Savannah River that you will see. A close up 12 of that. We've come a long way from the days in which the 13 dump tru;ks backed up to a trench and rolled stuff down into
| |
| () 14 an empty, open situation.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Do you have a soil there, is this 16 is a clay soil?
| |
| 17 MR. HINDMAN: Yes sir, it is.
| |
| 18 The final picture I'll show you, I mentioned earlier 19 the salt that's stored in the high-level waste tanks after 20 evaporation. After an sad tank process to remove essentially 21 all of the radiot:ctive cot.etituents, certainly it's well below 22 Class A or well into the Class A range of low-level waste.
| |
| 23 The liquid salts are p:tmped to the facility so-called 24 saltstone plant where this salt is mixed with con: rete, fly 25 ash, and things like this and made into a grovv slurry, a Heritage Reporting Corporation Ox (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| (--< .
| |
| I i
| |
| i 422
| |
| ( ,) 1 concrete called saltstone. Then it.will be stored in these 2 concrete bunkers. You will see this when you're down there.
| |
| 3 That's all I have prepared. I'll be happy to answer 4 any questions.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Do we have additional questions?
| |
| 6 MR. FOSTER: Is the vitrification plant scheduled 7 for Richland going to be essentially the same design?
| |
| 8 10R. HINDMAN: Basically, yes sir. There will be 9 some changes because of differences in the constituency of 10 their materials, but basically the same plan.
| |
| 11 MR. FOSTER: When is it supposed to go in operation?
| |
| 12 MR. HINDMAN: This is our first year to have a 13 Congressionally approved project. We're in the design phases,
| |
| (' 14 start construction in 1990, and projected to complete in 1999.
| |
| 15 So it's roughly ten years behind the Savannah River facility.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you, Tom.
| |
| 17 MR. HINDMAN: Thank you, sir. I look forward to 18 seeing you in South Carolina.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We very much look forward to it, 20 and this preview will certainly set the stage, and we'll go 21 over your handout again prior to that visit.
| |
| 22 The next item on our program is a review of the 23 Barnwell low-level waste disposal facility, and particularly 24 the Chem-Nuclear operations there. This presentation will be 25 made by Mike House from Chem-Nuclear. Welcome.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| {/}
| |
| s (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 423 (m
| |
| (,) 1 MR. HOUSE: Good afternoon.
| |
| 2 My name is Bill House.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Bill House, I'm sorry.
| |
| 4 MR. HOUSE: No problem. I'm the Director of 5 Licensing for Chem-Nuclear Systems. I've got 11 years 6 experience in a state radiological health unit and low-level 7 waste management.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You previously worked for a 9 state?
| |
| 10 MR. HOUSE: Yes sir.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Which one?
| |
| 12 MR. HOUSE: South Carolina.
| |
| 13 The first overhead is just the general subject areas
| |
| () 14 that we would like to cover when you folks come down to visit.
| |
| 15 As you cra see it's a very ambitious list of topics to try to 16 cover in one day, and we would concentrate, obviously, on the 17 disposal site and those related activities, and try to narrow 18 down to the particular area of interest that you folks would 19 like to see.
| |
| 20 We will have, to the best of our abilities, the 21 company experts available, and the folks responsible for the 22 activities of the company wnen you come down.
| |
| 23 Due to the interest of time here, I would like to 24 give you a few facts, or talk about a few key areas that we'll 25 be covering when you come down. The Barnwell waste facility Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1 424
| |
| () 1 has been operating since 1971, and we have received 20.6 2 million cubic feet of low-level rad waste containing, as 3 stated on the shipper's documentation, about 3.8 million 4 curies We guesstimate now that only about half of those 5 curies remain in the site.
| |
| 6 MR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. Are you suggesting that 7 the shipper documentation is not correct?
| |
| 8 MR. HOUSE: No sir, just based on radioactive decay.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And are cesium and strontium your 10 controlling nuclides?
| |
| 11 MR. HOUSE: The key nuclides are cobalt 60, cesium 12 137, and strontium 90. Those are major contri! ' ors in the 13 waste we receive.
| |
| () 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And the cobalt of course is going 15 dowr. though, very rapidly.
| |
| 16 MR. HOUSE: That's correct.
| |
| 17 MR. STEIFDLER: I'm sorry, you've been in operation 18 how long?
| |
| 19 MR. HOUSE: Seventeen years.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Again, just a quick, can you give 21 me a ratio of say freshly received waste from a nuclear power 22 plant, the ratio of cobalt to cesium to strontium?
| |
| 23 MR. HOUSE: That would obviously depend on the waste 4
| |
| 24 form. Those two isotopes for standard processed waste streams 25 coming from a power plant would be in the range of half the Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| \ (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 425 13 1 curies.
| |
| (,j 2 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 3 MR. HOUSE: The waste shipment and inspection system 4 and program there at the site is a dual program performed by 5 Chem-Nuclear and by the state radiological health folks. The 6 governing body is South Carolina Department of Health and 7 Environmental Control, and we call them-DEHC.
| |
| O We inspect the shipments upon arrival to the U.S.
| |
| 9 DOT requirements, and we evaluate the paperwork to ensure that 10 those aspects of documentation are aquared away. This is a 11 shipment inspection before receipt into the disposal facility.
| |
| 12 We also have individual container inspection programs that we 13 can discuss when you folks are there.
| |
| () 14 There are three trench designs that we are currently 15 using now. The state as well as ourselves inspect these 16 trenches throughout their construction and use at the site.
| |
| 17 We get their permission to use each trench before we bury any 18 waste.
| |
| 19 As you know from seeing the film and so forth, waste 20 packages are neatly stacked and we have provided for continual 21 backfill and trench capping as an ongoing process.
| |
| 22 We have the site monitoring programs, obviously 23 being operational health physics, trench construction and 24 operation, and I'll talk briefly about the environmental 25 monitoring programs in just a minute.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| 426
| |
| () 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Do you have any problems with 2 animals, rodents?
| |
| 3 MR. HOUSE: None at all. In our environment there 4 is not that type of animal, per se, and we do have a six foot 5 chain link fence around the facility. Most of the facility is 6 now cleared of the original pine forest that was there, and 7 there's very few if any animals that are left.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 9 MR. HOUSE: The site closure, we still consider even 10 though we have a plan developed that's been revised twice 11 since the operation of the facility started, we do consider 12 it, closure, as an ongoing activity. We close each trench 13 when it's completed. We have provided for the general
| |
| () 14 topography that will remain at the site at closure, and we 15 work towards attaining those closure grades and so forth 16 throughout the operations.
| |
| 17 We had an extensive discussion this morning about 18 environmental monitoring programs for low-level waste sites.
| |
| 19 We have by definition broken our monitoring programs into on-20 site radiological monitoring programs and environmental 21 monitoring progre.ms. That is obviously from the boundary out.
| |
| 22 It is the environmental monitoring. And within the trench 23 areas we have a monitoring program, the on-site program.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You have a laboratory? Or do you 25 have a contractor?
| |
| ~N Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| ($d (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 427
| |
| () 1 MR. HOUSE: We have a laboratory on-site. It is 99 2 percent dedicated to the analysis of samples from that site.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Do yon collect a common sample 4 and split it with the state?
| |
| 5 MR. HOUSE: We have the system established and we do 6 do that. They do not get a split of each sample that we 7 collect, but programs are established and we do perform those 8 splits.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 10 MR. HOUSE: We also have, the key area of monitoring 11 is the ground water. We have over 90 ground water monitoring 12 wells within the trench areas and within the site, and we have 13 90 some-odd wells that are off-site that we sample. Wells and
| |
| () 14 water sample points I should say.
| |
| 15 MR. SMITH: That's over how many acres?
| |
| 16 MR. HOUSE: The site itself?
| |
| 17 MR. SMITH: Yes.
| |
| 18 MR. HOUSE: The site is about 235 acres, and we have 19 used about 65 acres for the burial trenches. We do maintain a 20 buffer zone of 100 feet, and that comprises about 37 acres.
| |
| 21 MR. CARTER: Bill, have you ever measured any 22 radionuclides attributable to the site and the off-site area, i 23 for example, in-ground water such as tritium?
| |
| 24 MR. HOUSE: No, not in the off-site areas.
| |
| 25 MR. CARTER: What about on the site itself?
| |
| rm Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| (_) (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 428
| |
| ()' 1 MR. HOUSE: On the site itself we have seen an 2 increase in tritium concentrations in some on-site wells that 3 are adjacent to some burial trenches. Obviously we're closely 4 watching that.
| |
| 5 MR. FOSTER: Have you seen anything besides tritium?
| |
| 6 MR. HOUSE: No sir, not outside the trenches.
| |
| 7 CHAIRMIN MOELLER: And the tritium, of course, again 8 has a ten year half life, so it's going down, and it's also 9 quite abundant in nature anyway.
| |
| 10 MR. HOUSE: And more abundant in some areas of the 11 country than others.
| |
| 12 In addition to tha radiological monitoring programs, 13 we have a system that evaluates each trench area before we're r~s 14 allowed to construct a trench. This covers two key points,
| |
| (_)
| |
| 15 the evaluation of the soils in that particular area performed 16 by, or analyzed by actually taking core samples, and also we 17 evaluate to ensure that we can maintain the proper ground 18 water separation from the bottom of the trench to the top of 19 the ground water. Within that as a system of inspections 20 through ourselves and the state agency to ensure that we have 21 a good trench.
| |
| 22 Just a couple of other comments on the master core 23 project you see there in the geological model. We are 24 developing a three-dimensional flow model with actual data 25 from this master core project, and we have in place, if you Heritage Reporting Corporation (w)
| |
| (_ (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 429 O(_) 1 will, a two-dimensional transport model, and working on a 2 three-dimensional transport model. This master core project 3 was the installation of three deep wells down to the regional 4 aquifer in the area. It is helping us define and confirm the 5 hydrologic boundaries of the site area.
| |
| 6 MR. CARTER: Can I ask you a couple-of questions 7 about the geology? The site proper now that you have either 8 used or will use for trenches or for burial per se, what kind 9 of variability do you have? Is it fairly uniform? Or is 10 there a significant variability in the soil composition?
| |
| 11 MR. HOUSE: Well, it's kind of like a lot of other 12 things, it's uniform to an extent, but the closer you look the 13 more gray areas you see, so to speak. The geology in general
| |
| () 14 is an overburdened sand layer and either clayey sands or sandy 15 clays below that. We just typically call it clay. We have a 16 staff geologist that is on our staff and he'll certainly be 17 willing to talk about the unified soil classification system 18 with you when you come down.
| |
| 19 MR. CARTER: What about the cap material which is 20 clay, I presume? Is it obtained o.' &he site i*self?
| |
| 21 MR. HOUSE: All of the materials we use are native 22 to the site.
| |
| 23 Any more questions on the site itself? I would like 24 touch on a few other things that we hope to show you folks 25 when you come down that are more a part of Chem-Nuclear as a Heritage Reporting Corporation O(> (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| 430 l
| |
| (_ 1 service company rather than a disposal, waste management 2 company. Is there anything else I could comment on as far as 3 the site?
| |
| 4 MR. KATHREN: What sorts of tritium have you see on 5 the site compared with the background levels?
| |
| 6 MR. HOUSE: I would prefer to have the overview of 7 that whole system explained at the site by the experts there.
| |
| 8 MR. SMITH: When the Director of the South Carolina 9 Bureau was talking he responded to a question by saying that 10 that site was due to close in 19937 11 MR. HOUSE: That's correct.
| |
| 12 MR. SMITH: Then what happens?
| |
| 13 MR. HOUSE: Then what happens to the site?
| |
| 14 MR. SMITH: No, what happens with respect to low-15 level waste disposal in South Carolina.
| |
| 16 MR. HOUSE: The Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments 17 Act set up a system of compacting throughout the country where 18 compacts would be, states could group up. North Carolina has 19 been designated as the host state for the new Southeast 20 Compact site.
| |
| 21 MR. SMITH: So when youro is filled, then South 22 Carolina and everybody will go to North Carolina, is that it?
| |
| 23 MR. HOUSE: That's corre :t. That is the intent.
| |
| 24 MR. SMITH: And they' re moving along? I mean it 25 looks like they're going to be in operation in 19927 Heritage Roporting Corporation
| |
| ('s~} (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 431
| |
| () 1 MR. HOUSE: I can't say that, but they are certainly 2 making progress, and they have started some general sito, some 3 of the site selection processes to narrow down the-state area.
| |
| 4 They're about to come out with an RFP for a site 5 developer / operator.
| |
| 6 MR. SMITH: So they're just really getting started.
| |
| 7 MR. HOUSE: Yes. Well they've done a lot of the leg 8 work, if you will. They have regulations established for the 9 characterization and operation of the site, and they're making 10 some physical progreas also.
| |
| 11 MR. SMITH: Thank you.
| |
| 12 MR. PARRY: I understand from a technical paper by 13 Mr. Evenhack who is a Vice President of the organization that
| |
| () 14 in fact the site will not be filled and would not be filled in 15 '92. There would still be capacity, is that correct?
| |
| 16 MR. HOUSE: That is correct. We have quite a bit 17 more property if you consider the 240 acres minus the 40 give 18 or take for the buffer zone. We've. knocked out ten or fifteen 19 for operational areas. We've used 65 acres for trenches.
| |
| 20 Mathematically there's roughly 100 acres that are potentially 21 able to have trenches.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 23 I think that wraps up that portion, so go ahead.
| |
| 24 MR. HOUSE: Okay. As you know, Chem-Nuclear Systems 25 is also a service company to the nuclear power industry. We
| |
| (~% Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 432 1 have formed a partnership with Gezelsheft Nuclear Services of 1( )
| |
| 2 Germany known as GNS, and the partnership company is General 3 Nuclear Services, Incorporated. We are the supplier of the 4 Castor 5 Series dry storage spent fuel casks. We also have an 5 extensive low-level waste transportation cask fleet. We have 6 casks under 15 different certificates issued by the 7 transportation branch of the NRC. Most of those are 8 obviously Type A casks, upwards to four dozen Type A casks and 9 six Type B casks.
| |
| 10 We also provide waste services mainly to nuclear 11 power plants in the way of solidification or stabilization. ,
| |
| 12 We have a waste certification program and testing facilities 13 at our Barnwell location to test waste forms to meet the
| |
| () 14 branch technical position on waste form put out by the NRC.
| |
| 15 We are a supplier of disposable containers to the 16 nuclear industry. Two generic types are steel containers ,
| |
| 17 which are standard containers used inside of transport casks, 18 and high integrity containers, high density polyethylene being 19 the key material. Chem-Nuclear does not construct the liners 20 themselves, however we do install the internals in the way of 21 filter arrays, piping systems, mixing equipment, and so forth.
| |
| 22 We also add the lip-in devices and baskets to the outside and 23 we have an extensive inspection program for ourselves and for 24 the fabricators that we use that supply these containers.
| |
| 2 25 One key aspect of the high integrity container, Heritage Reporting Corporation s (202) 628-4888 r--~. -. . - -
| |
| | |
| 433
| |
| ) 1
| |
| ~
| |
| testing high integrity containers, is the up front testing
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 that was performed for the high density polyethylene. Those 3 two key tests that were performed were compression tests and 4 drop tests on actual containers that we use and the designs 5 that we have now.
| |
| 6 Another area of waste processing is dewatering.
| |
| 7 Filter media is allowed to be buried at the Barnwell site in a 8 dewatered state, and we have equipment capable of performing 9 these functions at nuclear power plants.
| |
| 10 This is a new system I have noted here, this rapid 11 dewatering system. It is the second generation, if you will, 12 and it is set up to shorten the dewatering time at a nuclear 13 power plant, and just make things overall more efficient.for
| |
| ( 14 the waste processing.
| |
| 15 In the interest of time I'll just leave things as 16 that and ask for any comments?
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any more quest).ons or comments 18 for Bill? ;
| |
| 19 MR. STEINDLER: Do you, when you receive a shipment 20 on the site open up that shipment for a grab sample of 21 contents?
| |
| 22 MR. HOUSE: We have inspection programs to check the 23 waste form if you will and the physical form of the materials.
| |
| 24 We do not take grab samples for radiological analyses. We are 25 dependent upon the waste shipper to provide accurate Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i 434
| |
| () 1 information in that respect.
| |
| 2 MR. STEINDLER: So when you talk about methods of 3 determining something about the waste form, that's done 4 externally by non-destructive methods? Is that what you're 5 saying?
| |
| 6 MR. HOUSE: We have a liner puncture device, if you
| |
| ' will, and we can puncture a container, check for free standing 8 liquids, and generally check for physical characteristics of 9 the waste form.
| |
| 10 MR. STEINDLER: What do you do with the punctured 11 liner?
| |
| 12 MR. HOUSE: We can plug the hole by adequate means, 13 either wooden dowels or plastic dowels and other things to
| |
| () 14 maintain its integrity as a strong, tight container which is 15 the key requirement for any containers other than a high 16 integrity container.
| |
| 17 We have tested a few high integrity containers. To 18 my knowledge, those containers that we have punctured were 19 used by the shipper for free standing liquid requirements and 20 did not actually require, the waste itself did not actually 21 require it to be in the high integrity container.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Other comments?
| |
| 23 MR. FOSTER: In your environmental monitoring 24 program, are the radionuclides that you look for at all 25 influenced by what you think is being put into the site?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 435 1 MR. HOUSE: Yes sit.
| |
| 2 MR. FOSTER: How do you do this?- Do you look at the 3 inventory of the materials which are being shipped in? Or 4 would you anticipate it and then say we're going to look for 5 strontium and cobalt?
| |
| : 6 MR. HOUSE: Historically we know the more 7 significant isotopes that we're receiving. I guess from the 8 environmental monitoring development standpoint we started 9 locally and said we have to assess the environment in any 10 potential radioactivity, and we worked down from there. As '
| |
| 11 _much as we could eliminate either sample points or sample .
| |
| 12 methods or in the types of analyses or specific analyses, we 13 have done so in concert with the state.
| |
| () 14 MR. FOSTER: About how many different radionuclides i
| |
| 15 are specifically analyzed for at this point?
| |
| 16 MR. HOUSE: I'm not sure. Dr. Mike nyan will have 17 that information and he'll be able to talk to you. We do have ;
| |
| 18 to use a lot of screening techniques. The comment this 19 morning concerning gross alpha / beta analyses, we use that as a 20 screening technique more or less, and if it's very low total 21 gross alpha you can reasonably expect that there is no 22 specific isotope with significant concentrations.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Other questions?
| |
| 24 (No response) 25 CRAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you, and we look forward to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 436
| |
| () 1 seeing you in a couple of weeks.
| |
| 2 MR. HOUSE: We're glad to have you come down.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We'll move to our last 4 presentation which is by R. Voit with LN Technologies.
| |
| 5 MR. VOIT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
| |
| 6 My name is Regan Voit. I'm the Vice President of 7 Operations for LN Technologies.
| |
| 8 The first thing I want to alert you all to when you 9 come down to visit is to please be prepared for the heat, 10 because it's going to be about the worst time of year to come 11 to our fine state. It's going to be very warm and humid, so 12 please dress comfortably when you come to the facility. Our 13 shop area is not air conditioned, although our conference room
| |
| () 14 is, so part of the day will be uncomfortable, and part will be 15 comfortable.
| |
| 16 I have an agenda today, I've been asked to briefly 17 discuss with you what we have planned for your visit. I have 18 taken, I brought along the agenda for that visit that I'll go 19 through briefly, and please, if there's anything that you want 20 to talk about or see down there that's not on the agenda, I 21 will be happy to revise that.
| |
| 22 You'll be in Aiken the day before, and it's really 23 about an hour and a half drive from your hotel to our 24 facility, so I've chosen a 9:30 time to start. If you want to 25 start earlier, I'll leave that up to you. We're there at 8:00 Heritage Reporting Corporation O- (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 437
| |
| () 1 'o' clock and we'll be ready at any time.
| |
| 2 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well we may arrive a little 3 earlier, if that's convenient.
| |
| 4 MR. VOIT: That is very convenient. We'll be 5 prepared for you whenever we get there.
| |
| 6 Gerry Motl, the President, will start off giving a 7 brief introduction and a brief history of our company because 8 we just recently went through a merger, and therefore, there 9 does seem to be some confusion as to things we've done in the 10 past under a different name and whether we're all the same 11 people. The answer is yes, but if you know a little of the 12 history and you read papers from the past, you'll recognize us 13 as all the same company.
| |
| () 14 After that, I would like to give a brief overview of 15 all our services to you, and I'll start that out through a 16 slide presentation with photographs of equipment and operation 17 and some flow diagrams to give you an understanding of what 18 our services are in the rad waste business. We do provide 19 cement solidification services. We provide a dewatering 20 system for dewatering sludges at the nuclear power plant 21 sites. This TRANSFIX terminology is a filtration ion exchange 22 service for water purification and decontamination.
| |
| 23 We are also in the rad waste transportation 24 business. We do have shipping casks and trailers and 25 tractors, and we'll be able to show you some of that Heritage Reporting Corporation C)g (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 438
| |
| () 1 equipment. We have some mobile decontamination trailers for 2 decontaminating small components of scrap material that is 3 contaminated with fix and loose contamination. And we do 4 provide high integrity containers. We have different high 5 integrity containers up for review for licensing.
| |
| 6 After that, I would ask Paul Denault who is our 7 Director of Chemical Decontamination Services to give a brief 8 overview of the chemical decontamination area because there 9 has been some discussions in the recent past, even in front of 10 this group, about the LOMI and CANDECON decontamination 11 techniques in the plants, and it would be good, I think, for 12 you to have some background on that. The waste processing of 13 the waste resins that come from chemical decontamination, so
| |
| () 14 you'll have a brief discussion of that.
| |
| 15 Then we'd like to demonstrate some things for you 16 that I think will help you have a good understanding of what 17 actually happens in the field during a waste processing 18 scenario.
| |
| 19 One thing we want to do is in the cement 20 solidification area, is to prepare a small PCP test 21 solidification in a cup. This will be done exactly the way it 22 would be done at a nuclear power plant on actual waste, and 23 we'll do it on some bead resins so you'll get to see that 24 approach as taken there.
| |
| 25 We also have a small scale working model, I hesitate Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 439 O
| |
| \_) 1 to call it a model. It's just a small scale concept 2 demonstration of a dewatering concept that was developed by 3 Stock Equipment Company and my company together in which we 4 dewater sludge material at nuclear power plant sites. We will 5 do that table top demonstration, and also we have a full _ scale 6 video of a full scale dewatering of this same material, and I 7 think that will be of interest.
| |
| 8 After that, we'll take a short break and I would 9 like to discuss some what I'll call regulatory issues and 10 status. The 10 CFR 61 waste form testing I know is a subject 11 that this committee is reviewing, and I'd like to present to 12 you at our meeting in Columbia where we stand on the waste 13 form testing program and what some of the concerns and issues O 14 are on the subject from our point of view as a supplier and a
| |
| (_/
| |
| 15 company trying to comply with the Branch Technical Position in 16 the 10 CFR 61 regulation.
| |
| 17 On high integrity containers, we currently have a 18 high integrity container design being evaluated by the NRC and 19 what I'd like to do in Columbia is to give you the background 20 of my company's experience with high integrity containers and 21 where we currently are with our product for a high integrity 22 container.
| |
| 23 Another regulatory issue status subject that I 24 haven't heard this committee getting involved with yet, but it 25 might be something you do get involved with in the future, is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
| |
| | |
| i i
| |
| 440
| |
| () 1 a proposed rule change concerning radioactive _ waste shipping 2 casks and an effort to bring our current regulations in full 3 compliance with the IAEA regulations. That proposed rule 4 change will, in my opinion and my company's opinion, have a 5 significant effect on the industry as far as the-types of 6 casks that are going to be necessary. A lot of the fleets of casks that we have now will become obsolete and we'd like to 8 just discuss some of our comments on that particular issue.
| |
| 9 After that, we'll go and face the heat and we'll 10 take a walk through the facility. We have a lot of things 11 that physically seeing is worth a thousand words, and I think 12 on the high integrity containers we do have at least one 13 Barrier 55, small 55 gallon drum, polyethylene high integrity
| |
| () 14 container left. This is the one that we removed from the 15 market two years ago. We have a large polyethylene high 16 integrity liner size container. And we have one of the actual 17 containers that we did all the drop testing and testing on for 18 the new design that we have. It's not as pretty as it was 19 before it was dropped, but it is still there to see the 1
| |
| 20 concept of the design.
| |
| 21 We'll have shipping casks available, perhaps even 22 have one open so you can look inside of it. We'll have 23 components of a solidification unit available for you to look 24 at, but there won't be one fully set up. And we have 25 solidification liners, I know you folks have seen the TMI l
| |
| l Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| 441
| |
| () 1 video and seen a liner from the outside. Most liners are very 2 similar from all the vendors, and we'll have this open and 3 you'll get a chance to look at the mixing blades and how these 4 things are constructed.
| |
| 5 We all have a, in the afternoon there's scheduled a 6 meeting at South Carolina DHEC and what we have srranged to do 7 is to have lunch catered at our facility so that if we run 8 over or if timing is a problem we're not going to the public 9 meeting without having something in our stomachs.
| |
| 10 That's what the plan is. If there are any questions 11 or if there is something else that I've left off that you'd 12 like me to address --
| |
| 13 MR. CARTER: Just sort of a historical one. How
| |
| () 14 long has your company been in business?
| |
| 15 MR. VOIT: January 4, 1982 was the first official 16 starting of our company. So about six years, six and a half 17 years.
| |
| 18 MR. SMITH: That's an ambitious schedule, and I 19 presume you' re going to have someone that's going to keep it 20 moving along, because I can see on some of those things where 4
| |
| 21 you'll have 20 minutes allowed and you're going to try to 22 cover three things.
| |
| 23 MR. VOIT: Yes, I think some of these discussions 24 can be shortened, come of the introductory things and so 25 forth. And I would say this. I would encourage you to come w Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| g . _ - - _ _ - - - - - _ - - _
| |
| 442
| |
| () 1 early if you can. I know you have a drive ahead of you, I 2 know you had a big day before, so I set this up for 9:30 to 3- 1:15, but if you show up early, we definitely can get started 4 early and I think it would be helpful.
| |
| 5 MR. PARRY: I'd like to remind us that there are 6 limitations as to matters that can be discussed in what are 7 not public circumstances. I'll provide background information 8 for the members on that. Again, we will be having a further 9 discussion in public at the DHEC facilities where some 10 questions that might be more appropriately discussed will be 11 handled.
| |
| 12 HR. VOIT: And there will be further discussion in 13 the afternoon as well as what, so I think it will be important
| |
| () 14 to see what we have to see in the morning and not get bogged 15 down too much on the details.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And in terms of administrative 17 details and conflicts of interent, we will enjoy a catered 18 lunch, but you should determine how much it costs and we will 19 reimburse you.
| |
| 20 MR. VOIT: Jack had made that comment to me and we 21 will arrange it such that it will be on a per person basis, 22 and that will be easily handled.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
| |
| 24 Any other questions or comments?
| |
| 25 (No response)
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation [
| |
| O (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 443
| |
| () 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you, we look forward-to it.
| |
| 2 MR. VOIT: We look forward to you coming.
| |
| 3 MR. STEINDLER: If you could hold off the rain, we 4 sure would appreciate it.
| |
| 5 MR. VOIT: Hold off the rain?
| |
| , 6 MR. STEINDLER: Yes, at least while we're sloshing 7 around outside.
| |
| 8 MR. VOIT: That's your problem down at Barnwell.
| |
| 9 Everything is paved in Columbia.
| |
| 10 (Laughter) 11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: With that, I'll declare that our 12 formal, or- the formal portion of our second ACNW meeting is 13 being brought to a close. We will go into executive session,
| |
| () 14 and during that executive session we have two items of 15 business to accomplish. One is to go over the drafts of our 16 letters to resolve any questions that exist on them, and then 17 hopefully we'll have some time to look at an agenda for the 18 September and November meetings.
| |
| 19 With that, we are adjourned to our executive 20 session.
| |
| 21 (Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.)
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888 ;
| |
| w n9- , -w,- ,- , . -,,-m ,- . - - - - - _ , -
| |
| ---en -
| |
| | |
| 1 CERTIFICATE 2
| |
| -() 3 This.is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
| |
| 5 flame: Advisory, Committee on Nuclear Waste
| |
| {
| |
| 5 7 Docket Numbers g/A 8 Place: Washington, D.C.
| |
| 9 Date: 22 July 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
| |
| rik n a l' . kdedAmt4V Q 16 /S/
| |
| ALAN K. FRIEDLAN 17 (signature typed):
| |
| 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| ([) (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| , O REPROulLGATON OF 40 CFR 3 ART 191 SLBPART B i !
| |
| Briefing "or !
| |
| N RC's Advisory Commi': tee on Nuc ear Waste O
| |
| l tuly 22,1988 l
| |
| l -
| |
| Dan Egan Ray Clark FTS 475-9633 1
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| . . . . . . _ . = . - . - . .- . .. ..-
| |
| i EPA ROLE in <
| |
| i O NATIONAL WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAMS .
| |
| t' Congress mandated standards by
| |
| : January 1984 in NWPA of 1982 l 4 :
| |
| Role unchanged by NWPAA of 1987 (Senate version had new date)
| |
| O .
| |
| NM/ooE agreement for WIPP relies on
| |
| : 40 CFR 191 i
| |
| Domenici/Bingamon WIPP bill mandates promulgation in 3 years
| |
| | |
| t SSU ES in J EV E _0 3 NG O
| |
| 3 RO 30S E J RU _E 4
| |
| Need for qualitative "assurance requirements" "assurance requirements" Time frame for limiting releases (10,000 years)
| |
| O
| |
| * Level f Pr te ti n ff rded P Pulations (SAB review)
| |
| Need for individual exposure limitations (NAS report)
| |
| Potential for DOE "special problems" with defense wastes O
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| 3 RO v U _GA~ O s of 40 C 7R '9' :
| |
| O ,
| |
| i NWPA deadline of January 1984 missed NRDC sued EPA to force promulgation EPA and NRDC agreed to promulgation date f August 15,1985 O
| |
| EPA, DOE, NRC consensus reached for final rule Promulgated on August 15,1985 O ,
| |
| m"+v v ,- w-s--...-g. w- ,+we <,,we- .-+w-,,me.-
| |
| | |
| 40 CFR PART 191 -
| |
| O.
| |
| Subpart A - Management and Storage Subpart B - Disposal 191.13 Containment Requirements 191.14 - Assurance Requirements 191.15 - Individual Profection Requirements
| |
| =Q - 191.16 - Ground Water Protection Requirements 1.91.17 - Alternative Provisions O
| |
| | |
| 4 z.0 C R 9' O '
| |
| . VAC A- E J AN J R Eb/ A N J E J U.S. Court of Appeals for 1 st Circuit, July 14,1987:
| |
| Arbitrary and Capricious
| |
| - Individual protection inconsistent with SDWA UIC 1,000 year duration for 191.15 and ;
| |
| and 191.16 not justified "Inadequate Noticc and Comment" For ground water classification and protection O
| |
| pW-e-r- +--aw-g m---- -mm -e -e-w-.
| |
| # N J 3 -- ---,*- w-._--w-.e -+w- 3-y e'ae--w-M e -rg ws--ry w --wy 9-,-p,--- 1 y a-g-w9,v----*q ,
| |
| p-y- y
| |
| | |
| l r
| |
| . RE 3 RO v U G A-~ Os O SU33AR~~ B O
| |
| Establish that HLW and TRU disposal is not covered by UIC Review international long-lived waste disposal policies Consider a range of options for
| |
| - individual protection levels ground water classifications
| |
| - time frames for individual and ground water protection 1
| |
| O A _..-,--,-r--.. ---.-e-- - , .,. -.- -- ~ =*- +
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| :t RE 3 RO v U _Gd-~ O N Or S U B 3 A T~ B O .
| |
| (c o n -in u ec )
| |
| l Assess consistency with NESHAPS, LLW, UMTRCA standards Review NRC implementation of Assurance Requirements O
| |
| ,,eview NRC definition of "high-level waste" re NWP A L
| |
| O l
| |
| | |
| J-
| |
| + .
| |
| lAEA STANDARDS
| |
| .O~
| |
| Consistent with regard to EPA Assurance Requirements Quantitative Disposal Standards based on annual dose to individuals of the "critical group"
| |
| :O Individual doses would be limited for an indefinitely long time and for accidental exposures (probabilistically weighted) i a
| |
| O :
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| i,1 g.
| |
| ~
| |
| ANALYTICAL EFFORTSL O
| |
| e 6
| |
| Project. ground water concentrations and individual exposures for Yucca Mountain site Performance assessments for WIPP site 4
| |
| i Interactions with DOE "Technical Review O. Group" m
| |
| i s
| |
| : O.
| |
| | |
| o 3
| |
| NRC STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE O ACNW
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORIliG OF LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES: Draft Branch Technical Position DATE: July 22, 1988 PRESENTER: Dr. R. John Starmer Q PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH DIV.: Section Leader / Technical Branch / Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning
| |
| , PRESENTER'S NRC TEL NO.: 492-0589 SUBCOMMITTEE: ACNW TO BE USED ALL PRESENTATIONS TO THE ACNW BY NRC EMPLOYEES O
| |
| O b
| |
| | |
| O O O DIVISION OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING DRAFT BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION PAPER ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES ACNW Briefing July 22, 1988
| |
| | |
| I l 0 0 i
| |
| i i
| |
| l l
| |
| DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
| |
| - Collection, onelysis, and interpretation of radiological, chemical, physical, biotic, and other data in the environs of a disposal facility to evaluate its performance during all phases of operation.
| |
| | |
| : O o ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REQUIREM ENTS 10 CFR 61.12 (1) A monitoring program to provide data to evoluote potential health and environmental impacts and a plan for taking corrective action
| |
| .: 10 CFR 61.53 Preoperational data collection, plans for corrective measures, and monitoring during constructic n. i erotions and post closure to r>rovide early warning of releases i
| |
| | |
| i O .
| |
| O O
| |
| ! Sp i
| |
| f i
| |
| i THE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING BTP DOES NOT ADDRESS:
| |
| --> Monitoring for protection of workers during site operations in accordance with 10 CFR 61.43.
| |
| l
| |
| --> Monitoring waste containers, equipment, materials and
| |
| { support facilities in accordance with 10 CFR 20.
| |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 m
| |
| w .-- s t
| |
| | |
| O O O PRINCIPAL PATHWAYS TO BE MONITORED
| |
| --> Ground Water
| |
| --> Soil
| |
| --> Surf ace Water
| |
| --> Strea m Sediment
| |
| - - > Air
| |
| --> Flora and Fauna l
| |
| | |
| O M
| |
| A R
| |
| G O
| |
| R P
| |
| G N
| |
| I R
| |
| O T
| |
| I N _
| |
| O _
| |
| M _
| |
| L _
| |
| A e _
| |
| T e s .
| |
| N s a a h E h e P M P s -
| |
| a g N h O O R i g
| |
| n P i n
| |
| r I r g o V t o n t
| |
| i N i i r n E n o o o t M N M i n l A l o a a M n F n o O i o l a
| |
| i t
| |
| t n a S a r r o e E e i
| |
| t p S p a o A o r t H e e s r p o P P O P R
| |
| O > > >
| |
| J A - - -
| |
| M - - -
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| O O O PREOPERATIONAL MONITORING PHASE Major goal - Provide basic environ mental data -
| |
| on the disposal site cha racteristics adequate to define seasonal changes (1 O CFR 61.53a).
| |
| Time Period -
| |
| Preoperational monitoring begins when all monitoring facilities are operating concurrently, for a minimum of twelve months.
| |
| l Secondary Goal -
| |
| Define action level concentrations above which additional monitoring or other action is req uired.
| |
| l u _.
| |
| | |
| O O O J
| |
| l x
| |
| 64 ! ';
| |
| 1
| |
| : OPERATIONAL MONITORING PHASE Major Goal, -
| |
| To detect releases of constituents from the disposal area before they leave the site boundary to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 61.40. Emphasizes short-term releases caused by accident and/or disposal
| |
| ! unit failure.
| |
| i Time Period - Operational phase starts at ground-
| |
| ; breaking and ends at termination of waste handling.
| |
| 1 1
| |
| | |
| O -
| |
| n o
| |
| s i -
| |
| t t y et a s E r maizs n n o S od ad e
| |
| i mp A f r n i r ,
| |
| H uh pc c e e r
| |
| s o t P t b n ma t u
| |
| s e e E d a o G ut i e s c l
| |
| N t i s .t a
| |
| t s eO s i p t r I
| |
| a hgd R n ot h P c t s u o O c i
| |
| t or r
| |
| i T
| |
| I f e e vh n
| |
| a .
| |
| e sht e
| |
| p -
| |
| t o a t ni a N n h e O sl eht u u p es ra e i y t M s ywb l i c r a c a e a O L l eht e c os e c e p n e op m r
| |
| A r e n s s i
| |
| t o e r a ui a N t r d t
| |
| cf oiad e n -
| |
| l O p c p g I e e f a n T t b m s o o e o e t , o A d a c s e s g o n l
| |
| R ore e a r Pi o E T at l el ui l
| |
| d t
| |
| n P l ae a r r f - ni O - at ad s s l d h n T l a o p n
| |
| or ma u o a S r te i
| |
| o ed O G s mt a e s e r
| |
| P a i
| |
| d e - r P r d g g w u
| |
| s j
| |
| o e n r e o _
| |
| a th t ool o i m f oc l _
| |
| M T .
| |
| O
| |
| ! ! ;: 1
| |
| | |
| O O- O 4
| |
| j QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
| |
| +
| |
| Background - 10 CFR 61.12(j) requires applicant to describe the Quality Control Progra m. Quality Assurance is not required by 10 CFR Part 61.
| |
| Staff Position - Implementing a Quality Assurance Program is encumbent upon the applicant.
| |
| Justification - Implementation of an adequate Quality Assurance Program is necessary to ensure that the Quality i Control Program is maintained during characterization of the site and throughout facility operation.
| |
| i t
| |
| | |
| COMM NTORS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff U.S. Fish and Wildlife (HQ and R8)
| |
| US Ecology i
| |
| Pacific Northwest Lab (under FIN B-2484)
| |
| Midwest Compact Commission 1
| |
| Chem-Nuclear Systems DOE / idaho National Engineering Labs U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Envrion mental Protection Agency
| |
| 'I Georgio Power Company Indiana State Board of Health i
| |
| California Dept. of Health Services Washington Dept. of Ecology I
| |
| | |
| O O O i
| |
| l SUMMAMY OF COMMENTS ON
| |
| ; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION DESCRIPTION OF COMMENT NUMBER Orte-year wf monitoring is inadequate to define baseline 21 conditions for setting action levels Technical comments on frequency of sampling, number of 32 monitoring stations and general lack of specificity General clarity of definitions and consistency of terminology 22 l
| |
| i NRC roles and authcrity for requiring nonradiologiool monitoring 14 1
| |
| t Phase-out of postoperational monitoring programs 9
| |
| ; Unclear objectives for mor.itoring 3 Miscellaneous 17 TOTAL --> 124 i
| |
| L.
| |
| 4 e
| |
| | |
| O . O O PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION
| |
| --> Incorporate the comments into the final version to the extent possible.
| |
| --> Include references and bibliographies from NUREG/CR-5054 to be used by applicants os additional guidance.
| |
| --> Discussion of Environmental Monitoring at disposal facilities using alternative disposal technologies, concentrating on substantive differences with monitoring i at conventional shallow-land burial sites.
| |
| i
| |
| --> Include specific definitions for hozordous and 4
| |
| nonhozordous wastes to reduce confusion by outside parties.
| |
| l s
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| i O O O
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF DISCUSSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION
| |
| --> NRC/LLWM staff has developed a technical position paper decling with environmental monitoring at LLW disposal facilities adequate to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Port 61.
| |
| --> The TP provides general guidance on concepts that should be considered when designing and implementing the monitoring program.
| |
| --> The TP is now in draft form, has been made available i
| |
| ; for public comment -- there are however, no plans to finalize the draft.
| |
| l l
| |
| l 1
| |
| l l
| |
| I l
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| O NRC STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE ACNW
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES DATE: JULY 22, 1988 JOSEFH 0. auNTING, aR.
| |
| PRESENTER:
| |
| O CHIEF, SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH DIV.: EVALUATION BRANCH, DIVISION OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT 301/492-3396 PRESENTER'S NRC TEL NO.:
| |
| SUBCOMMITTEE:
| |
| O TO BE USED AU. PRESENTATIONS TO THE ACNW 8Y NRC EMPLOYEES
| |
| //049
| |
| | |
| e 9 -
| |
| O O O OVERVIEW WHY AN FFRDC?
| |
| UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF AN FFRDC RESPONSIBILITIES OF SPONSOR SELECTION OF CONTRACTOR SCOPE OF WORK FOR YEAR 1 i
| |
| ACNW BRIEFING JULY 22, 1988
| |
| | |
| o o O INTRODUCTION 1 l
| |
| l
| |
| : 1. STAFF i Establish A Common Baseline (a) Why & How we came to Establish an FFRDC (b) Rights and Responsibilities that accrue to NRC (c) Technical Requirements for Year One
| |
| : 2. CENTER Status - What has been accomplished in first 9 months of Center's existence ACNW BRIEFING JULY 22, 1988
| |
| | |
| O O -
| |
| O k
| |
| * WHY AN FFRDC?
| |
| J I
| |
| i o ESTABLISH LEGAL AUU10RITY TO:
| |
| i i - PRECLUDE CONTRACTOR CONFLICT OF INTERE?T l
| |
| 9 9 (
| |
| ! - f.550RE LONG-TERM CONTINUITY OF CONTRACTED TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE 1
| |
| 1 1
| |
| i o AUTHORITY OBTAINABLE ONLY WITH FFRDC
| |
| ! i t
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l I
| |
| ACNW BRIEFING JULY 22, 1988 t
| |
| l .
| |
| i 3
| |
| , ..e r _
| |
| | |
| O O O UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FFRDC (CITED IN OMB 0FFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY (OFPP) LETTER 84-1 AND RFP)
| |
| ; o MANAGED AS NON-PROFIT AUTONOM0US UNIT j l l
| |
| l o MUSTREMAINFREEFROMCONFLkCTOFINTEREST o LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP EVIDENCED BY SPECIFIC AGREEMENT o CHARTER LIMITED TO AGENCY'S SPECIFIC NEEDS JULY 22, 1988 ACNW BRIEFING ,
| |
| | |
| O O O I
| |
| RESPONSIBILITIES OF FFRDC SPONSOR t
| |
| I (CITED IN OMB/0FPP POLICY LETTER 84-1) o DEVELOP LONG-TERM SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP I
| |
| j - PROVIDE CONTINUIT't h
| |
| - ATTRACT HIGH QUALITY PERSONNEL 4
| |
| i l
| |
| j o MUST ASSURE CONTINUITY IN LEVEL OF SUPPORT.
| |
| 1 0 CONTROL ACCESS TO THE FFRDC l
| |
| 1 I
| |
| q o PROVIDE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT j o PROVIDE SUFFICIENT GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL EXPERTISE.
| |
| i l -
| |
| i
| |
| \
| |
| i ACNW BRIEFING JULY 22, 1988 i . .
| |
| | |
| c O O O -
| |
| SELECTION OF CONTRACTOR o RFP published November 25, 1986 i
| |
| +
| |
| o Nine Proposals Received by RFP closing date February 10 1987 o Bidders were:
| |
| Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)
| |
| Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (IITRI)
| |
| MITRE Corporation OPW (A Consortium of Ohio State University, University of i
| |
| Pittsburgh, and West Virginia University) j -
| |
| Pennsylvania State University Colorado State University Research Foundation University of New Mexico Texas A & M University Research Foundation Nuclear Protection Systems. In c.
| |
| 1 i o Sdurce Evaluatic. - Panel with members from NMSS, RES, AEOD, OGC Contracts, and Controller Evaluated Proposals on Technical, j
| |
| Management, Cost, and Past Performance Criteria I
| |
| o SwRI, IITRI. MITRE were placed irt the C: mpetitive Range i
| |
| ! o After negotiations and B AFO 's . SwRI was awarded contract on j October 15, 1987 ACNW BRIEFINC JULY 22, 1988 s
| |
| L
| |
| | |
| O O O .
| |
| I PHASE-IN PLAN FOR CENTER 1
| |
| o START-UP EMPHASIZING CAREFUL PLANNING OF "PROACTIVE" WORK OVER FIRST YEAR i
| |
| o RELYPRINCIPALLYONNRCSTAFFANDEXISTiNGCONTRACTORSDURINGISTYEAR FOR "REACTIVE" WORK o CENTER WILL BE USEO WI.EREVER CvxRENT CONTRACTS ARE INADEQUATE o BY BEGINNING OF YEAR 4 PilASE-IN COMPLETE i
| |
| o TOTAL FFRDC PROGRAM:
| |
| , YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR S S YR TOTAL
| |
| $3.6M $7.2SM $10M $10.7M $11M $42.5M l
| |
| j l
| |
| a I
| |
| ACNW BRIEFING
| |
| * JULY 22, 1988 1
| |
| =
| |
| f .
| |
| | |
| e
| |
| * o o o i
| |
| l YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES i
| |
| l i
| |
| o Develop Program l
| |
| Archite cture Ll l
| |
| l l
| |
| o Research 1
| |
| i ACNW BRIEFING JULY 22, 1988 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| O O O i
| |
| l
| |
| : ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
| |
| ) CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES 4
| |
| AN OVERVIEW JULY 22,1988 l
| |
| l i
| |
| i 1
| |
| | |
| O O O I
| |
| l ESTABLISHMENT OF A FFRDC BY THE
| |
| ; NRC FULFILLS THREE PURPOSES ,
| |
| 4 l
| |
| l e AVOIDS CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST SITUATIONS l e PROVIDES LONG-TERM CONTINUITY IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND RESEARCH l! e PROV! DES A CENTRAL CAPABILITY FOR PERFORMING AND INTEGRATING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, l
| |
| l RESEARCH, AND INDEPENDENT REVIEW ACIVITIES RELATED TO ALL ASPECTS OF HLW LICENSING ,
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| ! O O O l
| |
| CENTER'S GENERAL OBJECTIVES i
| |
| * TO FUNCTION TIMELY AND COST EFFECTIVELY AS AN FFRDC OF THE NRC
| |
| !
| |
| * DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN HIGH LEVEL OF TECHNICAL
| |
| ! COMPETENCE
| |
| !
| |
| * PROVIDE EXPECTED TECHNICAL SUPPORT / TESTIMONY
| |
| , REGARDING NRC STAFF DECISIONS
| |
| !
| |
| * AID / FACILITATE STREAMLINING OF THE LICENSING PROCESS l BY REDUCING TECi>NICAL UNCERTAINTIES AND RESOLVE
| |
| ! COMPLIANCE ISSUES l e DEVELOP AND EVALUATE PERFORMANCE METHODOLOGIES IN SUPPORT OF COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION l
| |
| * IDENTIFY RESEARCH NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
| |
| * DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN EXPERT POLICY, SOCl0 ECONOMIC, I INSTITUTIONAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS i CAPABILITY l
| |
| | |
| ; O O O i
| |
| CENTER'S EARLY OBJECTIVES J
| |
| ! e FUNCTION PRO-ACTIVELY e DEVELOP TECHNICAL AND ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES
| |
| * DEVELOP CENTER'S MANAGEMENT PLAN
| |
| * DEVELOP CENTER'S 5-YEAR PLAN
| |
| ! 3 DEVELOP SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PLAN
| |
| * DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE FOR
| |
| ) NRC-HLW LICENSING PRACESS l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| O O O 4
| |
| i l CENTER'S FIRST YEAR TASKS l 1 DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE i
| |
| 1 A. DEVELOP COMPUTER CAPABILITY (HARDWARE /
| |
| SOFTWARE / PERSONNEL) AT CENTER I
| |
| ! 2. DEVELOP TECHNICAL AND ANALYTICAL CAPABILITY l 3. COORDINATE AND INTEGRATE INPUT TO CENTER'S 5-YEAR PLAN l
| |
| | |
| o O O i
| |
| 4 1
| |
| CENTER'S SECOND YEAR TASKS i
| |
| : 4. EVALUATE / DEVELOP PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT METHODG'0GIES l
| |
| : 5. COMMENCE TECHNICAL REVIEW i
| |
| : 6. CONTINUE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 4
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| ,c CNWRA PRESENT ORGAN ZAT ON NRC - HL W Martin Goland g.m.m
| |
| -.g..m
| |
| _hw._-.-.__. _
| |
| Anion E. Hon Progrenn Directeon V.P.SwCI j Manages, Instnute Quaesty Assurance John [.Lsta Preddent CNWRA Bruce Mabetto Dwector Quakey Assurance Robert E. Adler WastJngton Asustant e i Pressdent Henry F. Gasc6a Duetter Adannisstatiose l
| |
| Wessey C. Patssch Technstal Der ector I I Robert E. Adaer Asien R. Wtusing Rawtey Johnson Derector Derector Duetter Ottme of Potocy Reguamacey Waste Systems Information Management Analyus & Coorosnation Systems g Engineesang & Insegsahon l I I I I r
| |
| Rerhard Pierce Prasad Has John Hageman Bruce Me8wito
| |
| "***E Manager haansger Manager Manager Teanspoesat6on & Engineered Barrier R*Pository Des 6get Oualdy Assurance Specia4 Projects Systems 6*" N Construct 6on, Opereelon S4 Elements I
| |
| Research [8esnent I
| |
| | |
| O O O l
| |
| l l
| |
| CENTER MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR l
| |
| l DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF WORK l
| |
| contract Duecton p,,se 4 I
| |
| I Technical Dwector
| |
| ; Records /fk-ports /
| |
| j flesource OA financal anformaton Assgnrnents Et view c itesources J(
| |
| t
| |
| { Washington Of1(e
| |
| . I If )f l 9 iechnokgy Depa '.. ent flesource Technical i U N Assgn. I'r:ncpal Dwersson NRC Nuclear f Sut> contractors -
| |
| ) investgator (Task Specific) 4 > Proiev.I OII'cer 4> flegulatory Corrmssaan if brormtion
| |
| . E ncharge l
| |
| Ak j Records /
| |
| )I Reports / Technical 2
| |
| r.. naar Duecten biortnation llecordsfleports/
| |
| ) flecords lleports/
| |
| Inforrnatu2n i informaton i
| |
| Duector 4 Element %belennent
| |
| < SE&B y Manager l Tecbncal Coor<hnation and Integration
| |
| )
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| O O O KEY MILESTONES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CENTER o CONTRACT EXECUTED - 10/15/87 o EMPLACEMENT OF ORIGINAL CENTER CORE STAFF - 10/26/87 o POST-AWARD KICK-OFF MEETING - 10/26/87 o OPENED WASHINGTON OFFICE - 12/ 9/87 o APPROVAL FOR COMMENCEMENT OF WORK
| |
| ; - WASTE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING / INTEGRATION - 12/ 9/87
| |
| - EBS, GEOLOGICAL SETTING, QA, REPOSITORY DESIGN, SPECIAL PROJECT -- 12/11/87
| |
| - TRANSPORTATION RISK STUDY -
| |
| 1/12/88 o TRANSMITTAL OF FINAL OPERATIONS PLANS 1/15/88 o APPROVAL TO DEVELOP RESEARCH OPERATIONS PLAN -
| |
| 1/20/88
| |
| ; o SUBMITTED QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL -
| |
| 2/26/88 o TRANSMITTAL OF RESEARCH OPERATIONS PLAN -
| |
| 2/29/88
| |
| | |
| O O O KEY MILESTONES IN THE DEVELOPMENT
| |
| : OF THE CENTER LCONT'D?
| |
| o COMPLETED LITERATURE SEARCH FOR TRS -
| |
| 3/28/88 o SUBMISSION OF M.S.18 -
| |
| 4/20/88 (PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE PRELIMINARY DESIGN l
| |
| AND PASS-COMPUTER SUPPORT SYSTEMS PROTOTYPE)
| |
| ! o SUBMITTED CENTER'S ADP PLAN -
| |
| 5/24/88 o INITIATED TRANSFER OF CONVO COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION MODEL -
| |
| 5/26/88
| |
| ! o APPROVAL OF SEISMIC RESEARCH PROJECT PLAN -
| |
| 5/31/88 o APPROVAL OF INTEGRATED WASTE PACKAGE RESEARCH PROJECT PLAN -
| |
| 6/ 5/88 o COMPLETED NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY -
| |
| 6/15/88 o APPROVAL OF OVERALL RESEARCH PLAN -
| |
| 7/ 18 8 7/
| |
| o APPROVAL OF GEOCHEMISTRY RESEARCH PROJECT PLAN -
| |
| /88
| |
| ; o APPROVAL OF THERM 0 HYDROLOGY RESEARCH PROJECT PLAN -
| |
| 7/ /88 i
| |
| o EVALUATION / ENHANCEMENT PLAN OF CONVO MODEL -
| |
| 7/29/88
| |
| | |
| 4 0
| |
| o a =
| |
| I gm
| |
| .s 9 dsv gss a l5 b"M !c
| |
| !*g-l!g$5l E a g a ; s es
| |
| : I
| |
| @~!Eg e
| |
| m a
| |
| 8 e
| |
| 9 c
| |
| s w yB s gEaniW8 E m
| |
| a3l@-lr e m
| |
| G
| |
| * @ s 5P 5 g - Esi!Esesoglggsll$ , 3 c: = m g etNEE5fl ses elt a y c a = = =a n n ,
| |
| e a b I
| |
| n b$
| |
| . :E
| |
| * Eg S ads
| |
| *6 e - 3s @g ,$3eEE E b,* bb ! !
| |
| e !!g !@ E il !,
| |
| e e -
| |
| o e
| |
| l 3 !* cf !!.[!l]15
| |
| =E liip!b i o
| |
| +~ <
| |
| i : i Il. %ib
| |
| ~4~ !
| |
| i:p iii!!!!illiialli!!!
| |
| esesesis m atcse e n, @A% a en=u = =
| |
| 9 g
| |
| 65 m NhN 7 h {
| |
| t -
| |
| =
| |
| #A "
| |
| N
| |
| ^
| |
| cc-h hS g sig u e !
| |
| 8 a : iE*j g l b== -
| |
| 1=1 3
| |
| sensu Nh s-$g*gan
| |
| !sl sB8*8 $
| |
| =
| |
| __ s a ja e
| |
| $ 5 sgey B "
| |
| ^
| |
| l $ S
| |
| * 5 !sEE E
| |
| Sg54 $j$W 5
| |
| @f s a- ge sg!!h@hj;133ll 1 1 _
| |
| l # -
| |
| # = m
| |
| !$ I !E i t
| |
| +
| |
| t m si.
| |
| s ssnesagg e
| |
| owe ===www g2egg
| |
| - 8 5 s!-E$er o
| |
| = - [is 5!$555sie$$555$$$hdf
| |
| -~-aen . ~
| |
| 5E95
| |
| $5 V
| |
| | |
| 4 O O O CENTER STAFFING . .
| |
| DATE PROFESSIONAL CLERICAL OCTOBER 26,1987 11 1 JULY 22,1988 (NOW) 20 6 OCTOBER 14,1988 (PROJECTED) 21 8 OCTOBER 14,1989 (PROJECTED) 33-37 8 l ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
| |
| l POTENTIAL STAFF AT END OF FIRST 5 YEARS 65 TOTAL l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| . . . . - _ . . . . . - _ . . . _ . . ~ . . . - . _ _ _ - - . . . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ , _ . . _ . . . .
| |
| a
| |
| .s,
| |
| ~ 2 '\ .
| |
| < - C ', ~' ,. %
| |
| s ,y .
| |
| .. /
| |
| 1, J
| |
| i l
| |
| INTRENATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY DIVISION OF NUCLEAE FUEL CYCLE I
| |
| J d
| |
| l l
| |
| 4 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS FOR UNDEEGEOUND DISPOSAL OF HICH-LEVEL BAD 10 ACTIVE WASTES i
| |
| J l 0 a
| |
| j.
| |
| I
| |
| {
| |
| November 19si l
| |
| r i
| |
| l l
| |
| r
| |
| ?
| |
| l i
| |
| y .
| |
| | |
| O f
| |
| FOREWORD e
| |
| The IAEA Safety Standards for Underground Diposal of High-l.evel Radioactive Wastes have been pecpared with the object!ve of providing the Mesbar States with basic guidance on protection of humans and the environment from the hazards associated with deep scological disposal of high. level radioactive wastes.
| |
| As part of an extensive Agency's programmae in the. field of radioactive waste disposal, the present publication reflects the needs for basic standards dealing specifically with high-level wastes. It is primarily concerned with setting standards for ensuring that radioactive waste will remain isolated from people for a considerable period of time.
| |
| Txus, these basic esquirements sel. sing directly from radiation protection principles have been extended so as to deal with events and processes that can occur in the far future. However, technical esquirements regarding the waste, the repository and the sueecunding environs are also covered.
| |
| Since the main principles issue from activities carried out by other instructional bodies such as the International Cossaission on Radiological Protection, the p, resent document should be esen in the light of other recommendations of the ICRP and other Agency's publications closely reisted to the subject, above all the Basic Radiation Protection Standards. ;
| |
| -the necessity of a basic document in this area has been felt already for several years. To fulfil this task, the Agency esassured the previous activities of the ICRP and the OECD/NEA by developing this document. A first draft of the report was prepared in a consultant's meeting attended l by P. Johnston (UK) in 1985 and was revised in two Advisory Group meetings l in 1985 and 1986 and the Technical Review Connittee on Underground l Disposal (TBCUD) in 1987. The report was finalized by incorporation of l coussents received f rom the members of the Advisory Groups and TRCUD by a consultant (Z. Dlouhy) in 1985 and 1987.
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| 't -
| |
| )
| |
| 4
| |
| .t.
| |
| (
| |
| TABLE OF CONTEWTS i
| |
| : 1. lWTRODUCTION
| |
| : 2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
| |
| : 3. FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS 3.1 Responsibility to Future Generations 3.1.1 Standard No. 1: Burden on Future Generations 3.1.2 Standard No. 2: Independence of Safety from Institutional Control 3.1.3 Standard No. 3: Effects in the Future 3.1.4 Standard No. 4: Transboundary Considerations 3.2 Radiological Safety 3.2.1 Standard No. 5: Does Upper Bound 3.2.2 Standard No. 6: Risk Upper Bound
| |
| .3 Standard No. 7: Additional Radiological Safety 4 TECHNICAL STANDARDS 4.1 Standard No. 8: Overall Systems Approach 4.2 The Waste 4.2.1 Standard No. 9: Radionuclide Content i 4.2.2 Standard No. 10: Nuclear Criticality 4.2.3 Standard No. 11: The Waste Form 4.3 The Repository 4.3.1 Standard No. 12: Initial Period of Isolation 4.3.2 Standard No. 13: Repository Design and Construction 4.4 The Site 4.4.1 Standard No. 14: Site Geology 4.4.2 Standard No. l$: Consideration of Natural Rescueces O
| |
| | |
| . ~h
| |
| .it.
| |
| O
| |
| : 5. ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS 5.1 Standard No. 16: Safety Assessment 5.2 Standard No. 17: Quality Assurance
| |
| : 6. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Long Timescale Aspects
| |
| : 7. DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED i
| |
| I t
| |
| 4 9
| |
| d O
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| : 1. INTRODUCTION O .
| |
| RadLoactive wastes arise from nuclear fuel cycle operations for the generation of electricity and from other activities in which radioactive materials are used. Ionizing radiation is recognized as a potential hazard to human health, and there is therefore a common concern in all countries that radionuclides from the wastes should not enter the environment in concentrations or quantities that would cause unacceptable health hazards.
| |
| Spent nuclose fuel (if disposed of as a waste), the highly-radioactive wastes from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, and other wastes with similar characteristics are referred to as high-level radioactive wastes. They contain high concentrations of certain endionuclides that will ecsain radioactive for periods of time auch longer than human lifetimes. In view of this long timescale, and in view of potential transboundary considerations, internationally acceptable standards" for the safety of radioactive waste disposal are essential.
| |
| Further, the long times required to develop disposal systems imply that
| |
| () standards are needed now to guide the initial stages of site selection and disposal system design.
| |
| It is prudent to plan high-level waste disposal so as not to inflict undue burdens on future generations. In this regard, the responsibility for disposal should be borne by the society which has derived the direct l
| |
| benefits from the nuclear fuel cycle operations which generated the waste. The design of the waste disposal system should be such as to avoid I
| |
| econoste, administrative or other problems after the tima when control of the repository is relinquished.
| |
| i The special attention that has been devoted to considering potential problems to future generations is an important feature of the developing policies for radioactive waste management. However, it should be
| |
| () *see Section 7 for a definition of the term ' standards' .
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| .I I
| |
| recognised that disposal of wastes from many other industrial and agriculteest activities must also be considered in order to protect future h generettoestand the environment. Many chceical wastes may be rendered '
| |
| harmlose by using chemical methods, but others remain potentially toxic for all time. Since radioactivo decay reduces the potential hasard of radioactive waste with time, isolating the radionuclides from the l environment for an appropriate period of time has a decisive advantage.
| |
| It is recognized that radioactive waste disposal is only one, albeit the final, step in the sequence of operations in the nuclear fuel cycle that give rise to radiation exposure. All of these operations have to comply with the Basic Radiation protection Standards adopted by the IAEA, and accordingly to be optimized both within each of these operations and within the system as a whole in order to keep radiation exposures as low as reasonably achievable.
| |
| This report is one document within the series of IAEA safety reports on underground disposal of radioactive waste. It is primarily concerned with setting standards for ensuring long-tors safety of waste disposal.
| |
| O
| |
| : 2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE l
| |
| The objective of this document is to present standards for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes into deep underground repositories. The document should be seen in conjunction with other IAEA reports relevant to the subject which provide guidance on underground disposal of radioactive wastes.
| |
| The standards presented here have been develop,ed with the aim to estabitsh internationally acceptable requirements for protection of humans and the environment from the hazards that are associated with the disposal of high-level radioactive W ate. The standards are presented in two groups. In the former group are the >,asic requirements that arise directly from radiological protection principles. In the latter group, applied technical requirements are covered. The order of presentation of the standards within the document is based only on clarity of presentation, and does not indicate the relative importance of the individual standards, h
| |
| | |
| g The application of these standards ensures the long-tera safety of the overall system of the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in deep undergroemd repositories.
| |
| These standards do not include the operational requirements that must be met when wastes are being handled and emplaced, in accordance with the radiological, nuclear, environmental and conventional industrial safety standards.
| |
| These standards do not address the need for, noe the form or content of, any retrievability requirements that might be appropriate, either during the period of waste emplacement or during a subsequent testing or obscevation period prior to final sealing of the repository.
| |
| Because the scope of the document is limited to disposal of high-level wastes in deep underground repositories, these standards say not be suitable for disposal of other types of wastes or for disposal of high-level wastes by other means such as subseabed emplacement.
| |
| : 3. FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS The two overlying objectives of underground disposal of high-level radioactive waste *are essentially:
| |
| - to isolate high-level waste from the biosphere over long time I scales without relying on future generations the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the disposal system, or imposing l upon them, significant constraints due to the existence of the repository (RESPONSIBILITY TO FUTURE CENERATIONS); and 1
| |
| - to ensure the long-term radiological protection of man and the environment in accordace with current internationally agreed radiation protection principles (RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY).
| |
| To meet these two broad basic objectives, the following fundamental l standards can be formulated.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 3.1 R33romBIBIt.1TY To FUTURE CENERATIONS O
| |
| 3.1.1 Standard No. It Burden on future senerations .
| |
| The burden on future generations shall be minimized by safely disposing of high-level radioactive wastes at an appropriate time, technical, social and economic factors being taken into account.
| |
| The radionuclide content of all radioactive wastes decreases naturally with time. Interim storage has a useful role for wastes with short-lived radionuclides, although this may laply additional radiation exposures during the interia storage period and a continuing financial commitment. Disposal of appropriately conditioned waste reduces the financial burden on future generations and avoids further occupational radiation exposures.
| |
| Since the present generations benefit from their exploitation of nuclear energy, it is reasonable that they should bear at Isast the h financial burden of waste disposal.
| |
| The timing *of d'isposal of high-level waste, however, will be decided by national authorities depending on a number of technical and socio-economic factors. These include the availability and development of suitable espository sites, the technical advantages to be gained from cooling during interia storage and, in the case of spent fuel, any desire not to discard prematurely constituents that might be useful to future generatione. When high-level waste is stored, site specific research and development work should be carried out so that sites will be characterited and available for the disposal of high-level waste at an appropriate time.
| |
| 3.1.2 Standard No. 2: Independence of safety from institutional control The safety of a high-level waste repository in jj the post-sealing period shall not depend on ths need for any monitoring, surveillance or other institutional controls or remedial actions, h
| |
| | |
| g The standard concerning the minimitation of. burdens on future
| |
| ( generations also implies that these generations should not have to take any acties to protect themselves from the effects of waste disposal. '
| |
| Escords are expected to be kept and monitoring may be carried out, for
| |
| * instance, as required by national authorities, but the safety of the repository must not rely on these measures. .
| |
| 3.1.3 Standard No. 3: Effects in the future The degree of isolation of high-level radioactive waste trou the environment shall be such that there are no predictable future risks to human health or effects on the environment that would not be acceptable today.
| |
| This standard is derived from concern for future generations. In accordance with the basic standards of the IAEA, the risks to future individuals should be limited on the same basis as are those to
| |
| () individuals living now. Therefore, tne level of protection to be afforded to future individuals should not be less than that provided today.
| |
| Deep underground disposal in a variety of different geological formations can provide a very long period of isolation for wastes, it can minimize the probability of inadvertent intrusion and it can limit the release rate of radionuclides even in the far future.
| |
| Although the principal objective of radiation protection is the achievement and maintenance of appropetately safe. conditions for activities involving human exposure, the level of safety required for the protection of all human individuals is thought likely to be adequate to protect other species, although not necessarily individual members of those species. In the case of disposal of high level waste deep underground, if humans are adequately protected as individuals then other living species are also likely to be sufficiently protected.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 3.1.4 st " ard No. 4: Transboundary considerations p.
| |
| Tle regulations adopted by national authorities ,
| |
| for radiation protection for individuals inside the borders of a country shall provide equal protection for individuals outside the country where the high-level waste disposal system is located.
| |
| Where high-level waste disposal may give rise to radiation exposures beyond the frontiers of the country where the disposal takes place, this standard has to be applied.
| |
| 3.2 RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY The mechanisms of radionuclide release from a disposal site are not the same for all environments, but generally the primary cause is degradation of conditioned waste and its container by water. For disposal into deep geological formations, the principal mechanism is likely to be transfer and dispersal by movement of groundwater, modified by reconcentration processes. They may be referred to as "normal" release processes which lead to a reasonably predictable radiation exposure pattern in space and time.
| |
| Other processes are not gradual and have to be thought of as probabilistic. They could, in some situations, dominate the overall safety assessment of disposal. For example, seismic and tectonic phenomena which modify water flows could be importarit considerations for disposal in some geological forsations, and future human activities such as drilling and universal exploitation could have direct and indirect influences on some repositories.
| |
| The following Standards No. 5 and 6 are, respectively, intended to apply to these two situations of "normal" release processes and "probablitstic" processes. However, it is important to recognize that the standards are linked and have the same overall basis where expressed in terms of risk to an individual. This is explained in more detail in tte notes to the Standard No. 6.
| |
| | |
| 0"
| |
| . 7-3.2.1 Standard Wo. 5: Dose upper bound a-for releases from a repository due to "norma)."
| |
| processes, the predicted annual dose to individuals of the critical group shall be less than a dose upper bound apportionedTb'y national authorities from the annual dose limit of 1 mSv for prolonged exposures.
| |
| This standard follows from the policy of the IAEA, as stated in its Basic Safety Standards for Radiation protection, in following the ICRP recosunentiat ion s .
| |
| The en ;ication of individual dose limits to the doses that occur as a result of "normal" processes as described above is the saane as for releases from other types of nuclear facilities. Two basic requirements are involved. First, the critical group, i.e. the members of the public whose exposure is reasonably homogeneous and is typ! cal of individuals receiving the highest dose, must be identified Second, the overall disposal system must provide assurance that the aversse dose in the D critical group will not exceed the dose limit, taking into account possible exposures from other sources, including other repositories but excluding medical.and natural sources. This allowance for other sources can be formalized by using a dose upper bound for that source rather than the dose limit. The dose upper bound is also intended to apply to the average dose in the critical group whether this occurs now or in the future.
| |
| The identification of the most highly exposed groups in the future l
| |
| becomes increasingly difficult with time. The dose upper bound may //
| |
| therefore need to be applied to hypothetical individuals who could live where exposures are likely to be greatest. In defining the habits of these hypothetical individuals, it may be assumea that their basic l
| |
| nutritional requirements and lifestyles are the same as those of people today.
| |
| l l
| |
| O l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| The doce upper bound that serves as the design constraint for the repository should therefore be established taking account of doses teos h global, regional and other local sources, and reserving a prudent fraction %
| |
| of the dose limit for potential future sources.
| |
| 3.2.2 Standard Wo. 6: Risk upper bound High level radioactive waste shall be disposed of so that the predicted risk in a year from a repository to an individual of t'h's critical g group frou events not covered by Standard No. $ /
| |
| is less than an upper bound of risk apportioned by national authorities from a limit of risk of one in a hundred thousand per year.
| |
| It has become clear during the development of safety ass 6ssments for high-level waste disposet that unlikely events dercribed as "probabilistic" processes earlier in this Section, and their consequences have su .1 considered.
| |
| O The judgement that is made as to the level of risk that should not be exceeded is that the risk upper bound from events not covered by the use of a dose upper bound should be no greater than the elsk from doses at the dose upper bound. Risk here is defined as the probability that a serious somatic or genetic health effect will occur to a potentially exposed individual or his descendants. It is equal to the -w product of the
| |
| > \
| |
| probability of exposure at a particular annualxdose este, and the L I i
| |
| s__ .
| |
| probability of a health effect arising from that annual dose. l i -
| |
| 1 The restriction of doses over a lifetime to 1 nSv per yea; on average r *, /
| |
| implies a constraint of the average anaual risk to a level less than about- '
| |
| 10''. The ICRP has suggested that it seems reasonable to restrict the risk in a year to an individual of the e?itical group from events which are not covered by the use of a dose upper bound, so that it is also less than 10''.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 0 9-The lay 1Leation of this standard is that risks from events that are highly leprobable will be very small compared to any risk upper bound, and analysis of such events need not be included in a risk assessment for a r e p<,s i t ory.
| |
| For some events, estimates of their probability of occurrence may only be very approstriate. In these cases, upper limits to such estlantes should be used initially in assessments; refined estimates only being needed if such events prove to be limiting.
| |
| 3.2.3 Standard No. 7: Additional radioloaical safety All radiation exposures that may result from the f disposal of high-level radioactive waste shall f be as low as reasonably achievabig, economicand[
| |
| social factors being takea into account. The
| |
| {
| |
| dose and risk upper bounds as defined in y Standards Nos. 5 and 6 shall be overriding <
| |
| constraints.
| |
| O While the specificatica of upper bounds of use and risk serves to ensure the required level of safety for an individual, it is recommended that all exposures should be as low as reasonably achievable below the upper bounds, This roccamendation is sometimes implemented in other radiation protection activities by a rigorous analysis of available alternatives to achieve an optimal balancing of radiolo5ical impacts, economic costs, and other factors. The principle that exposures should be kept as low as reasonably achievable remains valid for geolo6tc disposal of high-level wastes, but application of the principle requires special considerations.
| |
| Many f actors af f ect the siting and desi5n of a htSh-level waste repository, including other operations within the waste management system, costs, social and environmental effects and political considerations, as well as radiological effects. The alternatives available when disposing of HL.W in a geologic repository are likely to be quite limited.
| |
| Fundamental decisions, includin5 whether to reprocess spent fuel, and many
| |
| | |
| o aspects od ette selection, must usually be mede on the basis of social or instituttesel concerns. The major problem is that the uncertainties in projecting radiological effects may be quite large. Therefore, it is difficult to fully apply the requirement to keep doses as low as reasonably achievable in deciding between available options foe the waste disposal system. Within the scope of this document, which is primarily concerned with the long-teen safety of a high-level waste repository, the application of this standard may be quite limited.
| |
| Despite these difficulties, the principle of keeping doses as low as reasonably achievabic should be followed throughout the processes of site selection, waste conditioning and ecpository design. Usually it will be ner - '
| |
| do so in a qualitative manner, making significant use of engt. s judgement rather than rigorous analyses of repository impects In pas ticular cases, a decision-making methodology, such as }
| |
| multi-astribute analysis, may be helpful for distinguishing between (
| |
| alternatives.
| |
| : 4. TECHNICAL STANDARDS O
| |
| 4.1 Standard No. 8: Overall Systems Approach The long-term sa f ety of high-level radioactive waste disposal tall be based on the multi-barrie concept, and shall be assessed on the basis of the performance of the disposal ,
| |
| system as a whole. The safety of the overall system shall not, depend on the functioning of p e.w single barrier. /
| |
| l The entiec disposal rystem consists of varicus compenents, such as ;
| |
| the waste form, the containees, the backfill material, the host rock, the repository, and the suerounding geological formations. Because high-level waste presents a potential hazard for a very long timescale and because the dif ficulty of long-term predictio: i may lead to large uncertainties, l
| |
| it is necessary that the safety of waste disposal does not rest on one , l single componet.t or barrier but rather on the combined function of //
| |
| l several barriers. If a barrier fails to function as designed, th*in the j i overall system should still be sufficient to meet the safety stan$ards, s l
| |
| ~~~ _ -.
| |
| : g. .
| |
| Tho overall-systems approach incorporates t.he idea that in the final )
| |
| analysis 14 is only .he performance and safety of the disposal system as a whole at any given time in the future that has to be assured rather than the performance of all the individual components. This approach effers a great flexicil'.ty to tae designer of a disposal system because a weakness in one barriet cay be compensated for by the containment capabilitt of other barriers. The overall-systems approach thus makes it possible to adapt the geologier.*a disposal concept tc a varicty of high-level waste forms and packa6es and to a variety of geological situations which are often different from country to country.
| |
| The standards do not specify minimum levels of performance tc ts achieved by individual barriers. If national authorities find it prudent to do so in order to permit timely design and development of certain engineered barriers, it should be realized that any performance assessment of ecc.ponents or subsystems of the overall disposal system will lavolre an iterative process.
| |
| Durir.g the site selection and conceptual design development stage, the mininua levels of performance can only be regarded as performance targetc that may be changed in either direction. Once the site is characteelzed and engineered systems sptimized at the final licensing attge, the performence requirements for the components become established.
| |
| t The statement of performance levels during the development stage remain design targets to reflect the possibility for revision as the conceptual design work progresses.
| |
| ! 4.2 THE VASTE 4.2.1 S.,andard t No. 9: Radionuclide content Waste acceptance criteria shall be established for radionuclide content consistent with assumptions made in the repository design.
| |
| l l
| |
| 1 l
| |
| 1 - - -. , - .,. .._: _ -__. . __ __ __. __
| |
| | |
| U ]
| |
| l The radionuclide content is the "scuece term" for possible radionnelleerrelease. It is therefore necessary that acceptance criteria for the radienuclide content are established in order to comply with the assumed source term values on which the repository design celles.
| |
| 4.2.2 Standard No. 10: Nuclear criticality Tha high-level radioactive waste repository shall be designed and the waste emplaced such that any fissile material remains in a suberitical configuraticn.
| |
| Some high-level wastes may contain quantities of fissile materials sufficient to achieve nuclear criticality if improperly emplaced. It is therefore important that the repository is designed to r.s to avoid critical configuestions.
| |
| Subevitical geometey is achieved by effective dilution of fissile aterials during conditioning of the waste and/or by providing the necessary distance between waste packages containing fissile material.
| |
| Where leaching Lnd subsequent accumulation of fissile materials may occur, adequate consideration should be given to prevent criticality.
| |
| J.2.3 Standard No. 11: The waste form High-level radioactive waste to be emplaced in a repository shall be in a solid form with chemical and physical properties ypropriate for the retention of radionuclides appropriate.to the disposal system.
| |
| The waste form is the "Jource" from which radionuclides may be r o le s s.:d . During an initial period af ter emplacement the outer container other barriers can be relied upon to prevent water ingress. Thereafter as wartt form and its surroundings will Govern the releases. Thus, it is essential that the wastes are in a form which is compatible with the repository sad the host rock.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 4.3 THE REPOSITORY
| |
| ~
| |
| 4.3.1 Standard No. 12: Initial Deriod of isolation A high-level aste disposal system shall be d= signed in a way that aims at substantially complete isolation of endionuclides for an initial period of time.
| |
| Substantially complete isolation of high-level radioactive waste cannot be maintained indefinitely. The initial period of time during which a high-degree of isolation is necessary depends on the type of waste and its decay charseteristics as well as on the properties of the overall disposal system.
| |
| After the initial period of substantial isolation, barriers inherent in the geologic medium become of increasing importance.
| |
| 4.3.2 Standard No. 13: Repository design and construction O A high-level radioactive waste repository shall be designed, constructed, operated and closed in such a way that the poet-sealing safety functions of the host rock and its relevant surroundings are preserved.
| |
| In the emely s'. age of site cor.firmation and later during the construction of a repository, special attention should be given to th6 techniques used and to the executtor. of field work so 1. hat the isolation capabilities of the site will be diminished as little as possible. The consequences of distuebances caused should be assessed.
| |
| The impact of the waste and any engineered structure emplaced in the repository, on the chaeactectstics of the hydrogeological environment should not icpale those properties of the host rock which are relevant to safety.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 4.4 THE SITE 4,4,1 Standard No. 14: Site Geolotr The repository shall be located at sufficient depth to adequately protect the emplaced waste from external events and processes, in a host rock having properties that adequately ecstrict the deterioration of physical bacelers and the transport of radionuclides from the repository to sne environment.
| |
| The location of the waste repository is of great importance to its long-teen saf e f unctioning. The size of the selected host medium shall be laese enough to accommodate the repository and that part of the surrounding medium which is necessary for safety.
| |
| The most likely way radionuclides can migrate from the repository to the biosphere is by groundwater transport. Toe that reason, speel41 emphasis must be placed on the hydrogeological and geochemical properties of t host medium to restrict nuclide transport by groundwster.
| |
| 4.4.2 Standard.No. 15: consideratien of natural resources
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| The repository site shall be selected, to the \'
| |
| /
| |
| extent practicable, to avoid peorimity to /
| |
| natural resources or materials which are not h''
| |
| readily available from other sources, s/
| |
| Two considerations argue against locating a repository near valuable, or potentially valuable, natural resources. First is the des'.ee to allow future. generations to exploi'. natural resources for thete own benefit.
| |
| Location of a repository near such resources might preclude future use of
| |
| ( those resources, or might eequire burdensome remedial actions to be taken to avoid disrupting the reposi'.ory.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| . l$ .
| |
| The second, and more important, considerailon involves the j
| |
| () possibility that knowledge of the repository location misht not be available to a future individual or society seekins to develop natural resources. In this case, inadvertent intrusion into a repository could I reduce its integelty leadin5 to celease of radionuclides to the environment.
| |
| : 5. ASCURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS 5.1 Standard No. 16: Safety Assessment Compliance of the overall disposal system with the radioloSical safety standards shall be demonstrated by means of safety assessments which are based on models that are validated as far as possible.
| |
| It is escognized that the long-term safety of a h15 -level h
| |
| radioactive waste disposal system cannot be demonstrated directly.
| |
| However, it can be indirectly demonstrated by evaluation using predictive
| |
| () analyses based on technical and scientific data. Demonstration of compliance with numerical safety standards therefore involves safety assessment and comparison of the results of the assessment with the standards.
| |
| Safety assessments aiming at demonstrating compliance with dose or risk upper bounds should take account of uncertainties in predictions of the performance of the barriers. Two methods are available for these setety assessments:
| |
| - deterministic analyses modelling the evolution of disposal systems and estimatin5 the consequences; ,
| |
| - probabilistic analyses assessing the consequences from a ranSe of future events, to each of which is assigned a probability of occuecence.
| |
| These methodologies are not mutually exclusive, and in practice a comparative analysis with both techniques is likely.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| b I
| |
| The riska or consequences from disruptive eventa which might j constitute <a signifl cant fraction of the total risks or consequences from h waste disposal shiuld be assessed.
| |
| In safety assessments aiming at comparison of several dif ferent design approaches, realistic scenarios, models and input data should be applied. Models to be used should be validated as far as possible against evidence from laboratory tests and f' eld observations including natural analogues and site investigations w enever practicable.
| |
| More detailed information about safety and performance assessment methodologies and model validation is included in an IAEA specialized document (Ref: IAEA Safety Series Nos. 56 and 68).
| |
| 5.2 Standard No. 17: Quality Assurance A quality assurance per *amme for cesponents of the disposal system for all activities from site confirmation u. .dsh construction and operation to closure of the disposal facility f shall be established to assure compliance with the standards.
| |
| The programme should contain provision to ensure identification of and compliance with requirements of appropriate recognized engineering and mining codes and regulations, standards, specifications and practices.
| |
| The programme should also deilne the organizational structure for implementing the quality assurance activities and clearly delineate the
| |
| ' responsibility and authority of the various personnel and organizations involved for selecting tha level of quality assurance required and assuring hat the quality assurance programmes are followed.
| |
| l
| |
| {
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| : 6. OTIGE CONSIDERATIONS O 6.1 Loan Timescale Aspects As expressed by Standard No. 3, the individual dose and elsk upper ,
| |
| bound applicable today should in principle be sustained indefinitely without a cut-off time for our responsibility for protection of human descendants. However, assurance <l compliance with this standard in the long time scale introduces difficulties arising from uncertainties due to changes in the environmental conditions and living habits of future populations.
| |
| Describing the environmental conditions for the human species in the future becomes more and more speculative when the periods considered are tens of thousands of years from now. For example, glacial episodes have occurred in a cyclical fashion, and the next ice age may appear within about 10,000 years from now. Significant changes in the biosphere will undoubtedly occur through thesc periods. The detailed environmental conditions and nutettional needs of individuals in the distant future may be different from those of today.
| |
| Since neither the location nor the characteristics of far future human individuals'can be predicted, dose and elsk assessments may not be meaningful for periods longer than a few thousand years. This does not
| |
| ( imply that the assessments for such longer time periods should not be made, but it indicates that other independent means may be needed ta esinforce the conclusions of the dose and elsk assessments as they entce the period of increasing uncertainty.
| |
| One means may be to assure that the repository is not going to change f
| |
| appreciably the radiation environment of the future population. The dose upper bound and risk upper bound are less than annual doses from natural background. Therefore, if the doses and risks from a high-level waste repository to far-future individuals who are assumed to have our characteristics and our nutritional needs are less than the respective uppee bounds, then there is the assurance that doses from the environment of any future individual are not going to be appreciably changed by a contribution from the repository.
| |
| | |
| Am. additional means of assurance may be to compare far fature concentrations or releases of radionuclides from the repository into the environment with concentrations or releases from natural sources such as the upper part of the earth's crust, toxicity of different radionuclides being taken into account in the comparison.
| |
| : 7. DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED Barrier (natural or enxineered): A feature which delays or prevents radionuclide migradon f rom the waste and/or repository into its surroundings. Natural barrier is, in case of deep geological espositories, represented by the host rock. An engineered bareler is a feature made by or altered by man; it may be a part of the waste package and/or part of the repository.
| |
| Burden: In this document the term burden means all of the (1) financial costs (2) administrative, research and other resource cosunitments, and (3) radiological, social and other impacts which socicty must provide or endure in connection with disposal of radioactive waste.
| |
| Burden does not, have the meaning formerly used in radiation protection terminology and thus is not limited to the quantity of t
| |
| radioactive substances carried within a human body or organ.
| |
| Conditioning of waste: Those operations that transform waste into a form cuitable for tranJport and/or storage and/or disposal. The operations may include converting the waste to another form, enclosing the waste in containers, and providing additional packaging.
| |
| Confinement (or isolation): The segregation of radionuclides from the human environment and the restriction of their release into that environment in unacceptable quantities or concentrations.
| |
| Containment: The eetention of endioactive material in such a way that it is effectively prevented from beccming dispersed into the environment l
| |
| 1 l or only released at a specified este.
| |
| | |
| g Celticality: The conditions in which a system is capable of sustaining a
| |
| () neelear chain reaction Deterministic analysis: A technique for studying a system behaviour mathematically using the laws of scienca and engineering provided that all system parameters, events and features are deterministically (as opposed to probabilistically) defined.
| |
| Disposal system: A combination of a geological environment, a repository and waste packages emplaced within the repository.
| |
| Dose: Throughout this report, the ters ' dose' is used to denote the sum of the effective dose equivalent resulting from external exposure during one year and the committed effective dose equivalent from that year's intake of radionuclides.
| |
| Hiah-level waste:
| |
| (is The highly radioactive materials, :entaining mainly fission
| |
| () products, as well as some actinides, which are separated during enesical reprocessing of treadiated fuel (ii) Spent reactor fuel, if it is dec14eed a waste.
| |
| l (iii) Any otner waste with a radioactivity level comparable to (i) or (11).
| |
| I i
| |
| l Host eorg: A geological formation in which a repository is located.
| |
| i Multibarrier system: A system using two or more independent barriers to isolate the waste from the human envirenment. These can include the I
| |
| waste form, the container (canister), other engineered barriers and the emplacement medium and its environment, l
| |
| l O .
| |
| | |
| Near-field retion: The excavated repository including the waste package, backftlls or seallos materials, and those parts of the host medium whose characteristics have been or could be altered by the repository or its content.
| |
| Optimization: As used in radiation protection practice, the process of reducing the expected health effect deriving from radiation exposure of a population, through the use of protective measures, to a level as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being j taken into account.
| |
| Post-ses).ina period: The period after a waste repository has been shut down and sealed.
| |
| Probabisistic analysis: A statistical analysis technique for studying the expected behaviour of a system with parameters whose values are uncertain, with events whose occurrences are random, and with features which may or maf not be present.
| |
| Quality assurance: Planned and systematic actions neceJsery to provide adequate confidence that an item, facility or person will perform satisfactorily in service.
| |
| Radionitclide migration: The movement of radionuclides through pores and/or fractures of a geological medium due to fluid flow and/or by diffusion.
| |
| l l Repository: An underground facility in which waste are emplaced for 1
| |
| j disposal.
| |
| l Risk: In this document risk denotes the probability of a health effect for an individual or his descendants. It is equal to the product of the probability of exposure at a particular annual dose rate, and the probability of a health effect arising from that annual dose.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| )
| |
| St andar<s : Basic requirements which must be met in order to satisfy the
| |
| () objectLTe of protecting humans and thele environment from any unacceptable deteinent which might arise from disposal of radioactive wastes.
| |
| Standards in this document are requirements set up by the IAEA l for fundamental aspects of disposal system performance, i.e. those aspects which determir.e the acceptability of a disposal system.
| |
| Failure to comply with any standard would result in an unacceptable disposal system. Standards include, for example, aumeetcal or qualitative requirements for protection of the environment.
| |
| Validation of a model: comparison of calculations based on a conceptual model and the computer code derived from it with field observations and e.:perimental measurements.
| |
| Waste form: The physical and chemical form of the waste (e.5 liquid, incorporated in concrete. 51 ass, etc.) without its packaging.
| |
| Waste package: The waste form and any container (s) as prepared for l () handlins, transportation, storage and/or disposal. A cask or overpack may be a poemanent part of the waste package or it may be re-usable for any j waste management step.
| |
| i 1
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| 1 O
| |
| | |
| 0 l
| |
| \
| |
| l
| |
| {
| |
| l SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY j tu w,
| |
| INTEENATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Power Experience (Proc. Conf.
| |
| Vienna, 1982). IAEA, Vienna (1983)
| |
| INTEENATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Radioactive Waste Management (Proc.
| |
| Conf. Seattle, USA, 1983), IAEA, Vienna (1984)
| |
| INTEENATIONAL ATOMIC FNERGY AGENCY, Recommendations on Underground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Basic Guidance, Safety Series No. 54 IAEA (1981)
| |
| INTEENATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Site Investl&ations for Repositories for Solid Radioactive Wastes in Deep Continental Geolo&ical Formations, Technical Reports Series No. 215, IAEA, Vienna (1982)
| |
| INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection: 1982 Edition, Safety Series No. 9. IAEA, Vienna (1982)
| |
| INTtLNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Principles for Establishing Limits for the Release of Radioactive Materials into the Environment, Safety Series No. 45. IAEA, Vienna (1978)
| |
| INTEENATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety Assessment for the Underground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Safety Series No. 56 IAEA, Vienna (1981)
| |
| INTEENATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Concepts and Examples of Saf ety ANelyses for Radioactive Waste Repositories in Continental Geologic Formations Safety Series No. 58. IAEA, Vienna (1983)
| |
| INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Performance Assessment for Underground Radioactive Waste Disposal Systems, Safety Series No. 68 IAEA, Vienna
| |
| ('985) l l INTEENATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Characteristics of Radioactive Waste Forms Conditioned for Storage and Disposal: Guidance for the Development of Waste Acceptance Criteria, I AEA-TECDOC 2 8 5, I AEA, Vienna (1983)
| |
| INTEENATIONAL COMMISSION ON EADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, Publication No. 26 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of tne ICRP, 1 3 (1977) t INTERNATIONAL C0KMISSION ON EADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, Publication No. 29,
| |
| }
| |
| Radionuclide Release into the Environment. Annals of the ICRP, 2 1 (1978) l l
| |
| I INTERNATIONAL C0KMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, Publication No. 37, Cost Benefit Analysis in the Optimisation of Radiation Protection. Annals of the ICEP, 10 2/3 (1983)
| |
| INTEENATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Development of Regulatory Procedures for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Wastes in Deep Continental Formations, Safety Series No. 51. IAEA, Vienna (1981)
| |
| | |
| o INTERNAT10EAL Cote (ISS10N ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, Radiation Protection Principles for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste. Annals of the O ICEF (to ha published)
| |
| INTERNATI0EAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Acceptance Criteria for Disposal of Radioactive Wastes in Deep Geological Formations Technical Reports Series (to be published)
| |
| INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Effects of Heat from High-Level Waste on Performance of Deep Geological Repository Components, IAEA-TECDOC-319 IAEA, Vienna (1984)
| |
| MUCLEAR ENERCf AGENCY, Long-Term Radiological Protection Objectives (or Radioactive Waste Disposal, 1984.
| |
| O I
| |
| l l
| |
| i l
| |
| O
| |
| (
| |
| | |
| L LIST or PARTICIPANTS Scientifte Secretary Mr. K. T. Thoess IAEA, Roon A2651 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna Consultant's Meeting 28 October - 1 November 1985 UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Mr. P. D. Johnston Department of the Environment Romeey House, Room A.516 43 Marsham Street London SWlP 3PY England, UK Advisory Group Meetint on "International Standards and Criteria for Undernround Disposal of HiRh-Level Radioactive Wastes" 4 - 8 November 1985 ARGENTINA Mr. Elias Palacios National Commissien of Atomic Energy g Avenida del Libertadoe 8250 W 1429 Buenos Aires AUSTRALIA Mr. J. M. Cos tello- Australian Atomic Energy Commission Lucas Heights Research Labs.
| |
| Private Mailbag, Sutherland 2232, N.S.W.
| |
| BELGIUM Mr. R. Heresans ONDRAF Boulevard du R6sent 54 Boite 5 B-1000 Bruxelles CANAD&
| |
| Mr. R. V. Osborne AECL Chalk River Nuclese Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario Canada K0J IJO Mr. K. P. Wagstaff Waste Management Division Atomic Energy Control Board P.O. Bor 1046 ottawa, Ontario Canada K1P SS9 O
| |
| | |
| B C7.ECHOffM AXIA Mr. Z. Dloshy Nuclear Research Institute 250 68 Ret Near Prague FINLAND Mr. E. Ruokola Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety P.O. Box 258 SF-00101 Helsinki Mr. O. Paakkola Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclese Stfety P.O. Box 268 SF-00101 Helsink; FEANCE Mr. J. Contil CEA/IPSN B.P. No. 6 F-92265 Fontenay-aux-Roses Codex CERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC Mr. D. K. Richter Staatliches Amt fUe Atomsicher-helt und Strahlenschutz der s Deutschen Demokra*.ischen Republik Waldowallec 117 DDR-1157 Berlin CERMANY. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF Mr. M. Bloser Bundesministerium des Inneen Ceaucheindorfer SteaBe 198 D-5300 Bonn 1 INDIA Mr. M. S. Kunta High-Level Waste Management Section Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Trombay Bombay 400 085 ITALY Ms. S. Piermattet ENEA - Directorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Via Vitaliano Brancati 48 I-00144 Roma-EUR Mr. S. Benassal ENEA - Directorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Via Vitaliano Brancati 48 O I-00144 Roma-EUR
| |
| | |
| a JAPAN Mr. E. T. Kimura Professor University of Tokyo Tokyo -
| |
| Mr. T. Murano Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Developme'.. Corporation (PNC)
| |
| Sankaido Building 1-9-13 Akasaka Minato- ku, Tokyo 107 Mr. M. Senoo Tokai Research Establishment JAER1 Tokai-mura , Naka-gun Ibaraki-ken 319-11 NETHERLANDS Mr. J. Haastra AVO RA B . V .
| |
| Geolo5 i cal Vaste Disposal Consultants Postbox 138 1860 AC Bergen (N.H.)
| |
| SWEDEN Mr. A. Larsson Swedish Nuclear P:wer Inspectorate Box 27106 S-102 52 Stockholm SWITZERLAND Mr. U. hiederer Federal Office of Ener5y Nuclear Safety Inspectorate CH-5303 VUrenlingen UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND _
| |
| Ms. C. Hemming Radioactive Waste (Peofessional)
| |
| Division, Room A5.28 Department of the Environment 43 Marsham Street London SW1P 3PY England Mr. E. Harrin5 ton Health and Safety Executive Nuclear Installations Inspectorate St. Peters House Balliol Road Bootle, Merseyside L20 3LZ En51ani O
| |
| | |
| D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
| |
| ' Mr. D. J. Fehringer 623-S3 toom 788 .
| |
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Cf Mr. R. Simon CEC Rue de la Loi 200 B-1049 Brussels IAEA Mr. J. Ahmed Division of Nuclear Safety IAEA, Room A2 725 P.O. Box 100 l A-1400 Vienna Consultant's Meetint 11 - 15 November 1985 CZECHOSLOVAKIA Mr. Z. Dlouhy Nuclear Research Institute 250 68 Ret Near Prague O Second Advisory Group Meetint on "International Standards for Underaround Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes" 6 - 10 October 1986 1autWTINA Mr. Elias Palacios National Commission of Atomic Energy Avenida del Libertador 8250 1429 Buenos Aires AVSTRALIA Mr. J. M. Costello Australian Atomic Energy Commission Lucas Heights Research Labs.
| |
| Private Mailbag, Sutherland 2232, N.3.W.
| |
| BELGIUM Mr. R. Heremans ONDRAF Boulevard du Rssent 54 Boite 5 B-1000 Bruxelles O
| |
| | |
| 0 CANADA Kr. R. V. Osborne AECL Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River. Ontario Canada K0J IJO CZECHOSLOVAKIA Mr. Z. Dlouhy Nuclear Research Inssitute 250 68 Rez Near Pra5ue FINLAND Hr. E. Ruokola Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety P.O. Box 268 SF-00101 Helsinki FRANCE Mr. J. Contil CEA/IPSN B.P. No. 6 F-92265 Fontenay-aux-Roses Codex CERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC Mr. D. K. Richter Staatliches Amt fur Atossicher- g helt und Strahicnschutz der W Deutschen Demokratischen Republik Waldowallee 117 DDR-1157 Berlin GERMANY. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF Mr. M. Bloser Bundesministerium des Innern Graucheindorfer StraBe 198 D-5300 Bonn 1 INDIA Mr. M. S. Kunta Hi5h-Level Waste Management Section Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Trombay Bombay 400 085 ITALY Ms. S. Piermattet ENEA - Directorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Via Vitaliano Brancati 48 I-00144 Roma-EUR
| |
| | |
| t
| |
| . Ilkk[ (Cost' d)
| |
| Mr. S. Senessel ENEA - Directorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Via Vitaliano Brancati 48 I-00144 Roma-EUR JAPAN Mr. A. Tokuyama Desn, Natural Science Dept.
| |
| Hyogo University of Teacher Education Shimokume 942-1 Yashiro-chu, Katoh-gun Hyogo-ken 67 3-14 Mr. K. Araki Tokai Research Establishment JAER1 Tokai-mura, Naka gun Ibaraki-ken 319-11 Mr. T. Murano Waste Isolation Office Waste Mst.& Raw Materials Div.
| |
| PNC 9-13 Akasaka 1-chose Minato-ku, Tokyo 101 SVEDEN Mr. A. Larsson Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate
| |
| ( Box 21106 S-102 52 Stockholm SWITZERLAND Mr. U. Niederer Federal Office of Energy Nuclear Safety Inspectorate CH-3303 wurenlingen UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Ms. C. Hemming Radioactive Waste (Professional)
| |
| Division, Room A5.28 Department of the Environment a3 Marsham Street London SW1P 3PY England UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mr. D. J. Fehringer 623-SS Room 188 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 IAEA Mr. J. Ahmed Division of Nuclear Safety I AEA, Room A2125
| |
| (''A P.O. Box 100 l
| |
| \~-)
| |
| A-1400 Vienna
| |
| | |
| 0 Elmhth Meeting of the Technical Review Committee on Underground Disposal of Radioective Wastes (TECUD) 26-28 January 1987 n-Scientific Secretary Mr. I.F. Vovk I AEA, Room A2651 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna ARGENTINA Mr. Elias Palacios National Commission of Atomic EnefgY 8250 Avenida del Libertador 1429 Buenos Aires BELCIUM Mr. R. Heremans ONDRAF Boulevard du Regent 54 B-1000 Brussels CZECHOSLOVAKIA Mr. E. Malasek Czechoslovak Atomic Enerr y Commission Slotska 9 4 Prague 2 O
| |
| FRANCE Mr. P. Jourde C EA- D ED 8.P. No.6 F-92260 Fontenay-aut-Roses GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC Mr. D. Zappe Nations 1 Board of Nuclear Safety &
| |
| Radiation Protection Waldow-Allee 117 1157 Berline CERMANY. Federal Republic of 1
| |
| Mr. K. Kushn Gesellschaft fuer Steshlen-und Umweltforschung mbH.
| |
| Theodor-Heuss-Strasse 4 0-3300 Beaunschweig 1
| |
| JAPAN Mr. Koji Ytatmoto Office of Emergency Planning &
| |
| Environmental Radioactivity 3 Science & Technology Agency j
| |
| 2-1 Kasumigasekil
| |
| ! 2-Chome, Kiyoda-ku r
| |
| To'yo 100
| |
| -..w, _ _ - . _ .
| |
| | |
| U 4
| |
| - NETHRILANDS
| |
| ( Kr. J.L. Bees Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning & Environment 9 P.O. Box 450 NL-2260 MB Leidschendam The Hague SVRDgN Mr. Alf Larsson Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate Box 27106 S-102 52 Stockholm SWITZERLAND Mr. R. Rosetsch CEDEA Parkstrasse 23 CH-5401 Baden UNITED KINGDON Mr. R.G. Owen U KAEA AFPD Building 10 AERE Harwell DIDCOT 0xon OX11 ORA U. S. A.
| |
| Mr. C. Cooley U.S. Department of Energy (RW-40)
| |
| Washington, D.C. 205856 Organizations:
| |
| EE.S Kr. P. Venet Commission of the European Communities 200, rue de la Loi B-1('49 Brussels BELGIUM OECD Mr. J.P. Olivier Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development 6 38, boulevard Suchet l
| |
| F-15016 Paris FRANCE
| |
| | |
| O I AE&:.
| |
| Mr. J. Hieling, Section-Head Mr. M. Feraday Mr. G.S. Linsley Mr. D.E. Saire Mr. K.T. Thomas Mr. J.R. 'diley Observers:
| |
| FRANCE Ms. Cahuzac IPSN/FAR Departement de Protec*lon Technique B.P. No.6 P-92260 Fontenay aux-Roses 3 JAPAN Mr. Kunio ArakI Department of Environmental Safety Research 3 JAERI Tokai-mura, Naka-Sunt Ibaraki ken 319-11 Tokyo Mr. Takahuru Okuno PNC Waste Mana5ement & Raw Materials Division 1-19-13 Akasaka, Minato-ku Tokyo 107 Mr. Takeo Fukuyoshi Radioactive Waste Management Center Land Disposal Section No.15 Mori Building 8-10. Toranomon 2-chome Minato-ku Tokyo 105 NETHERLANDS Mr. A. Cornelissen Ministry of Housing, Physical Plannin5 & Environment P.O. Box 450 NL-2260 MB Leidschendam1 The Hague ROMANIA Mr. T. Burtic State Committee for Nuclear Energy Bucharest
| |
| - 1
| |
| | |
| SWEDE O Mr. Ragaer Boge National Institute of Radiation Protection Bos 60204 S-104 01 Stockholm 1 Mr. Wils Rydell The National Board for Spent Nuclear Fuel Sehlstedsgatan 509 S-115 28 Stockholm 4 U. S. A.
| |
| Mr. J. Saltzman U.S. Department of Energy (RV-40)
| |
| Washington, D.C. 205856 O
| |
| 1 e
| |
| a O
| |
| | |
| Thursday September 19,1985 0 .
| |
| O -
| |
| ~
| |
| Part il
| |
| , () quesresel
| |
| . Environmental 4 Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 191 Environmental Standards for the .
| |
| Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic l
| |
| Radioactive Wastes; Final Rule 1 -
| |
| 3 cm a _
| |
| l a _1-j E E
| |
| | |
| 38066 lid:r:1 Regist:r / Vol. So, No.182 / Thursday. September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Finally, a set of ground water protection reasonable fee may be charged for AGENCY requirements limits radionuclide copying.
| |
| concentrations for 1.000 years after FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
| |
| 9t disposalin water w,thdrawn i from most Dan Egan or Ray Chrk. Criteria and Class I ground waters to the Standards Division (ANR-400), Office of l AH-FFIL 2870-31 concentrations allowed oy the Agency,s Radiation Programs, Environmental Environmental Standards for the Interim drinkmg water standards (unless Protection Agency, Washington. DC M:nagement and Disposalof Spent concentrations m the Class I ground 20100; telephone number (703) 557-m10.
| |
| Nuclea- Fuel, High-Level and waters already exceed the limits in 40 CFR Part 141,in which case this set of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
| |
| 'r nsu*anic Radioactive Wastes Fissioning of nuclear fuel in nuclea-requirements would limit the increases ATENCY: Environmental protection in the radionuclide concentrations to reactors creates a small quantity of
| |
| ^8""'Y' those specified in 40 CFR part 141). highly radioactive materials. Virtually ACTION: Final rule- Subpart D also contains informational all Of these materials are retained in the
| |
| * ance r imphwntation of the "spent" fuel elements when they are SUMuARY:The Environmental Protection d.8posal standards to clarify the removed from the reactor. If the fuelis Agency (EPA) is promulgating generally Agency a intended application of these then reprocessed to recover unfissioned applicable environmental standards for standards, which address a timu frame uranium and plutonium. most of the the management and disposal of spent radioactisity goes into acidic hquid v.ithout precedent in ensironmental nuclear fuel and high-level and wastes that will later be converted into msul ti ns. Although disposal of these
| |
| :ransuranic radioactive wastes. The vanous types of solid matenals.These standards apply to management and m terials in mined acologic repositories has received the most attention, the highly radioactive hquid or solid wastes disposal of such materials generated by from reprocessmg spent nuclear fuel activities regulated by the Nuclear dmposal standards apply to disposal by any mei J. cxcept disposal directly have tradiuonally been called "high-Regulatory Commission (NRC) nnd to les el wastes. Ifit is not to be disposal of similar materials generated into the oceans or ocean sediments.
| |
| reprocessed, the spent fuel itself by atomic energy defense activities This notice describes the final rule
| |
| ( that the Agency developed after becomes a waste. The nuclear reactors under the jurisdiction of the Department per ted by the nation a electncal of Fnergy (DOE).These standards have sensidering the public comments re(cived on the proposed rule published utilities currently generate about 2.000 been des eloped pursuant to the metric tons of spmt fuel per year. The Agtncy's authorities and responsibilities on December 29,1982. and the relatively small physical quantity of unde the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as recommendations of a technical review conducted by the Agency's Scicnce these wastes is apparent when amended: Reorganization Plan No. 3 of compared to the chemically hazardous 1970 and the Nucles r Waste policy Act Advisory Board (SAD). The major w stes regulated under the Resource of 1982. conirnents received on the proposed Subpart A of those standards limits standards are summarized together with Conservation und Recovery Act, which the Agency's responses to them. are produced at a rate of about the radiation exposure of members of Detailed responses to all the comments 1m.000 metric tons per year.
| |
| the public fron, the management and storage of spent fuel or high. level or received are discussed in the Response Although they are produced in small -
| |
| transurnnic wasten prior to dispoeut ut to Comments Document prepared for quantities, propt r management and waste management and disposal this fin,d rtIc. disr}osal
| |
| ""'"# "of f"ish-lcrcl
| |
| "" "waates
| |
| " ^ ^and
| |
| " "spent
| |
| " ^
| |
| facilities regulated by the NRC. Subpart DATE:These standards shall be
| |
| " u r ac ty they cont nS nt fuel lers f tl e p bl! m aste fe at .00 p eni **'"*""' ""' "# E " "' #"'
| |
| emplacement and storage operations at October 3.1035.'These standards shall ""'"
| |
| DOE disposal facilities that are not become effective on November 18,1985. radionuclides"b with half hses greater regulated by the NRC. than to years. Over the next decade, this Subpart D establishes severaj ADDRESSES:FacAgroundinformation-The technical information considered in inventory is projected to grow at a rate different types of requirements for of about 300 million curies per year from disposal of these materials. The primary developing this rule, including risk assessments of disposal of these wastes reactors currently licensed to operate.
| |
| standards for disposel are long term in mined geologic repositories, is hiost of this spent fuelis currently {
| |
| containment requirements that limit stored at reactor sites. Reprocessing l proh 'ed releases of radioactivity to the summarized in the Background acct Me environment for 10.000 years Information Document (DID) for 40 CFR reactor fuel used for national defense Part 191. EPA 5 0/1-65-023. Single activities has produced about 700 after usposal. These release limits should insure that risks to future copies of both the BID and the Respcase million curies of radionuclides with half-to Comments Document, as availabic, lives greater than 20 years. Afost of /
| |
| generations from disposal of these these wastes are stored in various liquid wastes will be no greater than the risks may be obtained from the Program that would have existed if the uranium hianagement Office ( ANR-458). Office and solid forms on three Federal of Radiation Prograros, Environmental reservations in Idaho, Washington, and ore used to create the wastes had not been mineu to tiegin with. A set of sis Protection Agency, Washington. DC South Carolina.
| |
| qualitatise assurance requirements is an 204fD, telephone number (703) 557-9351. In addition, a wide var;ety of wastes (qually important element of Subpart D DecAct-Docket Number R-82-3 contaminated with man.made designed to provide adequate contains the rulemaking record for 40 r .dionuclides header than uranium confidence that the containment CFR Part 191. The docket is available for have been created by various processes.
| |
| requirements will be met. The third set inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. on mostly from the atomic energy defense of requirements are limitations on u eckda)s in the West Tower Lobby, activities conducted by the DOE and its esposures to indisidual members of the Gallery 1 Central Docket Section. 401 hl predecessor agencies (the Atomic public for 1.000 y ears af ter dispasal. Street. SW., Washington. DC. A Energy Commission and the Energy O
| |
| V
| |
| | |
| t Feder:1 Register / Vol. 50. No.182 / Thursday, September 10, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 38067 Research and Development Section 121 of the NWPA reiterated believes that achieving this protection Administration). These wastes are the Agency's responsibility fer should not significantly increase the cost usually called "transuranic" wastes. developing the overall framework of or difficulty of carrying out the national Most of them are stored at Federal requirements needed to assure program for disposing of the wastes
| |
| /7 reservations in Idaho, Washington. New protection of public health and the from commercial nuclear power plants.
| |
| (j Mexico, and South Carolina. environment. in accordance with the In addition the containment National Programs for Disposal of These Agency's authorities under the Atomic requirements in the final rule are Wastes Energy Act of 1954 and Reorganization complemented by six qualitative Plan Number 3 of 1970. Section 121 also assurance requirements designed to Sincu the inception of the nuclear age called for the Agency to promulgate provide confidence that the containmant in the 1980's. the Federal government these standards by January 7,1984. The requirements will be met, given the has assumed ultimate responsibility for Agency did not meet this deadline. On substantial uncertainties inherent in the care and disposal of these wastes February 8,1985. the Natural Resources predictions of systems performance over regardless of whether they are produced Defense Council and four other 10.000 years. Because of this by commercial or national defense comprehensive framework, the Agency environmentalinterest groups filed suit activities. In October 1970. President to bring about compliance with the is confident that the national program to Ford ordered a major expansion of the dispose of these wastes will be carried NWPA mandate.This litigation was Federal program to demonstrate a out with exceptional protection of public settled by the Agency and the plantiffs ermanent disposal methcd for high, health and the environment.
| |
| agreeing tu a consent order requiring to d o g neral y pp i b promulgation not later than August 15. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission envkonmental standards to govern the 1985. The generally applicable (NRC) and the DOE are responsible for management and disposal of these envir nmental standards promulgated implementing these standards. The NRC wastes as part of this initiative. Among by this notice satisfy the terms of this has already promulgated procedural and EPA's first activities in response to this consent order. liowever, they also technical requirements in 10 CFR Part 00 directive were a series of public represent the culmination of an effort for disposal of h%h level wastes in workshops conducted in 1977 and 1978 that began almost nine years ago and mined geologic repositories (48 FR to better understand the various public that has included frequent interactions 13971. 48 FR 28194). The NRC will obtain concerns and technical issues with the public to help formulate compliance with 40 CFR Part 191 for associated with rarlioactive waste standards responsive to the concerns disposal of all high-les el wastes by h disposal. about disposal of these dangerous issuing licenses to the DOE. in accordance with 10 CFR Part 00 at In 1981, the DOF, after completing a materials.
| |
| comprehensive programmatic - various steps in the construction and c and Implementation of the operation of a repository.The NWPA environmentalimpact statement. Standards decided to focus the national program directs the DOE to select a number of on disposalin mined geologic in developing the standards for potential sites for geologic repositories, i repositories (to FR 26677). In 1982 disposal of spent nuclear fuel and hig'. successively reducing this set of Congress passed the Nuclear Waste alternatives from fis e to three to one,in level and transuranic radioactive p/
| |
| L Policy Act (henceforth designated wastes, the Agency has carefully c naultation with affected States and "NWPA"), which President Reagan culuated the capabilities of mined Indian Tribes and with participation by signed into law on january 7,1981The geologic repositories to isolate the the public in key steps in the selection NWPA contains several provisions that wastes from the environment. Because process.The DOE will accomplish this are relevant to this rulemaking. First. It such repositories are capable of through use of site selection guidelines affirmed the DOE's 1981 decision that performMg so well, it has been possible (10 CFR Part 900) that it has developed mined repositories should receive to choose containment r:quirements in accordance with section 112 of the l
| |
| primary emphasis in the national that will provide exceptionally good NWPA.13oth NRC's to CFR Part 60 and program. although research on some protection to current and future DOE;s to CFR Part 900 incorporate the other technologies would be continued- populations for at least 10.000 years stanuards the Agency is promulgating Second,it established formal procedures after disposal. In fact. EPA's analyses t day as the overall performance regarding the evaluation and selection indicate that the small residue! risks requirements for a geologic repository.
| |
| of sites for geologic repositories, 13 th of these other rules were designed allowed by the dispont stachrds including steps for the interaction of would be comparable to the risks that m c nun with EPA 's ongoing affected States and Indian tribes with future populations would have been development of 40 CFR Part 191.
| |
| the Federal Government regarding site exposed to if the uranium ore used to H weser, both the NRC and DOE must selection decisions. Third, the NWPA now review these regulations to produce the high-level wastes had not lesied, a fee on utilities that generate been mined to begin with.'The Agency determine what specific changes will be
| |
| .lecincal power with nuclear reactors in -
| |
| needed to properly implement the fiaal order to pay for Federal management version of 40 CFR Part 191.
| |
| and disposal of their spent fuel or high- **db*'^W"'"'"*''
| |
| mlan<c w.* +< Japoul stan tesis wm.id Resiew of the Proposed Standards level wa stes.1.ourth, the NW.1,A am nor, m.m mu pn.mr, aye, r,y, l reiterated the esisting responsibdities of unwr in me ru.i saanrc. art r c.pmt or,v On December 29.1982, shortly before l the Federal agencies involved in the l*l"el min from imoo mew tom af r" tor the NWPA was enacted, the Agency I national program to develop mined geologic repost!ories. and it assigned Ul 'jj"J"Q'll'))"!l[
| |
| referred to in the f. hing da. u..ian. it Am n,.
| |
| published 40 CFR Part 191 for public review (47 FR 581961 and asked that some additional ta sks regarding site nween.d .hu it i. a .pmistu mblem %i comments be received by May 2.1983.
| |
| es ahiation. Finally, the Act provided a '* Pomn't idenant se a taol far unneaHog n.L Eighty-three substantive replies were i timetable for several key milestones that the I ederal agentics vre to meet in j$"l$"ldlj'l1 received from a broad spectrum of rna.w tmm comehr m.6 +< % a private citizens. public interest groups, carrying out the program. .anaya. n; embers of the scientific community.
| |
| O l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 38068 Fed;r:1 R:gister / Vol. 50, No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations represen alives of industry, and State part of the public comrnent record and proposed rule applied to the combined and Federal ahencies. 'l hese responses are described below as the major exposures from operations regulated b3 contained information and comments on the proposed 40 CFR Part 40 CFR Part 190. waste management and recommendations regarding seven 191 are discussed. A complete storage operations regulated by the NRC issues on which the Agency sought itemization of the Agency's responses to or Agreement States, and waste further public comment (48 FR 21660). each of the findings and management and storage operations Questions concerning these issues w ere recommendations of the SAB is conducted at all DOE facilities.) Subpart directed to all of the witnesses at two contained in the Response to Comments A also contains a provision that :.llows public hearings held during May 1983 in Document, together with a synopsis of the Administrator to issue alternatise Washington, D.C. and in Denver (48 FR the public comments on the SAH report. standards for waste management and 13444). Copies of these questions were storage operadons at DOE disposal Summary of the Final Rule fucilities that are not regulated by the also sent to all those who responded to the initial request for comment, and the 'Ihe rule being promulgated today NRC. (The proposed rule contain'ed a availability of these questions was establishes generally applicable provision to allow the implementing announced in the Federal Register (48 ensironmental standards for the agency, either the NRC or the DOE. to FR 21fM).The ccmment period was management and disposal of spent grant varia'nces for unusual operating then held open until June 20,1983, to nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive conditions.)
| |
| receive responses to these additional wastes, and transuranic radioactive (3) Esta'o.ishes seseral sets of questions. Responses to major wastes. The final rule differs m a requirements for disposal of these comments-including all those number of ways from the proposed rule wastes through Subpart U,"Standards specifically highlighted for public because of changes the Agency has rg;. Disposal." The primary standards reslew-are summarized below, made in response to pubhc comments are containment requirements that lir..it 1)etailed responses to the full range of and la response to the recommendations projected releases of radioactivity to the comments received is described in the of the techmcal review by th,e Agency s accessible environment for 10.000 years Response to Comments Document Science Advisory Board.This section after disposal. Equally important is a set prepared for the final rule. provides an overview of the major of six assurance requireacnts chosen to p su of th W ruk and chang" Resiew of the Technical Basis of the provide adequate confidence that the fr m the proposed rule are noted. More containment requirements will be met.
| |
| Stindards detail on many of these provisions is in addition. Subpart B of the final rule in parallel with I,m,s public review and provided later as part of the discussion inc!ses indieldua/ protection comment, the Agency conducted an of the comments unsidered m aquin>ments that limit annual independent scientific review of the development of 40 CFR Part 191.The exp sures fr m the disposal facility to technical basis for the pro;msed 40 CFR final rule: members of the pubbe m the accessible Part 191 through a special Subcommittee (1) Applies to management and of the Agency's Science Advisory Board disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high level envir nment to 25 millirems to the radioactive wastes as defined by the w hole body and 75 m,d lirems to any i [SAB) (48 FR 509). This Subcommittee mgan for 1.000 ) ears af ter disposal. 't ht I held nine public meetings from Janunty NWPA, and transuranic wastes-ta tual. through September 21.1983, containing more than 100 nanocuries per Subpart also contains ground watcr and prepared a final report that was gram of alpha-emitting transuranic pnitection requirements that hmit transmitted on February 17.1981. While isotopes, except for wastes thnt either radioactivity concentrations in watgr "thamwn imm most class I gmuM finding that the Agency had generaPy the NRC or the Adminiatrator determines do not n< ed the degree of waters near a disposal system (as prepared comprehensive and r<cientifically competent technical isolation required by this rule. (The defined in conjunction with the analyses to support the proposed proposed rule applied to spent nuclear Agency's Ground Water Protection standards, the SAB review developed 46 fuel, high-level wastes exceeding a Strategy published in August 19al) foi findings and recommendations specific set of concentration limits, and 1.000 years after disposal. Finally, regarding specific improvements in the to transuranic wastes containing more Subpart U provides guidance for than 100 nanocuries per gram.) implementation that indicates how the technical anal)ses and in the standards themselves.Since many of the SAD (?) Through Subpart A. "Standards u Agency intends the various numerical recommendations were to be considered Management and Storage." establisy standards to be rpplied. ('Ibc proposed in developing the final rule. the Agency limits or annual doses to members af rule contained only containment sought public comment on the the public of 25 millirems to the whole requirements, assurance requirements. {
| |
| i l information and recommendations body,75 millirems to the thyroid. and 25 and procedural requirements: this las t j presented in the final SAU report (49 FR millirems to any other organ fro 2 category provided some of the basis for {
| |
| 19001). exposures associated with man gement. the "guidance for implementation"in the j Most of the SAB ret ommendations storage. and preparation for disposal of final rule.) Major provisions of each of i Invohe specific details of the technical any of these materials at facilities these sets of requirements include the l assessments and judgments the Agency regulated by the NRC. These limits followiag: l made in developing these standards. apply to the combined exposures from (a) The containment requirements After evaluating the public comments ali NRC licensed facilities covered by (Section 191.13) limit the total projected i receised on the SAD report, the Agency this Part or 40 CFR Part 190. the release of specific radionuclides over l ngrees with almost all of the SAU's Agt ncy's standards for the commercial the entire 10.000-year period after tochnical recommendations and has uranium fuel cycle. Subpart A also limits disposal. Releases from all expected and f made corresponding changes in the annualdoses to members of the public accidental causes are included, except 1 technical basis of the final rule. A few of from management and storage for releases from conceivable events ,
| |
| the Subcommittee's recommendations operations at DOE disposal facilities that are judged to have an incredibly j have implications that involve broader that are not regulated by the NRC to 25 smalllikelihood of occurrence. i policy judgments. These milbrems to the whole body and 75 Quantitative terms are ustd to identify recommendatiorm base been treated as mil!irt ms to any other organ. (The the probabilities of the releases to which G !
| |
| )
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| Federal Regis'ar / Vol. 50, No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Reputations 38000 the containment requirements apply; liv) Disposal systems must use ses eral gamma radiation that would produce an however, the fis.al rule acknowledges different types of barriers, including annual dose equivalent to the total body ihat determinat' n of compliance will both ngineered and natural ones, to or any internal organ greater than 4 ,
| |
| .as e to tolerate much irrger isolate the wastes from the envirenment millirems if individuals consumed all of
| |
| } uncertainties thaa w t,:_ i be appropriate to help guard against unexpectedly poor their dri . king water from that source of
| |
| ' r short term estimates and that performance from ore type of barrier. ground water. These concentration judgmems may have to be substite'ed (v) Sites foi disposal systems shoald limits are similar to those set in 40 CFR ,
| |
| for quantitative predictions in certain be selected to avoid places where Fart 141 for comrrunity water systems, situations. Disposal in compliance with resources have previously been mined. Like the individaal protection the contairment requirements is where there is a reasonable expectation requirements, the ground water proj< - 'd to cause no more tha.1.000 of exploration for scarce or easily protection requirements apply to premature (ancer deaths o.cr the entira accessible resources, or where there is a undisturbed behavior of the disposal 10 000-year period from disposal of all significant concentration of any material system for a period of 1.000 years after existing high. level wastes and most of which is not otherwise available. (The disposal. (No explicit ground water the wastes yet to be produced by w crding in the proposed rule would - protection requirements were included currently opera' ; reaJor:;-an have n, led out sites with a significant in the proposed rule.)
| |
| average of 0.1 fa. ality per year. 'h ais possibility of being considered for level of residual risk to future resource exploration in the future. Th" (c) Section 191.17 of 'he final rule establishes minimum procedu. il generations would be comparal,!r. the final rule revises this requirement to requirements that the Administrator isks that those generatiors would base allow use of sites with some resource must follow if additionalinformation faced from the uraniurr. cre used to potentialif they have other significant considered in the future indicates that it create the wastes if the ore had neser advantages compared to potential would be appropriate to modify any laen mined. Actual risks wdl probably alternative sites.) portion of the disposal standards be sigmfirar'ly less her use of the (si) Recovery of most of the wates consersatise app-ch r "d for b/ the through further rulemaking. (No sim!!ar must not be precluded,for a reasonab!e provision wns includ-l in the proposed othcr parts of Sobpart 11 Ge i period afor disposal . unforeseen quantitath e probal;ihties in the rule.)
| |
| event,s requ're this in tnt future. m Tk ''guida r - for implementatLn" pro,,osed rule were an or ter of (c) .he mdividual proterhon magnitude smaller than those requirements (Section 191.13) limit incluud as Appendix B to the final rule incogora ted into the f: .,1 rule. The annual axgosures to membert of the describes certain analytical approcches release lim.t in the final rule are . public m the accessible environment and assumptions through which the ,
| |
| different than those in the crocosed sole from the disposal system to 25 millirems Agmc;
| |
| * tends the varbus long. term due to chango "s epa's techmcal to the whole body and 75 millirems to m mena standards of Subpart D to be analyses thh . vere rec"nmended by the any e gun. These requirements apply to applied. *s guidance is particularly SM Subcommittee. howes er, the les el unaisturbeJ performance of the disposal imp rtant because there are no of residual risk is the same as for the system for 1.000 years after disposal. All precedents for the implementathn rf proposad nde ) patential pathways of radiatfor such long. term environmental (b) The assurance requirements standards, which wdl require G (Section 191.14j call for cantious steps to he taken in dhposim of ther rastes exnosure frcm the dis osal s3siem to people must be consi ered, including the C "Sideration of extensive analytica!
| |
| assumption that indhiduals consume all pr lections of disposal system because of the inhare'
| |
| * unce.iainties in of their i inking water (2 liters per day) performance. (The proposed rule selecFeg and de. e!g 'isposal from any significant source of ground contained a corresponding. but less sistems ihat .nmt be serv effective for water" located outside the "controlled extensive, section eraitled "procedural more han ta.ono 3 ears. lhe assurance area" established art .nd a disposal requirements.")
| |
| raquirements incorporate the following system. A "significant source"is overall Approach ofik Final Rule principles: identified by several parameters (i) Although active instituti. aal intended to describe an aquifer in ",eneral, the Agency developed the rontro' sucn as guarding and sufficiant te meet the needs of a various elemer"s of this rule by m;inta sing a (Jsposal site, should be "community water system" as defined in balancing several perspectives. One set encraged they cannot be relied apon the Agency's NationalInterim Pdmary of considerations wcs the exw ted to icotate these westes from the Drinking Water Regulatioas (40 UR capabilities of the waste management euwanment for more than 100 years part 141). (No explicit mdividual and disposal technob'es to reduce a:ter dnposal. (The prt. posed rule protection requirements were included both short. and lor' .1 risks to public hmited reliance to "a few hundred in the proposed rule.) health end ne, ens.., 4nt.These y ears" aftN disposal.) (d)'Ihe ground water pro action capabilities were exammed through a (ii) Disposal systems n :4t be requirements (Section 195J 3) limit the number of y rformance assessments of monitored to detect substantial rhang"s concentrations of radioact city (or the the waste management, storage, and from their expected performana El increases in concentratiot s. If disposal facilities planned for the the Implementing age- .:et ertr o ireesimg concentrations already wastes gei rated by commercial that there are no significant conce y ee<1 these 'imits) in waters nuclear powtr plants. Since detailed be addressed by further monitor , .thdraw n ; i sost Class I sources of plans ha ce not yet been determined for (Thia rrquirement was not incluard ' uund wr disposal system to disposition of the wastes generated by the proposed rule.) m rwe thA ' ries per liter of atomic energy defense activities, similar (iii) The sites where disp mal r '
| |
| clides (induding assessments ware generally not y are located must be identified b3 ries per liter of nerformed for these materials. A second y ,rermanent markers, widespread n.228 but corisideration, where applicable. was
| |
| ~l d k r ords, and other passive instit. sti i-e to no more than consistency with related environmental Tdf'-
| |
| rontrols to warn fu6ce genera'ione o' .mtrations of standards for radiation exposure. A the daners .in ilocation of the w asu i emit either he'a or third factor was evalua: ion of vmious e !
| |
| | |
| 38070 Federal Regist:r / Vol. So, No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations benchmarks to assess the acceptability these limits. This will include all uncertainties regarding the distant of the residuai risks that might be operations prior to final closure at high- future. S"bpart D aFresses these issues allowed by the rule. This was level waste disposal facilities, since by combining several different ty pes of particularly important for the disposal these are to be regulated by the NRC. standards. The primary objectis e of standards, where there were few For waste management and storage these standards is to isolate most of the precedents to guide the Agency's operations conducted at atomic energy wastes from man's environment by judgments. Finally, the Agency placed defensc facilities operated for the limiting long. term releases and the cmsiderable emphasis on the public Department of Energy (w:Jch are not associated risks to populations. In c.omerns expressed during the various. regulated by the NRC), the most relevant addition. Subpart U liraits risks to phases of t:.4 rulemaki..g. particularly existing standards are the 40 CFR Part indisiduals in ways compatible with this wheie these concerns involved G1 limitat'eas on aa emissione cf primary objective, addressing the substantial uncertainties radionucbdes that were recently Although developed primarily through inherent in the unprecedented time promulgated under the Agency's Clean consideration of mined geologic periods of interest. Air Ac' authorities (50 FR 5190). These repositories, these disposal standards The final rule reflects a combination standards limit annual exposu rs to apply to disposal of spent fuel and high.
| |
| of all these perspectives-no single members of the public to 25 millirems to '.evel and transuranic radioactive wastes factor predominated. For instance, no the whole body and 75 millirems to anF bs any method-with one exception.
| |
| portion of this rule is based solely on organ, with less stringent alternative T'he stand,rds do not apply to oc san projections of the "best" protection that standards availaole if it can be shown disposal or disposal in ocean seuiments technology might provide. If this had that no member of the public will because such disposal of high. level been the case, the rule would have been receive a continuous exposure of more waste is prohibited by the Marine signific antly different. On the other than 100 millirems per y ear or an Protection Research, and Sanctuaries hand. the rule cannot be interpreted as infreqent exposure of more than 500 Act of 1972. If this law is ever changed setting pre 'edents for "acceptsble risk" millirems per year frorn all sources to allow such disposal (DOE continues leuls to futere generations that should (excluding natural background and to study the feasibility of this not be exceeded regardless of the medical exposures.) These Clean Air technology, consistent with 'he NWPA).
| |
| c;rcumstances. Instead, becaue of a Act standards are applicable to those the Agency will develop appropriate numbt r of unique circt.mstances, the facilities not covered by 40 CF R Parts regulations in accordance with the Agency has been able to develop 190.191 or 102. For DOE waste disposal different authorities that would apply, standards for the manageme,i and facilities covered by this rule but not Also, these disposal standards do not dispual of these wastes thy are both regulated by NRC (i.e., those for defense reasonably achievabl-with little, if transuranic wastes), the Agency has Wy to wastes that have already been included standards in Subpart A similar disposed of. The various provis. ions of any, effort beyond that already planned Subpart B are intended to be met for commercial wastes-and that limit to those included in the Clean Air Act riskn to levels that the Agency oclieves through a combmation of steps f avolving rule.
| |
| are clearly acceptably small.The For other DOE waste mcaagement dispos I system site selection, design.
| |
| following paragraphs describe how and storage operatioru, which are and operational techniques (i.e..
| |
| these s arious perspectives were used in usually conducted on large facilities entneered barriers).Therefore, the developing the final ruh. with many other potential sources of Agency betieves it appropriate that radionuclide emissions, the Sgency these disposal standards only apply to Standards for Manusement and Starnye believes that continued regulation under disposal occuring after the standards N"I'P"O the broader scope of 40 CFR Part 61 is base been promulgated-so t!.at they ,
| |
| Upon surveying the expected the most effective and practical cta be taken into consideration m performaue of the technologies planned approach. Otherwise, similar types of devising the proper selection of controls for the management, storage. and emissions from adjoining operations Some transuranic wastes produced in prep"a ion of these wastes for disposal. would have to be assessed and support of national defense programs the Agency found that the likel/ regulated through separate rules were disposed of before the current exposures to members of the public developed under different authorities: DOE procedures for transuranic waste would g-nerally be very small. this would cause complex management were adopted in 1970. The Therefore, compatibility t ,ith related implementation practice; without exclusion of wastes already disposed of radiation protection standards became a providing any additional protection. applies to these transuranic wastes, for ,
| |
| l more impo. tant perspective for Subpart which selection of disposal system sites. i j A. Standards for DisposalfSubpart B) designs, and operational techniques are ,
| |
| l For wate management and storage Deseloping the standards Mr disposal no longer options.
| |
| l eperations to be regulated by the NRC, of spent fuel and high. level and Conta nment Requirements (Section i I the most relevan' emting standards are transuranic wistes invob 'd much more l
| |
| those provisions of 40 Cl R Dart 190 that unusual cheurastances than those for m.m hmit annual exposures of members of waste management and s:orage. To des elop the containment j the public to 25 mdlirerns to '
| |
| yhole Because these materials are dangerous requirements, the Agency assumed that '
| |
| body,75 m' % ma to the thy u. and 25 for so long. very long time frames are of some aspects of the future can be l nuliirems to any other orga i fcom interest. Standards must be predicted well enough to guide the ^
| |
| uranium fuel cycle facihtice implemuted in the design phase for se.ection and development o disposal l Accordingly, the Agency has decided to the se disposal systems because active s3 stems for these wastes. A period of ;
| |
| estend this coverage to include such surveillance cannot be relied upon os er 10.noo years was considered because I waste management r.nd storage such periods. At the same time, the that appears to be long enough to operations so that the wmbmed standards must accommodate large distinguish geologic repositories with j espoure from all of the NRC-licensed un( crtainties, including uncertaimies in relatively good capabilities to isolate i facilities covered under Part 190 and our current knowledge abot.t dispo al wastes from those with relatisely 90er j Subpart A of Part 191 shall rot nceed sy stem behasior and the inhcret t 7 abilities. On the other Snd, t;. s el t1
| |
| .~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _
| |
| | |
| Feder.1 Reg! ster / Vol. 50. No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 38071 period is short enough so that major cause 1.000 premature deaths over releases. Accordingly, they are stated in geologic changes are unlikely and 10.000 years if released to the terms of the probability of raases repository performance might be ewironment. The limits were then occurring. This is done in two steps.
| |
| reasonably projected. stated in terms of the allowable release y;rst, the release limits calculated in The Agency assessed the performance from 1.000 rnetric tons of reactor fuel (so accordance with Notes 1 through 5 to O of a number of model geologic that the actual curie values in Table 1 Table 1 apply to those release les els repositories sir. alar to those systems correspond to a risk level of to that are projected '.o occur with a now being c ,nsidered by DOE. Potential premature deaths over 10.000 years). All cumulative probability greater than 0.1 radior.uclid i reipases over 10.000 years of these limits haw been rounded to the for the entire 10.000-year period over w cre evaluded, and very yieral nearest order of magnitude because of rnodt Is of en. ironmental transport and a the approximate nature of these which these disposal standards apply, linear, non.thrtshold dose-effect calculatioF. f or particular disposal This includes the total releases from relatmnship were used to relate these systems, releas-limits based upon the those processes that are espected to releases to the incidence of premature amount of waste in the system will be occur as well as relatively likely rancer deaths they nJght cause. For the developed and will be used in a formula disruptions (which tr Agency assumes various repository types, these that insures that the desired risk level will priman,ly include predictions of assessments indicate that disposal of will not be escceded if releases of more inadvertent human irausion).
| |
| the wastes from 100.000 metric tons of than one type of radionuclide are Second, these release limits multiplied reach r fuel would cause a population predicted. For some of the wastes by ten apply to all of the releases risk ranging from no more than about covered by this rule,1.000 metric tons of projected to occur with a cumulative ten to a little more than one hundred reactor fuel l'. not an appropriate unit of probability greater than 0.001 over the premature deaths over the entire 10.000- waste. In these situations. the various 10.000-year period. The Agency expects year period, assuming that the esisting Notes to Table 1 provide instructions on that this willinclude releases that might prmisions of 10 CFR Part 60 regarding how to calculate the proper release occur from the trore likely natural
| |
| > engineered barriers are met. limits in particular, the final rule disruptive events, such as fault
| |
| 'the Agenc3 also evaluated the health includes provisions for high. level wastes mosement and breccia pipe formation risks that future generations would be from reactor fuels that have received esposed to from the amount of uranium (near soluble media such as salt substantially different uses in national forma; ions). This range of probabili'les ore needed to produce 100.000 metric defense applications (and contain much tons of reactor fuel,if this ore had not was selected to inch.de the anticipated different amounts of radioactivity) than uncertaintic s in predicting the likelihood been mmed to begm with. Population is typical of most reactor fuel used to risks ranging between 10 and 100.01M of these natural phenomena. Greater generate electricity.The proposed rule premature cancer deaths os er 10.000 relez.ses are allowed for these y would hase allowed releases for the" circumstances because they are so s eats were associated with this much different types of fueis to occur in much unmined uranium ore, depending upon different proportiens to theh total unlikely to occur.
| |
| the unalytical assumptions made. radioactivity than the A ency intended. Finally, the containment requirements These analysa, which have been The release limits app y to p!are no limits on releases projected to updated from those prepared for the O proposed standards, reinforce the Agency's conclusion that limiting radionuclides that are projected to mose occur with a cumulative probability of into the "accessible environment" during the first 10.000 years after less than 0.001 over 10.000 years.
| |
| Probabilities this small would tend to tm radionuclide releases to levels disposal. The accessible ensironment limited to phenomena such as the associated with no more than 1.000 ircludes all of the atmosphere. land appearance of new volcancs outside of premature cancer deaths os er 10.000 surfice, surfaco waters, and oceans. known areas of volcanic activity, and
| |
| ( years from disposal of the wastes from 100.000 metric tons of reactor fuel flowes er, it does not include the the Agercy beliwes there is no benefit lithosphere (and the ground water to public health or the environment from satisfies two It"portant objectives. First, within ill that is below the "contro!!cd trying to regulate the consequences of it provides a level of protection that area" surrounding a disposal system. such very unlikely events.
| |
| appears reasonably acalevable by the The standards are formulated this wdV The ce tainment requirements call for s arious options being considered within because the properties of the geologic a "reason ole espectation" that their the national program for commercial media around a mined repository are cond, the Agency believes various quantitatise tests be met This waste- espected to provide much of the phrase reflects the fact that unequivocal that si . a limitation would clearly disposal system's capability to isAte Leep rios to future populations at numerical proof of compliance is n ither these wastes over these long time necessary nor likely to be obtained. A accepWoly smalllevels, particularly periods. Thus, a certain area of the because it appears to limit risks to no :.imilar qualitative test, that of natural ersironmeat is envisioned to be more than the midpoint of the range of dedicated to keepi.1 these dangerous .. reasonable assurance " has be n used
| |
| ) estimated risks that future generations materials away from future generations with NRC regulations for many years.
| |
| would have been esposed to if the and may not be suitable for certa:n Although the Agency's intent is similar, uranium o.e used to create the wastes other uses, in the final rule. this the NRC Phrase has not been used in 40 had never been mined. Thus. because "control 5d area"is not to exceed 10g CFR part 191 because "reisonable mined geologic repositories appear square kilometers and is not to extend assurance" has come to be associated capable of prosiding such good more than five kilometers in any with a lesel of confidence that may not protection, the Agency has decided to direction from the original emplacement be appr.opriate for the very long. term establish cor'ainment requiremera s that of the wastes in the disposal s3 stem. analytical projections that are called for meet (Fese two objectives. The implementing agencies may choose by 191.13. The use of a different test of The specific release limits for different a srnaller area wbecever appropriate. ludgment is meint to acknowledge the radionuclides in Table 1 of the final rula The containment requirements appl 3 unique considerations likely to be were Jevelgd by estimating how M accidental disruptions of a dispoul encountered upon implementa, ion of m any curies oi nch ruoion,clide would s,, stem as well a= to any espected these (!sposal standants.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 38072 lider:1 Regist r / Vol. 50, No.183 / Thursday September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations Assumnce Requirements (Section procedures intended to insure applicable only to disposal facilities that 191.11/ deseloprnerit of the necessary disposal are not regulated by the NRC. In its In contrast to the contalament sptems for spent fuel and high-level comments on the proposed rule, the requirements. the assurance wastes. Furthermore, the Department NRC objected to inclusion of the requirements were developed from that has made substantial progress towards assurance requirements, asserting that point of sim that there rnay be major deseloping a repository for disposal of they were not properly part of the uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge the transuranic wastes from atomic Agency's authorities assigned by of the expected behasior of disposal energy defense activities. Ilecause of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. 'lhe sprems over many thousands of > ears. these steps, the Agency decided that the Agency continues to believe that
| |
| 'l herefore, no matter how promising the call for prompt disposal was no longer provisions such as the assurance analy tical projections of disposal sptem needed, and this assurance requirement requirements are an appropriate part of performance appear to be, the n, has not been included in the final nde. generally applicable standards where
| |
| : m. tcrials shoubt be disposed in a The other proposed assurance they are necessary to ,stablish tne cautiou manner that reduces the requirement deleted from the final nde ugulatory context for numeric 4d likehhood of unanticipated types of is the provision that called for releases standards-as they are in these releases. Ilecause of the inherent to be kept as small as reasonably circumstances becease of the major uncertainties associated with these long achievable even when the numerical uncertainties involved. llowever, the time periods, the Agency believes that containment requirements have been two agencies have agreed to resolve this y the ponciples embodied in the complied with. This wcald have ir. sue by having the Commission modify assurance requirements are important increased the confidence of achieving to CFR Part 60 where necessary to c omplements to the containment the desired level of protection even if incorporate the intent of the assurance there were major uncertainties in requirements, rather than base them
| |
| {
| |
| requirements that should insure that the leu I of protection desired is likely to be ana!>tical projections oflong term included in 40 CFR Part 191 for NRC-
| |
| ~
| |
| ac hie s ed. isolution. Ilowever, the Agency does not licensed disposal facilities. Thus,10 CFR Each of the assuran(c requirements belies e that it is necessary to retain thh Part 60 will establish the context needed was chosen to reduce the potential harm assurance requirement in the final for appropriate implementation of 40 from some aspect of our uncertainty standards because of two aspects of the CFR Part 191.
| |
| about the future. Designing disposal related rules subsequently promulgated The NRC staff is preparing the sptems with limited reliance on actise by the NRC and DOE for disposal of appropriate revisions to Port 60 and h's institutional controls reduces the risks if spent fuel and high. level wastes. told the Agency that they will be future generations do not maintain First, NRC's 10 CFR Patt 60 published in the Federal Register for surveillance of disposal sites.On he implemented the multiple barrier public review and comment within other hand. planning for long4erm principle by requiring sery good approximately 120 days of today's 5 monitoring helps redut e the thances performance from two types of promulgation of 40 CFR Part 191. EPA that unexpectedly poor performance of a engineered components: A 300 to 1,000- has provided NRC with all of the disposal system w ould go unnoticed. ) car lifetime for waste packages during comments received on the assurance Using extensis c markers and records which there would be essentially no requirements during the 40 rTR Part 191 and usoiding resources when selecting expected release of waste, and a rulemaking and the Agency will disposal sites bo;5 serse to reduce the subwquent long-term release rate from participcte le the NRC rulemaking te chai.ces tht.t people may inadsertently the waste form of no more than one part facilitate out abjective of hming the darupt a disposal system because of in 100.000 per year. The Agency fully intent of all of the assurance incomplete unclerstanding of its location, endorses this approach and believes requirements embedied in Federu!
| |
| design, or hazards. Designing disposal that it represents the best performance regulation. Finally, the Agency will splems to iulu6 multiple types of reasonably achievable for currently resiew the record and outcome of the barriers, both engineered unit natural. foreseeable engineered components. Fart 00 rulemaking to determine if any reduc es the risks if one type of barrier Second, the DOE has included a subsequent modifications to 40 CTR Part performs more poorly than current provision in its site se'ection guidelines 191 are needed.
| |
| inow ledge indicates. Finally, designing (10 CFR Part 900) that calls fer Indieldualand Ground 11 ater disposal systems so that it is feasible for sigmficant emphasis to be placed on Protection Requirements (3cetions the wastes to be located and recovered selettmg s,tes i that demonstrate tne I gh en future generations an opportunity lowest releases over 100.000 years 191.15 and 191.16) j to rectify the situation if new compared to the other alternatives While the primary objective of both j dscos cries indicate corapelling reasons available. Particularly because of the the proposed t.nd final disposal (which would not be foreseeable now) longer time frame invoh ed in this standards has been to limit potential l
| |
| j to c hange the way these wastes are comparison, the Agency belies es that %ng. term releases from disposal ;
| |
| ( disposed of. this prosides adequate encouragement systems (and the population risks
| |
| ! The proposed standards contained to choose sites that proside the best associated with such releases), these tw3 other assurance requirements isolation capabilMies available. tao . cations have been added to the ,
| |
| intended to reduce the risks of Therefore, the concept of keeping lon3.- P.nal rule to provide protection for those uncertainty. One of them called (c; term icienes as small as reasonably chviduals in the vit.aity of a disposal i
| |
| these wastes to be disoosed of promptly achievable has been embodied by other estem.There are a number of difficult to reduce the tincertai:. ties associatr d agencies' regulations for both the iss .es involved in farmulating standa*ds with storing these materials for engineered and natural componentt of for individual protection in this indefinitely long times with methods disposal systems. situadon, as discussed later in the that require actise human involvement. The final rule incorporatee the five "P.elease Iimits vs. Individual Dose flow es er-af ter this rule was published remaining assurance requirements plus Limu s" section. Ilowes er. i.;ter for public comment-the NWPA was the requirement for long-term evaluating the various comments enacted, setting up mandates and monitoring. but it r,akes them received on this topic, the Agency i
| |
| 9
| |
| | |
| L Federal Register / Vol. So, No. In2 / Thur: day, September 19, 1935 / Rules and Regulations 38073 believes that there are also impmtant much shorter than 1000 years would not definition is prosided later in the
| |
| , advantages in prosiding for individual call for substantial engineered baniers "Release 1.imits vs. Individual Dose protection in ways compatible with the even at disposal sites with a lot of 1.imits" discussion.) Formations that 4 contaimner.t and assurance ground water flow. could only provide smaller amounts of reindrements. In discussing this issue. On the other hand, demonstrating potable water base not been included the SAll Subcommittee stated that:"We compliance with individual exposure because the Agency wants to avoid su[. port the Use of a population rish limits for times nuch longer than 1.000 discriminating against the use of low-criteria. We believe it is impractical to years appears to be quite difficult productivity geologic formetions that provide absolute protection to every because of the analytical uncertainties might provide very good long-term indisidual for all postulated events or involved. It would require predicting isolation as disposal sites. The Agency for very lor.,i periods. On the other hand, radionuclide concentrations--es en from believes this is reasonable for these in our view it .s important ' hat, for the releases of tiny portions of the waste- standards because of the very small first several hundred years, residents of in all the possible ground water numbar of such disposal fccilities that the region immediately outside the pathways flowing in all directions from are contemplated (no more than three or accessible environment have very great the disposal system, at all depths down four over the next 100 y ears.) llo.mver, ussurance that they will suffer no, or to 2.500 feet, as a function of time over the Agency has no plans to use this negligible,ill effects from the many thousa.wis of years. At some of the classification for other ground water repcaitory." sites being considered (and possibly all related standards, which usually affect a The indis idual protection of them, depending upon w hat is far greater number of situations.
| |
| requirements in the final rule limit the discos ered during site characterization) The Agency has not required these annual exposure from the disposal the only certain way to comply with individual protection provisions to system to a member of the public in the such requirements for periods on the assume ground water use within the access'ble environment, for the first
| |
| . order of 10,000 years appears to be to controlled area because geologic media 1.000 ) cars after disposal, to no more use very expensive engineered barriers within the controlbd area are an than 25 rnillirems to the whole body or that would rule out any potential integral part of the disposal system's 75 rnillirems to any organs. These releases over most of this period. While capability to provide long term isolation.
| |
| limitations upply to the predicted such Larriers could provide longer term (But if the implementing agency plans to in basior of the disposal systern. protection for individuals, they would allow individuals to use ground watec including consiueration of the not provide substantial benefits to within the controlled area, such plar.ned uncertainties in predicted behavior, populations because the containn. ant use would have to be considered with in
| |
| , assuming that the disposal system is not and assurance requirements already the pathways eva!uated to determine disrupted I,y human intrusion or the reduce popu;ation risks to sery small compliance with i 191.15.) The potential
| |
| )
| |
| occurrence of unlikely natural events. levels, loss of ground water resources is very
| |
| 'ihe Agency chose the limits of 25 Based on all of these considerations, small because of the small number or millirem / year to the whole body and 75 the Agency has decided that a 1.000 m.h disposal facilities contemplated.
| |
| millirem /yeur to any organ because it year duration is adequate for Neverthe'ess, the Agency has alu belieses that they represent a quantitative limits on individual added ground water protection sufficiently stringent level of protection Oe for situations where no more than a few exposures after disposal. For longer time requirements to the final rule (Section periods, several of the qualitative H1.16) that protect certain sources of ind kluals are likely to receive this assurance requirements should help to ground water even within tne controlled exposure. If such an indisidual were reduce the chances that indisiduals will area. These ground water protection l
| |
| exposed to this level oser 1 lifetime receive serious radiation exposures. In requirements are similar to the (which seems particularly unlikely given addition. 40 CFR Part 191 in no way individual protection requirements the localized pathways through which limits the future applicability of the because they apply to undisturbed waste might escape .4om a geologic Agency's drinking water standards (40 performance for 1.000 years after repositor)), the Agency estimates this CFR Part 141)-w hich protect disposal, llowes er, the ground water would c mse u a to"chance of con.munity water supply syWms protection requirements apply only to
| |
| , incurring a premature fatal cancer. through institutional contmls-or of those Class I ground waters, as they are in choosing a time period for these similar standards that future g nerations identified in accordance with the requireinents to protect individuals may choose to adopt. Arncy'r Ground-Water Protection neathy disposal systems, t'e Agency in assessing the perfonnance of a Strategy published in August 1934, that took into account concerns such as aisposal system with regard to meet the following three conditras:(1) those expressed by the SAD by indisidual exposures, all pathwa3 s of They are within the controlted area or i
| |
| esamining the effects of choosins radioactive material or radiation from near (less than five kilometerr beyonJ) thfferent time frames. As to.onn 3ers the disposal system to people shall be the controlled area; (2) they are l was chosen for the containment considered. In particular, the supplying drinking water for thous nds
| |
| ! requirements because it is long enou:.,h assessments must assume that of persons as of the date that the j to encourage use of disposal sites with indisiduals consumt all of thir drmking Department selects the site for extensive natural charaderistics that chant e water (2 liters per day) from any portion exploration as a potentiallocation of a long term isolation.1.000 years w as of a "signifi^ ant source of ground water" dispos, ' system; and (3) they are (hosen for the individual protect;on un)where ouside ~f the "controHed irreplaceable in that no reasonable prosisions b< cause the Agency's area" arrounding the disposal sy stem. alternative soure.c of drinking water is aswssments ind.a '? b :ong enough to Significant sources of ground water are available to that populaticn.
| |
| insure that particularly good en.vneered defined to include underground For sut h Class I ground w uter s.
| |
| barriers would need to be used m formations that are hkely to be ab'e to i 19t.16 limits the radionodide potential sites where some ground w ater provide enough water for a community concentrations in water withdiaw n from wonid be expected !o(bw throuxh a water s3 stem as defined in 40 CFR part any portion of them to no more than mined geologic repositor) the of a time 141. {\ tare informatim regarding this ror rentrat: limits similar to thow O -
| |
| | |
| 38074 Federal Regist:r / Vol. 50. No.182 / Thur: day, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
| |
| ~
| |
| l l established for t'e output of community successfully accomplished, such assessments: (2) reasonable limitations water systems in 40 CFR Dart 141. projections over thousanda of years to or, the scope of performance llowever,if the preexistmg determine compliance with an assessments:(3) the use of average or concentrations of radioactivity in the ens ironmental regulation are "mean" values in expressing the results Class I aquifer already exceed any of unprecedented. II-after substantial of performance asse:sments;(4) the l
| |
| these limits at a particular site, i 191.16 experience with ti ese analyses is types of assumpeons regarding the then limits any increases in the acquired-disposal systems that clearly effettiveness of institutional controls; preexisting concentrations to t!.ese same provide good isolation cannot and (5) limiting assumption. regarding concentration limits.The Agency reasonably be shown to comply with the the frequency and severity of belieses these provisions are necessary containtrent requirements, the Agency inadvertent human intrusion into and adequate to avoid any significant would consider whether modifications geologic repositories.
| |
| degrudation of the important drinking to Subpart D were appropriate. The implementing agencies are water resources provided by these Class Another situation tnat m5ght lead to responsible for selecting the specific l ground waters. suggested revisions would be if information to be used in these and additional information were des cloped other aspects of performance A /ternotire Prorisions for Disposal reg rding the disposal of certum wastes assessments to determine compliance (Section M1.17) that appeared to make it inappropriate with 40 CFR Part 191. llowever, the la deu loping the disposal standards. to retain generally applicable standards Agency believes it is important that the the Agency has had to make many addressing all of the wastes covered by assumptions used by the implementing assumptions about the characteristics of this rule. For example, the DOE is agencies are compatible with those used disposal systems that have not been considering disposal of some defense by EPA in developing this rule.
| |
| built, at>out plans for disposal that are wastes by stabilizing them in their Otherwise,iraplementation of the o1ly now being formulated, and,about current storage tanks. rather than disposal standards may have effects the probable adequacy of techmcal relocating them to a mined repository. quite different than those anticipated by information that will not be collected for The Agency has not assessed the W. Tne Tnal rule to be published in '
| |
| many years. Thus, although the Agency ramifications of such disposal yet and it the Code of Federal Regulations will bdies es that the disposal standards is certainly possible that it could be include this informational appendix as being promulgated today are carried out in compliance with all the guidance to the implementing agencier.
| |
| appropriate based upon current provisions of Subpart B bemg .
| |
| Although the other agencies are not k nowledge, we cannot rule out the promulgated today. Ilowever. it 's als bound tr % llow this guidance. EPA possibility that future mformation may possible that there may be benefits ,ccommei , that it be carefully indicate .iecds to modify the standards. associated with such disposal that considerea in planning for the In re cognition of this possibility, would warrant changes in Subpart B for application of 40 CFR Part 191.The i 191,17 of the Onal rule sets forth thesa types of waste. If so. I 191.17 Agency will monitor implementation of proct;dures under which the would govern the consideration of any the disposal standards as it develops Admimstrator may develop such revisions. ver the next severaI years tc determ'me modifications to Subpart H. should the Other examples of developments that whether any changes to the rule are need crise. Any such changes would might offer reasons to consider have to proceed through the usual alternative provisions in the future C"I. led for to meet the Agency s bjectives for these standards.
| |
| notice-and-comment rulemaking include:The use of reactor fuel cycles or process. and i 191.17 stipulates that utdizations substantially different than Comments on Issues liighughted for sut h a rulemaking would require a today s new models of the Public Review public comment period of at least 90 environmental transport and biological da)s to includa public hearings in The Agency particularly requested effects of radionuclides that indicate offected areas of the country. Although major changes (i.e., approaching an pubhc comment on six issues associated such procedures are common practice in order of magnitude)in the relative risks w th the proposed rule (47 FR 58196).
| |
| After these comments were received, rulemakings of this ty pe, they are not associated with diherent radionuclides required by the statutes relevant to this and the lesel of protection sought by the additional comments cnd informstion disposal standards; or information that were requested on reven issues raised rule (Administrative Procedures Act by the initial comments (48 FR 21rM).
| |
| mandates can be satisfied by a comment indicates that particular assurance period as short as 14 days). Thus, requirements might not be needed in Two of these seven issues (the definition i 191.17 insures an opportunity for certain situations to insure adequate of high-les el waste and the use of ;
| |
| individ ial dose limitations in the significant public interaction regarding confidence of long-term ens tronmental any proposed changes to the disposal protection. disposal standards) had been included st a ndr ds. among the first six issues that were
| |
| 'I here are seu ral art as of uncertainty Guidance for Implementation (Appendix highlighted. Thus, a total of eleven ;
| |
| the Agency is aware of that might cause & questions received particular attention y suggested modifications of the 'Ihis supplement to the final rule is during the public review and comment standards in the future.One of these based upon some of the analytical process. The following paragraphs (onceres implementation of the assumptions that the Agency made in summarize the comments received on containment requirements for mined descloping the technical bash used for each of these issues and the Agency's gealogic repositories. This will require formulating the numeric,1 disposal responses to them,ir" ., g collection of a great deal of data during standard- These analytical assumptions descriptions of an) : ting changes site characteriution. resolution of the incorpoi se information assembled as made in the final r jnevitable uncertainties in such part of the technical basis used to . g jgjfjgg gf ..jfj 3,ft y ,gj gg. y ,,g mformation, and adaptatmn of th,s i des elop the proposed rule, in particular. )
| |
| information into probabilistic risk Appendix 11 discusses: (t) The Traditiona:ly, the term "high.lcsel j assessments. Ahhough the Agency is consideratit.n of all barriers of a w aste" has meant the highly radioactise currently tonfident that this will be disposal system in performarre liquid wastes remaining from the O
| |
| 4 1
| |
| | |
| N Federal Register / Vol. So, No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 38075 recovery or uranium and plutonium in a responders thought that the Agency Agency pointed out that a variety of nur lear fuel rrprocessing plant, and should define the phrase "sufficient mined repository designs using different other liquid or solid forms into which concentrations" contained in part A of combinations of geologic media and such liquid wastes are conserted to the NWPA definition. llowever. several engineered controls were espected to facilitate managing thern. This commenters argued that the proposed meet these requirements. It was also lower limits for high. level waste estimated that the residual r i sks to O traditional use of included radioactive the term materials from has notconcentrations had been impropedy future generations appeared to be no other sourt.cs, no matter how taken out of the context of to CFR Part greater than if the uranium ore used to radioactive they are, flowner, 61 and could require expensive disposal create the wastes had not been mined.
| |
| somewhat different definitions of high. of wastes with relatively small hazants. EPA particularly asked for comme tt on level waste bas e appeared in certain Af ter considering these comments and whether it had taken an appropriate and laws and regulations affecting specific other information currently available, reasonab!c approach in choosing this aspects of radioactive wete the Agency decided to incorporate the level of protection based upon these management. hiost notably, some or NWPA definition of high-lesel waste in considerations.
| |
| these definitions have included the final 40 CFR Part 191 without further h!ast of the public comments found unreprocessed spent fuel as the elaboration of the phrase "sufficient this approich satisfactory. )fowever, prospects for a commercial fuel concentrations."The Agency recognizes some commenters argued that the risks reproces*ing industry became more that this introduces some uncertainty from unmined uranium ore did r.ot uncertal regarding the applicability of this rule- necessarily define an acceptably low In the proposed rule, high level waste flowever, the Commission is now level of residual risks. Tney pointed out was defined in the traditional sense, beginning a rulemaking that should that such risks may vary fro n place to includmg spent fuel if disposed of assemble the technicalinformation place (and a high-level waste repository without reprocessing. But the proposed needed to develop a more specific could "redistribute" them) and that definition also included minimum definition of high-level wastes. Since the society sometimes docs take measures radioactivity concentrations below NRC definition would nel necessarily to clean-up naturally-occurring which such materials would not be apply t all the situations covered by 40 radioactivity,impl fng that such natural 3
| |
| subject to the stringent isolaGon CFR Part 191 (e g., rnanagement and risks are not always "acceptable "
| |
| requirements of 40 CFR Part 191 To st r go f defense high-level wastes On the other hand, some commenters identify these minimum concentrations, prior to disposalis not regulated by felt that the level of protection sought in the maximum concentrations that the NRC), the Agency will follow the the proposed rule was far too stringent NRC determined that it would generally Comrmss:on s rulemaking to determine when compared to risks allowed and accept in near surf ace disposal facilities what appropriate elaborations of the accepted by society from other
| |
| ; Nu PA definition should be activities. For example, the SAB under 10 CFR Part 61 (47 FR 57446) were ndapted. Since this represented a inc rp rated into 40 CFR Part 191. Upon wmpleton of the NRC rulemaking, the Subcommittee recommended that the modification of the traditional meaning desired level of protection be relaxed b) of high level waste, the Aacucy Agency williniti te steps t at least a factor of ten for this reason, particularly sought comment on this appropriately m dify this rule. In coupled with the Subcommiitee's addition, FPA will address disposal of O aspect of the proposed rule. any ra ac e wastes that are not concern that the uncertainties in Shortly after 40 CFR Part 191 was analytical projections over thousands of publitihed for public resiew, the NWPA
| |
| " 8" "
| |
| Part 192 (the Agency's standards for ) ears could make it difficult to was enacted. The NWPA distinguished dernonstrate compliance with the disposal of uranium mill tailings) as it between speat nutlear fuel and high- proposed containment requirements.
| |
| P les el waste, and it defined high. level f"c*g '[g'a)t es tes Bf Af'er evaluating the public comments waste to molude both: "( A)'lhe highly Finally, incorporating the NWPA and updated perforraance assessments radioattive rnateilal resulting from the definition of highdevel waste also Ige 1 Sic rePositmies, the Agency has ieprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, includes the phrase "consistent with retamed the proposed lesel of protection m< luding hymd waste produced directly existing ! w" when describing the as the basis for the long-term in icprocessing and any solid material containment requirements m the final NRC's responsibilities to identify j derived from such liquid waste that materials as high-lesel waste. ru!&even though it is true that lorg-contains fission products in sufficient Promulgation of 40 CFR Part 191 with term assessments of repository
| |
| ? concentrations; and IU) other highly this definition does not signify Agency performance will encounter substantial radioactive material that the acceptance or endorsement of any uncertainties, as the SAB Subcommetee Commission, consistent with existina particular interpretation of the phrase pointed out. Three reasons support this law, determines by rule. requires "consistent with existirg law." The decision.
| |
| permanent isolation." This definition Agency presumes that the Commission First, res i4 ira the performance allow for inclusion of highly radioactis e
| |
| ~
| |
| w di specify the applicability of i;, assegsments in accordance with many material not related to reprocessing of estieg authorities as it conducts the of the technical ret ommendatior,s of the spent nuclear fuel, nad it reflects the relevant rutemaking efbrts. SAB his reinforced the A;cncy's
| |
| < oncept that some derivatives of nuclear conclusion that the proposed leul of fuel reprocessing may not contain Tbe kM oWection proter. tion can reasonably be achieved sufficient radioactisity to warrant in the proposed rule, the containment by a variety of combina: ions of exc eptional isolation. requirements for disposal systems repository sites and designs-and EPA's Many of the coraments regarding the limited the roidual risks t no more regulatory impact analyses indicate that proposed defmition suggested that EPA than an estimated 1,000 pr mat,re this leul of protection can be achieved adopt the definition in the NWPA, cancer deaths user the first 10m) years without significant effects on the cost of although in respoese to the specific after disposal of the wastes from lonm) disposina of these wastes.
| |
| questions distnbuted in conjunction metric tons of heavy metal (MllIM) Second, comparing this level of with the Agenefs public hearing, many used as fuel in a m.tlear reactor. W pro ection with the comparable risks O
| |
| | |
| 38076 Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. 50. No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations from equivalent amounts of unmined substantially longer period would have formulated in terms of releases that uranium ore continues to reinforce the entailed considerably more uncertain might be caused by geologic processes Agency's belitf that this is an calculations. There was no intention to and events.
| |
| acceptably small residual risk for future indicate that times beyond 10.000 years In the second round of comment. the generations. Therefore, the Agency wcre unimportant. bat the Agencyfelt Agency sought information on whether belicus that this les el of protection that a disposal system capable of to adopt the NRC's recommended represents a reasonable basis for these meeting the proposed containment wording or to retain defin!iions based disposal standards. requirements for 10.000 yeats would on quantitative probabilities. Although a Third. rather than relax the les el oL contmue to protect people and the number of commenters agreed with the protection, the Agency has chosen f; environment well bey ond 10.000 years. NRC position, the preponderance of address the uncertainties that concerned The SAll Subcommittee reviewed and comments supported retention of the the SAll Subcommittee by adding supported these technical arguments for quantitative probabilities. The SAD 1101.13(b) and by providing a mr te limiting the containment requirements to Subcommittee strongly supported detailed "Guidance for impleme'.tation" a 10.00ayear period. Those commenters retention of the probabilistic structure, section to replace the proposed who argued for longer periods did not but with substantially less restrictive "Procedural Requirements." Fo suggest effective ways that might probabilities and with the proviso that example, this guidance points out that comoensate for the substantially greater the Agency be sure that such wnditions the entire range of possible pr ,jections uncertainties inherent in longer would be ". . . practical to meet and of releases need not meet the projections of disposal system [wouldl not lead to serious impediments.
| |
| < ontainment requirements. Ra%er, performance- legal or otherwise. to the licensing of compliance should be Imsed upon the flowever, many of the commenters high. level waste repositories." After projections that the implementing and the SAll Subcomrnittee suggested considering all of this information, the agencies believe are more realistic. that more qualitative or comparative Agency has revised the structure of the Furthermore, these revisions assessments beyond 10.000 years might containment requirements in several ocknowledge that the quantitatise be appropriate. The Agency agreed with ways that will retain quantitative calculations needed may have to be these comments and wor!.ed with the objectives for long. term containment supplemented by reasonable qualitatis e DOE to formulate comparative while allowing the implementing judgments in order to appropriately assessment provisions that have been agencies enough flexibility to make determine compliance with the disposal incorporated into the fmal version of the qualitative judgments when necessary.
| |
| standards. Department's site selection guidelines First, the final rule does not use the in retaining the proposed les el of (to CFR part 900). These provisions call terms "reasonably foreseeable" and protection, the Agency emphasizes that for comparisons of the projected .'s erv unlikely" releases. Instead. the it is making a decision applicable only releases from undisturbed performance , peir$issible probabilities for two to the circumstances m'olving disposal of alternatise repository sites over different levels of cumulative releases of spent nuclear fuel and high level and 100.000 years to be a significant (over 10.000 years after disposal) are transuranic wastes. This rule cannot be consideration in site selection. Since now incorporated directly into the used to establish precedents such as ",no natural barriers are expected to provide containment requirements.
| |
| Incremontal risk to future generations the primary proterion for such long Second. the numtrical probabilities for estrapolation to other disposal time frames, this provision should allow associated with the two release problems. Ior other situations. for appropriate considerat,on i oflonger categories have been increased by an evaluations of technological feas,bility i time periods w,thout i requiring the order of magnitude to reflect further and cost-effectis eness rnust be absolute values of these very uncerta,n i considered for the particular set of calculations to meat a specific assessments of the uncertainties circurr..tances. If mined geologic ass clated with projecting the quantitatis e test. With the inclusion of probabilities of geologic events such as
| |
| , repositories were not capabic of this comparative test in 10 CFR part 960 I""Il * ""#
| |
| prosiding such good protection, the the Agency belieses that no Agency might has e a hosen considerably modification is needed in 40 CFR part Third, the final rule clearly indicates differe'nt standards. 191.
| |
| that comprehensis e performance assessments, mcluding estimates of the Time l'etimf for Containmen t Use clQuantitatiev Prokbilities in the probabilities of various potential l Hequirements Containr"mt (lequirements releases whenever meaningful estimates Many commenters addressed the The covnment requirements in the are practicable, are needed to determine 10.000-year period used for the proposed proposed rule applied to two categories compliance with the containment ,
| |
| containment requirements. A few argued of potential releases ("reasanably requirements. J that this period was too long and that foreseeable" and "very unhkely") based Fou"h. a paragraph has been added z F.pA should only be concerned with a upon their projected probabilities of to the final containment requirements few hundred to a thousand years. A occurrence over the first 10.000 years (Section 191.13) to emphasize that :
| |
| number of commentt rs supported the alter disposal. In its comments on the unequivocal proof of compliance is (
| |
| focus on 10.000 S ears. Ilowes er, many proposed rule, the NRC objected to the reither expected nor required because l comnunters felt that it w as pr6 posed quantitative definitions of of the substantial uncertainties inherent inappropriate for the standards to ignore these probabilities on the basis that in such long term projections. Instead. l the period after 10.000 years. Some calculation of such probabilities could the appropriate test is a reasonable l suggested that the containment be so uncertain that it would be expects. tion of compliance based upon l
| |
| , reqairements should address periods impractical to determir.e whether the practically obtainable infoi: nation ar.d
| |
| ! ranging from 50.000 to 500.000 years. standards had been comphed with. analysis.This paragraph was patterned )
| |
| after a paragraph that considered l In the proposed rule the Agency Instead, the NRC sugge,ted substitution indicated that 10.000 3 ears was chosen, of qualitatise terms to ideritify the two sioilar issues in NRC's 10 CFR part 60.
| |
| in part, because compliance with categories of potential releases.The Finally the ' Guidance for quan'itatise standards for a wording proposed by the NRC was Implementation" section has been 0
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| b Federal Register / Vol. UA No.182 / Thursday September 19, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 38077 added (Appendix D).This part of the retard transport of radionuclides incorporated in to Cl R Part 60. This rule describes the Agency's assumptions through ground water. Such surroundmg revised definition limits the controlled regmhng perfemam.e assessments and media would be dedicated for this area to a distance no greater than fis e uncertainties and should discourage purposo, with the intention to prohibit kilometers from the original overly restrictive or inappropriate incompatible activities (either those that emplacement of wastes in a disposal O implementation requirements.
| |
| of the containment might disrupt the disposal system or system, rather than 10 kilometers.
| |
| those that could cause significant Furthermore, the revised definition The Agency believes that those radiation c> posures) in perpetuity. limits the area encompassed by the revisions to the proposed rule preserse Applying standards to the ground water controHed area to no more than 100 an objective framework for application contained within these geologic media square kilometers. which is of the containment requirements that surrounding a repository would ignore requires very stringent isolation while approximately the area that would be the role of this natural barrier, and it encompassed by a controlled area at a allowing the implementing agencies could reduce the incentive to search for adequatt- flexibility to handle specific distance of three kilometers from all
| |
| , sites with characteristics that would sides of a typical repository un(cria,intas that rn-iy be encountered. enhance long-term containment of these Withm this framework, t a possibility configuration. (A distance of five wastes. (At the same time, the Agency kilometers from all sides of a t3 pical ofinadvertent human intrusion into or recognized that the institutional controls nearby a repository requires special designed to reserve this area around a repository would correspond to an area attention. hath intrus!nn can of about 200 square kilometers, whereas disposa! systera cannot be considered ogmficantly disrupt the containment a distance of ten kilometers from all
| |
| , infalhble, and other prmisions of the sides corresponds to an area of almost afforded by a geologic repository (as rule are designed to reduce th" well as being dangerous for the 500 square kilometers ) This revised consequences of potential failures.) .
| |
| Intruders). and repositories shoubt be - definition substantially reduces the area selected and designed to reduce the
| |
| " " ' I of the hthosphere that would have been risks from such potential disruptions e inhion amssible environment remo' ed from the "accessible incmpmated in the pmposed mle. Some flowever, assessing the ways and the environment" defined in the proposed reasons that people might explore mpuwmp at aH gmumi wakr or rule, and it somewhat reduces the underground in the future-and p pota gmund water, shouM be distance used in the proposed rule. The evaluating the effertiveness of passive inc e ers agmW Sat n was fis e. kilometer distance was chosen to r ontrols to deter such exploration near a [er retain re s nable compat.bility with the r epository-wdl entail informed imm te i inik f NRC's requirement for a judgment and speculation, it will not be repository, but argued that the proposed to-kilometer distance wa s too long- ar,ement ground water tra vel possible to develop a ' correct', estimate particulady for ground water sources Ememp
| |
| # F"''h b "" "
| |
| of the probability of such intrusmn.The r.nsironment (one of the 10 CFR Part 60 Agency beheves that performance that were likely to ba used in the future.
| |
| A few commenters thought that the rewnments dewfoped in concert woh assessments should consider the the proposed rule), while still providing possibilities of such intrusion, but that osed defirdtion was too restrictive by including all ground water bayond 10 fur gmater isolation than called for by hnuts should be placed on the sescrity the proposed rule.This definition of the O of the assumptions used to make the kilometers; they suggested that poor nsse%ments. Appendix U to the f nal quality ground water sources unhkely to accessible environment wl:1 allow a be used in the future should not be part controlled area to be established rule describes a set of parameters about of the accessible ensironment at all. asymmetrically around a repository thi hkehhood and consequonees of inadvertent intrusion that the Agency After considering these comments, the based upon the particular assumed were the most possimistic l' hat ^8"ney has decided to raake several c oracteris ics o7 a si e.
| |
| wauld be reasonable in making changes in .the definition of the Re/ case limits n. ladividao/ Dvse pn formance assessments. The "accessible environment." First, the (f.np implementing agencies may adopt these com ept of a "controlled area" has been assumptions or des elop similar ones of adupted from NRC's to CFR P rt 60. The Agency belieses that the their own. Iloweser, as indicated under This establishes an area around a containment requirements m i 191.13 the discussion of institutional controls, disposal system that is to be identified willinsure that the overall population the Arncy does not beliese that by markers, records, and other passive raks to f uture generations from dispos d institutional controls can be rehed upon institutional controls intended to of these wastes willla acceptably to compb>tely chminate the possibility of prohibit incompatible actisities from the smalt floweser, the s:tuation with inadwn ;ut intrusion. area. Consis a nt with the r,ropov d 40 regard to potentialindividual doses is CFR Part 1" .oe current NRC definition more comphcated. Even with good IMaition ef ".in emble Envirtamevr" of "controlled area" limits its distance engineering controls, some w aste may
| |
| 't he containment respiirements hmit from the edga of a repository to no more esentuany (i.e., several hurdrcJs or releases to the "accessible than 10 kilometers. 'I he final 40 CI R thousands of lears after disposal) be ensironment" for 10,000 3 ears after part 191 defines "acwssible released into any ground water that disposal. In the proposed rule, ground envirc. ment" to include: (1) The migh, he in the immediate visity of a water within to kdometers of a disposal atmosphere, land surfaces. surfar e geolngic repository. Since gmed water splem was culudea from the definition w aters, and the oceans, wheres er they generally provides relatively O't!e of accessible environment. This are located, and (2) portions of the ddution, anyone using such definition was intended to reflect the lithosphere-and tha ground water contaminated ground water in the future con ept that the geologic media within it-that are bey ond the may receive a substantial radiation surroundmg a mined repository are put ontrolled area. exposure (e g., several rems per year or of the long-term containment sptem. Set oH. the Agency has n ade tee more). This possibility is ir.herent in with disposal sites bemg selected so definition of the "controlled area" mme collecting a sery large amount of that the surroundmg media present or restrictise than that currently ridioactisity in a small area.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 38078 Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. 50. No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations The proposed rule did not contain any These comments did not offer rule suggested an ir.dividual dose limit numerical restrictions on such potential information that changed the Agency's for 1.000 years after disposal.
| |
| Individual doses after disposal Rather, perception of some of the problems After considering all of this the proposal relied on several of the associated with individual dose information, the Agency has decided to -
| |
| qualitative assurance requirements to limitations for disposal. First, relying include two new sections in the final greatly reduce the hkelihood of such only upon an individual dose standard rule. The first (Section 191.15) limits exposures. In particular, the assurance for disposal could encourage disposal exposures to members of the public after requirement calling for extensive methods that would enhcnce dilution of disposal, while the second (Section permanent markers and records was any wastes released lThus, disposal 191.16) limits concentrations in water intended to perpetuate information to sites near bodies of surface water or withdrawn from certain important future generations about the dangers of large sources of ground water might be sources of ground water after disposal.
| |
| intruding into tl e vicinity of a preferred - which the Agency believes is The individual protection repository. The assurance requirement an inappropriate policy that wculd requirements m i 191.15 limit exposures to asoid sites with significant resources usually increase overall population from a disposal system to individuals in was intended to reduce the incentise to e xposures. the accessible environment to 25 explr>re around a repository even if the This concern could be met by adding millirems per year to the whole body information passed on was ignored or an individual dose limitation to the and 75 millirems per year to any organ.
| |
| misunderstood. And the assurance proposed contaiement requirements. These limits apply only to undisturbed requirements to use rnultiple barriers, rather than replacing them. Ilowever, performance of the disposal system (i.e.,
| |
| both engint ered and natural, and to the Agency's performance assessments without any consideration of human keep releises as small as reasonably of geologic repositories indicate that intrusion or disruption by unlikely achievable were intended to encourage doses from using ground water close to natural events), and they apply for the reduction of releases to ground water a repository can become substantial first 1.000 years after disposal. All beyond that needed to meet the (e g., several rems per year) after a few potential pathways of radiation or containment requirements-further hundred or thousand years, because the radioactive material from the disposal reducing the potential for harmful geological and geochemiced system to people (associated with indisidual exposures. characteristics of appropriate sites tend undisturbed performance) shall be This approach tc potentialindnidual to concentrate eventual releases of considered including the assumption exposurcs was highlighted for comment wastes in any ground water that is clow that an individual drinks two liters per when 40 CW part 191 was proposed. to the site. A study published by the day of water from any "significant Afte r receising many recommendations National Academy of Sciences in April source of ground water" outside of the to incorporate a limitation on indisidual 1983 confirms this potential for large "controlled area" surrounding a disposal dows after di.,posal, the Agency sought indisidual doses it flowing ground water system. If the implementing agency comment on further details of such a can contact the westes after the waste plans to allow indisiduals to use ground limitation in the second round of canisters are presumed to start leaking. water within the controlled area, such comments. For eu.mple. epa asked Although it might be pcssible to find planned use would also have to be whether suc h a limitation should apply certain geologic settings that avoid this considered within the pathways to ground water use, whether it should problem, such restrictive siting evaluated to determine compliance with apply only for ground w ater at some prerequisites cotdd substantially delay 9 191.15.
| |
| distance from a grologic repository or deselopment of disposal systems "Significant sources of ground water" for any ground water source, and without providing significantly more are defined to include any aquifer w ht ther reliance on existing indisidual protection to populations. Furthermore, cuitently providing the trimary source l dose limitations (such as 40 CFR part even if reasonable limitations on of water for a community water system lit or 10 CW part 20) for protection individual exposure might be met at or any aquifer that satisfies all of the regarding ground w ater would be certain sites for very long times, following five conditions:(1)It is udt quate. demonstrating compliance with such saturated with water contaimng less
| |
| 'lhe responses resulting from these limitations could be very difficult than 10.000 milligrams per liter of total questions offered a wide range of because of the additional complexities dissolvcd solids;(2)it is within 2,500 suggestions. A number of commenters invo'ved in estimating individual feet of the land surface;(3)It has a opposed inclusion of an indisidual dose exposures rather than amounts of transmissivity of a least :00 gallons per l
| |
| radioactivity re eased.The SA!3 day per foot, provided that (4) each of i limitation for disposal on the grounds Subcommittee report generally agreed the underground formations or parts of I that calculations to judge compliance with such a standard would be highly with the technical aspects of these underground formations included within the aquifer must have an individual
| |
| )
| |
| speculatis e and not an oppropriate basis conclusions. (
| |
| upon which to judge the adequm y of a On the other hand, analyses of hydraulic conductivity greater than disposal y stem. la contiast, some other repository systems with good gallons per day per square foot; and (5) rommenters argued that an individual t ngineering controit show that they it must be capable of prosiding a dose standard in the 5 to :5 millirems should be able to prevent significant sustained yieH of 10.000 gallons per day pt r year range shm Id apply to use of doses from Fround water use for at least of water to a pumped or flowing well ground water in the accessible a thousand y ears af ter disposal. Such Although such cuantitative ensironment for an indefinitely long protection would be compatible with distinctions are laevitably somew hat l period into the future. Another group of both the proposed t ontainn nt and arbitr9ry, the Agency believes that they j commenters supported imlusion of some nssurante requirements. Accordingly, provide reasonable demarcations to l limitation en indisiduct exposure, but the SAI1 Subcommittee recommended identify underground formations that l only to the extent that it would not that the Agency include a requirement could meet the needs of community j c onpromise the primary int .it of long- limiting individual doses for the first 500 water systems in the future. The !
| |
| term isolatie1 and (ontainment of the 3 ears after disposal, and one of the selected transmissisity of 200 gallons [
| |
| w astes. States that commented on the proposed per day per foot and the sustained yield O
| |
| 1 l
| |
| | |
| L Federal RegNer / Vol. 50, No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 38079 of 10.000 gallons per day roughly conditione (1) ~Ihey are within the compromise environmental protection.
| |
| correspond to the size of a ground water ccatrolled area or near (less than five The Agency believes that it does bas e source required to support the needs of kilometers beyond) the controlled area: the authority to give regulatory about 20 households: this is similar to (2) they are supplying drinking water for expression to the context within which the size of the community water system thousands of persons as of the date that it has chosen to establish one set of the Department selects the site for numerical standards rather than O runsidered in 40 CFR water quality criterion of 10.000 Part 141. The extentive exploration as a potential another. Ilowever. because it might not milhgrams per hter of total dissolved location of a disposal system; and (3) be appropriate to exercise this authority, solids has been used in several previous they are irreplaceable in that no the Agency sought public comment oa Agency regulations and is based upon reasonable alternative source of the need for the assarance requirements congressional guidance in the legislative drinking water is available to that in the second round of comments.
| |
| history of the Safe Drinking Water Act. population. The preponderance of comments The maximum depth criterion of 2,500 received on this question strongly NeMMe Assumnce Requimments feet was chosen because almost all of supported retention of the assurance the wells used to provide water to The precedm, g issues dealt with the requirements in 40 CITI Part 191. In significant numbers of people do not quantitative requirements of the particular, virtually all of the s arious extend below this depth. The minimum disposal standards. While numerical State governments that commented on hdraulic conductivity criterion of 2 standards are important to bring about the rule described the assurance gallons per day per square foot was appropriate selection and design of requirements as an essential part of the chosen to insure that only reasonably disposal systems, the Agency has long recognized that the numerical standards regulations governing disposal of these permeable fornwtions are considered, wastes. Subsequently, two of these rather than including unpredy:tive chosen for Subpart D, by themsehes, d States, Nevada and Minnesota, fmmations that rnight be in the sicinity not pmyide either an adequate context petitioned the Comnnssion to of a 'sigoificant source of ground for emronmental protection or a incorporate the assurance requirements
| |
| {
| |
| w a t er," sufficient basis to foster pubh,c voposed as part of 40 CFR Part 191 into The ground water protection c niidence m the national program.
| |
| lhere are too many uncertainties in i s own rules (50 FR 18267).
| |
| requirements in i 191.1G(a) limit the Based upon these comments, the concentrations in water withdrawn from pr jecting the behavior of natural und ency and the NRC have reached an any "special source of ground water" h. engineered components for many
| |
| "*"" agreement that should accomplish the the sicinity of a disposal system to Q" e or po,"[ desired regulatory goals while avoiding uniMes concentrations similar to those the jurisdictional issue. EPA has judgments in such calculations-for the established for the output of community included the assurance requirements m, r umerical requirements on overall
| |
| ) water systems by 40 CFR Past 141:(1) 5 picocuries per liter of radium-226 and system performance in Subpart B to be the final rule, modified as appropriate m the sole basis to determine the msponse to other comments. liowever, radmm.223: (2) 15 picoce-ics per liter of these requirements will not be alpha emitting radiowlides (including acceptability of disposal systems for these very hazardous wastes. These applicable to dispont facilities to be radium.220 and mdiam 228 but licensed by the Commission. Instead, as uncertainties and potential errors in O excludmg radan): or (3) the med comb. discussed previously, the NRC staff content, cons of radionuclides that quantitative anal) sis could ultimately plans to propoje modifications to 10 emit either beta or gamma radiation that prevent the degree of protection sought CFR Part 60, <ies eloped in consultation would produce an annual dose by the Agency from beig achieved.
| |
| (Theoretically, it might be possib.e to with FPA, for public review and equivalent to the total body or any develop adequate confidence in comment within approximately 120 das s internal organ greater than 4 millirems to insure that the objectives of all of the achieving this level of protection by per 3 ear if an indnidual contmeously choosing much more stringent numerical asserance requirements in 40 CFR Part consumed 2 liters per day of drinking standards, but this cou!d lead to 191 will be accomplished through water frum that source of water. substantial difficulties in compliance with to CFR Part 60. The
| |
| !!oweser,if the preexisting radionuclide implementation.) Therefore, the Agency has provided the Commission concentrations in the special source of proposed standards also included with all of the comments received by ground water aircady exceed any of qualitative assurance requirements epa regarding the assurance these limits, then i 191.1r(b) limits ar7 i hosen to ensa that cautious steps are requirements, so that the NRC can us a terreoses in the preesisting taken to reduce the problems caused by them in its rulemaking. In addition, it e concentrations to the concentration these uncertainties. The proposed rule Agency will participate in the NRC limits net in i 19t.1G(a). Like the emphasired that the assurance rulemaking to facilitate incorporation of individual protection requirements, the requirements were an essential the pinciples of all of the assurance ground water protection requirements complement to the quantitative requirements in Federal regulation.
| |
| apply only for undisturbed performance centainment requirements that were Finally, the Agency will review the of the disposal m3 stem und apply for the selected. record and outcome of the Part 60 first 1.n00 years after disposal. Unhke in its comments on the proposed ru!e, rulemaking to determine if any the indnidual protection requiremen's. the NRC argued that t! e assurance subsequent modifications to 40 CFR Part the grouna water requirements wouh! requirements were not properly part of 191 are needed.
| |
| l apply to a "special source" if it w as the Mency's generally applicable within the controlled area. standards. The Commission agreed that Nprocch TowcallastitutionalControls "Special sources" are defined to the overall numerical performancr The Agancy particularly sought include only those Class I ground standards were not sufficient, but comment on its proposed approach to waters--to be identified in accordance suggested that its regulations and rehance on institutional controls. The with the Agency's Cround. Water protedures were the appropriate sehicle proposed rule limited reliaace on "actiw I'rotection Strategy published in Atgust to prasiJe the necessary confidence that institutional controls" (such as lo64-that meet the following three the inherent uncertainties would not controlling access to a disposal site.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| ]
| |
| 38080 Feder:l Rogist;r / Vol. 50, No.182 / hursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulatior,s perf9tming maintr nance operations, or society in general will retain knowledge passis e institutional controls to be taken cleaning up releases) to a reasonable about these wastes and that future into account to some degree when period of time after disposal, described societies should be able to deter estimating the consequences of as on the order of a "few hundred systematic or persistent exploitation of inadvertent human intrusion could lead years." On the other hand,"passise a disposal site. . to less protecth e geologic media being institutional controls" (such as %e Agency also assumed that selected for repository sites. The perrnanent markers, records, archis es, passive institutional controle should Agency's analyses indicate that and other methods of presersing reduce the chance of inadvertent repositories in salt fctmations have knowledge) were considered to be at intrusion compared to the likehhood if particularly good capabilities to isolate least partially effe-lise for a longer no markers and cecords were in place. the wastes from flowing ground water period of time. Specific judgments about the chances and, hence, the accessible environment.
| |
| ,Few comm(nters argued with the and consequences of intrusion should be flowever, salt formations are also distinction between active and passive made by the implementing agencies relatively easy to mine and are often institutional controls, or with the when more information about particular associated with other types of resources.
| |
| amount of reliance the proposed rule disposal sites and passive control If performance assessments had to envisioned for passive controls, systems is available. The parameters assume that future societies will have no Ifowettr many commenters felt that "a described in the "guidance for way to ever recognize and limit the ftw hundred years" was too long a implementation" represent the most consequences of inadvertent intrusion j period to count on acthe controls. sesere assumptions that the Agency (from solution mining of salt. for t Accordingly, the final rule limits believed were reasonable to use in its example), the scenarios that would have reliance on actis e institutional controls analyses to evaluate the feasibility of to be studied would be more likely to to no more than 100 yea , after disposal. compliance with this rule (analyses that climinate salt media from consideration This was the time period the Agency are summarized in the BID).The than other rock types. Yet, this could considered in criteria for radioacthe implementing cgencies are free to use rule out repositories that may provide waste disposal that were proposed for other assumption if they develop the best isolation, compared to other rublic comment in 1978 (U ITl 53262) a information considered adequate to alternatis es, if less pessimistic period that was generally supported by support those ludgments. assumptions about survival of the commenters on that proposal. After 'Ihe role envisioned for institutional knowledge were made.
| |
| this time, no contribution from any of controls in this rulemaking has been The second circumstance that the the active institutional controls can be ndapted from the general approach the Agency considered in evaluating the projci ted to prevent or limit potential Agency has followed in its acthities approach towards institutional controls releases of waste from a disposal involving disposal of radioactive wastes taken in this rule is the fact that the system. since the initial public workshops mined geologic repositories planned for disposal of the materiah covered by 40 1 The concept of passh e institutional ccnducted in 1977 and 1978. The controls has now been incorporated into Agency's overall objt cthe has been to CFR part 191 are different from the the definition of "controlled area" that is protect public health and the disposal systema evisioned for any other used to establish one of the boundaries environment from disposal of types of waste.The types of inadurtent for applicability of the containment radioacth e wastes without relying upon human activities that could lead to requirements and the individual institutional controls for extended significant radiation exposures or protection regirements in the final rule. periods of time--because such controls releases of material from geologic Ilecause the assumptions made about do not appear to be rcliable enough os er repositorias appear to call for much the effecth eness of passive institutional the very 10 "1 periods that these wastes more intensive and organized effort than controls can strongly affect remain dangerous. Instead, the Agt ncy those which could cause problems at.
| |
| implementation of the containment has pursued standards that call for for example, an unattended surface requirements, the Agency's intent has isolation of the wastes through the disposal site. it appears reasonable to been elaborated in the "guidance for rhysical characteristics of disposal assume that information regarding the implementation" section. The Federal system siting and design, rather than disposal system is more likely to reach Gosernment is committed to rctaining through continuing maintenance and (and presumably deter) people control over disposal sites for these surveillance. This principle was undertaking such organized efforts than wastes as long as possible. Accordingly enunciated in the general criteria it is to inforrn indisiduals involved in (and in compliance with one of the published for public comment in 1978 (43 mundane activities.
| |
| assurance requirements). an extensk e FR 53202), and it has been incorporated These considerations led the Agency systern of explanatory markers and into the Agency's standards for disposal to conclude that a lirnited role for records nill be instituted to warn future of uranium mill tailings (48 FR 590,48 FR passive institutional ccatrols wauld be generhtions about the kration and 45920). appropriate when projecting the long-dangers of these wastes. These past.ive 'Ihis approach has been tailored to fit term performance of mined geologic <
| |
| contmis base not been assumed to two circumstances nssociated with repositnries to judge compliance with pres ent all possibilities of inads ettent mined geologic repositories. First 40 these standards. Ilowever. such human intrusion, becuuse there will CFR part 191 places containment assumptions would not necessarily be always be a realistic chance that some requirements on a broad range of applicabic to o;her Agency actions individuals will oserh>ok or potential unplanned releases as well as w here different issues are involved.
| |
| misunderstand the markers and records. the expected behavior of the disposal holding Sites Inth Natura/ Resources (For e <nmple, exploratory drilling r5 stem. Therefore, determmmg operations occasionally intrude into compliance with the standards invahes The proposed rule contained an areas that clearly would have been performance assessments that consider assurance requirement that would have I avoided if existing information had been the probabilities and consequences of a prohibited use of sites where there is a i obtained and properly es aluated ) s ariety of disruptive events, including reasonable expectation that future j lowever, the Agency assumed that potential human intrusion. Not allowing exploration for scarce or easily I O
| |
| | |
| L Federal Regisler / Vol. 50. No.182 / Thursday. September 19. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 38081 accessible resourtes might occur. The lonx-Term Monitoring performing as intended. Two examples comments received on this issue The proposed rule addressed active "m of particular interest. One involves generally,agreca that sites with institutional controls over a disposal site the concept of monitoring ground water resourtes should be asoided. lloweser, only in a negative sense-to prohibit s urces at a variety of distances for some commenters .;uggested that the reliance upon them for more than a few Wgn nacns WnmaHy ead p the ground water in the repository: this O requirement should be more restrictise. hundred 3cars after disposal.The to include "potentially accessible" Agency's intent was to be sure that long, appmach can evaluate the delay resources. Other commenters argued term protection of the environment did involved in ground water movement that the Agency should beless not depend upon positive actions by from the repository to the environment restrictise regarding sites with possible future generations. Almost all and can serve to validate expectations resourt e potential-discouraging but not commenters agreed with this intent. of the performance expected from the prohibiting their use-because other although many suggested a shorter system's natural barriers. Another attributes of the site might overcome the period of reliance was appropriate (see concept involves monitoring the small relatis e disadvantages presented by the preceding discussion under uplift of the land surface over the resource potential. "Approach Towards Institutional repository in order to validate predictions of the system's thermal After considering these comments. the Controls").
| |
| Ilowever, several commenters behavior. Both of these approaches can Agency agreed with the latter viewpoint. be carried out without enhancing This judgment was reinforced by the (including most of the States) also urged addition of a requirement for long-terrn pathways for the wastes to escape from
| |
| / belief that disposal sites should be chosen after comparative evaluation of nit ring of a repository after disposal. the repositor).
| |
| This view did not deny the need to Based on these conclus,ons i and the a 5ariety of alternatises, and the pubhc comments on this question, the proposed assurance requirement could select and design disposal systems without c'epending upon active controls Agency has included a provision for has e ichibited this process. Therefore, in the future. Ilowever,it broadened this long-term monitoring after disposal in this assurance the assurance requirements of the final rensed in thennal
| |
| . requirement has bcen perspective by arguing that a disposal rule to identify system so designed should still be rule: "D%osal systems shall be resource potential as a disincentive but monitored after disposal to detect monitored for a long time after disposal not as an outright prohibition for site to guard against unexpected failures, substantial and detrimental deviations selection. Instead, the reused assurance The Agency had not considered this from expected performance. This requirement states that places with viewpoint in developing the proposed monitoring shall be done with resource potential shall not be used rule. Accordingly, further information on techniques that do not jeopardize the "unless the fas orable characteristics of this idea was sought during the "second isolation of the wastes and shall be suth places compensate for their greater round" of public comment, ar.d the conducted until there are no significant likehhood of being disturbed in the Agency surveyed the capabilities and concerns to be addressed by further l future." expectations of long. term monttoring monitoring." This new provision is This wording implies a qualitative approaches. Es aluating this information consistent with the overallintent of the led the Agency to several conclusions: assurance requirements: To take O < omparison, b(cause the Agency is not uware of quantitative farmulas comprehensis e enough to proside (1) perhaps most importantly, the techniques used for monitoring after prudent and cautious steps necessary to minimize the risks posed by the inherent adequate comparisons to govern site disposal must not jeopardize the long. uncertainties in expectations of the selection. Ilowever, the Agency does not term isolation capabilities of the future. Beyond this broed mandate, intend that sites with resource potential disposal system. Furthermore, plans to however, the Agency has not specified can be used merely upon identification conduct monitodng after disposal the details of a monitoring program.
| |
| of a few features that might be more should never become an excuse to relas lhat is properly left to the implementing fas orable than at a site without the care with which sy stems tr. isolate agencies. Furthermore, the precise significant resources. Rather, sites with these wastes must be selectea, designed. objectivcs of an appropriate monitoring resou res should only be used if it is t onstructed, and operated. program probably should not,be spelled reasonably certain that they would (:') M nitoring for radior.uclis out antil much more informatton is ,
| |
| releases to the accessiblt environ nent gathered about the characteristics and l provide better oce'u!/ protection than I is n t likely t be prodrctive. Esen a espected behavior of speciric sites and the practical alternatis es that are p orly perf rming gee'. gic repositor) .- designs.
| |
| b as ailable.
| |
| l The following esample illustrates the )e'ig]e o
| |
| ,"c it t,"cn ronmet ' U "" ## 'W" l cffect of the change in this assurance ""
| |
| for several hundr< ds of years of nore.
| |
| l requirement. Wl en discussing th" particularly in v'.cw of the engineered The proposed rule included an preposed assuranc e requirement, the controls needeJ to comply with 10 CFR assurance requirement that recovery of Agency implied that disposalin salt part 60. A meaitoring system based only these wastes be feasible for "a domes might not be acceptable because on detectint radionucliite releases-a ' reasonable period of time" after sus h formations seemed more likely system which would almost certainly disposal.The Agency specifically sought than others to attract exploration in the not be de'ecting anythi,g for several comment on whether this was a future.The modification of this times the history oft he United States- desirable provision, since it would rule assurance requirement in the final rule is not 1%ely to be maintair ed for long out cenain disposal concepts, such as means that salt domer should nct be enov/a to be of much use. deep-well injection of liquid wastes. The peremptorily remos ed from (3) Within the abose constrainto co nments received were split about consideration. but should be compared hov.ever, there are likely to be evenly between those who thought the against all of the characteristics of m enitoring approaches which may. In .a prosision should be retained and those alternative sites in terms of the os erall relatively short time, significantly who thought it was detrimental to the ensironmental protection espected. <mprove confidence that a repository is oserall rule. Many of those who opposed O
| |
| | |
| 38082 l'edercl Rexister / Vol. So, No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1983 / Rules and Regulations the requirement argued that it wocid body) from both an NRC-licensed resulting in a compliance with the encourage designing a geologic facility and a DOE facility not licensed disposal standards.
| |
| repository to make retrieving waste by NRC, fer a total of 50 millirem /) ear. These health risk models were used to relatively easy-which might flowever, the Agency believes that this assess the long term health risks from compromise the isolation capabilities of is particularly improbable and does not several different mmlel repositories the repository or which might encourage foresee a significant public health containing the wastes from 100.000 recr.very of the waste to make use of impact from this possibility, MTliN!-which could include a!!
| |
| sorae intrinsic value it might retain (th" Waste Disposal. A disposal system existing wastes and the future wastes potential energy content of spent complying with Subpart 13 would confine from all currently operating reactors.
| |
| nu lear fuel, for example). almost all of the radioactive wastes to The Agency estimates that this quantity
| |
| 'hhe mient of this provision was not t of waste, when disposed of in the immediate vicinity of the repository make recovery of waste easy or cheap, accordance with the proposed but merely possible in case some future for a sery long time.13ccause the wastes would be so well isolated from the standards, would cause no more than discovery or insight made it clear tha$ ensironment, the Agency is confident 1000 premature deaths from cancer in the wastes needed to be relocated. Ef A the first 10.000 years after disposah an reiterates the statement in the preamble that any risks to future popu!ctions would be s ery smMI. Simikly, risks to aserage of no more than one premature to the proposal that any current concept deadi every 10 years. hiost of the model for a mmed geologic repository meets most future individuals would also be s ery small (and effectively zero in repositories considered had projected this requirement without any additional population risks at least a factor of ten procedures or design features. For almost s.ll cases}-except for the below this, or about 100 deaths over em ple, there is no intent to require possibility that an individual in the distant future might use ground water mepn&pWhbh that a repository shaft be kept onen to actual repositories that are constructed allow future recovery. To meet this from the vicinity of a repository. In th,s i case, there is a chance that such an are expected to be closer to this lower assurance requirement, it only need be figure. Any such increase in the number tethnologically feasible (assuming individual might receive a substantial of cancer deaths would be sery small current technology levels) to be able to exposure.The following paragraphs compared tn today's incidence of mine the scaled repository and recover describe the possible health impacts of cancer, which kills about 350.000 people the wasteralbeit at substantial cost the residual risks from a disposal system per year in the United States. Similarly, und occupational risk. The that would be in comphance with 40 any such incrense would be much less Commission's requirements for multiple CFR Part 191, than the approximately 6,000 premature engineered barriers within a repository Population RisAsr With regard to cancer deaths per year that the s2me (10 Cl R part 00) ndequately addiess any exposure of populations, the Agency has linear, non threshold dose-effect concerns about the feaubility of estimated the potentiallcng. term health relationship predicts for the nation due recovering wastes from a repository- risks to future generations from various to natural background radiation.
| |
| t herefore, this prosision shouhl not types of mined geologic repositories hase any effect upon plans for mmed IndieldualRisAs: With regard to using very general models of exposures ofindniduals, the Agency geologi repositories. Rather it is environmental transport and a hnear-intended to callinto question any other examined the potential doses to persons nonthreshold dose-effect relationship who might use ground water from the thsposal concept that rmght not be so between radiation exposures and reversibh"-bet ause the Agency immediate vicinity of a repository at premature deaths from cancer. Food sarious times in the future. For these be lieses that future gerarations should chains, ways oflife, and the size and analyses, only the expected undisturtmd have options to correct any mistakes ge ographical distributions of that this generation might performance of a repository was populations will undoubtedly change considered (e g there was no evaluation
| |
| "((,"s r i h he !
| |
| " " 10% ear period. Unlike of exposures that might occur if a this objective. Accordingly, the Agency 8"o@.al processes, factors such as repository was disrupted by movement these cannot be usefully predicted os er of a fault). In most of the cases studied.
| |
| has decided to reta!n this assurance-requirement in the final rule as such long periods of time. Thus, in , no exposures cccurred for more than popmed. making these health effects projections, one thousand years after disposal. After the Agency found it necessary to depend that, tt.ese anal)ses g]redict that lintth Impacts of 40 CFR Part 191 upon very general models of significant exposures (on the order of a truste Management and Stam environmental pathw ays and to assume few rems per year in the vicinity of the ,
| |
| Waste management and storag./e, current populatica distributions and repository over the next several at tisities conducted in accordance with death rates. The SAI1 Subcomrnittee thousands of years) may appear for l Subpart A would hmit the maximum ris( evaluated these models carefully, and, some of the geologic media considered I
| |
| to a member of the public in the general although a number of specific cnances These projections are similar to those were recommended for particular contained in the April 19a3 report C l environment to a 5 x 10'hhance of f incurring a premature fatal cancer os er parameters, the Subcommittee endorsed published by the National Academy of I a hfetime. Of course. a risk this large the general approach. As a consequence Sciences.The DID conta ins more {
| |
| would exist only for an individu d of using these pencrelized models. EPA's detailed descriptions of the Agency's )
| |
| i ontinuously exposed to tha full amount projections are intended to be used indisidual dose calculations. I of the dose limits over his or her primarily as a tool for comparing the /nter}lenerationo/RisA As destnbed lifetime. llecause the Agency behews performance of one waste disposal earlier, the Agency has chosen to rely on j that such continuous exposure is very s) stem to another and for comparison of provisions that limit risks to populations l unhkely, the actual risks to indisiduals the risks of waste disposal with those of as the primary standards for the long. l are expected to be much lower. It is undisturbed ore bodies. The results of term perforrr.ance of disposal systems. l theoretically possible under the final these analyses should not be considered Although the projections of the residual i rule that an indnidual could be expowd a reliable projecticn of the "real" or pope!ation risk are clearly s ery small, to 25 milbrems per ) car ;to the whole absolute number of health effects the discontinuity between when the O
| |
| 1 l
| |
| | |
| L Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. 50. No.1e2 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules end Regulations 38083 wastes are generated and when the ' Variationsin A'atural
| |
| | |
| ==Background:==
| |
| Emi onmentalImpacts projected health offects manifest Radionuclides occur naturally in the A Draft Environmental Impact themselves made it difficult to earth in very large amounts, and are Statemant (EIS) was prepared for the determine what level of residual rirk produced in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation. Everyone is exposed to pr posed rule,in accordance with the o) should be allowed by these disposal standards. The difficulty arose because natural background radiation from thesc . Agency,8 procedures for the voluntary
| |
| (# most of the benefits deri ed in the natural radionuclides and from direct preparati n f EIS s (30 FR 37419).
| |
| process of waste production fall upon exposure to cosmic radiation. Individual P wever, section 121(c) of the NWPA the current generation. while most of the exposures average about 100 millirems subsequently exempted this actgn from risks fall upon future gene.ations.Thus, per year, with a range of about 00 to 200 preparation of an EIS under section a potential problem of intergenerational millirem / year. These natural 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental equity with respect to the distribution of background radiation luels have Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and from any risks and benefits became apparent. remained relatively constant for a very environmental review under This problem is sometimes referred to as long time. According to the same linear, subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 102(2) the intergeneration.nl risk issue, and it is nonthreshold dose effect relationship of the NEPA. Accordingly, a Final EIS not unique to the disposal of high-level used in EPA's other analyses, an has not been prepared for promulgation radioactive wastes. lf the Agency tried increase of one millirem per year (about of this rule.The potential health impacts to insure that these standards fully cne percent) in natural background in of this action are summarized above, 1 satisfied a criterion of intergenerational the United States would result in about and much of the infor: ation that would equity with respect to the distribution of 60 additional deaths per year, or 600,000 have been contained in a Final EIS is risk s and benefits, it might appear that over a 10.000-year period. documented in the Background no risk should be passed on to future Natura/ Radionuclide Concentrations Inf rmation Document that accompanies
| |
| . generations. This is a conditloa which in Cround Water: One source of this this final version of 40 CFR Part 191.
| |
| the Agency believes cannot be met by exposure to natural background Regulatory impacts disposal technologies fore.ecable within radiation comes from naturally this century. llowever. there is one occurring radionuclides found in ground This rule was submitted to the Office particulai factor which has reinforced water. Radium is the most important of of Afanagement and Budget (Oh!D) for FPA's decision about the the naturally occurring radioactive review as required by Executive Order reasonableness of the risks permitted materials likely to occua in public water 12291.The final rule has not been under the disposal standards.Tids is the supply systems, but uranium is also classified as a "major rule" in following evaluation of the risks found in grourid waters due to its accordance with the guidelines provided associated with undisturbed uranium natural occurrenen. Surveys of by the Executive Order. Any comments ore bcdies. Additionally, fo the purpose radionuclides in ground water systems received from Oh!D and EPA's of comparing the risks permitted under indica!c: a United States range of 0.1 to responses to those comments are the standards to other radiation risks 50 picocuries (pCl) per liter for radium available for public inspection in the w hich people are currently ex ,osed to, a 226 (with isolated sources exceeding 100 docket cited above under the heading p brief discussion of the risks from other pCi/ liter); up to 74 pCi/ liter for alj "ADDRESSES."
| |
| t natural
| |
| \j inch led. sources oi radiation is also alpha-emitting radionuc tides other than The Agency has had to take an uranium (although most of the alpha- unusual approach in considering the Uranium Orce hfost uranium ore in the emitting concentrations are below 3 regulatory impacts of this proposed United States occurs in permeable pCi/ liter); and up to 650 pCi/ liter for action--as required by Executive Order geologic strata containing flowing total uranium concentrations. Elevated 12291. In most cases,3 regulation ground svater. Radionuchdes in the ore. radium 426 concentrations are found concerns an ongoing activity and may particularly uranium and radium, along the Atlantic coastal region and the be considered a burden whose costs continuously enter this ground water, htidwest; low levels are usually found in should be judged against the regulatory FPA estimated the potential risks from the treated water supplies in the benefits. liere,it was not possible to these undisturbed ore bodies using the western States. Elevated uranium and quantify the costs and benefits of this same generalized environmentm models alpha-emitting radionuclide action compared to the consequences of that were used fo? releases from a waste concentrations are generally hmited to no regulation because there is no repository. The effects associated with the Rocky hfountain region and hiaine specific "baseline" program to consider.
| |
| ) the amocnt of ore needed to produce the and Pennsylvania in the cast. The appropriate regulations must be i
| |
| high-level wastes that would fill the The Agency's primary drinking water established before the regulated activity i model geologic repository can vary regulations (40 CFR Part 141) limit the can even begin.Thus, the typical considerably. Part of this variation contamination levels for radium-228 and perspectives on costs and benefits are f corresponds to actual differences from altered. Instead. the Agency evaluated
| |
| ( radium-228 to 5 pCi/ liter and the levels one ore body to another; part can be for total alpha-emitting contaminatior, how thc costs of commercial waste attributed to unecrtainties in the (excluding radon and uranium) to 15 management and disposal might change assessment. After revising the pCl/ liter. Elevated concentrations of in response to different levels of population risk models in accordance radium in drinking water are gene? ally a protection from the containment with the recommendations of the SAB problem associated with smaller requirements. Similar evaluations were Subcommatee, these estimates of the community water systems, with an not performed for the wastes from risks from unmined ore bodies ranged estimated 500 systems exceeding 5 pCi/ atomic energy defense activities from about 10 to more than 100.000 liter.The Agency's risk assessments because sufficient information was not excess cancer deaths os er 10.000 3 ears indicate that continuous consumption of available.
| |
| Thus, leaving the ore unmined appears water containing the ma timum amount To evaluate the effects of different to present a risk to future generations of radium allowed may cause between levels of protection. EPA considered the comparable to the risks from disposal of of and 3 cancers per year per million performance of different repository w astes covered by these standards. exposed persons. designs in several different neologic O
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| 30084 Federal Regist:r / Vol. So, No.182 / 'Ihursdsy, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations media.The costs of the various SUBCHAPTER F-R ADIATION (c)"Commission" means the Nuc! car engineering controls that ruight be PROTECTtON PROGRAMS Regulatory Commission.
| |
| needed to meet different levels of (d)"Department" means the protection were estimated. In addition, PART 191-ENVIRONMENTAL partnet of Energy, RADIATION PROTECTION allowances were made for the increned I*I ^" "'d"' ' "'*d' O research and des elopment costs that might be needed to demonstrate STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, Waste Policy Act of 1932 (Pub. L 97- W compliance with the standards if HIGH-LEVEL AND TRANSURANIC m "Agmment Stak means any projected performance for a particular RE'OACTIVE WASTES State with which the Commission or the i disposal system indicated releases less Subp,it A-Environmental Standards for Atomic Energy Commission has entered than an order of magnitude below the Mana tement and Storage into an effective agreement under long. term radionuclide release limits in % subsection 274b of the Atorni: Energy i 191.13. 191 01 Applicabihty. Act of 1954, as amended (Gd Stat. 919).
| |
| , Since the regulatory impact analyses 131.02 Definitions. (g)"Spent nuclear fuel" means fuel that sup;>orted tha proposed rule were 191m Standards. that has been withdrawn from a nuclear performed. the NRC has promulgated 19 W Ahematin standan!s. reactor following irradiation, the minimum requirements for the 191m Effecthe date. constituent elements of which have not engineered barriers of a disposal system Subpart B-Environmental Standards for been separated by reprocessing.
| |
| (in to CFR Part 00), more data Disposal (h) "lligh level radioactive waste," as !
| |
| concerning disposal sites being 19t11 Applicability. used in this Part, means high level considered by the Department have 191.u Definitions. rhdioactive waste as defined in the become available, and the Agency has 19L13 Containment requirements. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of1982 (Ptb.
| |
| reviewed its performance assessments 19L14 Assurance requirements. L. 97 425),
| |
| 19335 I"di
| |
| * id"*I P ' ''''i " "4 "I'**"" f'- U) "naneuranic radioactive waste,"
| |
| f i reduce overestimates of long.terni ri4Ls in accord mce with the SAB ""A8),N **P ''' as used in this Part, means waste
| |
| ,,q contaMng more than 100 nanocuries of tes f ew. After evaluating all of this new 191 17 Atternatise provisions for disposal.
| |
| information, the Agency belieses that 191 18 Effective date. alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes, thcre need not be any significant Appendix A Tab!e for Subpart B with half-lives greater than twenty additional costs to the riational program Appendix 0 Guidance for Implementation years, per gram of waste, except for: (1) for disposal of commercial wastes of Subpart a liigh-level radioactive wastes: (2) caused by retaining the proposed lesel Authority: The Atomic Energy Act of 19%. Wastes that the Department has cf protection in the final rule, comoued as amended. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of determined, with the concurrence of the l to the costs of choosing levels 19m and the Nuciar waste pohey Act of 1E Administrator, do not need the degree of isolation requireJ by this Part; or (3)
| |
| (
| |
| considerably less stringent. In other Subpart A-Environmental Standards ap e fo d1s o a n a case-by case I t th ar e as ira f r Managernent and Storage corn,liance with the existing bas!s in accordance with 10 CFR Part 61.
| |
| reqdirements of 10 CFR Part tio, are i 191.01 Appncab!!ity. (j) "Radioactive wa ste," as used in cycteJ to be ah!e to nieet these Tnis Subpart applies to: this Part, means the high-level and disposal standards without additional (a) Radiation doses received by transuranic radioactive waste covered precautions be)and those already members of the public as a result of the by this Part.
| |
| (k)"St rage" rneans retention of spent pla nned. management (except for transportation) and storage of spent nuclear fuel or nuclear fuel or radioactive wastes with List of Subj.ects in 40 CFR Part 191 the intent and capability to readily high les el or transuranic radioactive 1:nvironmental protection. Nuclear wastes at any facility regulated by the retrieve such fuel or waste for ,
| |
| energy, Radiation protection Uranium. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or by pmcessing Agteement States, to the extent that s'absequent (1) , Disposal use; means perm. or disposal.
| |
| anent Waste treatment and disposal.
| |
| such management and storage isolati n f spent nuclear fuel or i Megulatory Flexibility Certification operations are r01 subject to the radioactive waste from the accessible l provisions of Part 190 of title 40: and ""imnment with no intent of recovery, In accordance with the Regulatory whether or not such isolation permits I lexibility Act of 1980,5 U.S C. 005(b)' (b) Radiation doses received by members of the public as a result of the the recovery of such fuel or waste. For the Adnunistrator hereby certiriaa that example, disposal of waste in a rnined this rule will not has e any significant anagement and storage cf spent ruclear fuel or high-level or transuranic ge I gic repository occua when all of impact on small businesses or other wastes at any disposal facility that is e shafts to the repository are <
| |
| entitites, and that a Regulatory dIled and sealed.
| |
| Flexibility Analysis is not required. ~1his operated by the Department of Energy and that is not regulated by the (m) ,,Ma na gement means any l
| |
| rule will offect only a small number of activity, operation. or process (except l
| |
| facilities, most of which are or w dl be Commission or by Agreement S'ates.
| |
| for transportation) conducted to prepare operated by the United States i 19 t02 DefWtion*, spent nuclear fuel or radioactive waste bos ernment. Unless otherwise indicated in this for storage or disposal, or the actisities l I)atad. Act is, tw Subpart, all terms shall have the same associated with placing such fuel or I tre At. Thomas, meaning as in Subpart A of Part 190. w aste in a disposal system.
| |
| .t h::v s tmw. (a)"Agency" means the (n)"Site" means an area contained Ensironmental Protection Agency. within the boundary of a location under A new Part 191 is hereby added to (b) "Admir.:strator" means the the effective control of persons Title 40. Code of Federal Regulations, as Administrator cf the Environmental possessing or using spent nuclear fuel or i follows: Protection Agency. radioactise waste that are involved in l 9 i
| |
| | |
| ,, E Federal Register / Vol. 50 No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 38085 any activity, operation, or process any member of the public from receiving (c)"Waste form" means the materials covered by this Subpart. a continuous exposure of more than 100 comprising the radioactive components (o)"General environment" means the millirems per year dose equ valent and of waste and any encapsulating or lo'ai terrestrial, atmospheric, and an infrequent exposure of more than 500 stabilizing matrix, aquatic environments outside sites millirems dose equivalent in a year from (d) "Barrier" means any ' material or within which any activity, operation, or all sources, excluding natural structure that prevents or substantially process associated with the background and medical procedures: delays movement of water or management and storage of spent and radionuclides toward the accessible nuclear fuel or radioactise waste is (2) The Administrator promptly makes environment. For example, a barrier conducted. a matter of public record the degree to may be a geologic structure, a canister, a (p)"Member of the public" mear,s any which continued operation of the facility waste form with physical and chemical individual except during the time when is expected to result in levels in excess characteristics that significantly that individualis a worker engaged in of the standards specified in 191.03(b). decrease the mobility of radionuchdes, any activity, operation, or process (nat (b) An application for alternative or a material placed over and around is covered by the Atomic Energy Act of standards shall be submitted as soon as waste, provided that the material or 1954, as amended.
| |
| possible after the Department structure substantially delays movement (q)"Critical organ" means the most determines that continued operation of a of water or radionuclides.
| |
| esposed human organ or tissue facility will exceed the levels specified exclusive of the integumentary system (e) "Passive institutional control" in 191.03(b) and shallinclude all means:(1) Permanent markers placed at
| |
| ! (skin) and the cornea. Information necessary for the a disposal site. (2) public records and i 191.03 Standards. Administrator to make the archives, (3) government ownership and (a) hfanagement and storage of spent determinations called for in 191.Gl(a). regulations regarding land er resource 0
| |
| nuc! car fuel or high-level or transuranic (c) Rcquests for alternative standards use, and (4) other methods of preserving radioactive wastes at all facilities shall be submitted to the Administrator, knowledge about the location, design, regulated by the Commission or by U.S. Ervironmental Protection Agency, and contents of a disposal system.
| |
| Agreement States shall be conducted in 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC (f) "Active institutional control" such a manner as to provide reasonable calco. means:(1) Controlling access to a assurance that the combined annual 1191.05 Effective date, disposal site by any means other than dose equivalent to any member of the pamve institutional centrols: (2) public in the general ensironment The standards in this Subpart shall be performing maintenan:e operations or resulting from: (1) Discharges of effectim n November 18,1985. remedial actions at a site. (3) controlling radioactive material and direct radiation Subpart B-Environmental Standards r cleaning up releases from a site, or (4) from such management and storage and m nitoring parameters related to for Dispoul disposal system performance.
| |
| f (2) all operations covered by Part 190; shall not exceed 25 millitems to the $ 191.11 Applicability. (g)"Controlled arca" meane: (1)A whole body,75 millirems to the thyroid. (a) This Subpart applies to: surface location, to be identified by passive institutional controls, that (1) Radioactive materials released O and "4"25 U' millirems to any other critical into the accessible enstronment as a encompasses no more than 100 square (b) Management and storage of spent kilometus and extends horizontally no result of the disposal of spent nuclear nuclear fuel or high-level or transuranic more jhan five kilometers in any fuel or high. level or transuranic .
| |
| n adioactive wastes at all facilities for radioactive wastes; direction from the outer boundary of the the disposal of such fuel or waste that riginallocation of the radioactive are operate 4. by the Department and (2) Radiation doses received by wastes in a disposal system; and (2) the that are not regulated by the members of the public as a result of such disposal; and subsurface underlying such a surface Commission or Agreement States shall . location.
| |
| be conducted in such a manner as to (3) Radioactive contaminat. ion of CC'.tain sources of ground water in the W "Ground water" means water provide reasonable assurance that the below the land surface in a zone of combined annual dose equivalent to any vic m,ty f disposal systems for such fuel saturation.
| |
| member of the public in the general or wastes. , ,
| |
| ens tronment resulting from discharges (b) Howes er, this Subpart does no, apply to disposal directly !nto the ge ; gica; formation. group o7 L of radioactive material and direct f rmations, or part of a formation that is l radiation from such management and ceans or ocean sediments. Th.is Subpart also does not apply to wastes capable of yhlding a significant amount l storage shall not e scced 25 millirems to 7 wa n to a w,eg the whole body and 75 millirems to any disposed of before the effective date of l .
| |
| '"i;cuj 4"* this rule. (j) 1.itbosphere'y meansspring.
| |
| the solid part
| |
| % of th- Earth below the surface, including i 191.04 Atternative standards. I 191.12 Definitions. any ground water contained within it.
| |
| (a)The Administrator may issue Unless otherwise indicated in this (k) "Accessible environment" means:
| |
| alternatise standards from those Subpart, all terms shall have the same (1) The atmosphere: (2) lend surfaces; (3) standards established in 191.03(b) for .neaning as in Subpart A of this Part. surface waters; (4) oceans; and (5) all of waste management and storage [a]
| |
| * Disposal system" means any the lithosphere that is beyond the ac tivities at facilities that are not rambinstion of engineered and natural controlled area, regulated by the Commission or barrien, that isolate spent nuclear fuel (1)"Transmissivity" meus the Agreement States if, upon review of an or radioactive waste after disposal. hydraulic conductivity integrated over application for such alternatige (b) "Waste " as used in this Subpart, the saturated thickness of an standacis: means any spent nuclear fuel or underground formation. The (1) The Administrator determines that radioactis e waste isolated in a disposal transmissivity of a series of forma' ions suc h alternative standards will prevent sptem. is the sum of the individual O
| |
| | |
| 3P,086 Feder:I Regi:t:r / Vol. 50, No.182 / Thursday September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations transmissivities of each formation (r)"lleavy metal" means all uranium, shall not consider any contributic a
| |
| < omprising the series. plutonium, or thorium placed into a from active institutional controls f ar (m)"Corrmunity water syster1" nuclear reactor. more than 100 years after dispose.
| |
| means a s) stem for the provision to the (s)"implementing agency," as used in (b) Disposal systems shal; be public of piped water for human consumption. if such system has at least this Subpart, means the Commission for spent nuclear fuel or high les el or monitored after disposal to detect substantial and detrimental deviations MF 15 senice connections used by ) ear. transuranic wastes to be disposed of in from expected performance. This round residents or regularl) serves at faciltles licensed by the Commission in monitoring shall be done with least 25 year round residents. accordance with the Energy techdques that do not jeopardize the (n)"Significam source of ground Reorganization Act of 19N and the isolation of the wastes and shall be water," as used in this Part, means (1) Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. and it conducted until there are no significant An aquifer that:(i)is saturated with means the Department for all other concerns to bs addressed by further water has ing len than 10.000 milligrams radioactive wastes covered by this Part. monitoring.
| |
| per liter of total dissolved solids;(ii)is I 191.13 Containment requirements. (c) Disposal sites shall be designated within 2.500 feet of the land surface:(iii) by, the most permanent markers, has a transmisshity greater than 2tn (a) Disposal systems for spent nuclear gallons per day per feot, provided that fuel or high-level or transuranic rec rds, and other passiv institutional any formation or part of a formation radioactive wastes shall be designed to controls practicable to md . e the induded within the source of ground proside a reasonable expectation, based dangers of the wastes and their location.
| |
| water has a h)draulic conductivity upon performance assessments, that the (d) Disposal systems shall use greater than 2 gallons per day per cumulative releases oi radionuclides to different types of barriers to isolate the square foot; and (n ) is capable of the accessible environment for 10.000 w stes from the accessib!n environment.
| |
| continuously y ieldmg at least 10,000 years after disposal from all significant Both engineered and natural barriers ,
| |
| gallons per day to a pumped or flowing processes and events that may affect the shall be included.
| |
| well for a period of at least a y ear; or (2) disposal system shall: ,le) Places where there has been ,
| |
| an aquifer that prosides the primary (t)liase a likelihood of less than one mmmg for resources, or where there is a source of water for a community water chance in 10 of cueeding the quantities reasonable expectation of exploration s) stem as of the efinctis e date of this calculated according to Table 1 for scarce or easily accessible resources, Subpart. (Appendix A): and or where there is a significant f o) "Special source of ground w ater." (2)llave a likehhood of less than one concentratio : f any material that is not as used in this Part, rneans those Class I chance in 1.000 of exceeding ten time, widely availabie from other sources, grot.ad waters identified in accordance the quantities calculated according to should be avoided in selecting disposal with the Agency's Ground Water Table 1 (Appendix A). sites. Resources to be considered shall I'rotection Strategy published in August (b) Parformance assessments need not include minerals, petroleum or natural Ital that:(1) Are within the controlled provide complete assurance that the gas, valuable geologic formations, and area encompassing a disposal system or requirements of 191.13(a) will be met. ground waters that are either are less than five kilometers beyond the Because of the long time period invohed irreplaceable because there is no controlled area:(2) are supplying and the nature of the events and reasonable alternative source of drinking water for thousands of persons processes of interest, there will drinking water available for substantial as of the date that the Department inesitably be substantial uncertainties populations or that are vital to the
| |
| < hooses a h> cation within that area f ar in projecting disposal system preservation of unique and sensitis e detailed characterization as a potential performance. Proof of the future ecosystems. Such places shall not be see for a disposal s3 stem (e g.. In performance of a disposal system is not used for disposal of the wastes covered attordance w oh Secti1n 11:'lb)(t)(B) of to be had in the ordmary sense of the by this Part unless the favorable the NWpA): and 13) are irreplaceable in word in situations that deal with much character!stics of such places that no reasanab'e alternatne saurce of shorter time frames. Instead, what is compensate for their greater likehhoW drinking water is as adable to that required is a reasonable expectation, on of being disturbed in the future, popu!a tion. the basis of the record before the (f) Disposal s3 stems shall be selected (p) "Itndistm bed perform im e" mems implementing agency, that compliance so that removal of most of the wastes is the predicted behasier of a disposal with 191r (a) will be achieved, not precluded for a reasonable period of system. Including consideration of the time after disposal.
| |
| I uncertainties in predicted behador, if f191.h Assurance requirements.
| |
| the disposal s3 stem is not disrupted by To proside the confidence needed for 119 t.15 Individual protection human intrusion or the ~vurrence of ' lon,t term compliance with the requirements, unhinly n:+ir.it
| |
| * sas, requirements of 101.13. disposal of spent D;sposal systems for spent nuclear (q) "performa _.* assessment" means nuclear fuel or high-level or transuranic fuel or high les el or transuranic J anal)sls tb ,:(1) Identifies the w astes shall be conducted in radioactis c wastes shall be designed to I p. ~ +.J es ents that mi ght affect accordance with the following provide a reasonable expectation that.
| |
| I tht h prsal sy stem:(2) eumines the prosisions. except that these prosis:ons for 1.000 years after disposal, ,
| |
| effects of these proces.cs and esents on do not apply to facilities regulated by undisturbed performance of the disposal l the performance of the disposal system; the Commission (see 10 CFR part to for system shall not cause the annual dose and (3) estimates the cumulative comparable provisions applicable to equivalent from the disposal system to releases of radmnuchJes. considenng facilities regulated by the Commission): any member of the public in the the associated uncertainties, caused by (a) Active insMutional controls os er accessible ensironment to exceed 25 all sign firant proces.es and events. dnposal sites should be maintained for millirems to the whole body or "5 These estimate, shall be incorporated as long a period of time as is practicah!e mdlirems to any critical organ. All into an os erall probability distribution af ter disposal; however. performance potential pathway s (associated with of cumulatis e ielease to the extent assessments that assess i<olation of the undisturbed performance) from the pm ticable wastes from the at cessible environment d:<posal sy stem to people shall be 9
| |
| | |
| Federzl Regist:r / Vol. 50. No.182 / Thursday, September 19. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 38087 considered, including the assninption (b) A public comment period of at Commission as high-level radioactive w aste that individuals consume 2 liiers per day least 90 days has been completed, in accordance with part B of the definition of of drinking water from any significant during which an opportunity for public high level waste in the NWp4): or source of ground we..r outside of the hearings in affected areas of the country !
| |
| ,,,',1, fn$ng*on"eNI i$n7u$e*s of a$ha-r'ontrolled area, ha- been provided; and emitting transuranic radionuchdes with half.
| |
| (, Ground water protection L) The public comments received lives greater than 20 years.
| |
| ,J,191.16, , , have been fully considered in Note 2: nelease Limits for specific developing the fiaal version of such Disposa/Sgtems. To develop xelease Umits tc.) Disposal s), stems for spent nucleas alternative provisions. .
| |
| for a particular disposal system. the fuel or high-level or transuranic quantities in Table 1 shall be adjusted for the radioactive wastet shall be designed to i 191.is Effective date. amount of waste included in the disposal provide a reasonable expectation that. The stardards in this Subpart shall be system compared to the various units of for 1.000 years after disposal. waste ddined in Note 1. For example:
| |
| . effective on September 19.1985.
| |
| undisturbed performance of the disposal (a)If a particular disposal system system shall nct cause the radionuclide Appenc'ix A-Table for Subpart B contained the high-level wastes from 50.000 concentradons averaged over any year kmlht, the Release Umits f. r that system in wnter withdrawn from a: y portion of 'ABLE 1.-RELEAS2 LIMITS FOH CONTA% MENT would be the quantities in Vole 1 multiplied I a special source of ground water to REQUIREMENTS by 50 (50.000 hmBf dividn by 1.000
| |
| * *'#'d; hfT)th!).
| |
| (1) 5 picocuries per liter of radium-226 I C** *** **" *c"S*"0"*o"**
| |
| *'"""**** 'c' (b)If a particular disposal system contained three million curies of alpha-and radium 228: no emitting transuranic wastes, the Release (2) 15 picocuries per liter of alpha- g umits for that system would be the quantities emitting radionuclides (including su or in Table 1 multiplied by three (three million radium 220 and radium 228 but "" curies divided by one million curies).
| |
| excluding radon): or 7",.g n (c)If a particular disposal system (3) %e combined concet.trations of g e ntained both the high-lesel wastes from radionuclides that emit either beta or - 8 #* N ""#.5 million curies of alpha.
| |
| ,,,, ,, , ,, .g 43 gn emitting transurame wastes, the Release gamme radiation that would produce an wi. too Umits for that system would be the quantitics annual dose equivalent to the total body c.miss .iar tooo in Table 1 multiplied by 55:
| |
| or any internal organ grenter than 4 *g y 7 y r.iillirems per year if an individual % 3 . 3s. . .o. or .24 ico (onsumed 2 liters per day of dr'nking water from sut.h a source of ground R,*ga2so 1-,,.
| |
| t$ 50mo hmni
| |
| ,o. coo +
| |
| 5.000.000 curies 1RU m
| |
| water, norum230 or 232- - - - -
| |
| to 1.000 htTilhi 1.000.000 curies 'IRU I (b)If any of *he average anmual radionuclide concentrations existing In a M,33. .ex .,35, .,3 , ,, ,,3s Aa, rener awa+=inae resorucsoe we a bas.
| |
| T p special source of ground water before sl* %**l"ll **;*,'',s , s,w, ,,,,,,, Note 3: Adjustments for Reactor Fuels with construction of the disposal system ee to par,em oo.sra .ma ave pa+ gjrferent Burnup. For disposal systems already exceed the limits in 191.16(a). ''** 'N containing reactor fuels (or the high-level the disposal system shall bo des'gned to wastes from reactor fuels) exposed to an proside a reasonable expectation that, everage bumup of less than 25.000 htWd/
| |
| Appucation of Table 1 hm thi or greater than 40.000 htWd/htTilht, for 1.000 years after disposal, undisturbed rerfo"nonce of the disposal Note 1: Units of it'aste. The Release umits t'e units of waste defined in (a) and (b) of system shall not increase the esisting in Tab!e 1 a pl to the amount of wastes in b'ote 1 shall be adjusted. The unit shil be
| |
| '"iy ne f e onowing: multiplied by the ratio of 30.000 h1Wd/
| |
| us erage annua 1indionuclide (a) An amount of spent nuclear fuel hmlht divided by the fuers actual awrage concentrations In water withdrawn from containing 1.000 metne tons of heavy metal burnup, except that a 5 alue of 5.000 htWd/
| |
| that special source of ground water b.v (hm nt) exposed to a burnup between 25.000 hfTithi may be used when the average fuel nrore than the limits established in megawatt.da>s per metric ton of heavy metal burnup is below 5.000 htWd/hm thi and a 191.16(a). (htWd/hm tht) a.. ; '9.000 htWd/hm tht value of 100.000 AtWd/hmtN1 shcIl be usej (b) The high-In al radioactive westes when the terage fuel burnup is above
| |
| [ l 191.17 Alternativs provisions for generated from reprocessing each 1.000 100.000 h Al/hmtht. This adjusted unit c.f disposal. htTithi exposed to a burnup betwere 25.0to wute s} . then be used in determining tt e The Administrator may, by rule, stWd/hm thi and 40.000 hlWd/htTint; Release u. cats for the disposal system.
| |
| (c) Eac h 100.000.000 curies of gamma or For euple,if a particular disposal substitute for any of the provinicas of ta-emWng radionuclides with half-lives Subpart 11 alternative provisions chosen sptem con. ,ined only high-level wastes with greater than A years but less than 100 years an n crage Ic.rnup of 3.000 htWd/kmnt. the a7ter: llor use as t'ascussed in Note 5 or with u.dt of wete for that disposal system wauld (a)'th $=rnath e prouslor i have materials that are identified by the be-been proposcu .' r public comnv it in Commission as high-level radioactive waste the l'ederal Register together el in accordance with part D of the defininon of informat;on describing the cv s. risks, high level waste in the NWpA):
| |
| : 1. n Amthi < =6.000 htTilhi and benefits of disp 3 sal in accordance (d) Each 1.000.000 curies of other p radi nuclides (i.e., gamma or beta-emitters with she alternative with half-hves greater than 100 years or any reasons w hy comph. .
| |
| ance wtth Provisions the and the Mpha-emitters with half-lises greater than 20 if tL ' disposal sptem con alned a ths high-esisting provisions of Subpart Il appeurs scars)(for use as discuwed in Note 5 or with level wastes from 60.000 km(N1 (with an inappropriate: .wcrials that are ide- ified by the escrage burnup of 3.000 htWd/hmtht). then O
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 38088 Feder l Register / Vol. 50 No.182 /1hursday, September to,1985 / Rules and Regulatioris l
| |
| the Release 1.imits for that system would be For example, if radionudides A. B. and C categories of events or processes that are the quantities in Table 1 multiplied by ten: are projected to be released in amounte Q,, estimated to have less than one chance in*
| |
| Q,. and Q,. and if the applicable Release 10fs10 of occurring over tomo years.
| |
| w'yy 3,g73ggg 1.imits are RI Rt and RI,. then the Furthermore, the performance assessments
| |
| .,g cumulative releases over 10.000 years shall l need not evaluate in detail the releasas from um sgg3;y 6 i.mited so that the fullowing relationship all events and processes estimated to hae a esists: greater likehhomi of occunence. Some of these es ents and processes may be omitted which is the same as: frorn the performance asserrnents if there is
| |
| 'Q, Q, c
| |
| ) t +- st a reasonable empettalion that the remaining l l win MiltM pass) htmin(ItiNIJ RI, RI. F. . probabihty diatrib.: tion of cumulatise
| |
| ) dubtbE
| |
| * Mnno AfwdomfMJ ' ' " " ' * * " ' 8 ""Y 8 l by such omist:ons.
| |
| Appendix B-Guidance for Comp //once with Section 191.13. The Note 4: Treatment of fructionated1/igh- linplementation of Subpart U Agency assumes that, whenever practicable.
| |
| Lese / Wu.ta la some cases, a high. level the implementing agency will assemble all of waste stream hum reprocessing spent [ Note: The supplemental information in this the results of the performance assessments to i nuclear fuel may have been (or will be) appendix is not an integral part of 40 CFR determine compliance with i 191.13 into a f uparated into two or more high-level waste part 191. Therefore, the implementing "complementary cumulative distribution i components destined for different disposal agencies are not bound to follow this function" that indicates the probabi:ity of l systemt In such cases, the implementing guidance. liowever, it is included because it exceeding various levels af cumulative l t agency m4 allocate the Release Limit descnbes the Agency's assumptions release. When the uncertainties in l multipher ttaased upon the original MillM regarding ine implementation of Subpart D. parameters are considered in a performance sod the aserage fuel burnup of the high. level 'lhis appendix will appear in the Code of assessment, the effects of the uncertainties I wette stream) among the various daposal Federal Regulations.) considered can be incorporated into a sing!e j systems as it chooses. prusided that the total Release llrnit multiplier used for that weste lhe Agency believes that the implementing such distribution function for each disposal agencies must determine compliance with system considered. The Agency assumes that l stream at all of its disposal systems may not il 191.13,191.15. and 191.16 of Subpart D by a disposal syslem can be considered to be in i exceed the Release Limit multiplier that evaluating long-term predictions of disposal compliance with i 191.13 if this single would be used if the entire waste stream l
| |
| were dnposed of in one disposal s) stem.
| |
| system performance. Determining compliance distribution function meets the requirements with i 191.13 will also involve predicting the of I 191.13(a).
| |
| Note 5: Treatment of IDrstes s ah thorly Anown Burnops or Ongnal Af71/3f. In some Mehhood of events and processes that may Compliance with Sections 19Lf5 oed l
| |
| i cases. the remrds associated with particular disturb the d.sposal system. In making these 191.fo. When the uncertainties in undisturbed high-les el wante stresims may not bo various predictions, it will be appropriate for performance of a disposal system are adequate to accurately determine the original the implementing agencies to make use of considered. the implementing agencies need rather complex computational models, not require that a very large percentage of the metric tons of heavy metalin the reactor fuel analytical theories, and prevalen' aspert range of estimated radiation exporures or that treatcJ the waste. or to determine th" judgment relevant to the numerical aserge burnup that the fuel was esposed to. radionuclide concentrations fall be:ow limits predktions. Substantial uncertiinties are estaloshed in il 191.15 and 191.1fL If the unrettainties are such that the original 1;kely to be encountered in making there respectively.The Agency assumes that i amount of he ivy metal or tne average fuel predittions. In fact, sole reliance on these burnup for partu ular hixh-level weal" compliance can be determined based upon numerical predic.tions to determinn "best estimate ~ predictions (e g., the mean or l streams cannot be quantified, the units of compliance may not be appropria*a: th*
| |
| i waste derised from (a) and (b) of Note 1 shall the median of the appropriate distribution.
| |
| imt lementmg stencies may chooN S whicheser is higher).
| |
| no longer be used. Instead. the units of wante supplement such predictions with qualitatise lastitutional Contm/s. To compl) w ith defmco in (c) and (d) of Note 1 sh sll be uwd judgments as well. Becacne the procedures for such high lesel waste streams If the l 191.14(a) the implementmg agency will for determining compliance with Subpart D assume that none of the actis e institutional un< crtainties in sm h information alluw a range of 5alors to he muoriated with th' ha.e not been formulated and tested pt, this controls prevent or reduce radionuclide apperdix to the rule indicates the Agenris releases for rnore than 100 years after oriinnel ernount of beat y rnetal or the assumptions regardmg certain issut a that aierage fuel burnup, then the calculd!',** disposal. llaw es er. the Federal Gog ernrnent may anse w ben implementing il i nta drvrd>cd in presious Notes willlie is committed to retaining ownership of all MIR nd 191.1ti. Most of this guidan" i ondaried using the s alues that result in t,n e apphes to any t>p: os disposal splem f 3r the disposal sites for spent nuclear fuel and high-smalket Helease limits. esrept that the wastes coscred by this rula. Ilowes er. lesel and transuranic radioactive w astes and i
| |
| , Release f.imits need not be smaller that: ses eral sections apply only to disposal in will establish appropriate markers and l i those that wnuld be calculasd using the units mined geologic repositories and would be rew n. consistent with i 19114(c). The I
| |
| of waste defined in (c) and (d) of Lie 1. inappropriate for other types of disposal Anncy asumn , as bng as soG pasm, e l Nota 8: Uses e/Releore limi;a to sp?cma institutional controls endare and are
| |
| ! /ktermine Cem,,liance with 191.13 On< e Consibration of lotalthposalSp em. ""0''"'"0''h');I'I'*" b''II"'" ' *,
| |
| release limits for a particular disposal sptem When predicting dnposal system de' erring sptematic or persistent hoc been det. rmin'ed in accordante w ah yrformamm. the Agency assumes that "ploHation of dese diaposal sites: and (2)
| |
| Notes 1 through 3 these release hmits shall reasonable projection
| |
| * of the protet tion can reduce the likehhood ofinadvertent. <
| |
| be used to determ!nc compliance with the esp.vted from all of tr'e e, ens ered and mtermittent hurnan intrusion to a degree to reqmrements of 191.13 as fotbw s. In t n.es natural barriers of a disposal sptem will be be determined by the implementing agerxy.
| |
| l where a misture of radionuchd >s is pne tad considered. portions of the disposal s3 stem floweser. the Agency beheses that passise
| |
| ! to be releasd to the act essible enurunment. should not be disregarded. esen if projected ' stitutional controls can never be assumed l the lumting s alues shall be ikternnned as r iformance is uncertain, escept far portion, to ehminate the charce of inadsertent and l follows For each r dionu(hde in the mista.*, of the splem that make neghaible ntermi' tent human intrusion into these j determine the s atio between the cumulatis e contiibutions to the overallisolation t@"I site'-
| |
| ! release quanuty projet ted os er tomo )eers prusided b) the disposal s stem. Con s.Veration o//nM erfent //unwn and the hrnit for that radiorunhde as Smfw <>f /vrforrnorn e a ssesse"ents. Intmh mto Ceolope Refusifories. T he determined from Table 1 and Notes 1 throe:;h Section 191.13 requires the irrplementing most spe u!ative potential disruptions of a S. The sum of suc h rahos for all the agennes to es a!uate comphance through mineJ yeologic repository are those radionuclides in the misture may not ese.ed performaru e assetistnentr. ss defined in associated with inads ertent human intrusion. ,
| |
| one with regard to 191.13(a)(1) and mas not i 191.12(4) The Agenr> assumes that such Some t) pes of intrusion would base urtuaMy I cu eed ten with regard to 191 13(41!2) performance assessments reed not consider no effect o, a repository's containment of 9 ,
| |
| | |
| f Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.182 / Thursday, September 19, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 38089 waste. On the other hand. It is possa le to passive institutional controls or the intruders' formations. Furthermore. the Agency assumes conceive of intrusions (insching widespread own esploratory procedures are adequate for that the consequences of such inadvertent societalloss of knowledge regarding the intruders to soon detect. er be warned of. drilling need not be assumed to be more radicartis e wantes) that could result in major thc inccmpat:bility of the area with their sesere than:(1) Direct rc! ease to the land disruptions that no trasonable repositor) ac tis ities. surface of all the ground water in the I'rtycency cndScrenty of /codi errect repository horizon that would promptl) flow O se!ution alles tate.or
| |
| 'lhedesign precautions Agency t+1.es could 1/ uron letrusion into Geoksic Repositene s es that the most through the newly created lorchole to the pruluctise consideration of inadscrtent The irrplementing agencies shot.ld consider surface due to naturallithostatic pressure-w intrusion concerns those reahstic possibdit;es the efft its of uch particular disposal (if pumping would be required to raise water that may t e nefully mitigated by repository n> stem's site, design, and passise to the surface) release of ::ro cubic meters of design site selection, or use of passise institutional controls in judging the likelihood ground water pumped to the surface if that rentrols (although passis e institutional and consequences of such inadsertent much water is readily asailable to be controls should no; be assumed to completely exploratory drilling. Ifoweser, the Agent) pumpt d. and (2) creation of a ground water rule out the possibility of intrtalon). assumes that the hkelihood of such flow path with a permeability ty pical of a Therefore, inadsertent and intermittent inads ertent and intermittent drilling need r.ot borehole Idled by the soil or gras el that intrusion by euploratory drilbr,g for resources be taken to be greater than 30 boreholes per would normally settle into an open hole oser (other than any prosided by the disposal square kilometer of repository area per 10ftio time.-not the permeability of a carefully system itself) can be the most ses cre 3 ears for geologic repositories in proximity to sealed borehole.
| |
| intrusion sc enario assumed by the sedimentary rock formations. or more than 3 implementing agencies. Furthermore, the bortholes per square kilometer per 10.000 [FR Doc. 85-z033: Fded 9-18-85,8.45 aml implementing ayencies ran assurre that y ears for te positories in other geolc gic e>cuwo coot ososo-w b
| |
| O O
| |
| | |
| O NRC STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE ACNW
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| NRC STATE AGREEMENT PRUGRAff DATE: July 22, 1988 PRESENTER: Donald A. Nussbaumer
| |
| ~
| |
| O PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH DIV.: Assistant Director
| |
| ! State Agreements Program State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs ,
| |
| FRESENTER'S NRC TEL NO.: 492-0326
| |
| . . l SUBCOMMITTEE:
| |
| \
| |
| O TO BE USED ALL PRESENTATM)NS TO THE ACNW BY NRC EMPLO
| |
| | |
| O i
| |
| l i: j THE NUC. EAR RESU:.A70RY !
| |
| C0KMOSSOON'S S7E'E ASREIMEE'S PROSRAM l ..
| |
| Donald A. AttssbetMner AssistalDirector State AyeementsPmyom State, Locc/adIndim Tiribe Proyams Office of Govermnents/mdPublic Affaits 1988 O
| |
| | |
| =.
| |
| 0 SEC' 00N 274 )
| |
| .0F THE ATOMOC ENERSY AC" l 0 Enacted in 1959 o Initiative from States to Regulate Atomic Energy o Recognizes Interests of States o Establishes Cooperative Program Provides a Mechanism for Transfer Of ..
| |
| O Certain NRC Authority o Provides for Coordination in Development of Standards
| |
| ; o Reserves Certain Areas for NRC to Regulate
| |
| ; o Modify in 1978 to Direct NRC to Periodically l Review Agreement State Programs o De Concini mendment in 1980 Authorizes NRC to Suspend all or Part of Agreement in
| |
| ; Emergency
| |
| -,--,,-,----,.--,.---,-,,,,---,_,,.,-n,.n - - --- - . . , , - _ , , - - . ,--- . - -,- - , n e r- , . - -- - , , - -, - - , - , -
| |
| | |
| O :
| |
| ' REASONS FOR ENTRANCE OF STATES IN EARLY YEARS J o Promotion by AEC o States Rights Philosophy o Activities of SSEB, WINB H W Category Funds -
| |
| O l
| |
| ; O 1
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| O REGU REMEE'S FOR EE'ER NS OE'O ASREEMEE' Letter to NRC Chairman:
| |
| Governor Certifies State Has Adequate Program to Prctect Public Health Governor Certifies State's Desire to Assume the Regulatory Responsibility O
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| . l NRC CRO7ER A l 0 For S';;s';;ss Ente"Qng in';;c Ag: sement NRC Pc11cy Statement ; ;
| |
| o Comprehensive Radiation Protection Standards o Licensing Program o inspection and Enforcement Program o Adequate Number of Trained Personhel .
| |
| o Provisions for Fair and Impartial Administration o Arrangement for Discontinuing NRC Jurisdiction o Additional Criteria for States Regulating Uranium or Thorium Mill Tailings o Limited Agreement for Low-Level Waste O
| |
| | |
| l O
| |
| ADVAE'ASES 07 ASREEMEE' S'? A';'E S';' A';'U S J .
| |
| p o Fulfills Intent of Section 274 l
| |
| 0 incentive for State to Control all Radiation Sources o Consistent with State Interest in Regulating Nuclear Industry O o Enhances Core of Knowledgeable Persons at l State Level o Single Regulatory Agency for Most Users o States Makes Licensing Decisions and can Better Take into Account Local Conditions O
| |
| | |
| O D;SADVAE'ASES OF ASREEMEE' S';'K'E S';'A';'US
| |
| /,-
| |
| l o Costs States Money 1
| |
| o Some Licensees May Still have to Deal with i two or More Regulatory Groups l o Requires Coordination Between NRC.and l States O l l
| |
| 0 NRC Costs involved )
| |
| l l l
| |
| l l
| |
| I l
| |
| l i
| |
| O
| |
| -_ - _ - - _ . . ~ . - . . . . - - _ _ . ..-___ _.. _ .- - -.._..-- -__._-
| |
| | |
| l o REGUOREMENTS FOR NRC FOR ENTERONS AN ASREEMENT N RC ,
| |
| o Must Find State Program Compatible o Must Find State Program Adequate o Must Publish in Federal Register for 4 weeks o NRC Authorized and Directed to Cooperate with State in Formulation of Radiation Standards ..
| |
| ~
| |
| .O o NRC Authorized to Provide Training and Assistance to States o For Mill Programs, Must Find State Program Meets Requirements of Section 2740 No Additional Criteria for States Wishing to Regulate Low Level-Waste Disposai Sites O
| |
| | |
| RESERVK'00NS 0? A;.;7 HOR TV '
| |
| 70 NRC O
| |
| o 10 CFR 150 - Implementing Regulations o NRC Retains Authority Over .
| |
| Federal Agencies Production and Utilization Facilities Exports and imports Disposal in the Ocean High Level Waste Handling and Disposals Transfer of Materials to Persons Exempt frcm Licensing (Consumer Products)
| |
| Large Quantities of SNM ,,
| |
| O orf-Shore Waters -
| |
| Certain Aspects of Mill Tailings Management O
| |
| | |
| g PROV0500NS OF ASREEMENTS i o Effective Date of Transfer :
| |
| o Best Efforts on Compatibility o NRC ketains Authority in Area of Common Defense and Security and Safeguards for SNM o Reciprocal Recognition of Licenses O o Termination o Certain Conditions Regarding Mill Tailings O
| |
| | |
| O EE'RANCE OF S';'A';'ES ON PROGRAM :
| |
| YEAR NAME OF STATE 5 1962 Kentucky, Mississippi, California New York 1963 Texas, Arkansas 1964 Florida, North Carolina 1965 Kansas, Oregon, Tennessee 1966 New Hampshire, Alabama, Nebraska, Washington 1967 Louisiana, Arizona -
| |
| 0 1968 Colorado, Idaho 1969 North Dakota, South Carolina, Georgia 1971 Maryland 1972 Nevada l
| |
| 1974 New Mexico '
| |
| 1980 Rhode Island 1982 Amendments to Agreements on Mill Tailings Completed with CO, TX, and WA 1984 Utah 1986 lowa 1987 Illinois O
| |
| | |
| O i
| |
| (
| |
| AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM l %
| |
| l an %
| |
| ***m, * * "
| |
| ~~ ,
| |
| ~~
| |
| \ w~ <
| |
| ''~
| |
| ~ Q "'
| |
| : i. '
| |
| N,5 (
| |
| _ .3 _ _ _ .
| |
| _. _ ._ = _ . _
| |
| .. C ''
| |
| N "
| |
| .- \ .
| |
| j -
| |
| '~
| |
| i l E29 AGREEMENT STATES 4 o,
| |
| ! O21 NON-AGREEMENT - 9
| |
| ; STATES ,
| |
| | |
| O POST AGREEMENT PROGRAM o Exchange of Information o Technical Assistance i o Training o On-Site Reviews i
| |
| 04 O
| |
| _ - - - - - , _ _ , , _ -,m___,--, , _ _ - - _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ . . - _ _ , , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
| |
| | |
| EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION O l
| |
| .o Annual Licensing Statistics & Other Data Collected & Published in Collaboration with CRCPD, Inc.
| |
| o Reports of Unusual Events and Abnormal Occurrences in Agreement States o Copies of All Licenses issued by Agreement
| |
| ; States Sent to NRC l
| |
| l 0 Copies of Sealed Source & Device Evaluation, GL Licenses, & "E" Licenses Exchanged- ..
| |
| o Annual All Agreement State Meeting 1
| |
| 1_______________ -
| |
| | |
| O ROUTINE TECHNOCAL A550 STANCE o Routine Requests - Handled by Correspondence or Phone 1
| |
| - Casework (Minor)
| |
| - Licensing Policy
| |
| - Inspection Practice
| |
| - Interpretations l 0 Review of Draft Regulations -
| |
| l o Major Casework l o On-Site Assistance
| |
| - Inspection
| |
| - License Application Evaluation
| |
| - Special Evaluation & Studies o NRC Office Roles - Regions, GPA, NMSS, OGC, AEOD,NRR O
| |
| | |
| 1 TRAONONS PROGRAM o
| |
| (A.L STATES)
| |
| Typical Courses -
| |
| 5 Week Health Physics Course 1 Week Inspection Procedures 1 Week Licensing Orientation 1 Week Radiation Prrtection Engineering 1 Week Medical Course 1 Week Radiography 1 Week Well Logging 1 Week Special Topics / Workshop ..
| |
| O 1 Week LLW Project Management 1 Week Program Management I Week Tailings Dam Evaluation 1 Week Transportation B
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| PER OD C REW EWS 07 :'HE O g.7g IPROSRAXS (REQUORED BV SEC. 274l)
| |
| Routine On-Site Reviewc Normally Conducted between 12 - 24 Months by NRC Regional Offices Scaled to Size Guide for Evaluation (29 Indicators) Published at 52 FR 21132 (6/4/87)
| |
| ~
| |
| O Legislation and Regulations Organization Management and Administration Personnel l
| |
| Licensing Compliance Indicators are categorized by relative Imp rtance O
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| o Periodic Review Meetings (Cont.)
| |
| Summary Discussion with State Management Officials Letter to State Management, Copy to PDR If Major Problems, Findings of Adequacy and Compatibility are not made Until State Response is Received and Evaluate i
| |
| O
| |
| - - - -, , ,-----,-- ,-,-, ae-,,--,,---,,_ ,m--mn.m. _ _ _ , , . ,,,_, ,_nn,. _ , ,, , ,,, , - . , r-----m,. - , -
| |
| | |
| i O
| |
| FUNDONS ASREEMENT STATE PROSRAMS .
| |
| o NRC not Authorized to Provide Operating Funds o NRC Charges its Licensees Fees (10 CFR 170) o 24 of 29 Agreement States have Aut.hority O to Charge Fees -
| |
| o Over 75% of Material Licensees in US (NRC &
| |
| State) are subject to Fees o NRC endorses State Fee System; Model Legislation includes Fee Authorization I
| |
| | |
| l O EXPER;ENCE l
| |
| l' o States Generally Conduct Effective Radiation Control Programs - Over 90% of the individual Indicators are Met o When Major Program Deficiencies Noted, Technical Advice, Assistance and Training Provided within NRC Resources o Main Area of Concern Maintaining Adequate Staff Level.s O
| |
| 0 Areas Where Agreement States Excel Highly Trained Staff More Frequent inspections I
| |
| ; O
| |
| | |
| KEY ELEMENTS OF 800D o RADO AT00N CONTROL PROSRAN 1 1
| |
| o Qualified Staff with Low Turnover o Not Afraid to Seek Advice o Systematic Procedures o Comprehensive and Unified Program (Covers Licensing and Inspection of l
| |
| Materi Is, X-Ray, Emergency Planning, ..
| |
| O Environmental Surveillance, Laboratory) l o Visibility of Program o Capable Program Director o Good Support by Mid and Upper Level Management O
| |
| | |
| LOW-LEVEL WASTE O TECHNOCA;. A550 STANCE e
| |
| o On January 22,1986 NRC issued guidance to States and Compacts on the availability of NRC assistance and the nature of such assistance o On March 28,1988, NRC revised and clarified the availability of NRC regulatory O assistance and sent this information to the States and Compacts U
| |
| | |
| NATURE OF TECHN0 CAL 0 A550 STANCE FOR LLW NRC's Technical Assistance for LLW is i Regulatory in nature due to the Atomic Energy Act includes such topics as
| |
| - design
| |
| - licensing
| |
| - operation O DOE's Technical Assistance for LLW can ,
| |
| support the development of disposal capacity as assigned by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act I
| |
| l O l l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| ASREEMENT STATE 5 WOTH O LLW AUTHOROTY UNDER 27@
| |
| o NRC expects Agreement States or States seeking low-level waste Regulatory Authority under 274b to Establish and maintain a regulatory program with the approriate
| |
| -legislation
| |
| - regulations -
| |
| - procedures
| |
| - technical capability -
| |
| o NRC plans to examine Agreement States who are host States or anticipate becoming host States for the adequacy of their program o 4RC coes not in~:end to review in its en': ire':y an a3f ica: ion for a LLW cis30sa' 'icense ' rom an
| |
| ; Agreemen': Sta':e or cuf ica':e an l Acreemen': S':a':e's review l
| |
| O i
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| . l t
| |
| O SPEC 0FIC AREAS OF NRC TECHNICAL A550 STANCE o Legislation for siting, licensing and operation of a low-level radioactive waste disposal !
| |
| facilities o Regulations of Agreement States equivalent to 10 CFR 61 o Site Selection and Disposal Technolo,gy O Criteria to determine consistency with Part
| |
| : 61. (Note such review would be directed at ensuring compatibility with regulations and to j identify any rels//7sws in the criteria) o Applications and Environmental Assessments for New or Amendments of existing LLW licensees. (Note such review would be directed to specific areas identified and previously reviewed by the State) o Specific Technical Issues such as mixed j waste.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 1 l BPEC0FOC AREAS WHERE NRC 0 gg;.L NOT SOVE TECHN0 CAL
| |
| .. A5505TANCE i
| |
| o Host State Selection Criteria l l
| |
| 0 Contractors Bid Proposals
| |
| - to perform site selection
| |
| - for host State selection studies
| |
| - to develop site or host State selection
| |
| '"I'*"I* "
| |
| O - to establish design standards or specific designs of disposal facilities
| |
| - to prepare license applications
| |
| - to operate disposal facilities e
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| O o o a
| |
| South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Contro
| |
| ( D.H.E.C. )
| |
| l l Bureau of Radiological Health Regulatory Activities 1
| |
| I 4
| |
| __... , -,, ---.-... _ ..._, . . . . . . . , - - . - - = - _ - . ~ . . . - - - - _ - , . . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . . . - - - - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| | |
| O O O Bu rea u of Radiological Health July 1988 s
| |
| Bu rea u , , , , , , , , , , , ,
| |
| Chief I I DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR Div. of Rod. Division of Division of Env. Monitoring Electronic Products Radioactive Materials l
| |
| I I I I I I I I Rod. Lob Rod. Field Compliance Contracts TronS. Woote Engr. Ucensing Chemist 111 HP 111 H P ll1 HP 111 HP 111 HP Tech 11 HP lil L
| |
| Chemiet !! -
| |
| HP Tech I HP 111 HP 111
| |
| ;HP 111 E n g r 11 HP 111 i
| |
| L_ cs. mist i HP II HP I L HP 11 Engr 11' HP 11 HP 1 HP 1
| |
| | |
| O o o le Division o= Racio ocica
| |
| - nviro n m e n :a \/ o ni :o rin c Identify and Quantify Releases of Ra dioa ctive Mate rial to the Enviro n ment Collect and Analyze Samples:
| |
| Water Milk Veg etatio n Fish Air Soil .
| |
| Credentials N.R.C. Region II Approved under N.R.C.
| |
| Co ntra ct Sources Traceable to the National Bu rea u of Standards E.P.A. Ce rtificatio n
| |
| | |
| . _ - . - =_- -. .
| |
| O O O
| |
| ^.N ne Division o= ec ronic 3 rod uc s Register and Inspect Facilities in which x-rays are used Fro.n Planning to O peration Architectu ral and Sheilding Plans Inspect instalia' ion Follow- u p Inspections
| |
| ~
| |
| Id entify Problems Reduce Exposu res An n ual Fees Regional Calibration Facility Accredited ;
| |
| by N.B.S. ond C_?.C.P.D.
| |
| | |
| ~O O O o= Ra c io a c :ive
| |
| ~~
| |
| ,e Division V a :eria s M ate ria ls Lice nsin g Sectio n i Lice nse and Inspect U sers of Ra dioa ctive Materials Waste Transportation Enforcement Section l Compliance, D o c u m e ntatio n , and Inspection
| |
| : of the Transportation of Ra dioa ctive M ate rials 4
| |
| 1 l
| |
| Radioactive Waste and M aterials Co m plia n ce En gin ee rin g Sectio n Review and Inspect On-site activities at the LLWDF 4
| |
| I l
| |
| | |
| o o o '
| |
| :s t
| |
| i Rac.io ogica 1m e rg e n cy Resaonse Respond t o. any Accidental Release
| |
| | |
| s 4
| |
| ~O O O I'
| |
| .x W
| |
| "CRSDO ?<'l
| |
| . !O R Cr .
| |
| Permi:s ,
| |
| _ia ai i :y n s u ra n ce D re n o :i- ica :io n n s D ec :io n 1o- o rce men :
| |
| CP's S u s ae n sio n s
| |
| | |
| 'O o C .
| |
| .N c o s oo rt :'io n o= W o ermi:s
| |
| _ia ai i :y n s u ra n c e 3 re n o :i =ica :io n n s D ec :io n -
| |
| _ n ~~ o FC e m e n :
| |
| C 3's Sus ae n sio ns t
| |
| t i
| |
| | |
| O O O 4
| |
| I l
| |
| ] a
| |
| { LL.W Regulations @@ f 'a rt 61 Co m pata bility i1 l
| |
| 4 Direct O n site J Lice n se Review
| |
| ; Co m plia n ce Inspections .
| |
| l j Engineer Reviews j H.I.C. Ap p rova ls i
| |
| Waste P ro c es s e s i
| |
| 4 Site Construction i
| |
| ; ~
| |
| ; t i
| |
| L
| |
| = _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| : ! i . :j i ! " * ! -
| |
| y r
| |
| a d
| |
| O n u
| |
| e o c B y n g a ,
| |
| l o l l
| |
| i tt ee o e i i e v ss r nff G u S OO d r n g - e a r t i
| |
| n e a y l t n g
| |
| p l a W o o m a w e i
| |
| t l
| |
| a c d c a o i n
| |
| r S ga l u f a
| |
| D.l t
| |
| e d
| |
| O s y l l oco r i g w H a ogr i u rLoe i .
| |
| - i e
| |
| t n dog i
| |
| l SATSV v f o
| |
| e a r o e m i
| |
| R nd
| |
| _ s n oa l e o NR a
| |
| i r
| |
| t d i n u v e t n S E - -
| |
| m n
| |
| o i
| |
| r - -
| |
| v n
| |
| E O
| |
| - A j! l ! i; . i
| |
| | |
| ] >
| |
| O O 'O
| |
| : i i
| |
| t 1
| |
| i .s J L C, C e r a
| |
| oc a
| |
| a cr s 1
| |
| i l State Funds Legislatively Appropriated
| |
| ! i 4
| |
| Fees ( License and Pe rmits ) 50% 1
| |
| ! Fed e ra l Contracts ( N.R.C. and ,
| |
| i .
| |
| F.D.A. )
| |
| i l t i
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| ~O O O C.c o t i: -
| |
| .T' SMc State Owned Leased to C.N.S.I.
| |
| Decommissioning ( Currently have 3.6 Million )
| |
| Extended Ca re ( Currently have 32 Million).
| |
| ( Projected need is 45 Million )
| |
| Plan Su b mitted and -
| |
| Under Review l
| |
| Determining Agency Responsibilities l
| |
| Future Site Use Under Consideration l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| O '
| |
| O S h
| |
| DEFENSE RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT:
| |
| l STATUS AND CHALLENGES l
| |
| ! BY I
| |
| i THOMAS B. HINDMAN DIRECTOR l OFFICE OF DEFENSE WASTE AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT l -
| |
| l U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY l
| |
| *8-2-MCL2-000M7-01
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| ; O o o i
| |
| DEFENSE RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT:
| |
| j STATUS AND CHALLENGES I
| |
| i e PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION i
| |
| e PROGRAM ACTIVITIES STATUS e PROGRAM CHALLENGES l
| |
| 1 1
| |
| *8-2-MCL2-000217-03 d
| |
| -i
| |
| | |
| l O o o i
| |
| i i DEFENSE WASTE PROGRAM BACKGROUND l
| |
| i e DEFENSE WASTE MANAGEMENT 15 PART OF DOE'S DEFENSE l PROGRAMS i
| |
| e DEFENSE PROGRAMS HAS PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR.
| |
| l' PRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND MATERIALS FOR
| |
| ! NATIONAL DEFENSE i
| |
| !
| |
| * PRODUCTION REQUIRES A LARGE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX EMPLOYING OVER 60,000 PEOPLE IN OVER A DOZEN STATES i
| |
| l e BYPRODUCT RADIOACTIVE, HAZARDOUS, AND MIXED WASTES MUST BE MANAGED AND DISPOSED OF IN A SAFE AND COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER
| |
| ; s-2-uct2-ooo217-04 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| l - -
| |
| i O O O '
| |
| I l
| |
| l DEFENSE WASTE PROGRAM GOAL AND SCOPE l e PRIMARY GOAL:
| |
| l - TO PROVIDE SAFE INTERIM STORAGE, PROCESSING,
| |
| ! TRANSPORTATION AND ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF .
| |
| l RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS WASTES GENERATED l PRIMARILY FROM NUCLEAR MATERIALS PRODUCTION i
| |
| e OVERALL SCOPE:
| |
| l -
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OF INACTIVE FACILITIES AND j SITES l - PROCESSING, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTES FROM
| |
| ! ONGOING OPERATIONS ,
| |
| R&D DIRECTED TOWARD LONG-TERM WASTE DISPOSAL i STRATEGIES AND MORE COST-EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE METHODS
| |
| - DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR ASSURING SAFE TRANSPORTAT!ON OF WASTE MATERIALS
| |
| '8-2-MCL2-000217-05 i
| |
| | |
| O o o PROGRAM BUDGETS
| |
| ($ IN MILLIONS)
| |
| FY 1987 FY 1988 FY1989 OPERATING EXPENSES:
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION $53.8 $97.8 $120.9 WASTE OPERATIONS AND PROJECTS $319.8 $411.6 $489.0 WASTE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT $68.1 $51.1 $58.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGY $7.6 $7.1 $8.4 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT $8.5 $8.4 $9.7 i
| |
| j PROGRAM DIRECTION $2.1 $2.5 $3.1 SUBTOTAL, OPERATING EXPENSES $459.9 $578.5 $689.6 l CAPITAL EQUIPMENT $38.3 $43.7 $52.7 l CONSTRUCTION $203.3 $273.1 $194.2 TOTAL BUDGET $701.5 $895.3 $936.5
| |
| ) *8-2-MCL2-000217-06
| |
| | |
| O o o i DEFENSE WASTE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OFFICE OF THE i ASSISTANT SECRETARY l FOR
| |
| ! DEFENSE PROGRAMS i
| |
| ! I OFFICE OF THE
| |
| ! DEPUTY ASSISTANT i SECRETARY FOR I
| |
| NUCLEAR MATERIALS ,
| |
| OFFICE OF DEFENSE WASTE AND j
| |
| TRANSPORATION MANAGEMENT l
| |
| I I
| |
| ! I I I I l OPERATIONS WASTE RESEARCH HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTATION AND AND DEVELOPMENT AND REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT l PROJECTS DIVISION DIVISION ACTIONS DIVISION DIVISION 1, . .
| |
| I I I I I t t i I
| |
| ]
| |
| FIELD OFFICES
| |
| *8-2-MCL2-000217-07 I
| |
| | |
| O O O HIGH-LEVEL WASTE e RADIOACTIVE, HEAT-PRODUCING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL FROM THE REPROCESSING OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL e STORED AS LIQUIDS, CRYSTALLINE SALTS, SLUDGES, AND CALCINE e REQUIRES PERMANENT GEOLOGIC ISOLATION e INVENTORY OF APPROXIMATELY 355,000 CUBIC METERS f
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| *5-2-MCL2-000217-08 i
| |
| | |
| O o O 4
| |
| 1 l TRANSURANIC WASTE i
| |
| l
| |
| * SOLID WASTE SUCH AS OLD EQUIPMENT, PROTECTIVE l CLOTHING, GLASSWARE, PAPER, ETC.
| |
| 1
| |
| ! e CONTAMINATED WITH ELEMENTS HAVING AN ATOMIC
| |
| ! NUMBER GREATER THAN URANIUM e DISPOSAL OF PRE-1970 INVENTORY BY SHALLOW LAND BURIAL
| |
| ) e POST-1970 INVENTORY STORED PENDING PERMANENT
| |
| ! GEOLOGIC ISOLATION l
| |
| l' e INVENTORY OF STORED TRU WASTE APPROXIMATELY 91,000 CUBIC METERS l
| |
| l *s-2-Mct2400217-09 i'
| |
| | |
| ! O O O i
| |
| }
| |
| i, i
| |
| LOW LEVEL WASTE l
| |
| ! e DISCARDED MATERIAL WITH LOW RADIOACTIVE LEVEL DISPERSED WITHIN A RELATIVELY LARGE VOLUME i
| |
| l e LAND BURIAL PROVIDES FOR SAFE DISPOSAL i
| |
| ! e INVENTORY OF APPROXIMATELY 2.1 MILLION CUBIC METERS i
| |
| *8-2-MCL2-000217-10 i
| |
| j .s
| |
| | |
| O O O l
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION e PROGRAM CONSOLIDATED IN 1987 TO COORDINATE CLEANUP OF RADIOACTIVE, HAZARDOUS, AND MIXED WASTES AT INACTIVE DEFENSE PROGRAMS FACILITIES AND SITES e REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS DERIVE FROM AEA, SECTION 3004(U) OF RCRA, CERCLA, AND SARA e THREE PHASE PROCESS:
| |
| (1) SITE DISCOVERY ' ASSESSMENT, (2) SITE CHARACTERIZATION / REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT, (3) REMEDIAL ACTION / REGULATORY CLOSEOUT e EPA / STATES DRIVE PROCESS
| |
| *S-2-MCL2400217-11
| |
| | |
| O O O
| |
| CHALLENGE:
| |
| PUBLIC SKEPTICAL CONCERNING SAFETY OF I WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM l
| |
| i i
| |
| I e PUBLIC'S CONCERNS MUST BE ADDRESSED BY PROGRAM OF OPEN INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CONTINUING CONSULTATION WITH STATE / LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS i
| |
| e INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, SITE VISITS, j SEMINARS, TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT FOR EMERGENCY i RESPONSE ARE EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES THAT CAN BUILD j PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE l
| |
| I *8-2-MCL26217-14
| |
| | |
| O O O CHALLENGE:
| |
| REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT MORE COMPLEX THAN IN PAST
| |
| ~
| |
| e RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT NO LONGER SUBJECT SOLELY TO AEA
| |
| ~
| |
| HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE NOW ALSO SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF RCRA / CERCLA AND OTHER STATUTES
| |
| * DOE NO LONGER SELF-REGULATING -- EPA / STATES HAVE REGULATORY INITIATIVE / ENFORCEMENT POWERS
| |
| '8-2-MCL2-000217-13
| |
| | |
| l O O O i
| |
| ! CHALLENGE:
| |
| l SCOPE OF UNDERTAKING i
| |
| ?
| |
| * NO MAJOR TECHNOLOGY BARRIERS -- PRINCIPAL CHALLENGE IS
| |
| ! TO MARSHALL NECESSARY ORGANIZATIONAL, MANAGEMENT, j AND ENGINEERING RESOURCES i
| |
| i i
| |
| l l
| |
| l l s-2em217-ts l
| |
| l k
| |
| i . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| - ~
| |
| \ .
| |
| O O O 1
| |
| l; CHALLENGE:
| |
| i BUDGET AND PROGRAM PACE l
| |
| l l
| |
| ! e SETTING OF PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATION OF SCARCE RESOURCES ARE CLASSIC CHALLENGES i e INCOMPLETE RCRA / CERCLA AGREEMENTS, PROGRESS!VE
| |
| ! DISCOVERY NATURE OF CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS, l EXISTENCE OF UNSUSPECTED SPILL SITES, CHANGING REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT POSE SINGULAR PROBLEMS TO
| |
| , ESTIMATING AND MANAGING BUDGET '
| |
| l -
| |
| *8-2-MCL2-000217-16 s
| |
| | |
| 1 i O o o '
| |
| j .
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| o SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN PREPARING HLW FOR ULTIMATE l GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL 4 e OPERATION OF WIPP TO DEMONSTRATE GEOLOG;C WASTE DISPOSAL EXPECTED TO BEGIN IN OCTOBER 1988 i
| |
| e SAFE DISPOSAL OF LLW BY LAND BURIAL CONTINUES e ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OF INACTIVE FACILITIES AND SITES PROCEEDING -- PROGRAM CONSOLIDATED, ORGANIZED, AND PROVIDED BUDGET LINE ITEM e EFFORTS CONTINUING TOWARD SAFE, SECURE, AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION OF REGULATED MATERIALS e MAJOR CHALLENGES ARE UNCERTA;N FUNDING NEEDS AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT, LARGE SCOPE OF UNDERTAKING, AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE i
| |
| '8-2-MCL2-000217-17 l
| |
| ?
| |
| \ .
| |
| | |
| 'f O
| |
| CNSI PRESENTATION TOPICS ,
| |
| (
| |
| ACNW MEETING l July 22,1988 BARNWELL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL & DOSIMETRY LABORATORY DRY STORAGE FUEL CASK & WASTE TRANSPORTATION CASK FLEET O WASTE FORM CERTIFICATION PROGRAM & TESTING LABORATORY DISPOSAL CONTAINER OUTFITTING FACILITY & HIC TESTING RAPID DEWATERING SYSTEM (RDS-1000) & TESTING PROGRAMS O
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 1 O BARNWELL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY o Waste Shipment Inspection System &
| |
| Evaluation Program o Trench Design & Construction Techniques o Waste Burial Operations o Site Monitoring Programs o Site Closure Plan ENVIRONMENTAL & DOSIliETRY O LABORATORY o On-Site Monitoring Program o Environmental Monitoring Program o Proposed Trench Evaluation System o Master Core Project o Status of Hydro-Geologic Site Model O
| |
| 2
| |
| | |
| O DRY STORAGE FUEL CASK & WASTE TRANSPORTATION CASK FLEET o GNSI/CNSI o CASTOR Series Casks o ' Waste Cask Fleet o Proposed Changes to 10 CFR 71 WASTE FORM CERTIFICATION O PROGRAM & TESTING IABORATORY o Characterization of the Waste o Selection of Additives & Binders o Test Sample Preparation o Preliminary Testing o BTPWF Acceptance Testing o Results Compiled & Reviewed o Field Implementation
| |
| ! O 3
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| Q DISPOSAL CONTAINER OUTFITTING FACILITY & HIC TESTING o Installation ofIntermals o Application of Lifting Devices o Container Inspections o HIC Testing Program RAPID DEWATERING SYSTEM (RDS-1000) & TESTING PROGRAMS o System Design & Major Components
| |
| . Rapid Dewatering Skid
| |
| . Plant Connection Stand
| |
| . Waste Container & Fillhead
| |
| . Control Console / System o System Certification Program o Pre-Operational Test Program O
| |
| 4
| |
| ._. . _ _ _ - , - .}}
| |