UNITED STATES L. 4TMENT OF COMMERCE.n < Ho *National Bureau ofStuiddards

.- _ o PAWGaithersburg. Maryland 20889

July 16, 1986

Walton R. KellyU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionMS 623-SSWashington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Kelly:

Attached you will find an announcement for the InternationalConference on Thermodynamics of Aqueous Systems with IndustrialApplications, Wnich some are calling the Airlie House II.

You may have attended its predecessor, which was held in 1978,or be familiar with the published account of its proceedings, ACSSymposium Series 133. A great many of our colleagues haveexpressed how valuable they thought the first conference was andall agreed that it is about time for a second convening. The firstconference was notable for bringing together a broad spectrum ofacademic and industrial researchers, many of whom typically do notfind themselves at the same technical gatherings. We are hopingfor similar representation at this conference.

As co-chairman of the experimental data and techniques session, Iwould like to invite you to submit an abstract for consideration inthis session. My co-chairman is Prof. Dimitri Sverjensky of theEarth Sciences Department at Johns Hopkins University and we arestriving to prepare an interdisciplinary program which willhighlight new measurement techniques from both the physical andearth sciences and will illustrate the extent to which fundamentalstudy of aqueous systems fulfills a common need in both process andenvironmental engineering applications.

We are planning to have the proceedings published so a writtenpaper will be required at some time prior to the meeting.Presentations will be strictly limited to 20 minutes and a pagelimit of 6 pages is anticipated at this point.

If you can not ...omit an abstract, I certainly hope that you willstill be able to attend. If you feel that one of the other listedtopics is more suitable, I can forward any contribution to theappropriate chairman or tell you who to contact. In any event, anindication of your intentions at this juncture would be helpful andgreatly appreciated..

860 080043 860724Cordially, PDR WMRES EXISANL

A-1756 PDR

David Smith-MagowanElectrolyte Data Center

Enclosure

Third Announcement

INIERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

1TERMDYMU CS OF AQJEOUS SYSTEMS

WITH INUJSTRIAL APPLICAOTINS

May 10-14, 1987Airlie House, Warrenton, Virginia (near Washington, DC)

Experimental Data and Techniques

Basic Theory

Correlation and Estimation Techniques

Data Compilations

Computer Calculation of Equilibria

Industrial Applications

New Directions

The conference is sponsored by the Design Institute for Physical

Property Data (DIPPR) of the American Institute of Chemical

Engineers, the National Bureau of Standards and the National

Science Foundation. Attendance will be approximately 150 from

industry, government, and academia.

Abstracts of proposed papers should be submitted by September 1,

1986. Registration material will be available September 1, 1986.

F - further information, contact:

Technical Material

Dr. Noel C. Scrivner '

E. I. .du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Louviers 1356

Wilmington, DE 19898

(302) 366-4021

.Registration Material'

Ms. Mary Pat Healy

DIPPR-AIChE.

345 East 47th Street

New York, NY 10017

(212) 705-7332

22288

Proposed Rules Fdera ReasterVol. 51. No. 1i8

Thursday. June 19. 1986

This section of te FEDERAL REGISTERcontains notices to the pubfic of teproposed Issuance of rules andregulatbons.The purpose of thes. noticesIs to give interested pers anopportu to participate in Vt rulemakng pri to te adoption of te finalrules.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and NatralzationService

8 CFR Part 103

Powers and Duties of Service Officera;Avallability of Service Records

Cormctiondin FR Doc. 88-12i44 beginning on page

19559 in-the issue of Fiday; May 30.1988, make the following correction:

On page 19560. first column. inamendatory instruction Z third line."(b)(3)" should have read '(b)(2)".4Ha" coas *16es1

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

10 CFR Part 60

Disposal of High-Level RadioactiveWastes In Geologic Repositories;Conforming Amendments

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.AcTro: Proposed rule.

cannot be given-except as to commentsreceived on or before this date.ADORESSES: Written comments may besubmitted to the Secretary of theCommission. U.S. Nuclear RegualoryCommission. Washington. DC 20555,Attention: Docketing and ServicesBranch. Comments may also bedelivered to Room 1121, 1717 H StreetNW., Washington. DC, from 8:15 a.m. to5:00 p.m. weekdays. Copies of thedocuments referred to in this notice andcomments received may be examined atthe NRC Public Document Room. 1717 HStreet NW., Washington, DCrFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Daniel I. Fehringer. Division of WasteManagement. Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission. Washington.DC 20555, telephone (301) 427-4796.SUPPLEUENTARY INFORMATOC -

BackgroundSection 121 of the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). 42 U.S.C.10141, directs the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) to "promulgategenerally applicable standards forprotection of the general environmentfrom offsite releases from radioactivematerial in repositories." EPA publishedits final high-level radioactive waste(HLWJ standards in the Federal Registeron September 19, 185 (50 FR 38068).Section 121 of the NWPA furtherspecifies that the regulations of the NRC"shall not be inconsistent with anycomparable standards promulgated by[EPA]."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commissionhas previously published rules (10 CFRPart 60. 46 FR 13980, February 25 1981.48 FR 28204. June 21 1983) whichestablished procedures and technicalcriteria for disposal of HLW in .ageologic repository by the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE). Thisnotice describes the interpretations andanalyses which the Commissionconsiders to be appropriate forimplementation of the EPA standards.and Identifies modifications to theCommission's regulations which areconsidered appropriate to maintainconsistency with the standardspromulgated by EPA.

It should be noted that "workingdraft" versions of the EPA standardswere available to the Commission- whenPart 60 was being developed. and theCommission structured Its regulations to

be compatible with those draftstandards. (See. for example. 48 FR28195-28205. June 21. 1983. where theCommission discussed its final technicalcriteria, and NUREC-0804. the staffsanalysis of public comments on theproposed technical criteria. NUREG-0804 is available in the NRC PublicDocument Room.) Since many of thegeneral features of the "working drafts"remain present in the final standards.Part 60 is largely consistent with thosestandards. EPA has, however,sometimes used different terminology todescribe concepts already present inPart 60. To maintain the overallstructure of Part 60. and to avoidIntroduction of duplicative terminologywhich could prove confusing in alicensing review, the Commissionprefers to retain its own establishedterms. Most of the amendments to Part60 proposed in this notice Involve directincorporation within Part 60 of thesubstantive requirements of the EPAstandards, reworded as necessary toconform to the terminology of Part 60.(Additional proposed amendmentsderive from EPA's "assurancerequirements," as discussed in SectionHl of this notice. One furtheramendment, unrelated to the EPAstandards, is proposed for clarificationof existing wording in Part 60.) With theissuance of this rule, no substantivechanges are intended in therequirements of the EPA standards or inthe environmental protection theyafford.

The EPA standards specify certainlimits on radiation exposures andreleases of radioactive material duringtwo principal stages: First. the period ofmanagement and storage operations at arepository and. second. the long-termperiod after waste disposal has beencompleted. These standards, and theproposed rules to implement themduring operations and after closure, ardiscussed in section I below, whilesection 11 provides some furtherobservations regarding the manner inwhich the Commission intends to applythe EPA standards in Its licensingproceedintgs. Section III describesadditional proposed rules related tocertain "assurance requirements" whichare present in EPA's standards butwhich are not applicable to NRC-licensed facilities. In order to avoidpotential jurisdictional problems whichmight arise If this section of the EPA

SUMMARr. The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is proposing toamend its regulations for disposal ofhigh-level radioactive wastes in geologicrepositories. The amendments arenecessary to conform existing NRCregulations to the environmentalstandards for management and disposalof high-level radioactive wastes-promulgated by the EnvironmetalProtection Agency (EPA) on September19. 1985. The proposed rule would*Incorporate all the substantiverequirements of the environmentalstandards and make several changes inthe wording used by EPA in order tomaintain consistency with the currentwording of the NRC regulations.DATE: Comment period expires August18 198& Comments received after thisdate will be considered if it Is practicalto do so. but assurance of consideration

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 118 1 Thursday, June 19. 1988 / Proposed Rules 2228N9

standards were applied to NRC-licensedfacilities, the NRC is proposing to addsubstantially equivalent provisions to itsregulations. Finally, this notice presentsa section-by-section analysis of theproposed rule (section IV). followed bythe specific text of the proposedamendments to Part 60. (Theorganization of section IV follows thatof Part 60 while the text of section I Isorganized to present a section-by-section discussion of the EPA standards.Parts of section IV are thereforerepetitions of information presented insection l.)

1. Limits on Exposures and ReleasesThe limits established by EPA for the

period of repository operations appearat 40 CFR 191.03. The limits applicableto the period after disposal include"containment requirements" (limits oncumulative releases of radionuclides tothe environment for 10.000 years) in1 1.91.13. "individual protection

.requirements" in 5 191.15. and "groundwater protection requirements" inI 191.16. Implementation of each ofthese sections is discussed in thefollowirg paragraphs.

Standards for repository operations(f 191.03). The standards for repositoryoperations are virtually identical to thestandards previously promulgated byEPA for the uranium fuel cycle (42 FR2860. January 13 1977). and will beimplemented in the same manner. DOEwill be expected to demonstrate.through analyses of anticipated facilityperformance, that the dose limits ofthese standards, as well as thestandards for protection againstradiation set out in 10 CFR Part 20, willnot be exceeded. Releases ofradionuclides and resulting doses duringoperations are amenable to monitoring.and DOE will be required to conduct amonitoring program to confirm that thelimits are complied with. Section60.111(a) would be amended to includesthe EPA dose limits. Section 60.101a)(2)already includes a provision requiring"reasonable assurance" that the releaselimits be achieved, and it is notnecessary to repeat this language in the

'It should be noted that' potential ambiguityexists in this section of EPAs lHLW standardse.ndin EPA's uranium fel cycle standards. Bothstandards limits the annuel dose equivalent to anymember of the public to '25 Willirems to the wholebody. 25 millirems to the thytoid. and 25 milliremsto any other critical organ- (emphasis added) TheCommission has always interpreted thew limits asif the word "end- were replacad by "or." Thus, theCommission would not consider it acceptable toallow an annual do"e equiivaent of 12 millirem tothe whole body and an additional 25 millirems toany other orgas, The Commiasioc will continue toimplement these limits as it has in the past. but willencourage CIA to clarify the wording quoted above.

release limits of I 60.111. It Is also notnecessary to employ the terms"management" and "storage," as EPAhas done, since all preclosure repositoryoperations are already subject to theprovisions of I 60.111.

Postclosure standards. The EPApostclosure standards are all expressedin terms of a "reasonable expectation"of meeting specified levels ofperformance. EPA explained that itselected this term because " 'reasonableassurance' has come to be associatedwith a level of confidence that may notbe appropriate for the very long-termanalytical projections that are called forby 191.13." The Commission is sensitiveto the need to account for theuncertainties involved in predictingperformance over 10,000 years. and thedifficulties as well as the importance ofdoing so. The Commission hasattempted to address this concern in theexisting language of I 60.101(a)(2). Thatsection reguires a finding ofreasonableassurance. "making allowance for thetime period. ha atzds, and uncertaintieiinvolved, that the outcome will be inconformance" with the relevant criteria.Rather than adopt an additional conceptsuch as "reasonable expectation." theCommission proposes to add additionalexplanatory text. derived from EPA'swording, to its existing discussion ofresonable assurance. Thif text willmake clear the Commission's belief thatits concept of reasonable assurance.although somewhat different fromprevious usage in reactor licensing, isappropriate for evaluations of repositoryperformance where long-term issues andsubstantial uncertainties are inherent inprojections of repository performance.The Commission considers that the levelof coauiadence associated with itsconcept of reasonable assurance Is thesame as that sought by EPA in the use ofthe term "reasonable expectation."

In the case of the individualprotection requirements (40 CFR 192.25).the standards limit the annual doseequivalent to any member of the publicin the accessible environmenL A newprovision in 1 60.112(b) is proposed thatwould include the dose limitsestablished by EPA as well as theadditional specifications, which theCommission finds to be reasonable. withregard to consideration of all pathwaysincluding consumption of drinking waterfrom a "significant sourge of groundwater." as defined by EPA.

The EPA standards require that theindividual protection requirements beachieved only for "undisturbedperformance" of a geologic repository("disposal system" in EPA'sterminology). The proposed amendment

to Part 60 makes no reference to"undisturbed performance." Instead, Itprovides that the standard is to be met"in the absence of unanticipatedprocesses and events." The Commissionconsiders the concepts of undisturbedperformance and the absence ofunanticipated processes and events tobe identical. As used by EPA (40 CFR191.12(p)). "undisturbed performance"refers to the predicted behavior of adisposal system if it is "not disrupted byhuman intrusion or the occurrence ofunlikely natural events. "Since humanintrusion and unlikely natural processesand events are precisely the types of"unanticipated processes and events"defined in I 60.A the two concepts arethe same. Thus, the Commissionconsiders that the phrase "in theabsence of unanticipated processes andevents" has the same meaning as"undisturbed performance" in the EPAstandards. To maintain the overallstructure of Part 60 and to avoidintrqduction of duplicative language, theComnziiion prefers to retain its ownestablished terms.

The engineered barriers of arepository will, in many cases. beinstrumental in achieving compliancewith both the individual protectionrequirements and the groundwaterprotection requirements discussedbelow. The Commission notes that theexisting provisions of Part 60 require theengineered barriers of a repository toachieve their containment and releaserate performance objectives "assuminganticipated processes and events."Thus, equating "undisturbedperformance" with "anticipatedprocesses and events" causes no changein the types of conditions for which theengineered barriers must be designed.

The ground waterprotectionrequirements (40 CFR 191.1B) focus onthe quality of any "special source ofground water." which is defined.generally, as a source of drinking waterin gn area that includes and surroundsthe geologic repository. This areaextends for five kilormeters beyond thecontrolled area. The standard applies towater "withdrawn" from such a specialsource. The Commission is proposing toInclude the EPA standard as a newperformance objective ( 60.112(c)).Once again the rule applies in theabsence of unanticipated processes andevents Instead of 'undisturbed'performance."

The containment requirements (40CFR 191.131 restrict the total amount ofradioactive material released to theenvironment for 10.000 years followingpermanent closure of a repository. EPAprovides a table listing release limits for

p

=90 Federal Register / Vol. S1. No. 116 / Thursday, June 19, 1986 / Proposed Rules

:

the significant radionuclides presentjnHLW or spent fuel. The values in thistable were derived. based onenvironmental transport and dosimetryconsiderations. so that the amount ofeach radionuclide listed in the tablewill, if released to the environment.produce approximately the samenumber of population health effects. Thestandard further specifies differentrelease limits for releases with differinglikelihoods of occurrence. TheCommission is proposing to incorporatethese requirements as a newperformance objective (§ 60.112(a)).along with a new 160.115 containingEPA's table of release limits.

The regulation goes on to state thatthe disposal systems shall be designedto provide a reasonable expectation-"based on performance assessments'-that the release limits are satisfied.While the proposed amendmentsincorporate most of the EPA standard inits precise terms, they omit the referenceto performance assessments. Part 60already requires analyses virtuallyidentical to those contemplated by EPA.but the Commission proposes to addadditional wording to 1 60.21(c)(1](ii)(C)to emphasize consistency with the EPAstandards.

The Commission notes, in thisconnection, that EPA's reference toestimating the cumulative releasescaused by all significant processes andevents, to be incorporated in an overallprobability distribution of cumulativerelease to the extent practicable, doesnot modify the principles underlyingPart 60. As was observed when NRCsfinal technical criteria were published in1983 (48 FR 28204), the Commissionexpects that the information consideredin a licensing proceeding will includeprobability distribution functions for theconsequences from anticipated andunanticipated processes and events.Further information concerning theCommission's plans fo- 4sessingrepository performanc 'contained inSection 11 of this notice.il. Additional Comments onimplementation of the EPA Standards

Four sections of the EPA standardscontain numerial requirements for whichcompliance must be demonstrated-standards for repository operations.post-closure individual and groundwaterprotection requirements andcontainment requirements restricting thetotal amount of radionuclides projectedto be released to the environment afterrepository closure. The discussion ofsection I of this notice articulates theCommission's interpretation of thestandards that have been issued byEPA. Additional romments related to

implementation of each of these sectionsare presented in the followingparagraphs.

Standards for repository operations.As discussed previously, the standardsfor repository operations are virtuallyidentical to the standards previouslypromulgated by EPA for the uraniumfuel cycle, and will be implemented inthe same manner. A license applicantwill be expected to demonstrate.through analyses of anticipated facilityperformance. that the dose limits ofthese standards will not be exceeded.Doses during operations are amenableto monitoring, and the applicant will berequired to conduct a monitoringprogram to confirm that the dose limitsare complied with.

Individual and groundwaterprotection requirements. The individualand groundwater protectionrequirements are applicable for the first1,000 years after permanent closure of arepository. Monitoring is not practicalfor this period of tine and the applicantwill therefore be required todemonstrate compliance with theserequirements through analyses ofprojected repository performance. Twogeneral approaches might be pursued byDOE First. DOE might choose tocalculate the expected concentrations ofradionuclides in certain groundwaterspotentially useable by humans in thefuture. Such calculations would includeprojections of waste package andengineered barrier performance (toprovide a source term) as well asevaluations of the direction, velocityand volumetric flow rates ofgroundwaters near the repository. TheEPA standards specify the types ofgroundwiters to be considered in suchanalyses (through the definitions of theterms "significant" and "special"sources of groundwater), and theseconcepts will be incorporated directlyinto Part 60. Alternatively. DOE mightchoose to show compliance with theserequirements by demonstrating thatother barriers. such as the wastepackages or the emplacement medium(e.g., salt). will provide substantiallycomplete containment for the first 1.000years after permanent closure therebypreventing contamination of thegroundwaters of concern.

If DOE chooses to calculate theexpected concentrations ofradionuclides in groundwaters. ratherthan to rely on containment byengineered barriers, it will also benecessary to calculate potential doses toindividuals in the future. The individualprotection requirements limit the annualdose equivalent to any member of thepublic in the accessible environment. If

a "significant source of groundwater"(as defined) is present, the Commissionwill assume that a hypotheticalindividual resides at the boundary of thecontrolled area and obtains his domesticwater supply from a well at thatlocation. If no such source ofgroundwater is present. the location ofthe maximally exposed Individual andthe pathways by which he might beexposed to radionuclides released froma repository must be examined on a site-specific basis.

The individual protectionrequirements also necessitateassumptions about the dietary patternsand other potential modes of ingestionof radionuclides during the next 1.000years. The CoMMission will assume thatcurrent patterns remain unchanged.unless it can be convincinglydemonstrated that a change is likely tooccur (e.g., reduced groundwaterconsumption due to depletion of anaquifer).

Both the individual ani groundvaterprotection requirements are applicableonly for "undisturbed performance" of arepository system. As discussed inSection L this term is considered to beequivalent to "anticipated processes andevents," as currently defined in Part 6o.The Commission will therefore require ademonstration of compliance with theserequirements assuming the occurrenceof anticipated processes and events. butwill not require a demonstration ofcompliance in the event of unanticipatedprocesses and events.

Containment requirements. Thecontainment requirements areapplicable for 10.000 years afterrepository closure. Therefore.compliance with these requirementsmust also be evaluated by analyses ofprojected repository performance ratherthan by monitoring. The containmentrequirements call for significantlydifferent analyses than those discussedabove. This section of the EPAstandards restricts the total amount ofradioactive material released to theenvironment for 10,000 years followingpermanent closure of a repository. Thbissection further specifies different releaselimits for releases with differinglikelihoods of occurrence.Notwithstanding the quantitativeprobabilistic form of the EPAcontainment requirements (40 CFR191.13), the Commission rinds that thereIs adequate flexibility therein to allowthem to be implemented using thelicensing procedures of 10 CFR Parts 2and 60 A further discussion of thesematters is appropriate in order to avoidambiguity in the application of theprobabilistic conditions..

p

Federal Register / VoL 51. No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 1988 / Proposed Rules 221

As the Commission emphasized whenthe technical criteria for geologicrepositories were promulgated in finalform (48 FR 282)4). there are twodistinct elements underlying a findingthat a proposed facility satisfies thedesired performance objective for long-term isolation of radioactive waste.There is. first, a standard ofperformance-some statement regardingthe quantity of radioactive material thatmay be released to the accessibleenvironment. This standard can beexpressed in quantitative terms. andmay include numerical requirements forthe probabilities of exceeding certainlevels of release.

The second element of a findingrelates to the confidence that is neededby the factfinder in order to be able toconclude that the standard ofperformance has been meL TheCommission has insisted, and the EPAhas agreed, that this level of confidencemust be expressed qualitatively. Thelicensizjg decisions that must be made inconnection with a repository involvesubstantial uncertainties. many of whichare not quantifiable (e.g.. thosepertaining to the correctness of themodels used to describe physicalsystems. Such uncertainties can beaccommodated within the licensingprocess only if a qualitative test isapplied for the level of confidence thatthe numerical performance objectivewilt be achieved.

The essential point to be kept in mindis that findings regarding long-termrepository performance must be madewith "reasonable assurance." TheCommission attempted to explain thisconcept in the existing wording ofI 60.101(a) where it noted thatallowance must be made for the timeperiod, hazards. and uncertaintiesinvolved. Additional language is beingproposed at this time. in the samesection of-Part GM to further emphasizethat qualitative judgments will need tobe made including, for example.consideration of the degree of diversityor redundancy among the multiplebarriers of a special repository. -

Application of a qualitative test in noway diminishes the level of safetyrequired by a numerical standard. The.applicant will be required to submtit asystematic and thorough analysis ofpotential releases and the Commissionwill Issue a license only if it finds asubstantial though unquantified. level ofconfidence that compliance with therelease limits will be achieved. As wehave stated previously (48 FR 28201L inorder to make a finding with.reasonable assurance.' theperformance assessment which has

been performed in the course of thelicensing review must indicate that thelikelihood of exceeding the EPAstandard is low and. further, theCommission must be satisfied that theperformance assessment is sufficientlyconservative, and Its limitations aresufficiently well understood, that theactual performance of the geologicrepository will be within predictedlimits.

The Commission will evaluatecompliance with the containmentrequirements based on a performanceassessment Such an assessment will: (1)

Identify all significant processes andevents which could affect the repository(2) evaluate the likelhood of eachprocess or event and the effect of eachon release of radionuclides to theenvironment and (3) to the extentpracticable, combine these estimatesinto an overall probability distributiondisplaying the likelihood that theamount of radioactive material releasedto the environment will exceed specifiedvalues. The Commission anticipates thatthe overall probability distribution willbe displayed in the format shown below.

Likelihoodof ExceedingValues on theHorizontalAxis

1.0

III

0 t

Amount of RadioactivqMaterial ReleasedFigure 1.

Illustrative Complementary Cumulative Oistribution Function."

When the results of analyses are displayed In this format, the limits of EPAecontainment requirements take the form of 'step functions." as shown in Figure L

Likelihoodof ExceedingValues on theHorizontalAxis

1.0 ------------l EPA BoundI I 4

10-1 a '-----------I

I1 I.I \ I EPA Bound

3' I I 610 3 1 --.-------

1.0 10Multiples of EPARelease Limits

Figure 2.Graphic Representation of EPA Containment Requfrements.

In Figure 2, releases which exceed the value specified in the EPA containmentrequirements (Table 1) must have a likelihood less than one chance in ten (overtOO0 yearsL and releases which exceed ten times that value must have a likeli-hood less than one chance In one thousand (over 16f000 years) Thus. in order todemonstrate compliance with EPA's containment requirements. the entire probabil-ity distribution must lie below the "stair-step" constraints illustrated in Figure 2

In constructing a probabilitydistribution of the type illustratedabove. It is necessary to consider. InEPA's terms all "significant processesand events that may affect the disposalsystems" This is equivalent. as weInterpret the EPA standard, to all

"anticipated" and unanticipated"processes and events In the terminologyof Part 60. (By the definition of'unanticipated processes and events' inPart GM processes and events less likelythan "unanticipated" are not sufficientlycredible to warrant consideration.) For

=92 Federal Register / Vol 51, No. 118 / Thursday. June 19, 1988 / Proposed Rules

I

purposes of the proposed I 60.112(a)only, which incorporates EPA'scontainment requirements, nodistinction is to be made between"anticipated" and "unanticipated"processes and events: all such processesand events must be factored into theevaluation, including determination ofsuch probabilities of occurrence as maybe found to be appropriate. (Forpurposes of the proposed 1 60.112 (b)and (c)} which incorporate EPA'sindividual and groundwater protectionrequirements, only "anticipated"processes and events need beconsidered as discussed previously.)

The Commission will require anextensive and thorough identification ofrelevant processes and events, but willrequire analyses of the probability and/or consequence of each only to theextent necessary to determine itscontribution to the overall probabilitydistribution. If it can be shown, forexamplethat a partidularnevent is sounlikely to occur that its effects on theprobability distribution would not bemeaningful. further analysis of the -consequences of that event would not berequired. Generally, categories ofprocesses and events which can beshown to have a likelihood less than onechance in 10,000 over 10.000 years. alongwith categories of processes and eventswhich otherwise can be shown not tochange the remaining probabilitydistribution of cumulative releasesignificantly, need not receive furtheranalysis. (The term "categories" is usedto refer to general classes of processesand events, such as faulting. volcanism,or drilling, subsets of these generalcategories, such as drilling whichintersects a canister or faultdisplacement of a specific magnitude.may need to be retained in an analysis Ifthe general category has been finelydivided into a large number of specificprocess or event description each withreduced probabilities of occurrence.)

Treatment of uncertainties Asdiscussed previously, substantialuncertainties will be involved Inanalyses of long-term repositoryperformance. These uncertainties mayinclude (1) Identification of basicphenomena and their potential effectson repository performance. (2)development and validation of modelsto describe these phenomena. (3)accuracy of available data. and (4)calculational uncertainties. Variousmethods may be used to accommodatesuch uncertainties including, forexample, numerical estimates ofuncertainties (expressed as probabilitydistributions) or conservative.'bounding' models or data. Treatment

of uncertainties will rely heavily onexpert judgment. both for selection of anappropriate method and for applicationof that technique. EPA recognzied theimportance of uncertainties when itsstandards wee promulgated. InAppendix B of 40 CFR Part 191 (50 FR38088 September 19. 1985). EPA stated"substantial uncertainties are likely tobe encountered in making (numerical)predictions (of repository performance).In fact, sole reliance on these numericalpredictions to determine compliancemay not be appropriate: theImplementing agencies may choose tosupplement such predictions withqualitative judgments as well." It ispossible-in fact likely-that thevarious parties to a licensing proceedingwill have significantly different views,all with technical merit, regarding thebest methods to use, and these differingviews may result in presentation ofwidely different estimates of repositoryperformance.

Any such differences could beresolved in a number of ways. Onepermissible method for dealing with theuncertainties reflected in the record ofthe proceeding would be to rely heavilyupon conservative, "bounding"analyses. Perhaps it could be shown thateven if this approach were employedthe predicted performance would stillsatisfy the containment requirementsestablished by EPA. On the other hand,an apparent violation of the standard(based on conservative analyses) wouldnot necessarily preclude theCommission from finding, withreasonable assurance, that repositoryperformance would conform to the EPAstandard. After carefully evaluating therelevant uncertainties, DOE couldpresent the same data in the form of acumulative probability distribtion thatwas less conservative-for example,one that more accurately represents thebest current technical understanding.Thus. alternative methods are availableto DOE for treatment of uncertaintieswhen making its demonstration ofreasonable assurance of compliancewith the provisions of Part GM

It should be noted, however, thatanalyses based on "best estiamtes" ofrepository performance might be foundto be inadequate if substantialuncertainties are present. In that case.notwithstanding the apparentconformity with the EPA standard. theCommission might ultimately concludethat it lacked the necessary reasonableassurance, considering the uncertaintiesinvolved, that the performance wouldmeet the containment requirements.

Because uncertainties are soImportant in analyses of repository

performance and will play such a majorrole in a licensing proceeding, the -Commission emphasizes the importanceof efforts being undertaken to foster acommon technical understanding and toresolve Issues. where It is practicable todo so. prior to receipt of a licenseapplication. Many of the provisions ofthe Nuclear Waste Policy Act aredirected toward this goal. Oneespecially important opportunity. in thisregard, is DOE's preparation of sitecharacterization plans and the reviewand comment process to be carried outby the Commission and other interestedparties. Additionally, NRC and DOE areengaged, under an interagencyprocedural agreement, in ongoingtechnical discussions on matters thatpertain to licensing requirements; thesediscussions are in the form of openmeetings, affording other persons anopportunity to Identify pertinentconsiderations that might also need tobe addressed. The staff is also Issuing-staff technical positions on specificmethods of analysis that would beacceptable for evaluating compliancewith Part 60 technical criteria andperformance objectives. As issuesmature, the Commission will, whereappropriate, use the rulemaking processto seek resolution of issues where alicensing proceeding might otherwiseencounter difficulties due to ambiguityregarding acceptable assessmentmethods. Nevertheless, the dataavailable at the time of licensing willinevitably be imperfect. It is thereforeessential that every effort be made byDOE-and by any other party thatdevelops data which it may propound ata hearing-to use careful methods toenhance, and document, thetrustworthiness of the evidence which itmay submit

III EPA Assurance Requirements

EPA's regulations (40 CFR 191.14)include certain "assurancerequirements" designed, according tothe rule, to provide the confidenceneeded for long-term compliance withthe containment requirements. As notedby EPA in its preamble, the Commissiontook exception to the Inclusion of theseprovisions in the regulations. heCommission viewed the assurancerequirements as matters ofImplementation that were not properlypart of the EPA's authorities assigned byReorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. Inresponse to this concern, the twoagencies have agreed to resolve thisIssue by NRC's making appropriatemodifications to Part 6E reflecting thematters addressed by the assurancerequirements, and by EPA's declaration

9

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 118 Thursday. June 19, 198 / Proposed Rules =93

that those requirements would not applyto facilities regulated by theCommission. The following discussionsets forth the Commission's views withrespect to each of the EPA assurancerequirements and Identifies theproposed rule changes that are deemedto be appropriate under thecircumstances.

EPA Assurance Requirement 40 CFT291.14(a). Active institutional controls overdisposal sites should be maintained for aslong a period of time as is practicable afterdisposal however, performance assessmentsthat assess isolation of the wastes om theaccessible environment shall not considerany contributions from active Institutionalcontrols ror more than 100 years afterdisposaL

Analysis and Proposed Changes. TheCommission's existing provisions(I 60.521 related to license terminationwill determine the length of time forwhich institutional controls should bemaintained, and there Is therefore noneed to alter Part so to reflect this partof the assurance requirement. . -

The second part of this assurancerequirement would require that'active'institutional controls be excluded fromconsideration (after 100 years) when theisolation characteristics of a resposiloryare assessed. It has always been theintent of Part 80 not to rely on remedialactions (or other active institutionalcontrols) to compensate for a poor siteor inadequate engineered barriers.However, in the definition of"unanticipated processes and events."Part Go expressly contemplates that. inassessing human intrusion scenarios, theComruyssion would assume that"institutions are able to assess risk andto take remedial action at a level ofsocial organization and technologicalcompetence equivalent to, or superior to.that which was applied in initiating theprocesses or events concerned"(emphasis added). Therefore. It mightappear at first examination that Part 60'is at odds with the EPA assurancerequirements.

Although both the EPA regulation andPart 60 refer to -remedial action." theaction being considered is not the same.The )PA assurance requirement dealswith a planned capability to maintain asite and, if necessary, to take remedialaction at a site-in order to assure thatisolation Is achieved. The Commissionagrees that such capability should notbe relied upon. The extent to whichcorrective action may be taken after anunanticipated intrusion occurs is anentirely different matter. TheCommission may wish to consider, forexample. the extent to which theapplication of the limited societalresponse capability assumed by the rule

(e.g.. sealing boreholes consistent withcurrent petroleum industry practice)could reduce the likelihood of releasesexceeding the values specified in thecontainment requirements or couldeliminate certain hypothetical scenariossuch as systematic and persistentintrusions into a site.

Subject to the comments above, theCommission concurs with the EPA'sdefinitions of "active" and "passive'Institutional controls, as well as theprinciple that ongoing planned. activeprotective measures should not be reliedupon for more than 10W years afterpermanent closure. We are thereforeproposing to include EPA's definitions.together with a new section (I 60114)which would expressly provide thatactive (or passive) institutional controlsshall not be deemed to assurecompliance with the containmentrequirements over the long term Someactivities which arguably fall withinEPA's definition of "active institutionalcontrols" (e.g. remedial actions andmonitoring parameters related togeologic respository performance) arerelevant to assessing the likelihood andconsequences of processes and eventsaffecting the geologic setting. We areproposing, also in I 0.114. to allow suchactivites to be considered for thispurpose. We regard this as being fullyconsistent with the thrust of the EPAposition.

EPA Assurancd Pequirement 40 CFo121.14(b)t Disposal systems shall bemonitored after disposal to detect substantialand detrimental deviations from expected-perfonnance. This monitoring shall be donewith techniques that do not jeopardize theisolation of the wastes and shall beconducted until there ar no significantconcerns to be addressed by hurthermonitoring.

Analysis and Proposed Changes. Part60 currently requires DOE to carry out aperformance confirmation programwhich Is to-continue until repositoryclosure. Part 60 does not now requiremonitoring after epository closurebecause of the likelihood that post-closure monitoring of the undergroundfacility would degrade repositoryperformance. The Commissionrecognizes, however, that monitoringsuch parameters as regional groundwater flow characteristics may' in somecases, provide desirable informationbeyond that which would be obtained inthe performance confirmation program.and the Commission Is proposing torequire such monitoring when it can beaccomplished without adverselyaffecting repository performance.

The proposed requirement for post-permanent closure monitoring requiresthat such monitoring be continued until

termination of a license. TheCommission intends that a repositorylicense not be terminated until such timeas the Commission is convinced thatthere is no significant additionalinformation to be obtained from suchmonitoring which would be material to afinding of reasonable assurance thatlong-term repository performance wouldbe in accordance with the establishedperformance objectives.

A number of changes in Part 60 areproposed to reflect these views withrespect to post-closure monitoring. First.a new section (1 60.1441 would providefor the performance confirmationprogram, already required by Subpart Fof Part 60. to include a program of post-closure monitoring. Second. thelicensing findings required at the time oflicense termination (l 60.52(c)) wouldspecifically be related to the resultsavailable from the post-closuremonitoring program. lird. DOE wouldbe required to provide more detailedInformation concerung its plans-forpotl-closure monitoring in its originalapplication (l 6O.(c)) and when itapplies to amend its license prior topermanent closure (I 6.51(a)).

EPA Anurance Requirement 40 CFR'-192.14(c). Disposal sites shall be designated

by the most permanent markers, records, andother passive institutional controlspracticable to indicate the dangers of thewastes and their location.

Analysis and Proposed Changes. Theexisting provisions of 10 CFR Part 60already required that DOE take themeasures set out in this assurancerequirement. For further information.refer to I 60.21(c)(8) (requirement thatlicense application describe controls toregulate land use). 60I51(a)(2)(information to be submitted, prior topermanent closure, with respect to landuse controls, construction ofmonuments, preservation of records.etc.). and 60.121 (requirements forownership and control of interests in.land).

EPA Assuinnce Requirement 40 CFR191.14(d). Disposal systems shall use differenttypes of barriers to isolate the wastes fromthe accessible environment Both engineeredand natural barriers shall be included

Analysis and Proposed Changes. Thisis another provision that is alreadyinherent in Part 60. Nevertheless. inorder to avoid any possible doubt in thisregard, a new paragraph (1 60113(d))would be added to state explicitly thatthe geologic repository shall incorporatea system of multiple barriers, bothengineered and naturaL

Questions might arise regarding thetypes of eWgineered or natural materials

22294 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 116 / Thursday. June 19, 1986 / Proposed Rules

or structures which would be consideredto constitute "barriers" as requited bythis new language. In this connection.the Commission notes that 1 0.2 nowcontains thiu.definition: B'arier'means any material or structure thatprevents or substantially deaysmovement of water or radionuclides-(emphasis added). Thus, consistent withthe apprqach endorsed by EPA. theCommission considers that the newparagraph to be added to 1 60.113 willconfirm Its commitment to a multiplebarrier approach as contemplated bysection 121(b)(1)(B) of the NuclearWaste Policy Act

EPA Assurance Requirement 40 COR291.14(e). Places where there has been miningfor resources, or where there Is reasonableexpectation of exploration for sArce oreasily accessible resources, or where there Isa significant concentration of any materialthat is not widely available from othersources. should be avoided in selectingdisposal sites. Resources to be consideredshall include minerals. petroleum or naturalpa valuable geologic formation and groundwaters that are either Irreplaceable becausethen is not reasonable alternative source ofdrinking water available for substantialpopulations or that are vital to thepreservation of unique and sensitiveecosystems. Such places shall not be used fordisposal of the wastes covered by this Part140 CFR Part 191 unless the favorablecharcteristics of such places compensate fortheir greater likelihood of being distrubed inthe futur

Analysis and Proposed Changes. Part6o contains provisions that in large part.are equivalent to this assurancerequirement. See I 60(122(c)(17). (18),and (19. Tlhe exdsting regulation doesnot. however, address 'a significantconcentration of any material that is notwidely available from other sources."

The Commission believes that there ismerit in having the presence of suchconcentrated materials evaluated in thecontext of the licensing proceeding. It is,after all. quit'poasible that theeconomic value of materials couldchange in the future In a way whichmight attract future exploration ordevelopment detrimental to repositoryperformance. Dy adding an additional-potentially adverse condition' to thosealready set out in the regulation. DOEwould be required to Identify thepresence of the materials in questionand evaluate the effect thereof onrepository performance. as specifed ini 60.122(a)(2)(lJ It should be noted thatthe presence of potentiallyadverseconditions does not preclude theselection and use of a site for a geologicrepository, provided that the conditionshave been evaluated and demonstratednot to compromise performance.

EPA Assurance Requirement 4o CFR-191.14( Disposal systems shall be selectedso that removal of most of the wastes is notprecluded for a reasonable period of timeafter disposal

Analysis and Proposed Changes. TheCommission understands that thepurpose of this assurance requirement Isto discourage or preclude the use ofdisposal concepts such as deep wellinjection for which It would be virtuallyimpossible to remove or recover wastesregardless of the time and resourcesemployed. (This provision Is thussignificantly different from theCommission's retrievabilityrequirement) For a mined geologicrepository-which is the only type offacility subject to licensing under 10CFR Part 60-wastes could be locatedand recovered (i.e. "removed." in thesense that EPA Is using the term). albeitat high cost even after repositoryclosure. A repository would thereforemeet this assurance requirement. and nofurther statements on the subject in Part60 are indicated.

Petirun for Rulemaking. TheCommission calls to the attention of allInterested parties a pending petition forrulemaking submitted by the States ofNevada and Minnesota which deals, Inlarge part with the matters addressedby section m of this notice. All relevantcomnnents received by the Commissionin response to the notice of receipt of thepetition for rulemaking (published in theFederal Register on December 19. 198550 FR 51701) will be considered alongwith comments received in response tothis notice. It should be noted that theCommission's present proposalconforms to the approach which wasdiscussed with EPA during the course ofIts rulemaking. The petition forrulemaking follows the same languagevery closely, but does suggest certainmodifications. The Commission wouldbe particularly interested In commentsaddressed to the respective merits of thelanguage proposed herein and thatproposed by the States of Nevada andMinnesota.

The Commission further notes thatEPA has provided It with copies ofcomments regarding the assurancerequirements that were received duringthe 40 CFR Part 191 rulemaking. Thesecomments are available for inspection inthe Comm ision's public documentroom.IV. Section by ection Analysis ofProposed Conforning Amendments

The Commission considers that thesimplest and most useful way to amendPart 60 for consistency with the EPAstandards would be to incorporatedirectly within Part eo all the

substantive requirements of theenvironmental standards promulgatedby EPA. modified as-necessary toconform to the terminology currentlyused In Parf 60. The followingparagraphs present a section-by-sectionanalysis of the NRCs proposedconforming amendments to Part 60.

Section 60.1 Purpose and scope.This paragraph is analogous to EPA's

40 CFR 1910 and 191.11 which state theapplicability of the EPA standards. Part60 is, however, a more specificregulation than the EPA standards inthat it addresses only deep geologicrepositories used for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes, while the EPAstandards apply to other disposalmethods and certain other types ofradioactive wastes. No changes areproposed for I 60.1. but the Commissionnotes that any regulations developed inthe future for alternative disposalmethods or for other types of wastes'will incorporate any applicableprovisions of the EPA standards

Section 602 Definitions.New definitions of several terms are

proposed for incorporation within 1 6WThese are taken directly from the EPAstandards (or from 40 CFR Part 190) andare needed for purposes ofImplementation. These added terms are:(1) Active institutional control(2) Community water system(3) Passive institutional control(4) Significant source of groundwater(5) Special source of groundwater(6) Transmissivity(7) Uranium fuel cycle

In addition, the definition of"controlled area" and the relateddefinition of "accessible environment"in the EPA standards are different fromthose currently in Part G0 TheCommission proposed to revise itscurrent definitions to conform to EPA'swording. In the case of "accessibleenvironment." the change is merelyeditorial The-amendments to thedefinition of "controlled area" Ure alsolargely editorial, except for thespecification of extent-Le. that the.controlled area Is to encompass "nomore than 100 square kilometers" and to'extend "horizontally no more than fivekilometers in any direction from theouter boundary of the original locationof the radioactive wastes."

The Commission has reviewid thisaspect of the EPA definition in the lightof the policies which It articulated whenthe final technical criteria of 10 CFR Part00 were adopted. One of these policieswas that the controlled area "must besmall enough to justify confidence that

I'

Federal Register / Vol 51, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19. 198 I Proposed Rules 22295

the monuments will effectivelydiscourage subsurface disturbances."The prior rule would have authorizedthe establishment of a controlled areawell over 300 square kilometers (about75.000 acres) in size. While we wouldnot deny the abstract possibility thateffective controls could be institutedeven over an area of that magnitude, wehave much greater confidence that DOEwould be able to demonstrate an abilityto discourage subsurface disturbancesover an area of more limited extent. It isour judgment that the 100 squarekilometers that EPA has adopted, afterconsultation with the NRC staff.represents an appropriate limitation.

The other policy related to thedefinition of the "controlled area" is thatit must allow the isolation capability ofthe rock surrounding the undergroundfacility to be given appropriate weight inlicensing reviews. This isolationcapability is measured in two ways.First, it is to be taken into account indetermining whether releases ofradionuclides to the accessibleenvironment are within the limitsspecified in the -containmentrequirements' (40 CFR 191.13). Second.under I 60.113(a)(2). the isolationcapability of the geologic setting must besuch that the pre-waste-emplacementgroundwater travel time along thefastest path of likely readionuclidetravel from the disturbed zone to theaccessible environment shall be aspecified period (generally. 1000 years).

The Commission anticipates thatadoption of the EPA terminology-willhave little effect on achievement of thecontainment requirements inasmuch asthe controlled area is allowed ahorizontal extent as large as fivekilometers (presumably in the directionof radionuclide travel). Nor does theCommission anticipate that thelimitation will make It Impracticable toachieve a demonstration of comp'iance

.with the groundwater travel thr -performance objective. When theCommission adopted Part GM Itobserved that the "accessibleenvironment- might be larger (and. ofcourse, the "controlled area" mighttherefore be smaller) than would be thecase under the EPA standards thenbeing considered (48 FR 28202). EPA hasriot moved in the direction of eliminating*this difference. and the Commission'samendment. for this reason, representsno important change.

The proposed reduction in themaximum allowable extent of thecontrolled area (Iie. distance to theaccessible environment) requiresadditional discussion to clarify theCommission's concepts of "disturbed

zone" and "groundwater travel time."Groundwater travel time from the edge'of the disturbed zone to the accessibleenvironment Is one of the criteria whichthe Commission identified, at the time ofproposed rulemaking as providingconfidence that the wastes will beIsolated for at least as long as they aremost hazardous (46 FR 35280 35281. JulyL 1981). As noted above, this objectiveconcerns travel time from the edge ofthe disturbed zone rather than from theedge of the underground facility. TheCommission selected the disturbed zonefor the purpose of determining thegroundwater travel time since thephysical and chemical processes whichisolate the wastes are "especiallydifficult to understand in the area closeto the emplaced wastes because thatarea is physically and chemicallydisturbed by the heat generated bythose wastes." Ibid.

One potential type of effect whichcould alter local groundwater flowconditions is thermal buoyancy ofgroundwater. Because buoyancy effectscould extend over significant distances(see. e.g. M. Gordon and M. Weber."Non-isothermal Flow Modeling of theHanford Site." available in the NRCPublic document room) and because theCommission is proposing to reduce themaximum allowable distance to theaccessible environment. it Is particularlyimportant to emphasize that theCommission did not Intend such effectsto serve as the basis for defining theextent of the disturbed zone. TheCommission recognizes that such effectscan be modeled with well developedassessment methods, and therefore werenot the type of effects for which thedisturbed zone concept was developed.Any contrary implication in ourstatement of considerations at the timethe technical criteria were Issued Infinal form (see 48 FR 28210) should bedisregarded. (te staff is currentlydeveloping Generic Technical Positionsdiscussing the disturbed zone andgroundwater travel time. Thesetechnical positions will be publiclyavailable prior to promulgation of theseproposed amendhients in final form andwill illustrate how the staff intends toapproach these two concepts.)

Four other terms defined by EPAdeserve additional discussion here.

The EPA standards contain adefinition of the term "trahauranicradioactive waste." The Commissiondoes not use this term in Part 60 andthus has no need to define It there. Allradioactive waste stored or disposed ofat a geologic repository licensed underPart 60-including transuranicradioactive waste-would be subject to

the requirements of the EPA standardsas applied by the rules proposed herein.

EPA defines the terms 'storage' and"disposal" to mean retrievable storageand permanent isolation, respectively.Under Part 0. on the other hand, theterm "storage" Is used in the sense ofsection 202 of the Energy ReorganizationAct of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5842) to refer toboth long-term storage and disposal ofwastes. The difference in EPA and NRCusage has no effect upon application ofthe EPA standards at NRC-licensedgeologic repositories.

The Commission has recently defined.groundwater." for purposes of Part 60,to include all water which occurs belowthe land surface (50 FR 29841. July 22.1985). while the EPA standards use theterm to mean water below the landsurface in a zone of soturation(emphasis added). The EPA standardsuse the term only in connection with themore specifically defined terms"significant source of groundwatpr" and"special source of groundwater." Thus.it is possible to identify 'significant" or"special" sources of groundwaterunambiguously with either definition ofthe term "groundwater." and theCommission therefore proposes to retainits current definition of the term.

Section W-21 Content of application.

Paragraph (c)(1)(1il)(C) now requires alicense application to include certainevaluations of the performance of aproposed geologic repository for theperiod after permanent closure. TheCommission proposes to add anadditional sentence to this paragraphrequiring that the results of theseanalyses be incorporated into an overallprobability distribution of cumulativereleases to the extent practicable. Thisreflects the language of EPA's definitionof "performance assessment."

The Commission also proposes to adda new paragraph to I 6.21 requiringsubmittal of a general description of theprogram for post-permanent closuremonitoring of the geologic repository.(See the discussion (section 111)regarding the EPA assurancerequirements-specifically 40 CFR191.14(b).)

Section e. 51 License am enfnentforpermanent dosung

Paragraph (a)(1) currently requiresthat an application to amend a licensefor permanent closure must Include adescription of the program for post-permanent closure monitofing of thegeologic repository. The Commissionproposes to revise this paragraph tospecify In more detail the information tobe submitted, including descriptions of

I I

I. .

22296 Federal Register I Vol. 51, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19. 1986 / Proposed Rules

the parameters to be monitored and thelength of time for which the monitdingis to be contlnue4 (See also thepreceding discussion regarding 40 CFR291.14(b).)Section W5M Termination of licee

The Commission proposes to add anew condition for license terminationwhich wold explicitly require that theresults available from post-perannentclosure monitoring confirm theexpectation that the repository willcomply with the performance objectivesof Part G0 (See also the precedingdiscussion regarding 40 CFR 191.14(b).)Section 6W1OZ Purpose andnature offindings.

The EPA standards use the phrase"reasonable expectation" to describethe required level of confidence thatcompliance will be achieved with theprovisions of the standards. TheSupplementary Informationaccompanying the EPA standardscontrasts the concept of 'reasonable,expectation" with the reasonableassurance standard that is used by theCommission in dealing with otherlicensing actions. The Commission hasconsidered adopting EPAs 'reasonableexpectation" concept, but has decidedthat doing so would result in a needless.and potentially confusing, proliferationof terms. Instead, the Commissionproposes to expand the currentdiscussion of "reasonable assurance' inI 80.101 to make clear its belief that thelevel of confidence associated with theterm. when used in connection with thelong-term issues involved in repositorylicensing. Is the same as that sought byEPA in Its use of the term "reasonableexpectation."

Section 60.i Performance of thegeologic repository operations areathrough permanent closure.

Paragrah (a) currently requirescompliance with "such generallyapplicable environmental standards forradioactivity as may have beenestablished by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency." The Commiuionproposes to replace this wording withthe specific does limits promulgated byEPA in 40 CFR 19103(a) of Its standards.The proposed wording would apply. thedose limits to any member of the publicoutside the geologic repository:operations ea. consistent with EPA'sphrase "any member of the public in thegeneral environment."

The EPA provision includes wordingthat requires reasonable assurance ofcompliance with the dose limits. In Part6o. Subpart B now specifies the findingsthat must be made by the Commission

for issuance of a license. Including afinding of reasonable assurance ofcompliance with the performanceobjective of I 8Q111. Because Part 60already requires that findings be madewith reasonable assurance. It is

*unneceassry to repeat such arequirement within this proposedperformance objective.

One additional amendment. unrelatedto the EPA standards, is being proposedfor I 80.111. The current wording of thissection now requires that the geologicrepository operations area be designedso that radiation exposures, radiationlevels. and releases of radioactivematerials "will at all times bemaintained within the limits specified inPart 20. . ." (emphasis added). Thewords "at all times" were intended toemphasize the need to design thegeologic repository operations area sothat any waste retrieval found to benecessary in the future cound be carriedout in conformance with the radiation'protection requirements of 10 CFR PartA In order to clarify the meaning of thephrase "at all times." the Commission-isproposing to revise this wording to read"will at all times. including theretrievability period of I 60.111(b). bemaintained within the limits specified inPart 20 ... "

Section 60.112 Overall systemperformance objective for the geologicrepository after permanent closure.

The current wording of this sectionnow refers to "such generally applicableenvironmental standards forradioactivity as may have beenestablished by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency." The Commissionproposes to replace this wording withthe specific provisions promulgated byEPA in 40 CFR 191.13.19.15 and 191.15of Its standards, reworded asappropriate for incorporation into Part60..

As discussed previously, theCommIuion proposes to revise thelanguage of I 60.101 to make clear thatits concept of the phrase "reasonableassurance" In Part 6o closely parallelsthe meaning intended by "reasonableexpectation' in the EPA standards.Inasmuch as the findings to be made bythe Commission must be made with"reasonable assurance." there is noneed to use the term "reasonableexpectation" in the specific standards.

EPA requires that cumulative releasesof radioactivity to the environment beevaluated on the basis of 'performanceassessments." This concept already Isbuilt into the structure of Part M Asdiscussed previously, however, theCommission is proposing an addition to1 6021 which would specifically require

a license application to Incorporate theresults of analyses. as stated by EPA. Inan overall probability distribution ofcumulative releases to the extentpracticable.

Tle individual and groundwaterprotection requirements of the ERAstandards refer to "undisturbedperformance" of a disposal system.where "undisturbed performance" isdefined to mean "the predicted behaviorof a disposal system includingconsideration of the uncertainties inprodicted behavior. if the disposalsystem Is not disrupted by humanintrusion or the occurrence of unlikelynatural events." The Commissionconsiders undisturbed performance. asdefined by EPA. to be equivalent toperformance in the absence of"unanticipated processes and events."as currently defined in Part 80 TheCommission Is proposing to use thecurrent Part 60 terminology rather thanintroduce a new term from the EPAstandards..

Section 60. 23 Pejonrmonce ofparticularbomers afterpermanent closure.

Section 60.113 specifies performanceobjectives for Individual barriers of ageologic repository, and permits theCommission to approve or specifyspecific numerical requirements on acase-by-case basis. The Commissionconsiders that 5 60.113 clearly requiresuse of both engineered and naturalbarriers. Nevertheless. in order to avoidany possible confusion regarding theprovisions of 1.60.113(b). theCommission proposes to add additionalclarifying language to this sectionmaking It clear that a repository mustincorporate a system of multiplebarriers, both engineered and natural.(See the preceding discussion In sectionIIl regarding the EPA assurancerequirementasspecifically 40 CFR191.14(d>)

Paragraph (b)(1) of 60.113 now-refersto -any generally applicableenvironmental standard forradioactivity established by theEnvironmental Protection Agency." TheCommission proposes to replace thiswording with a direct reference to theoverall system performance objectivesof I 6a M.LSection 60.114 Institutional control

The Commission proposes to add anew I do6114 to Part 60 to clarify Itsviews regarding reliance on Institutionalcontrols. (See the preceding discussionin Section III regarding 40 CFR191.14(a).)

U

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 1988 / Proposed Rules 22297

Section 6a015 Release limits for overallsystem performance objectives.

The Commission proposes that thetable of release limits (andaccompanying notes) in Appendix A ofthe EPA standards be added to Part 60in a new I .115.

Section &d122 Siting criteria.

Part 60 contains provisions related tothe presence of economically valuablemineral resources at a repository site.Part 60 does not, however, addressdeposits of materials which, though oflimited economic value are notreasonably available from other sources.Because the economic value of materialscould change in the future. theCommissin proposes to add anadditional potentially adverse conditionto Part 60 related to significantconcentrations of material that is notreasonably available from other sources.

EPA used the term "widely available."The Commission believes that anadditional consideration-thepracticality of obtaining materials fromalternative sources--is also germane.and the Commission is thereforeproposing the phrase -reasonablyavailable" for this potentially adversecondition. (See also the precedingdiscussion in section m regarding 40CFR 191.14(e).)

Section B2144 Monitoring afterpermanent closure.

Part 60 currently requires DOE tocarry out a performance confirmationprogram which is to continue untilrepository closure. Part 60 does not nowrequire monitoring after repositoryclosure because of the likelihood thatpost-closure monitoring of theunderground facility would degraderepository performance. TheCommission proposes to add a newJ 60.144 to Part 60 which would requirepost-closure monitoring of repositorycharacteristics provided that suchmonitoring can be expected to providematerial confirmatcry.informationregarding long-term repositoryperformance and provided that themeans for conducting such monitoringwill not degrade repository performance.(See the preceding discussion in section111 regarding 40 CFR 191.14(b).)

Environmental ImpactPursuant to section 121(c) of the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 thisproposed rule does not require thepreparation of an environmental impactstatement under section 102(2)(C) of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969 or any environmental review under

subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 102(2)of this ActPaperwork Reduction Act Statement

The Information collectionrequirements contained In this proposedrule are of limited applicability andaffect fewer than ten respondents.Therefore, Office of Management andBudget clearance Is not requiredpursuant to the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1980 (44 USC. 3501 et seq.)

Regulatory Flexibility Act CertificationIn accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),the Commission certifies that this rule. ifadopted, will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. The only entitysubject to regulation under this rule isthe U.S. Department of Energy, whichdoes not fall within the scope of thedefinition of "small entities" set forth inthe Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Mst of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 60High-level waste, Nuclear power

plants and reactors, Nuclear materials.Penalty, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements. Waste treatment anddisposaL

Backfitting RequirementsThe provisions of 10 CFR 50.109 on

baciditting do not apply to thisrulemaking because the rule is notapplicable to production and utilizationfacilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 50

For the reasons set out in thepreamble and under the authority of theAtomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended.the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.as amended. the Nuclear Waste PolicyAct of 1982 and 5 U.S.C. 553. the NRC Isproposing to adopt the followingamendments to 10 CFR Part 60.

PART 60-DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVELRADIOACTIVE WASTES IN GEOLOGICREPOSITORIES

1. The authority citation for Part 60continues to read as follows:

AuthodtY: Secs. 51. . &6 03.a 5M . 161.182,183.68 Stat. OZ99930 .933,9359953.954. as amended (42 USrC 2010 273,

092.2093. 2095. 211.2201. 223 2233); sect.202.206. ,8 StaL 1244.1246 (42 U.S.C. 5s42.58468 sacs. 10 and 14. Pub. L 95-01. 2 Stat2951 (42 U.SC. 2022a and 5851) seam 102 PuhL 1-190. 83 Stat. 853(42 U.C. 4332) se.121. Pub. L 7-25, go SLat. 22 (42 US.C.20141).

For the purposes of sec. 223. 68 Stat. 958. asamended (42U.CZ73). l 0eo. to GG.5are issued under sec. 110. 08 Stat. OM asamended (42 U.S.C. 22(o)).

2. Section 60.2 Is amended by revisingthe definitions of "accessible

environment' and 'controlled area' andby adding seven new definitions inalphabetical order-as follows:

* 60.2 Dflnltons.

"Accessible environment" means: (1)The atmosphere. (2) land surfaces, (3)'surface waters. (4) oceans, and (5) all ofthe lithosphere that is beyond thecontrolled area.

'Active Institutional control" means:(1) Controlling access to a disposal siteby any means other than passiveinstitutional controL (2) performingmaintenance operations or remedialactions at a site, (3) controlling orcleaning up releases from a site, or (4)monitoring parameters related todisposal system performance.

'Community water system' means asystem for the provision to the public ofpiped water for human consumption. itsuch system has at least 15 service'connections used by year-roundresidents or regularly serves at least 25year-round residents.* * 0 * 0

"Controlled area' means: (1) Asurface location. to be identified bypassive institutional controls, thatencompasses no more than 100 squarekilometers and extends horizontally nomore than five kilometers in anydirection form the outer boundary of theunderground facility, and (2) thesubsurface underlying such a surfacelocation

'Tassive institutional control" means:(1) Permanent markers placed at adisposal site. (2). public records andarchives, (3) government ownership andregulations regarding land or resourceuse, and (4) other methods of preservingknowledge about the location, design,and contents of a disposal system.* . . . *

"Significant source of groundwater"means: (1) An aquifer that (i) issaturated with water having less than10,000 milligrams per liter of totaldissolved solids (ii) is within 500 feetof the land surface; (iii) has atransmissivity greater than 200 gallonsper day per foot. provided that anyformation or part of formation includedwithin the source of groundwater has ahydraulic conduftivity greater than 2gallons per day per square foot and (iv)is capable of continuously yielding atleast 10,000 gallons per day to a pumpedor flowing well for a period of at least ayear. or (2) and aquifer that provides theprimary source of water for a.

r *

N:

22298 Federal Register I VoL 51 No. 118 / Thursday, June 19. 1986 / Proposed Rules

community water system as of *November 18. 198.S

"Special source of groundwater"means those Class I groundwatersIdentified In accordance with theEnvironmental Protection Agency'sGround-Water Protection Strategypublished In August 1984 that (1) Arewithin the controlled area encompassinga disposal system or are less than fivekilometers beyond the controlled area;(2) are supplying drinking water forthousands of persons as of the date thatthe Department chooses a locationwithin the area for detailedcharacterization as a potential site faradisposal system (e.g. in accordancewith section 112(b)(1)(B)( of the NWPA);and (3) are irreplaceable in that noreasonable alternative source ofdrinking water is available to thatpopulation.* * . 4 4

"Transmissivity" means the hydraulicconductivity intergrated over thesaturated thickness or an undergrondfonnatibn. The transimssivitij fa seriesof formations is the sum of theindividual transmisuivities of etchformation comprising the series.

"Uranium fe cycle" means theoperations of milling of wranium or,chemical conversion of uraniun.isotopic enrichment of uranium.fabrication of uranium fueL generationof electricity by a light-water-coolednuclear power plant using uranium fueland reprocessing of spent uranium fueLto the extent that these directly supportthe production of electrical power forpublic use utilizing nuclear energy. butexcludes mining operations operationsat waste disposal sites, hInsportatioa ofany radioactive material in support ofthese operations. and the reuse ofrecovered non-uranhim speical nuclearand by-product materials from the cycle.* . . . . 0

3. Section 60. is amended byrevising paragraph (cl)()Ci[)(C.redesignating the existing paragraphs(c)(9) through (c)(15P as paragriphutc)(10) through (bXls) and adding a newparagraph (c)(9)_

-160.21 Contenlefapplcation* * . 0

(ci)

(C) An evaluation of the peifomnanceof the proposed geologic rpository forthe period after permanent closure.assuming anticipated processes andevents, giving the rates and q antities ofreleases of radionudides to the

accessible environment as a function oftime; and a similar evaluation whichassumes the occurrence of unanticipatedprocesses and events, In making suchevaluations, estimated values shall beIncorporated into an overall probabilitydistribution of cumulative release to theextent practicable.

(9) A general description of theprogram for post-permanent closuremonitoring of the geologic repository.* . . . 4

4. Section 60.51 is amended byrevising paragraph (&)El) to read asfollows:

* 60.5t Ucens. amnendnntfor permanentclosure.

(a) * * -(11 A detailed description of the

program for post-permanent closuremonitoring of the geologic repository inaccordance with § 60.144. As aminimum, this description shal:

(I) Identify those parameters that willbe monitored:

(ii)-indicate how each parameter will.be used to evaluate the expectedperformance of the repository. and

(iii) Discuss the length of time overwhich each parameter should bemonitored to adequately confirm theexpected performance of the repository.

5. Section 60.52 is amended bydesignating current paragraph (c)(3) asparagraph (cX4) and by adding a newparagraph (c)(3) as follows:

I 6O.2 Tenainktion of Beet

(3) That the results available from thepost-permaient closure monitoringprogram confirm the expectation thatthe repository will comply with theperformance objectives set out at* 60.112 and I 80.113; and

6. Section 60,101 I amended byrevising paragraph {a)(2) to read asfollows:

560.101 Purpose and astr of findins.(a) *(2) While these performance

objectives and criteria are generallystated in unqualified terms. It Is notexpected that complete assurance thatthey will be met can be presented. Areasonable assurance. on the basis ofthe record before the Commission, thatthe objectives and criteria will be met Isthe general standard that is required.For I O0112 and other portions of thissubpart that impose objectives andcriteria for repository performance overlong times into the future, there will

inevitably be greater uncertainties.Proof of the future performance ofengineered barrier systems and thegeologic setting over time periods oftnay hundreds of many thousands ofyears Is not to be had In the ordinarysense of the word. For such long-termobjectives and criteria, what is requiredIs reasonable assurance, makingallowances for the time period, hazards.and uncertainties involved, that theoutcome will be in conformance withthose objectives and criteria.Demonstration of compliance with suchobjectives and criteria will involve theuse of data from accelerated tests andpredictive models that are supported bysuch measures as field and laboratorytests, monitoring data and naturalanalog studies. Demonstration ofcompliance with the performanceobjectives of I 60112 will also involvepredicting the likelihood andconsequences of events and processesthat may disturb the repository. Suchpredictions may involve complexcomputations] models. analytical

-theories and prevalent expert judgmentSubstant~ial uncertainties are likely to beencountered and sole reliance onnumerical predictions to determinecompliance may not be appropriate. Inreaching a determination of reasonableassurance, the Commission maysupplement numerical analyses withqualitative judgments including, forexample, consideration of the degree ofdiversity or redundancy among themultiple barriers of a specific repository.

7. In I 0.111, paragraph (a) Is revisedto read is follows:

60.111 Performance of p* geologicrepository operaone area ftughpermanent closure.

(a) Protection against radiationexposures and releases of radioactivematerial. 'he geologic respositoryoperations area shall be designated sothat until permanent closure has beencompleted.* (1) The annual dose equivalent to anymember of the public outside thegeologic repository operations area.resulting from the combination of (I)discharges of radioactive material anddirect radiation from activities at thegeologic repository operations area and(Ii) uranium fuel cycle operations-hallnot exceed 25 millirems to the wholebody. 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25millirems to any other critical organ.

(2) Radiation exposures and radiationlevels, and releases of radioactivematerials to unrestricted areas, will atall times, Including the retrievabilityperiod of 60W.111(b). be maintained

V

1��M MM MOTMT-TO

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 118 / Thursday, June 19. 198 / Proposed Rules =99

within the limits specified In Part 20 ofthis chapter.* . . . 0

a Section 00112 Is revised to read asfollows:

s G12 Overas sYsm pedonnancobjectiv, for dt geolog repository afterpermanent closure

The geologic setting shall be selectedand the engineered barrier system andthe shafts. boreholes and their sealsshall be designed:

(a) So that. for 10.000 years followingpermanent closure. cumulative releasesof radionuclides to the accessibleenvironment, from all anticipated andunanticipated processes and events.shalL

(1) Have a likelihood of less than onechance in 10 of exceeding the quantitiescalculated in accordance with £ 60.115.

(2) Have a likelihood of less than onechance in 1.000 of exceeding ten timesthe quantities calculated in accordancewith 0.115.

(b) So that for 1.000 years afterpermanent closure. and in the absenceof unanticipated processes and events.the'annual dose equivalent to anymember of the public in the accessibleenvironment does not exceed 25millirems to the whole body or 75millirems to any critical organ. For thepurpose of applying this paragraph. allpotential pathways from the geologicrepository to people shall be considered.including the assumption that.individuals consume 2 liters per day ofdrinking water from any significantsource of groundwater outside of thecontrolled area.

(c) So that for l.000 year afterpermanent closure, and in the absenceof unanticipated processes and events:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph(c)(2) of this section. the radionuclideconcentrations averaged over any yearin water withdrawn from any portion ofa special source of groundwater do notexceed:

(i) 5 picocuries per liter of radium-226and radium-228;

(ii).15 picouries per liter of alpha.emitting radionuclides (includingradium-22B. and radium-228 butexcluding radon) or

MO) The combined concentrations ofradionuclides that emit either beta orgamma radiation ihat would produce anannual dose equivalent to the total bodyor any Internal organ greater than 4millirems per year. if an individualconsumed 2 liters per day of drinkingwater from such a source ofgroundwater.

(2) If any of the average annualradionuclide concentrations existing in a

special source of groundwater beforeconstruction of the geologic repositoryoperations area already exceed thelimits In paragraph (c)(1) of this section.the increase, caused by the geologicrepository. in the existing averageannual radionuclide concentrations Inwater withdrawn from that specialsource of groundwater does not exceedthe limits specified in paragraph (c)(1) ofthis section.

9. In 1 60.113. paragraph (b)(1) isrevised and a new paragraph (d) isadded to read as follows:

60.113 Performance o paficularbarrers after permanent cdosura.* * * * 0

(b)-(1) The overall system performance

objectives of I e0.112* * 0 * 0

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions ofparagraph (b) of this section. thegeologic repository shall incorporate asystem of multiple barriers. bothengineered and natural.

10. A n- 60.114 Is added to read asfollows:

I 114 Instituonal control.Neither active nor passive

institutional control shall be deemed toassure compliance with the overallsystem performance objectives set outat S 60.112 for more than 100 years afterpermanent closure. However, the effectsof institutional control may beconsidered in assessing, for purposes ofthat section. the likelihood andconsequences of processes and eventsaffecting th geologic setting.

11. A new £ 60.115 is added to read asfollows:

S t0.115 Resese lns loroverall systemperformance objective.

The following table shall be used tomake the calculations referred to inparagraph (a) of 00.1121

TAE 1,-RELEASE UMfS FOR OVtPALLSY PEWORM OWTnvE

idagmiat.. RM~mo b tie Awmeis Euwtw1O~0pOOas Arr Owooil

ThAM 1.-RELEASE LIMO FMR OVOALLSYS'E PVEF4AMA?4E 0&~N-Canine

l0AMAMA "WOms le to As~e~f EMAwem tiGOCO0 YMM MW Onauil

mMr

Wi fWAeWON*V.

Thm"%a"Oar5 =r

thwsoiiArn 23423.235 MGwM.AM Otm sVP*i4ifieQ indmeif Iah pa hs.f

An~r ~10~u , M . ' w

20 Jwu to do 'U &vi N;W4 wo-

toea=

M0

Application of Table INote,-Unils of Waste. The Release Limits

in Table I apply to the amount of wastes Inany one of the foflowing

(a) an amount of spent nuclear fuel*containing 1.000 metric tons of heavy metal(~WC exposed to a burnup between 25,000megawatt-days per metric ton of heavy metal(MWd/MTHM) and 40.000 MWd/MKH

(bl the high-level radioactive wastesgenerated from reprocessing each 1.00MTHM exposed to a burnup between 25.O0MWd/MTHM and 40.000 MWd/UrlMD,

(c) each 100.000.000 curies of game or bets-emitting radionuclides with half-lives preaterthan 20 years but less than 100 years (for ueas discussed in Note S or with materials thatar identified by the Commission as higb.level radioactive waste In accordance withpart (B) of the definition of high-level wastein the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)t

(d) each 1,000.00curies of otherradionuclides (iLe, gamma or beta-emitterswith half-lives grester than 10 years or anyalpha-emitters with half-lives eSmter than 20years) (for use as discussed In Note s or withmaterials that are identified by theCommission as high-level waste Inaccordance with part (9) of the definition ofhigh-level waste in the NWPAk or

(k) an amount of transuranic (TRU) wastescontaining one million curies of alpha-emitting transumnic radionuclides with half-lives greater than 20 years.

Note 2.-Release Lmits for SpecificDisposal Systems. lb develop Release Lib-1for a particular disposal system, thequantities in Table 1 shall be adjusted for theamount of waste included in the disposalsystem compared to the various units ofwaste defined In Note 1. For example:

(a) If a particular disposal systemcontained the high-level wastes from 50.000MTWA. the Release Urmits for that systemwould be the quantities in Table I multipliedby 50 (50.000 MTHM divided by 1.000MTHb4

(b) If a particular disposal systemcontained three million curies of alpha-emitting transuranic wastes, the ReleaseLimits for that system would be the quantitiesin Tple I multiplied by three (three millioncunes divided by one million curies). -

lws1.000Lf~a

10w

w}4 .. . ._ _noa

I-O

100teatOO

PtAWMani43. 230. 240 or 242

22300 Federal Register / Vol. 5.1, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19. 1986 / Proposed Rules

(c) U a particular disposal systemcontained both the high-level wases from5o000 MTHM and 5 million curies of alpha-

emitting t uranic wastes. the ReleaseUmits for that system would be the quantitiesin Table i multiplied by 53.

58.000 4OC0 coiesMT_ TRU

+ *55

1.000 MTHM 1.000.000 curiesTRU

he been determined in accordanbe withNotes I through 5. theme eleae limits shallbe used to determine compliance with theequinments of 560122(a) as follaws. In

cases whre a mixture of udionuclides isprojected to be released to the acceibleenvironment, the limiting vaiues shall bedetermined a folow: For eachradlonucilde in the mixture determine theretio between the cumulative releasequantity projected oer 100 ye0ars and thelimit for that radionuclide as determinedfrom Table I and Notes I through 5. Thesum of such ratios for all radlonuclides inthe mixture may not eweed one with regardto S 60.112(a)(l) and may not eceed ten withregard to 560.t2(a)(2).

For example. if radionuclides A. B and C areprojected to be released in amounts Q.( Qb,Q. and if the applicable Release Limits areRi,, RL%. and RE, then the cumulative releaseover 10.000 years shall be limited so that thefollowing relationship exists:

Note 3.-A diustments forRectorFuelswith Different Sumnup For disposal systemscontaining rvuctor fuels (or the high-levelwastes frorr reactor fuels) exposed to anaverage bur tup of less than 25.000 MWd/MTHM or g- id ter than 40,600 MWdIMT lKthe units of .waste defined in (a) and (bN ofNote I rha!' be adjusted. The unit shall bemultiplied' y the ratio of 30.000 MWd/MTH-O di .ded by the fuel's actual averageburnup. e,..ept that a value of 5.000 MWd/

MTlH may be used when the average fuelburnup is below 5,000 MWd/MTO and avalue of 100.000 MWdIMTHO shall be usedwhen the average fuel bumup is above100.000 MWd/MTHM. Tis adjusted unit ofwaste shall then be used in determining theRelease Liimits for the disposal system.

For example. i f particular disposalsystem contained only high level wastes withan average burnup of 3.000 MWd/Mnl theunit of waste for that disposal system wouldbe-

(30.000 MWd/* ' X MTH1.000 MTHM S -@.000 MT

(5.000 MWd/

Q. +QbRI, Rift QRCI,

If that disposal system contained the high-level wastes from e0.oWOMrWH (with anaverage burnup of 3.0w MWdI SIIM. thenthe Release Limits for that system would bethe quantities in Table I multiplied by ten:

60W000 MM-10

whic M Me

widch is the same as:

60.000 (5.000 MWd/WfTHM MHflM) _

1.00 MTrrA (30AM0 MWd/5.ffl]

Note 4-Treatment of Fractionated High.Level Wastes. In some cases. a highdevelwaste stream from reprocessing spentnuclear fuel may have been (or will be)separated into to or more high-livel wastecomponents destined for different - 3osal

systems. In such caes. tbe Implee ;rntagency masy allocate the Release Limitmultiplier (based upon the original MnHMand the average fuel burnup of the high-levelwaste stream) among the various disposalsystems as it chooses, provided that the totalRelease Limit multiplier used for that wastestream at all of Its disposal systemp may notexceed the Release Limit multiplier thatwould be Axed if the entire waste streamwere dis; sed of in one disposal ystem.

Note 6 Treatment of Wastes with PoorljKnown Durnups or Original MTHM In somecases. thr records associated iith particularhigh-love waste streams may not beadequate to accurately determine the originalmetric to -. of heavy metal in the reactor fuel

that created the waste, or to determine theaverage burnup that the fuel was exposed to.If the uncertainties are such that the originalamount of heavy metal or the average fuelbumup for particular high-level wastestreams cannot be quantified, the units ofwaste derived from (a) and (b) of Note I shallno longer be used. Instead. the units of wastedefined in (c) and (d) of Note I shall be usedfor such high-level waste streans. If theuncertainties in such information allow arange of values fe be associated with theoriginal amount of heavy metal ar theaverage fuel burnup, then the calculationsdescribed in previous Notes will beconducted using the values that result In thesmallest Release Umits, except that theRelease tLmits need not be smaller thanthose that would be calculated using the unitsof waste defined In (c) and (d) of Note L

Note 5.-Use of Release Lhrtl toDetermine Compiance with I 60.Iwc).Once release limi-for a particular sytem

12. In I 60.122 paragraph (c) Isamended by redesignating the currentpargraphs (c)(18) through (c)(24) asparagraphs (c)(19) through (c)(25) and byadding a new paragraph (c)(18) to readas follows:

1 60.122 Siting criteris* . . . C

(c)(18) The presence of significant

concentrations of any naturally-occurring material that is not reaeonablyavailable from other sources.* * * * 0

13. A new I 60.144 is added to read asfollows:

160.144 Monitoring After permanentOtoSIM

A program of monitoring shall be.conducted after payment closure tomonitor all repository characteristicswhich can reasonably be expected toprovide material corifirmritoryinformation regarding long-termrepository performance. provided thatthe means of ponducting suchmonitoring will not degrade repositoryperformance. This program shall becontinued until terminatign of license.

Dated at Washington. DC this 13th day of-June 1ow

V

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 118 I Thursday. June I, 1988 / Proposed Rules 223(n.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Samnea J. Oalh.Swecaryof ibe Cwmaiwrim(FR Doc. 0S.-3=5 Filed "tS- tU45 aml

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation AdmInlstration

14 CFR Part 71

(A1p Docket Mm 86-AWA-261

Proposed Alteration of VOR FederalAirways-1O

Correction

In FR Doc. 88-11994. beginning onpage 19359 in the issue of Thursday.May 29.198 make the followingcorrection:

* 71.123 (Corrected]On page 19360. in the first column.

under the heading V-504-[ReuisedJ, inthe fourth line."'C2A* should read

sm woe lwm

14 CFR Part 71

[Akspace Docket No. -A WA-11

Proposed Alteration of VOR FederalAirways; Southeastern United States

CoMdioR

In FR Doc. 8-11399 beginning on page1s8 in the issue of Friday. May 23,1986, make the following correction:

f 71.123 (CorructedlOn page 18897 in the second column.

under the heading V-MqAmended), inthe eighth line, after "including'Insert "a NJGUM cocO tSe1-10

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

156CPR Part 13

[Docket No. 1741

Warner Communications, Inc, et al.and Polygram Records, Inc. ProposedConsent Agreements With Analysis ToAid Public Comment

AGENCx: Federal Trade Commission.ACtIN Proposed consent agreercrnts.

SUMMARY In settlement of allegedviolations of Federal law prohibitinunfair acts and practices and unfairmethods of competition. these consentagreements,accepted subject to final

Commission approval, would require,among other things, two New York Cityrecord companies to obtain prior FrCapproval before acquiring any interest Inma jar record companies and to notifythe FYC about distribution agreementsplanned with those companies.DATE Comments must be received on orbefore August 18, 1988ADDRESS Comments should beaddressed to: FTCIOfflce of theSecretary, Room 130 .th St. and Pa.Ave. NWV, Washington. DC 20380.FOR FURTHER INFORMATO CONTACT.FTC(L-501. James C. Egan. Jr.Washington. DC 20580. (202) 254-802SUPPLEMENTARY V ORMATIO# Pursuantto section 6(1) of the Federal TradeCommission Act. 38 Stat. 721. 15 U.S.C.48 and I 3.25(f) of the Commission'srules of practice (16 CFR 3.25(), noticeis hereby given that the followingconsent agreements containing consentorders to cease and desist, having been

lfiled with and accepted.-subject to finalapproval, by the Commission. have beenplaced on the public record for a periodof sixty (60) days. Public comment isinvited. Such comments or views will beconsidered by the Commission and willbe available for inspection and copyingat its principal office in accordance with14.9(bJ(14) of the Commission's rules ofpractice (18 CFR 4.9(b)(14J).

List of Subjects in 1i CFR Part 13

Major record companies. Tradepractices.[Docket No. 9174)

In the matter of Warner CommunicationsInc.. a corpora tion. et al., Warner Bras.Records, In" a corporation. Chappell a Co.Inc., a corporation, and Polygram Records,Inc, a corpotion.Agreement Containing Consent Order

The agreement herein, by andbetween Warner Communications Inc.and Warner Bros. Records, Inc. by theirduly authorized officers, and counsel forthe Federal Trade Commission. isentered into In accordance with theCommission's Rules governing consentorder procedures. In accordance withthose rules the parties hereby agree that

1. Respondents WarnerCommunications Inc.. and Warner Bros;Records, Inc. are corporations organizedand existing under the laws of the Stateof Delaware with offices at 75Rockefeller Plaza, New York. New York1019.

2. Respondents admit all jurisdictionalfacts set forth in the Commnissfon'scomplaint In this proceeding.

3. Respondents waive:(a) Any further procedural steps;

(b) The requirement that theCommission's decision contain astatement of findings of fact andconclusions of law-

(c) All rights to seek judicial review orotherwise to challenge or contest thevalidity of the order entered pursuant tothis agreement and

(d) Any claim under Equal Access toJustice Act

4. This agreement shall not become apart of the public record of theproceeding unless and until It isaccepted by the Commission. If thisagreement is accepted by theCommission, It will be placed on thepublic record for a period of sixty (60)days and information in respect theretopublicly released. The Commissionthereafter may either withdraw itsacceptance of this agreement and sonotify the respondents, in which event itwill take such action as It may considerappropriate, or Issue and serve Itsdecision In accordance with the terms ofthis agreement in disposition of theproceeding.

5. This agreement is for settlementpurposes only and does not constitutean admission by respondents that thelaw has been violated as alleged In thecomplaint issued by the Commission.

e This agreement contemplates that,if it is accepted by the Commission. andif such acceptance is not subsequentlywithdrawn by the Commission pursuantto the provisions of Section 3.25(W of theCommission's Rules, the Commissionmay without further notice torespondents: (1) Issue Its decisioncontaining the following order to ceaseand desist in disposition of theproceeding, and (2) make informationpublic in respect thereto. When soentered, the order shall have the sameforce and effect and may be altered,modified or set aside in the samemanner and within the same timeprovided by statute for other orders. Theorder shall become final upon service.Delivery by the U.S. Postal Service ofthe decision containing the agreed-to-order to respondents' address as statedin this agreement shall constituteservice. Respondents waive any rightthey might have to any other manner ofservice. The complaint may be used inconstruing the terms of the order, and noagreement, understanding.representation. or interpretation notcontained in the order or in theagreement may be used to vary or tocontradict the terms of the order.

7. Respondents have read thecomplaint and the order contemplatedhereby. They understand that once theorder has been issued, they will berepuired to file one or more compliance

r- -I`Ptt

irI

r

i

rr

Vt

Ir1,

I

i

r ,

.I

FROM

S

RobertSandia

DATE OF DOCUMENT

7/15 86

DATE RECEIVED

_UP1 "r

NO

_~86 622M~. CrarmellR~at I Lab LTR

xx

MEMO , _ __

xx-OTHER

TO ORIG. CC OTHER

xxWal ton tell y ACTION NECESSARY KI | CONCURRENCE 0 DATE ANSWERED

NO ACTION NECESSARY 01 COMMENT 03 BY 7/31P26CLASSIF POSTOFFICE FILE CODE:

REG.NO. 426.1DESCRIPTION WMest Be Unclassified) REFERRED TO DATE DATE

June Monthly Progress report P. JustusI WIGT 717 "7, . .7 . , 7for FIN A1756

ENCLOSURES

Ticket closed ou. by a letterto Dr. Siegel on 86107/24. W

REMARKS

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONMAIL CONTROL FORM

FORM NRC 326t 1751