General Guidelines for Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear … · 2012-11-18 · Independence...

COVER SHEET

: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYOFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE CHARACTERIZATION OFFICE

Docket Number RW-RM-96-100General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

DISTRIBUTION AT HEADQUARTERS:

Bob Waxman, GC tChrisEinberg, RWDOE FOI Reading RoomDocket File

CLOSE OF COMMENT PERIOD: March 17,1997

TODAYS DATE:

ATTACHED WRITTEN COMMENT(S)/DOCUMENTS:

1. Agenda (FOI only)2. Attendee Sheets, Afternoon & Evening Sessions (FOI only)3. Opening Statement (FOI only)4. Federal Register Notice

- December 6,1984 (FOI only)- December 16, 1996 (FOI only)- February 3, 1997

5. DOE News - Press Release, December 16, 1997 (FOI only)6. Copies of Oral Testimony at the Public Hearing on January 23,7. Public Comment Log8. Public Comments

-#1-6 (FOI only)#7-14

1997 (FOI only)

Note: The original written comments are located in the official agency docket file currently being heldby Bob Murray at the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Office in Las Vegas, NV.(702) 295-4894. Andi Kasarsky is coordinating distribution for DOE Forrestal, (202) 586-3012.

.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)OFFICE OF CIVILLAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (OCRWM)

YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE CHARACTERIZATION OFFICE (YMSCO)

PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

Docket No. RW-RM-96-100January 23, 1997 - Las Vegas, NV

Afternoon Session: 12:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.Evening Session: 6:00 pm. - until last speaker finished

Moderator

Stephen Rice Associate Provost of ResearchUniversity of Nevada at Las Vegas

DOE Hearing Panel

Carol Hanlon

Susan Rives

Allen Benson

Presiding DOE OfficialPhysical Scientist, YMSCO

Chief Counsel; YMSCO

Director of Institutional Affairs, YMSCO

SCHEDULE OF PRESENTATIONSEvening Session: 6:00 p.m. - until last speaker finished

Opening Remarks Time

Stephen Rice

Carol Hanlon

Moderator

Presiding DOE Official

6:00 p.m.

Schedule of Speakers Representing (if applicable) Time

6:30 p.m.1. Tom McGowan Self

2. Unscheduled Speakers and Rebuttal/Clarifying Statements

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYOFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE CHARACTERIZATION OFFICEGeneral Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites For Nuclear Waste Repositories (NOPR)

PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDEESJanuary 23, 1997 Las Vegas, NV

NAME & TITLE COMPANY/ASSOCIATION/GOVT/SELF ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP/CODE(Please Print) (Please Spell Out Complete Name)

I







(702) 798-5003

Educational DirectionsPrograms & Services for Business,

Industry, Government & Schools

5357 SPENCERLas Vegas, NV 89119 DICK TELFER, Ed.S.



PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDEESJanuary 23,1997 Las Vegas, NV



PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDEEASJanuary 23, 1997 Las Vegas, NV



PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDEESJanuary 23 1997 LAS Vegas, NV

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT





PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDEESJanuary 23,1997 Ls Vegas, NV

.1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYU.S. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT





PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDEES- January 23, 1997 Las Vegas, NV

.b ./-e-4- ,W.

- /X5 \)g~~~~~~~~s Xv e~ t4 1 w j

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYOFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE' WASTE MANAGEMENT



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYOFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVEWASTE MANAGEMENT


PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDEESJanuary 23, 1997 Ls Vegas, NV







STEVE MARCUSPHOTOGRAPHER(702)2594083

E-MAIL: MARCUSOLVSUN.COM

LAS VEGAS SUN800 SO. VALLEY VIEW BLVD.LAS NEVADA 89107

FAX (702) 383-7264FAX (70

2) 383-72 64


YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE CHARACTERIZATION OFFICE

PUBLIC HEARING OPENING REMARKS

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites For Nuclear Waste Repositories

Docket Number RW-RM-96-100

January 23, 1997 - Las Vegas, NV

Mr. Stephen Rice, UNLV-Moderator

Good afternoon/evening and welcome. I would like to thank you for taking the time toparticipate in this public hearing concerning the Department of Energy's Civilian RadioactiveWaste Program, particularly those of you who have come from some distance. I am StephenRice, Associate Provost for Research at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, and I will be themoderator for this rulemaking hearing. My role as moderator is to keep the public hearingorderly, focused, and on schedule and to ensure that everyone here has the opportunity to presentoral testimony. I have volunteered my services to the Department of Energy (DOE) and am notbeing paid by the Department.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive oral testimony from the public on DOE's Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the General Guidelines for the Recommendation ofSites For Nuclear Waste Repositories. While you may have comments about other DOE issues,it is essential that you keep your remarks focused on the proposed rule. If you have not alreadyread the proposed rule in the Federal Register, published on December 16, 1996, I urge you to doso. Copies are available at the registration desk. Your comments are not only appreciated, theyare essential to the process.

Today's hearing is different from most other meetings held by the Department of Energy for thisprogram in that this is a rulemaking hearing which is governed by a different set of rules, so tospeak. Generally speaking, Congress passes a piece of legislation and then turns it over to one ormore agencies to write the rules to implement that legislation. The agency will publish itsproposed rule or rules in the Federal Register and ask the public to comment on them. In a DOErulemaking, the public has two ways to provide comments: 1) orally at a public hearing, and 2)providing written comments before the end of the comment period. The agency will thenconsider the comments provided by the public, as well as comments from other Federal agencies,and will then publish a final rule to be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The comments received here today, and those submitted during the written comment period, willassist the Department in the rulemakng process. Please note that although the original notice of

After all registered speakers have delivered their statements, anyone may make anunscheduled oral statement Persons interested in making such an unscheduled statementshould submit their name to the registration desk before the conclusion of the lastscheduled speaker.

At the conclusion of all scheduled and unscheduled presentations, speakers will be giventhe opportunity to make rebuttals and/or clarifying statements, subject to time limitations,and will be called in the order in which the initial statements were made. Personsinterested in making such a statement should submit their name to the registration deskbefore the conclusion of the last speaker.

If time permits at the conclusion of all rebuttals and/or clarifying statements, persons maybe given the opportunity to make additional unscheduled statements. Persons interestedin making such an unscheduled statement should submit their name to the registrationdesk before the conclusion of the last rebuttal and/or clarifying statement.

Finally, clarifying questions will be asked only by members of the hearing panel.

As mentioned earlier, the close of the comment period will be MARCH 17,1997. All writtencomments received will be available for inspection and copying at: The Yucca Mountain ScienceCenter, 4101B Meadows Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada, (702) 295-1312; and at the Department ofEnergy's Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, (202) 586-6020 As a reminder, the Departmentrequests that eight (8) copies of the written comments be submitted. If you have any questionsconcerning the submission of written comments, please see the staff at the registration desk. Inaddition, in approximately two weeks, a transcript of this hearing will be made available at boththe Yucca Mountain Science Center and the Department of Energy's Freedom of InformationReading Room, and via the Internet at the following address: http://www.ymp.gov.

Any person submitting information which he or she believes to be confidential and exempt bylaw from public disclosure should submit to the address mentioned above one complete copy andseven copies from which information claimed to be confidential has been deleted. In accordancewith the procedures established at 10 CFR 1004.11, the Department of Energy shall make itsown determination as to whether or not the information shall be exempt from public disclosure.

In keeping with the regulations ofthis facility, there will be no smoking in this room.

We appreciate the time and effort you have taken in preparing your statements and are pleased toreceive your comments and opinions. I would now like to introduce the members of the hearingpanel. Joining us today from the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office here in Las Vegasare: Carol Hanlon, Physical Scientist; Susan Rives, Chief Counsel; and Allen Benson, Directorof Institutional Affairs. The hearing panel will receive your comments and ask clarifyingquestions, as necessary, to ensure the record is clear and complete. We also have with us anumber of DOE employees who may assist the panel in assuring clarifications are requestedwhen appropriate.

3

new subpart would be added to the existing regulations to govern the evaluation of YuccaMountain. The proposed new subpart would use a systems approach and would involveassessing how the engineered parts of the repository would work within the geology of YuccaMountain. That assessment would then be evaluated against the health and safety standardsbeing developed by EPA specifically for the Yucca Mountain site and applicable NRCregulations. In short, this proposal would focus the suitability decision on whether a repository atYucca Mountain would protect public health and safety consistent with the requirements of theEPA and NRC. Please note that this proposal does not eliminate any of the guidelines currentlyin the regulation, but preserves them should general guidelines applicable to site screening andcomparisons be needed in the future. In addition, other sections of the guidelines would berevised only as needed to make them consistent with the new subpart.

The hearings today are provided as opportunities for you to provide comments on the proposedamendments. To better understand the proposed amendments, I strongly recommend that youtake a few minutes to read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if you have not already done so .Copies are available at the registration desk. If you plan to make oral comments or submitwritten comments to the Department, please focus your comments only on the scope and contentof the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Department will not consider general comments onthe current regulation at this time. Again, I thank you for your participation.

Mr. Stephen Rice, UNLV-Moderator:

Now it is time to move on to the important business of listening to your comments on the NOPR.I would like to call our first speaker on the agenda. As a reminder, I ask that each speaker pleaseidentify yourself by name, city or town and affiliation before making your statement. Thank you.

NEWSNews Media Contact:

Samantha Richardson, 702/794-5511Erik Olds, 702/794-1347

For Immediate Release:December 16, 1996

U.S. Department of Energy Seeks Comment on its Proposalto Amend Siting Guidelines for Yucca Mountain

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a proposal to amend the siting guidelinesthat it will use to determine the suitability of the Yucca-Mountain Nevada,site for a developmentof a repository for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

The DOE is seeking public comment on these amendments and has sded two publicmeetings. These meetings are scheduled for Thursday, January 23, 1997, at 12:30 pm. and6 p.m. and will be held at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, MoyerStudent Union, Second Level, Lounge #201.

Before DOE may recommend the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a repository, it willneed to determine its suitability as a repository site. The guidelines, issued in 1984 as aregulation, require DOE to compare the Yucca Mountain site with other potential repositorysites. There guidelines were applied in nominating five sites as suitable for characterization and inrecommending that three of these sites be studied. On May 28, 1986, the President recommendedthree sites for characterization, including Yucca Mountain.

In 1987, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was amended to provide that Yucca Mountain be the solesite to be characterized. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate standards specifically for the protecton of the publicfrom releases from radioactive wastes disposed of in the reposity at the Yucca Mountain site.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is directed to revise its regulations to be consistentwith the EPA's site-specific standards.

Congress directed DOE in fiscal year 1996 to focus on only those activities necessary to assessthe performance of a repository at the Yucca Mountain site DOE responded, in part, byproposing these amendments as part of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management'srevised Program Plan. The amendments proposed today would concentrate the regulatory reviewon the analyses of overall repository performance at Yucca Mountain. This would enhance the

-more-

NO. 132 P.3/3

-2-

ability of the DOE to provide the public with a more understandable conclusion about thesuitability of the Yucca Mountain site for development as a repository. To provide this focus, a

new subpart would be added to govern the evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site. Other sectionsof the guidelines would be revised only as needed to make them consistent with the new subpart.The guidelines applicable to site screening and comparisons will be preserved should they be

needed in the future.

The DOE will accept public comments on the proposed siting guideline amendments untilFebruary 14, 1997. To register to provide oral comments at the scheduled hearings, please call

(800) 967-3477 no later than 4:3 0 pm PST on January 17, 1997. Members of the public who donot attend the meetings can submit their comments by U.S. mail to April V. Gil, U S. Departmentof Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Yucca Mountain Site

Characterization Office, P.O. Box 98608, Las Vegas, NV 89193-4608, or through electronic mailto [email protected]

-30-

YMP-96-19

MondayDecember 16,1996 I

Part V

Department ofEnergy

Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement

I I

10 CFR Part 960General Guidelines for theRecommendation of Sites for Nuclear -Waste Repositories; Proposed Rule and.Public Hearing

66157

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 242 / Monday, December 16, 1996 / Proposed Rules-

DEPARTMENT of ENERGY location: University of Nevada, Las Commission (NRC) and environmentalVegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Moyer protection standards set by the

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Student Union, Second Level.Lounge Environmental Protection AgencyManagement #201, Las Vegas, Nevada. Copies of (EPA). The 1982 NWPA provided a

transcripts from the hearing, written process and schedule for siting two10 CFR Part 960 comments, and documents referenced in mined geologic repositories, and the

General Guidelines for the this Notice may be inspected and statutory framework by which the DOERecommenendation Guidelines for Nuclear photocopied in the Yucca Mountain would screen, characterize, and select

Recomdation of Sites for Nuclear Science Center, 4101B Meadows Lane, candidate sites. Section 112,Waste Repositories Las Vegas. Nevada, (702) 295-1312. and "Recommendation of Candidate SitesAGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive the DOE Freedom of Information for Site Characterization," of the 1982Waste Management, Department of Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal NWPA required the DOE to establishEneegy. Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, general guidelines for recommendation

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking SW., Washington, DC. (202) 586-6020. of sites for repositories (the Guidelines).and public hearing. between the hours of 8:30 a.m and 4 Section 112(a) required the DOE to

p.m., Monday through Friday, except "issue general guidelines forSUMMARY: The Department of Energy, Federal holidays. For more information recommendation of sites forOffice of Civilan Radioactive Waste concerning public participation in this repositories," following consultationManagement, today proposes to amend rulemaking see the "Opportunity for with the Council on Environmentalits General Guidelines for the Public Comment" section of this Quality, the Administrator of the EPA,Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear proposed rule. the Director of the Geological Survey,,Waste Repositories. The DOE is FOR FURTHER information CONTAC: interested Governors, and the,proposing these amendments to clarify April V. Gil. U.S. Department of Energy concurrence of the NRC. This sectionand focus the Guidelines to be used In Ofice of Civilian Radioactive Waste also provided that "such guidelines"evaluating the suitability of the Yucca Management Yucca Mountain Site may be revised from time to time.Mountain site in Nevada for Characterization Office.PO Box 98608, Guidelines NWPA provided that thedevelopment as a repository. This Las Vegas NV 89193-8608 (800)967- Guidelines would be used by the DOEproposal would provide that a total. 3477 ' to identify and nominate at least fivesystem assessment of the performance of sites in different geologic media asa proposed site-specific repository SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: suitable for characterization. As part ofdesign within the geologic setting of I. Background. this screening process, section 112(b)Yucca Mountain would be compared to A The Law. required the Secretary to recommendthe applicable regulatory standards to B. Development and Application of the three of these sites to the President fordetermine whether this site is suitable Guidelines. characterization to determine theirfor development as a repository. II Description of Proposed Action. suitability for development as aDATES: Written comments (8 copies and, A.Genral Discussionif possible, a computer disk) on the B. Proposed revisions Section 113,"Site Characterization."III. References of the 1982 NWPA provided that theproposed rule must be received by the IV. Opportunity for Public Comment. DOE was to carry out siteDepartment on or before February 14, A. Participation In Rulemaking. characterization activities beginning1997. Oral views, data and arguments B. Written Comment Procedures. characterization aactivies beginningmay be presented at a public hearing C. Public Hearing procedureswhich is scheduled for the afternoon V. Compliance with the National approved under section 112(b) and that(12:30 p m. to 4:30p.m.) and evening (6 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). were located in various geologic media.

p.m until there are no longer perons VI. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Section 11 3(b) required the DOE torequesting an opportunity to persons vI Act. the and submit to the Governor ofrequesting an opportunity to speak) of VII. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction the State, or governing body of the

Act. affected Indian tribe, a general plan-the hearing should be submitted in VIII. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates describing the activities to be conductedwriting or by telephone at (800) 967- Reform Act. in characterizing that site and3477 to the Department no later than IX. Review Under Executive Order 12612. identifying the criteria, developed4:30P.M. on January 17, 1997. The X. Review Under Executive Order 12866. pursant to section 112(a), that wouldlength of each oral presentation is Xl. Review Under Executive Order 12875.Under Executive Order 12988. be used to determine the suitability oflimited to five minutes. The DOE each site for the location of a repository.requests public comments only on the I. Background Section 114. "Site Approval andamendatory language in this notice and' Construction Authorization," of thewill not consider comments on the A. The Law 1982 NWPA provided that uponcurrent regulation in this rulemaking The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 completion of public hearings In theproceeding. (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 vicinity of each site and completion ofADRESSES: Written comments (8 NWPA), signed into law on January 7, site characterization at each site, acopies) and requests to speak at the 1983, established a Federal policy and single site could be recommended to thepublic hearing should be addressed to the Department of Energy (DOE) President for development as aApril V. Gil, U.S. Department of Energy, responsibility for the disposal of spent repository. The 1982 NWPA providedOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive that this recommendation by theManagement, Yucca Mountain Site waste in geologic repositories. It Secretary to the President was to beCharacterization Office, PO Box 98608, established the Office of Civilian accompanied by a final EnvironmentalLas Vegas, NV 89193-8608, or provided Radioactive Waste Management Impact Statement (EIS) in accordanceby electronic mail to (OCRWM) to carry out these DOE with the requirements of the [email protected]. The public responsibilities, subject to repository Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), ashearing will be held at the following licensing by the Nulear Regulatory modified by section 1l4)of the 1982

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 242 / Monday, December 16, 1996 / Proposed Rules 66159

NWPA. If the recommendation was site. The SCP included a description of received, the DOE published a notice inapproved and the designation of the how the DOE proposed to apply the the Federal Register on August 4, 1994repository site became effective, the Guidelines within the scope of the (59 FR 39766), announcing, that itDOE was to submit a license application planned site characterization program. would continue to use the Guidelines into the NRC for authorization to The applicability of certain comparative 10 CFR part 960. as currently written.construct the repository at the provisions in the Guidelines as a result and as explained in the SCP. Thedesignated site. of the 1987 amendments to the 1982 detailed rationale for concluding that

The 1987 amendments to the 1982 NWPA was explained in the SCP. The the existing Guidelines "should not beNWPA (the 1982 NWPA, as amended, is DOE stated that the provision in the amended at this time," was published inhereinafter referred to as the NWPA). Guidelines for comparative evaluations a notice in the Federal Register onprovided that site characterization of performance (10 CFR 960.3 1-5) was September 14, 1995 (60 FR 47737). Forunder section 113 and site approval no longer applicable. The DOE also reasons stated below, the DOE has nowunder section 114 could proceed only at stated that the provision in 10 CFR determined that the Guidelines shouldthe Yucca Mountain site. Section 160 of 960.5-1(a)(3), the preclosure system be amended.the NWPA required the DOE to guideline for Ease and Cost of Siting, II Description of Proposed Actionterminate site-specific activities at the Construction, Operation, and Closure,other two candidate sites. for comparative evaluation of costs A. General DiscussionB. Development and Application of the relative to other siting options was no The DOE is proposing theseGuidelines longer applicable. amendments to clarify and focus the

To Implement section112(a)of the Although the SCP describes how the Guidelines to be used in evaluating theTo implement section 112(a) of the DOE would apply the Guidelines during suitability of the Yucca Mountain site

proposed "General Guidelines for the in light of the 1987 amendments, a amendments would concentrate theRecommendation of Sites for Nuclear number of entities in dicated that they regulatory review on the analyses of

Waste Repositories" for review and remained unclear as to the DOE's future overall repository performance.on February 13.1983 (48 FR application of the Guidelines. Because would enhance the ability of the DOE to

5670). The DOE published the final of the continuing confusion In this provide the public a moreversion of the Guidelines on December regard, and because section 112(a) of the understandable conclusion about the6, 1984 (49 FR 47714). after considering NWPA unchanged from the 1982public comments, consulting with the the 1982 suitability of the Yucca Mountain sitedeisgnated agencies and the receiving the with the NWPA and the Guidelines themselves for development as a repository. Toconcurrence of the NRC, as required by contemplate that the DOE may revise provide this focus, a new subpart wouldconcurence 1982 the NRC, as required by the Guidelines from time to time, the be added to govern the evaluation of the

The NRC concurred on the Guidelines DOE instituted an ongoing dialogue Yucca Mountain site. Other sections ofThe NRC concurred on the Guidelines external parties about the the Guidelines would be revised only asafter the DOE agreed to changes that Guidelines would be revised

closely linked the Guidelines to the In October 1993 1993 the DOE briefed theNRC regulatory requirements of 10 CFR In October 1993 the DO E

response to local government and the State of comparisons will be preserved and

of the Guidelines to the EPA and the to site suitability evaluation. The As detailed in the futureNRC requirements, the DOE stated that, memners of this group noted that Of this

"In the event of a conflict between the because the development of the describes the steps to be taken duringGuidelines and either 10 CFR part 60 (the Guidelines received broad public site screening and prior to siteNRC regulations) or 40 CFR Part 191 the exposure through publication in theEPA regulations), these NRC and EPA Federal Register, the DOE's review of, characterization. The general guidelinesregulations will supersede the siting wereguidelines and constitute the operative the Guidelines also should receive developed in 1983 and 1984 when therequirement in any application of the broad public exposure. In response, the DOE had only a general understandingguidelines." (49 FR 47721) DOE published a Notice of Inquiry on of geologic disposal and a mandate to

Consistent with section 112(b) of the April 25,(59 FR 19680 eliciting use the general guidelines to screen sites1982 NWPA, the DOE used in various geologic media. The DOEGuidelines in nominating five sites as appropriate role of the Guidelines in the then formulated a generic set ofsuitable for characterization and in evaluation of site suitability at Yucca guidelines to apply throughout the

three sites to be characterized as public workshop on May 21,1994.

On May 28, 1986, the President Guidelines and other issues related to As the DOE recognized in theapproved the three sites recommended the process for, Federal Register

required the DOE to characterize only ended on June 24,1994 analyses of expected repositoryuh Yucca Mountain site, and to Following the public meeting and the performance. However, because the

close of the public comment period, andtermninate site-specific activities at all coprsn of charactized sites was

In accordance with section II 3(b) of recommendation decision, the

characterizing the Yucca Mountain when first refernced.

66160 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 242 / Monday, December 16, 1996 / Proposed Rules

minimized (49 FR 47714: 47729). The revised Program Plan was endorsed in 1. Congressional DirectionDOE response to comments that stressed the Conference Report on the Energythe importance of using system-analysis and Water Devlopment Appropriationstechniques, rather than treating each Act, 1997, H.R. Rep. No. 782, 104th Guidelnes. Congress has made majorfactor (e.g., geohydrology) Cong.. 2d Sess 82 (1996). by the changes to the framework forindependently, was that "the final conferees directing that the developing a geologic repository. Incomparisons of the sites are to be based appropriated funds be used in , the NWPA designated Yuccaon the system guidelines" (49 FR 47714., accordance with the revised Program Mountain as the only potential47732). The DOE also explained that Plan repository site to be characterized,Part 960 consisted of general guidelines thereby eliminating the comparison of

Part 960 consisted of general guidelines Based on the DOE's accumulated. multiple characterized sites. Although

were not appropriate at that time (49FR knowledge, and significantly enhanced the DOE did not revise the Guidelines47714, 47734). The DOE has decided understanding of the Yucca Mountain at that time, it recognized in its SCP thatthat it is now time for a site-specific site and geologic disposal, the DOE has not all of the technical factors cited Inevaluation of overall system now determined that a system the Guidelines would be equallyperformance at Yucca Mountain . performance assessment approach significant to the evaluation of the

initially, the DOE planned a broad provides the most meaningful method Yucca Mountain site.characterization program at Yucca for evaluating whether the.Yucca In section 801 of the Energy PolicyMountain to ensure that all important Mountain site is suitable for Act of 1992, Congress directed the EPAscientific and technical issues would be development as a repository. The to promulgate new site-specific healthidentified and addressed. The DOE performance assessments (4-6) and safety standards for protecting therecognized that the iterative nature of conducted to date have consistently public from radioactive releases at asite characterization would drive the driven the DOE to focus its evaluation repository at Yucca Mountain. Thesebroad-based plan into a more narrowly of the Yucca Mountain site on those standards will replace the generalfocused program. Section 11 3c of the aspects most important to predicting environinental standard for geologicNWPA provides that the DOE may how the overall system will perform in repositories (40 CFR part 191) forconduct only such site characterization isolating-and containing waste. application at the Yucca Mountain site.activities as it determines are necessary The DOE now understands that only In the Energy Policy Act of 1992,to evaluate the suitability of Yucca The DOE now understands that onlyDOE now understands that Congress also directed the NRC to revise

authorization application to the NRC concepts will work within natural new EPA standards.and to comply with the National system at Yucca Mountain, andEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969. That comparing the results of these In the Conference Report on the FiscalCongress intends the DOEto focus the assessments to the applicable regulatory Year 1996 Energy and Waterwork at Yucca Mountain on only that standards, can the DOE reach a Development Appropriations Act,which is necessary to determine meaningful conclusion regarding the Congress directed the Program to focussuitability was recently reinforced in the site's suitability for development as a on only those activities necessary toConference Report on the Fiscal Year repository. The proposed amendments assess the performance of a repository at1996 Energy and Water Development to the Guidelines would require a the Yucca Mountain site and to collectAppropriations Act, HR. Rep. No. 293, comprehensive evaluation focused on the scientific information needed to104th Cong., 1st Sess. 68 (1995). In the whether a geologic repository at the detemine the site's suitability (H.R.Conference Report the conferees Yucca Mountain site would adequately Rept. No. 293,104th Cong., 1st Sess. 68directed the Department to refocus the protect the public and the environment (1995)). The OCRWM responded byrepository program on completing the from the hazards posed by high-level revising its Program Plan. Part ofthecore scientific activities at Yucca radioactive waste and spent nuclear revised Program Plan approach is theMountain and provided that the fuel. This approach would include development of a proposal to amend theDepartment's goal should be to collect consideration of technical factors in an Guidelines for sitep-specific applicationthe scientific information needed to integrated manner within the system at the Yucca Mountain site. Congressdetermine the suitability of the Yucca postclosure and preclosure qualifying indicated its approval approval of the revisedMountain site. - conditions Discrete,Independent on

On June 12,1996, OCRWM released findings on individual technical factors on the Energy and Water Developmentits revised Program Plan (2) which would not be required. Appropriations Act, 1997,H R.Rep. No.addressed the direction of Congress in amendments would 782, 104th Cong.,2d Sess. 82 (1996) bythe Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriation The proposed directing that the appropriated fundslegislation. It also recognized the great focus the site suitability evaluation of be used in accordance with the Civiliandeal of progress made in the evaluation Yucca Mountain on a determination of Radioactive Waste Management Draftand understanding of the Yucca whether the expected system Program Plan issued by the DepartmentMountain site since implementing the performance will meet both the site- in May 1996 * * *"Civilian Radioactive Waste Management standards specific public health and safety The DOE is proposing theseProgram Plan (3). published in standards that the EPA is establishing amendments now in response to theDecember 1994. Consistent with the under section 801 of the Energy Policy Congressional direction provided as partpolicy direction from Congress, the Act of 1992 and the applicable NRC of the Fiscal Year 1996 appropriationrevised Program Plan explained that as regulations. Compliance with these process. The focused approach in thispart of Fiscal Year 1996 implementation requirements is the core of the approach proposal Is part of the revised Programof the restructured repository program, proposed as subpart E to part 960. The Plan that was developed based onOCRWM would propose amending the proposed amendments are being Congressional guidance and theGuidelines to provide a more efficient submitted to the NRC and the DOE will technical understanding gained fromand understandable process for obtain its concurrence in accordance characterization work performed atevaluating the Yucca Mountain site. The with l0 CFR 960.1. Yucca Mountain.


2. Understanding GainedTHE DOE has been considering Yucca

Mountain as a potential site for aiepository since 1978. Formal sitecharacterization studies began followingthe publication of the SCP in December1988. The DOE has recently producedresults in four major areas fundamentalto advancing the ability to evaluate thissite, and geologic disposal to the pointthat a system approach is nowappropriate. These four areas are: (1)Analysis and integration of datacollected from the surface-based testingand regional studies; (2) examination ofthe potential repository horizon madepossible by the excavation of theExploratory Studies Facility (ESF); (3)the site-specific conceptual design ofthe engineered facilities, both surfaceand underground; and (4) performanceassessment analyses.

The DOE began collecting surface-based test data at the site and from thesurrounding region in the late 1970s, asdescribed in the EnvironmentalAssessment and the SCP. In recentyears, project scientists have undertakena concerted effort to analyze and

integrate these data In order toformulate a better understanding of the

site. Several reports (8-16) ssued in1996 have significantly contributed tothat understanding. These analysesinvolve compiling the data collectedand developing process models todescribe each of the characteristics ofthe site. Further, data integration isproceeding from cross-disciplinarydiscussions among the scientists andthrough consultations with expertsoutside of the project. The result is arapidly evolving understanding of thenatural system at the site and how thenatural system would function as part ofa repository system.

Construction of the ESF has providedthe opportunity for direct undergroundobservations and testing. Data obtainedfrom the potential repository host rock,together with the analysis of data fromsurface-based studies (17-20). havesignificantly improved theunderstanding of site conditions. Forexample, the rock quality at therepository level generally confirms theassumptions upon which the projectedarea for the statutory limit or 70,000

metric tons of heavy metal was based.No new major faults have been foundand some faults, when observedunderground, are less structurallysignificant than expected from surface-based studies.

The DOE has now advanced its site-specific conceptual design (21) to focuson the surface and subsurface facilities,the waste package, and a concept of

operations to describe how anoperational repository would function atYucca Mountain. This focus allowsproject engineers to develop processmodels to explicitly analyze suchfactors as potential repository materialsand layout, the thermal load imposed onthe system by waste emplacement. andthe performance of the engineeredbarrier system.

The models needed to evaluaterepository system performance at theYucca Mountain site continue tobecome more detailed and morerepresentative of site conditions andengineered system behavior.Performance assessments are analysesused to predict or estimate the behavior.of a system based on a given set ofconditions. The assessments take intoconsideration the inherent uncertaintiesin the data and models used, and permitthe evaluation of the significance ofthese uncertainties in predictingperformance for thousands of years intothe future. Performance assessmentscalled "Total System PerformanceAssessments," were conducted in 1991,1993, and 1995, and another iteration isunderway. The amount of detail in themodels and the amount of data availablehave increased with each iteration.

The results of these performanceassessments describe what therepository system will be capable of andhow it will function through time. Forexample, the performance assessmentshave confirmed that among the mostImportant characteristics of the YuccaMountain site and Its suitability forrepository development are the amountof water. the flow pathways, and therate at which water flows through andaway from the repository area. Therepository system performance modelswill enable the DOE to predict, withgreater confidence, the way water movesthrough the site and how this affectsrepository performance.

By evaluating, through systemperformance assessments, theconclusions reached from analysis andintegration of surface-based test data,the observations and testing in the ESF.and the site-specific advancedconceptual design, the DOE will be ableto reach informed conclusions regardingthe suitability of the site fordevelopment as a repository.

Information on the general approachthat the DOE will take in performingthis work is available in the 1996Revision I to the Program Plan; Morespecific information on the nature andextent of changes to previously plannedactivities is available In the ProgressReports that the DOE issuessemiannually pursuant to section113(b)(3). The most recently issued

Progress Report (2) was distributed onOctober 8, 1996.

B. Proposed RevisionsBecause section 160 of the NWPA

provides that Yucca Mountain is to bethe sole site to be characterized by theDOE under section 113 of the NWPA.the proposed amendments wouldestablish a discrete set of site-specificguidelines for evaluating the suitabilityof Yucca Mountain for development asa repository. The site-specific guidelinesproposed for Yucca Mountain would beadded to part 960 in a new subpart E.Subpart B, the ImplementationGuidelines," would be amended toreflect the adoption of the new subpartE and provide the procedure and basisfor applying the new guidelines Insubpart E. Subparts C and D would beretained for potential future applicationin the event that it is determined thatYucca Mountain Is not suitable fordevelopment as a repository and othersites are identified as potentialcandidate sites for site characterization.

The proposed subpart E would focuson the ability of a repository system atthe Yucca Mountain site to protectpublic health and safety by adequatelycontaining and isolating waste, ratherthan on evaluating each technical aspectof the site independently. This newsubpart would represent a change forevaluating Yucca Mountain from theGuideline's general site screening andcomparison approach to a site-specificsystem performance approach.

The results of Integrated assessmentsof system performance in Subpart Ewould provide a more meaningfulindicator of the ability of a repository toprotect public health and safety, beforeand after permanent closure, thanwould separate evaluations ofindividual site characteristics. Forexample, a geologic structural featurethat provides a fast pathway for ground-water flow through the mountain mayseem a detriment when consideredalone but, when considered Inconjunction with a specific repositorydesign. may act beneficially bychanneling flow away from the wasteand thus reducing the potential forground-water contact with the wastepackages.

In conducting performanceassessments, the DOE uses computerand mathematical models to evaluatethe ability of the geologic repository tocontain and isolate high-levelradioactive waste. This may Include theuse of mathematical models of siteprocesses such as water flow In thegeologic setting and engineeringprocesses such as corrosion of the wastepackages as part of the assessment of

66162 Federal Register / Vol.

overall repository system performance.To evaluate potential radiation exposureto the public, performance assessmentsuse biosphere models that describe thepathways by which individuals in thevicinity of Yucca Mountain mightreceive radiation doses. Performanceassessments are iterative, so thatinsights gained from each assessment.together with new scientific andengineering information andimprovements in the modelsthemselves, are used to guidesubsequent assessments.

The general provisions of subpart Aand the implementation guidelines ofsubpart B would be revised to reflect theaddition of the Yucca Mountain site-specific guidelines in subpart E, and tobe consistent with the NWPA. Theproposed revisions would preserve theexisting portions of the Guidelines thatare applicable to site screening and tocomparing sites in varied geologicsettings as provided in section 112(a) ofthe NWPA. Additional revisions wouldbe incorporated throughout theGuidelines only as needed to explicitlyaccommodate the addition of subpart E.

Consistent with the existing structureof the Guidelines, the site-specificguidelines proposed in subpart E wouldinclude postclosure and preclosuresystem guidelines. The postclosuresystem and preclosure radiologicalsafety system guidelines proposed as"qualifying conditions" in subpart Ewould be essentially the same as theircounterparts in subparts C and D, exceptthat these amendments would recognizethe changes in the regulatory standardsmandated by the Energy Policy Act of1992. Because 40 CFR part 191 is nolonger the applicable standard for theYucca Mountain site, the new systemperformance guidelines would apply theEPA s final rule for site-specific publichealth and safety standards when theyare issued and in effect. The preclosuresystem guideline would also apply theNRC regulations applicable to YuccaMountain during the preclosure eriod.

The original suites of technicalguidelines in subparts C and D considercharacteristics that might be importantat any type of site in any geologic orhydrologic setting and provide a basisfor comparing sites. Correspondingtechnical guidelines are not proposed insubpart E. The performance assessmentsin subpart E will consider all of thesignificant technical aspects of the siteand demonstrate through sensitivityanalyses which characteristics are mostImportant.

The preclosure system guidelines insubpart D, other than the one forradiological safety (§ 960.5-I (a)(l)),were originally intended to provide a

61, No. 242 / Monday, December 16, 1996. / Proposed Rules

broad basis for site evaluation and forcomparisons among multiplecharacterized sites, prior to siterecommendation under the 1982NWPA. Sections 113 and 160 of theNWPA now direct the DOE tocharacterize only the Yucca Mountainsite to determine its suitability fordevelopment as a repository. In theabsence of a need to consider sitingalternatives, the DOE is not specifyingseparate system guidelines forenvironmental, socioeconomic, andtransportation considerations in subpartE. as it did in § 960.5-1 (a)(2) of subpartD. The DOE will not require or makefindings with regard to suchconsiderations as part of any evaluationof the suitability of the Yucca Mountainsite for recommendation. The provisionsof subpart D. § 960.5-l(a)(3), relating tothe feasibility of constructing, operating.and closing a repository at the YuccaMountain site also are not incorporatedin subpart E. Absent the need to developa broad basis for comparativeevaluations, such considerations aremost appropriately dealt with as part ofthe repository design process and in theevaluation of the performance of anydesign concept with respect to theradiological protection requirements ofthe preclosure system guideline insubpart E

The requirement in S 960.5-1(a)(2) ofsubpart D to adequately protect thepublic and the environment fromhazards posed by the disposal ofradioactive waste is the essence of thepreclosure system guideline proposed as§ 960;6-2. Separately, as part of theEnvironmental Impact Statement thatwill be prepared pursuant to section 114of the NWPA, the DOE will thoroughlyexplore potential Impacts to theenvironment as a result of developing arepository at Yucca Mountain. The DOEwill consider the information presentedIn the Environmental Impact Statement,and the results of its evaluation of theYucca Mountain site under subpart E, inmaking any recommendation that thesite be developed.

1. General Provisions (subpart A)This section of the Guidelines

consists of the statement of applicabilityof the Guidelines and the definitions.Revisions proposed to this sectionwould establish the applicability of thenew subpart E to the evaluation of theYucca Mountain site for development as.a repository while preserving thegeneral comparative siting processoriginally defined in the Guidelines andwould remove inconsistencies with the1987 amendments to the 1982 NWPAand the Energy Policy Act of 1992.Revisions are proposed for some of the

definitions to make the terms consistentwith the NWPA and to accommodateprogrammatic changes instituted sincethe Guidelines were written.

Section 960.1 ApplicabilityThe statement of applicability would

establish that these are the Guidelinesdeveloped in accordance with sections112(a) and 113(b)(1)(A)(iv) of theNWPA. It is the intent of theseamendments to continue to applysubparts C and D of 10 CFR part 960 asthe General Guidelines providing "theprimary criteria for the selection of sitesin various geologic media" as requiredbysection 112(a). The comparativeaspects of the regulation would bepreserved for use if the DOE ever needsto use the process to select other sitesfor characterization through acomparative screening process.

The proposed amendments wouldaccount for the 1987 amendmentsbeginning with the insertion of thewords "as amended" after "NuclearWaste Policy Act of 1982" in the firstsentence. Section 113(b)(1)(A)(iv) of theAct would also be referenced in the firstsentence to indicate that theseGuidelines would contain the criteria todetermine the suitability of thecandidate site for location of arepository. A new second sentencewould be inserted to make explicit thatsubpart B explains the procedure andbasis for applying the guidelines insubparts C, D, and E. The secondsentence would now state that theGuidelines in subparts C and D will beused for comparative suitabilityevaluations made pursuant to section112(b). The final phrase. * and anypreliminary suitability determinatons

required by section 1141" would bedeleted because this requirement wasremoved from section 114(1) by the 1987amendments. This phrase would bereplaced by a new fourth sentencestating that "Only subpart E will beused for evaluating the suitability of theYucca Mountain site pursuant to section

These revisions would recognize thatthe EPA standards promulgated under40 CFR part 191 no longer apply to theYucca Mountain site. Section 801 of theEnergy Policy Act of 1992 requires theEPA to issue site-specific public healthand safety standards as "the only suchstandards applicable to the YuccaMountain site." Therefore, the thirdsentence, stating that these guidelinesare intended to complement therequirements set forth In the Act. 10CFR part 60. and 40 CFR part 191,would be deleted. The fifth sentence isrevised to more clearly state that theDOE recognizes NRC jurisdiction for the

Federal Register/ Vol. 61, No. 242 / Monday, December 16, 1996 / Proposed Rules 66163

resolution of differences between theguidelines and the NRC regulations. Thesixth sentence would be deleted asunnecessary.

Section 960.2 DefnitionsRevisions to the terms and definitions

are proposed to reflect the legislativeand programmatic changes since the

Guidelines were originally written. Thedefinition of the term "Act" would

recognize the 1987 amendments in itsuse throughout the regulation. Theterms "Application" and "Evaluation"would include references to subpart Efor the Yucca Mountain site In additionto references to subparts C and D. Thedefinition of "Closure" would includeramps to acknowledge the use ofinclined ramps at Yucca Mountain inaddition to vertical shafts. The term"Determination" would now apply tosubparts C and D for purposes ofdecisions of suitability for sitecharacterization, and to subpart E forpurposes of decisions of suitability forrepository development.

2. Implementation Guidelines (subpartB)

Section 960.3 Siting provisionsThe implementation guidelines in

subpart B establish the procedure andbasis for applying the postclosure andpreclosure guidelines of subparts C andD to the siting process when siterecommendation for characterization isto be made from multiple candidatesites. In general, references to subpart Ewould be added to the Implementationguidelines in subpart B whereversubpart C and D are mentioned toensure consistency and clarity in thedistinctions between the two sets ofpostclosure and preclosure guidelines.Subpart B would be revised only to theextent necessary to accommodate theInsertion of subpart E into theregulation.

The first sentence of section 960.3would be replaced by two sentences.The first would state that the guidelinesof subpart B establish the procedure andbasis for applying the guidelines insubparts C, D and E. The new secondsentence would explain that theguidelines of subparts C and D apply tocomparative evaluations of multiplesites for suitability for characterization.The original second sentence would berevised to include the word comparativein reference to those parts of the sitingprocess that require consideration ofvarious settings and consultation withvarious affected units of government. A

new final sentence would be added toexplicitly state that the guidelines ofsubpart E apply to evaluations of the

suitability of the Yucca Mountain sitefor development as a repository.

Section 960.3-1 would be revised byreplacing a phrase in the final sentenceto clarify that § 960.3-1-5. Basis for SiteEvaluations, establishes the basis forapplying subparts C, D and E. Section960.3-1-1 to § 960.3-1-4-4 requires theconsideration of various site settingsand types in precharacterizationscreening and describe the types ofevidence needed at each step in thesequence of siting decisions. No changesare proposed to these sections becausethey are already consistent with theproposed amendments to the existingregulation and the proposed addition ofsubpart E.

Section 960.3-1-5 provides the basisfor evaluations of individual sites andcomparisons between and among sites.This section provides that the.guidelines of subparts C and D apply tothe screening and selection of sitesthrough the recommendation ofcandidate sites for characterization.Because the NWPA now requires thatonly the Yucca Mountain site becharacterized and evaluated forsuitability for development as arepository, the proposed amendmentwould refer to subpart E as the basis forthis evaluation. This section would bedivided into three subsections to makethe following two distinctions. First itwould distinguish between evaluationsof sites leading to recommendations forcharacterization and the evaluation ofthe Yucca Mountain site fordevelopment as a repository. Second, itwould distinguish the basis forevaluating individual sites from thebasis for comparing multiple sites.

The subsection heading "(a) GeneralProvisions." is inserted at the beginningof the section. This newly designatedsubsection would consist of the first twosentences of § 960.3-1-5 with thefollowing revisions. A proposedaddition to the first sentence wouldspecify that the evaluation of thesuitability of the Yucca Mountain sitefor development as a repository wouldbe based on the guidelines in subpart E.The second sentence, assigning primarysignificance to the postclosureguidelines, except during the screeningof potentially acceptable sites (the firstof the four decisions in the sitingprocess sequence set forth in § 960.3-1-4), would exempt subpart E from thisranking of the guidelines. Theguidelines were ranked to reflect thefundamental purpose of a repository toprovide long-term isolation ofradioactive waste and to facilitatecomparisons of sites where some siteattributes under the Guidelines may besimilar. The ranking would not apply to

subpart E because it would serve nocomparative purpose. To clarify thisdistinction between evaluatingindividual sites and ranking theguidelines for comparisons of multiplesites, the word "comparisons" wouldreplace "evaluations" in the secondsentence of subsection (a).

The subsection heading "(b) SiteEvaluations," would be inserted beforethe third sentence in § 960.3-1-5 tocreate a new subsection containing thethird through tenth sentences of thissection revised as follows. Thissubsection would separate the processand basis for evaluating individual sitesfrom the process for comparing multiplesites under the proposed subsection (c).The description of the arrangement ofthe Guidelines would now refer directlyto subparts C and D where the systemguidelines have corresponding technicalguidelines. A sentence would be addedfor clarity, after the eighth sentence,stating that subpart E does not containcorresponding technical guidelines.This sentence is added because theproposed subpart E use of systemguidelines would consider the full rangeof relevant site conditions embodied inany technical guidelines. The proposedsystem guideline approach of subpart Ewould not eliminate or disguiseconsideration of any specificcharacteristic of the Yucca Mountainsite that may affect repositoryperformance. Indeed, the relevanttechnical factors in subparts C and Dwould still be considered; but, ratherthan each being evaluated against aspecific independent technicalguideline, the factors would beconsidered for their role in the system'sperformance. The ninth (now tenth)sentence of this subsection would berevised to explain that subpart E wouldbe used to evaluate the Yucca Mountainsite. The final sentence would berevised to explain that disqualificationof a site depends on findings maderegarding the "applicable" qualifying ordisqualifying conditions. For thecharacterization work at YuccaMountain, the "applicable" conditionswould be the qualifying conditions in§960.6.

The subsection heading "(c) SiteComparisons," would be inserted beforethe eleventh sentence of 5 960.3-1-5.The subsection would consist of theremainder of this section revised asfollows. The first sentence would nowinclude a specific reference to subpartsC and D to avoid confusion with subpartE. The portion of the sentencereferencing § 960.3-2-4, performed tosupport the recommendation of sites forthe development of repositories in§ 960.3-2-4," would be deleted. This

66164 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 242 / Monday, December 16, 1996 Proposed Rules

deletion would recognize that §960.3-I "recommendation of sites for the

development of repositories would berevised to no longer includecomparisons of characterized sites. The

next sentence defining the accessibleenvironment, would be deleted becauthat term is already defined In S 960.2The repetition of the definition isunnecessary and potentially confusing

Section 960.3-2 addresses the foursteps in the comparative siting procesIn §§ 960.3-2-1 through 960.3-2-4.Sections 960.3-2-1 through 960.3-2-3address the three steps In the processthat were completed before the 1987amendments designated YuccaMountain as the sole site to becharacterized. Although these stepswere successfully completed withregard to the Yucca Mountain site, theyare still found in section 112 of theNWPA. and could possibly be used toevaluate another or other sites in thefuture. Therefore, no changes areproposed to these sections.

Section 960.3-2-4. recommendationof sites for the development ofrepositories." establishes the processthe fourth and final step in the sitingprocess. This section refers to multip]characterized candidate sites for thedevelopment of the first repository, orsubsequent repositories. It would nowrecognize Yucca Mountain as the solecandidate site that may berecommended under section 114 of tNWPA. The title would be revised to"Recommendation of a site for thedevelopment of a repository." The firstsentence would now explain that theYucca Mountain site shall be evaluatedon the basis of the guidelines in subpE. Because section 114 of the NWPAnow provides only for therecommendation of the Yucca Mountsite if it is found suitable fordevelopment as a repository, the finalsentence would refer specifically to theYucca Mountain site and all referencesto other candidate sites would bedeleted. If the Yucca Mountain site isfound unsuitable, NWPA subsection113(c)(3)(F) requires the Secretary toreport to Congress recommendationsfurther action to assure the safe,permanent disposal of spent nuclearfuel and high-level radioactive waste,including the need for new legislativeauthority.3. Yucca Mountain Site Guidelines(subpart E)

Section 960.6 Yucca Mountain SiteGuidelines

The postclosure and preclosuresystem guidelines of subpart E would

- each contain a single qualifyingcondition that the geologic repository at

be Yucca Mountain must meet in order forthe site to be found suitable for

The development as a repository. Thequalifying condition in both cases

se would provide that the geologicrepository shall be capable of limitingradioactive releases as required by the

g. site-specific standards to bepromulgated by the EPA pursuant to the

s Energy Policy Act of 1992. The DOEwould not reach a determination on the

3 suitability of the Yucca Mountain siteunder these Guidelines in the absence ofthe final promulgation of thosestandards. Because the NRC mustconform its regulations to the EPAstandards, these guidelines also refer tothe NRC regulations implementing those

they standards.Section 960.6 would provide that a

decision to recommend the site assuitable for development as a repositoryunder the Guidelines must includecompliance with both postclosure and

ion preclosure system guidelines. The DOEwould evaluate compliance with these

for guidelines by conducting performanceassessments and then comparing the

le results of those assessments to theapplicable standards and regulations.

In § 960.6-1 "Postclosure systemguideline." the DOE would recognizethat a geologic repository at YuccaMountain shall be evaluated against the

he site-specific EPA standards and the NRCregulations implementing them The keydifferences between the postclosureguidelines under subpart C and thissection would be that this section wouldnot include technical guidelines and

art would require using the site-specificEPA standards being promulgatedpursuant to section 801 of the EnergyPolicy Act of 1992 and the NRCregulations implementing thosestandards. Compliance with thepostclosure system guideline in thissection would be determined through aperformance assessment that evaluatesthe ability of the repository system toallow for the containment and isolationof radioactive waste after permanent

for closure.Section 960.6-2. "Preclosure

radiological safety system guideline,"would provide for compliance with theEPA site-specific standards and the NRCradiation protection standardsapplicable during construction,operation and closure of the repository.The preclosure radiological safetysystem guideline in subpart D calls forcompliance with 10 CFR parts 20 and60, and 40 CFR part 19). This

I preclosure guideline would recognize

that the EPA site-specific standards.rather than 40 CFR part 191, apply toYucca Mountain. It would alsorecognize the application of therequirements of 10 CFR part 20."Standards for Protection AgainstRadiation" which generally apply tolicensed, operational nuclear facilitiesthroughout the United States, and 10CFR Part 60, Disposal of High-LevelRadioactive Wastes In GeologicRepositories," or successor provisions.Thus, the main difference between thesubpart D preclosure radiological safetysystem guideline and the preclosureevaluation conducted under this sectionis that this section would apply theYucca Mountain site-specific EPAstandards being developed pursuant tothe Energy Policy Act of 1992.

4. Appendix III

Appendix III-Application of theSystem and Technical GuidelinesDuring the Siting Process

The introductory text in this appendixwould be amended by adding a singlesentence to clearly establish that thisappendix does not apply to the.guidelines of Subpart E for theevaluation of the Yucca Mountain sitefor Its suitability for development as arepository. The distinctions betweenlower-level and higher-level findingshave been preserved for their use In thecomparative siting process.

III References1. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1988.

Site characterization Plan: YuccaMountain Site. Nevada Research andDevelopment Area, Nevada, DOE/RW-0199. Office of Civilian RadioactiveWasteManagement. Washington. DC.December 1988.

2. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1996.Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementProgram Plan. Revision l .DOE/RW-0458. Revision I. office of CivilianRadioactive Waste Management.Washington. DC, May 1996.

3. DOE (US. Department of Energy), 1994.Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementProgram Plan DOE/RW-0458. threevolumes, office of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management. Washington. DC,December 1994.

4. Barnard. R.W.. M.L. Wilson. H.A. Dockery.J.H. Gauthier, P.C. Kaplan. R.R. Eaton,F.W. Bingbam; and TM. Robey. 1992.TSPA 1991: An Initial Total-SystemPerformance Assessment for YuccaMountain, SAND9I-2795, SandiaNational Laboratories. Albuquerque,New Mexico.


S. Wilson. M.L., J.H. Gauthier. R.W. Barnard.G.E. Barr. H.A. Dockery. E. Dunn, R.R.Eaton, D.C. Guerin, N. Lu, MJ. Martinez,R. Nilson, C.A. Rautman, T.H. Robey, B.Ross, E.E. Ryder, A.R. Schenker, S.A.Shannon, L.H. Skinner, W.G. Halsey. J.Gansemer, L.C. Lewis, A.D. Lamont. I.R.Triay, A. Meijer, and D.E. Morris, 1994.Total System Performance Assessmentfor Yucca Mountain-SNL SecondIteration (TSPA-1993), SAND93-2675,Sandia National Laboratories.Albuquerque, New Mexico.

6. CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement System Management andOperating Contractor), 1995. TotalSystem Performance Assessment-1995:An Evaluation of the Potential YuccaMountain Repository, B00000000-01717-2200-00136, Rev. 01, TRWEnvironmental Safety Systems Inc., LasVegas. Nevada, November 1995.

7. DOE (US. Department of Energy), 1986.Final EnvironmentalAssessment: YuccaMountain Site, Nevada Research andDevelopment Area, Nevada. DOE/RW-0073, Office of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management, Washington, DC,May 1986.

8. Bish, D.L., J.W. Carey, B.A. Carlos. S.J.Chipera, G.D. Guthrie, S.S. Levy, D.T.Vaniman, and G. Wolde-Gabriel, 1996.Summary and Synthesis Report onMineralogy and Petrology Studies for theYucca Mountain Site CharacterizationProject Geology and GeochemistryGroup, Earth and EnvironmentalSciences Division, Los Alamos NationalLaboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico,August 1996.

9. Robinson, B.A., A.V. Wolfsberg, H.S.Viswanathan, C.W. Gable, G.A.Zyvoloski, and H.J. Turin, 1996. Site-Scale Unsaturated Zone Flow andTransport Model-Modeling of Flow,Radionuclide Migration, andEnvironmental Isotope Distributions atYucca Mountain.

10. Zvvoloski. G.,J. Czarnecki. B.A.Robinson, C.W. Gable, and C. Faunt,1996. Saturated Zone RadionuclideTransport Model.

11. Bovardsson, C.S. and T.M. Bandurraga(eds.), 1996. Development andCalibration of the Three-DimensionalSite-Scale Unsaturated Zone Model ofYucca Mountain, Nevada. Earth SciencesDivision, Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory, Berkeley, California. August1996.

12. Wilder, D.G., 1996. Volume II: Near-Fieldand Altered-Zone Environment Report,UCRL-LR-124998, Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, Livermore,California, August 1996.

13. Forester, R.M.,J.P. Bradbury, C. Carter,A.B. Elvidge, M.L. Hemphill, S.C.Lundstrom, S.A. Mahan. B.D. Marshall,L.A. Neymark, J.B. Paces, S.E. Sharpe,J.F.Whelan, and P.E. Wigand, 1996.Synthesis of Quatermary Response of theYucca Mountain Unsaturated andSaturated Zone Hydrology to ClimateChange. U.S. Geological Survey,Lakewood, Colorado.

14. CRWMS M&O (Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management System Managementand Operating Contractor), 1996. A 3-DGeologic Framework and Integrated SiteModel of Yucca Mountain: VersionISM1.0, Rev. 01, TRW EnvironmentalSafety Systems Inc., Las Vegas. Nevada.August 1996.

15. Triay, IR., A. Meijer, J.L. Conca, K.S.Kung, RS. Rundberg, and E.A.Streitelmeier, 1996. Summary andSynthesis Report on RadionuclideRetardation for the Yucca Mountain SiteCharacterization Project, ChemicalScience and Technology Division, LosAlamos National Laboratory, LosAlamos, New Mexico, August 1996.

16. Hersman, L.E.. 1996. Summary andSynthesis of Biological Sorption andTransport, Life Science Division, LosAlamos National Laboratory, LosAlamos; New Mexico.

17. U.S. Geological Survey, US. Bureau ofReclamation. 1996a. Letter Report(Transmittal Letter from R.L. Craig toSusan Jones, dated 10/3/96): Geology ofthe Nort/South Main Drift. ExploratoryStudies Facility Stations 27+00 to 55+00,Maps and Data Submittal (S.C. Beason etal., deliverable ID 3GGF6O3M); 38drawings, support information andattachments.

18. Barr, D.L., T.C. Moyer, W.L Singleton.A.L. Albin, R.C. Lung, A.C. Lee, S.C.Beason, G.L. Eatman (U.S. GeologicalSurvey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation).1996. Report: Geology of the NorthRamp, Exploratory Studies FacilityStations 4+00 to 28+00 (deliverable ID3GGF602M); 179 pages, 47 figures, 18tables, 31 photographs, 3 plates, 36drawings, attachments.

19. Beason, S.C., G.A. Thurlington, R.C.Lung. G.L. Eatman, D. Ryter, and D.L.Barr (US. Geological Survey, U.S.:Bureau of Reclamation). 1996. ReportGeology of the North Ramp, ExploratoryStudies Facilty Stations 0+60 to 4+00(deliverable ID 3GGF530M, 3GGF540M).98 pages, 9 figures. 1 table, 20photographs, 15 drawings, attachments.

20. Fabryka-Martin, J.T., PR Dixon, S. Levy,B. Liu, HJ. Turin, and A.V. Wolfsberg,1996. Systematic Sampling for Chlorine-36 in the Exploratory Studies FacilityLA-CST-TIP-96-001, Los AlamosNational Laboratory, Los Alamos, NewMexico, March 1996.

21. CRWMS M&O (Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management System-Managementand Operating Contractor), 1996a. MinedGeologic Disposal System AdvancedConceptual Design Report B0OOOOO-0717-5705-00027, Rev, 00, fourvolumes, TRW Environmental SafetySystems Inc.. Las Vegas, Nevada.

22. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996.Site Characterization Progress Report:Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Number 14,DOE/-0488, Office of CivilianRadioactive Waste Management,Washington, DC., August 1996.

IV. Opportunity for Public Comment

A. Participation in Rulemaking

Interested persons are invited toparticipate in this proposed rulemakingby submitting written data, views, orcomments with respect to the subject setforth in this notice. The Departmentencourages the maximum level of publicparticipation possible In thisrulemaking. Individuals, coalitions,states or other government entities, andothers are urged to submit writtencomments on the proposal. TheDepartment also encourages Interestedpersons to participate in the publichearing to be held at the time and placeindicated at the beginning of this notice.

B. Written Comment Procedures

The DOE requests public commentsonly on the proposed amendatorylanguage in this notice and will notconsider comments on the currentregulation In this rulemakingproceeding. Written comments (eightcopies) should be Identified on theoutside of the envelope, and on thecomments themselves, with thedesignation: "General Guidelines NOPR,Docket Number RW-RM-96-100" andmust be received by the date specified.at the beginning of this notice In orderto be considered. In the event anyperson wishing to submit a writtencomment cannot provide eight copies,alternative arrangements can be made inadvance by calling (702) '794-5578.Additionally, the Department wouldappreciate an electronic copy of thewritten comments to the extent possible.The Department is currently usingWordPerfect 6.1 for Windows. Allcomments received on or before the datespecified at the beginning of this noticeand other relevant information will beconsidered by the DOE before finalaction is taken on the proposed rule. Allcomments submitted will be availablefor examination in the Rule Docket Filein the Yucca Mountain Science Centerin Las Vegas, Nevada, and the DOE'sFreedom of Information Reading Room.In addition, a transcript of theproceedings of the public hearing willbe filed in the docket. The transcriptand additional material will be availableby electronic mail at the following URLaddress: http://www.ymp.gov. Pursuantto the provisionsof 10 CFR 1004.11 anyperson submitting information or datathat is believed to be confidential, andwhich may be exempt by law frompublic disclosure, should submit onecomplete copy, as well as two copiesfrom which the nformation claimed tobe confidential has been deleted. TheDepartment of Energy will make its own

66166 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 242 / Monday, December 16. 1996 / Proposed Rules

determination of any such claim andtreat it according to its determination.C. Public Hearing Procedures

The time and place of the publichearing are indicated at the beginningthis notice. The Department invites an

person who has an interest In theproposed regulation or who is a

representative of a group or class ofpersons which has an interest to make

a request for an opportunity to make anoral presentation at the hearing.Requests to speak should be sent to theaddress or phone number indicated inthe ADDRESSES section of this notice atbe received by the time specified in theDATES section of this notice. The persomaking the request should brieflydescribe his or her interest in theproceedings and, if appropriate, statewhy that person is a properrepresentative of the group or class ofpersons that has such an interest. Theperson also should provide a phonenumber where they may be reachedduring the day. Each person selected tospeak at a public hearing will benotified as to the approximate time thattheywill be speaking. They shouldbring eight copies of their oral statementto the hearing. In the event any personwishing to testify cannot meet thisrequirement, alternative arrangementscan be made in advance by calling (70)794-1322. The length of eachpresentation will be limited to fiveminutes, or based on the number ofpersons requesting to speak. Personsplanning to speak should address theircomments to the proposed amendatorylanguage contained in this notice. TheDOE will not consider testimony on thelanguage in the current regulation inthis rulemaking proceeding. ADepartment official will be designatedto preside at the hearing. The hearingwill not be a judicial or an evidentiarytype hearing, but will be conducted inaccordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 andsection 501 of the Department of energyOrganization Act. 42 US.C. 7191. At tconclusion of all initial oral statementeach person will be given theopportunity to make a rebuttal orclarifying statement. These statementswill be given in the order in which theinitial statements were made. Anyfurther procedural rules needed for thproper conduct of the hearing will beannounced by the Presiding Officer atthe hearing. If the DOE must cancel thhearing, the DOE will make every effortto publish an advance notice of suchcancellation in the Federal Register.Notice of cancellation will also be givento all persons scheduled to speak at thhearing. Hearing dates may be canceled

in the event no public testimony hasbeen scheduled in advance.V. Compliance Wth the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA)

of The issuance of these amendments tothe Guidelines is a preliminary decisionmaking activity pursuant to section112(d) and 113(d) of the NWPA andtherefore does not require thepreparation of an environmental impactstatement pursuant to section 102(2)(C)of the NEPA or any other environmentalreview under section 102(2) (E) or (F) ofthe NEPA.

and VI. Review Under the RegulatoryFlexibility Act

n The Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5U.S.C. 601 et seq., was enacted byCongress to ensure that small entities donot face significant negative economicimpact as a result of Governmentregulations. The DOE certifies that therule amending the Guidelines will nothave a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

° The rule will not regulate anyoneoutside of the DOE. It merely articulatesproposed considerations for theSecretary of Energy to undertake in

nt determining whether the YuccaMountain site is suitable to berecommended for development as a

2) repository. Accordingly, no regulatoryflexibility analysis is required under theRegulatory Flexibility Act.VII. Review Under the PaperworkReduction Act

The DOE has determined that thisY proposed rule contains no new or

amended recordkeeping, reporting, orke application requirements, or any other

type of information collectionrequirements subject to the PaperworkReduction Act (Pub. L. 96-511).

VIII. Review Under UnfundedMandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Actgy of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generallyhe requires Federal agencies to closelys, examine the impacts of regulatory

actions on State, local, and tribalgovernments. Section 101(5) of Title I ofthat law defines a Federalintergovernmental mandate to includeany regulation that would impose an

e enforceable duty upon State, local, ortribal governments, except, among otherthings. a condition of Federal assistance

e or aty arising from participating in art voluntary federal program. Title II of

that law requires each Federal agency toassess the effects of Federal regulatory

en actions on State, local, and tribalhe governments, in the aggregate, or to thead private sector, other than to the extent

such actions merely incorporaterequirements specifically set forth in astatute. Section 202 of that title requiresa Federal agency to perform a detailedassessment of the anticipated costs andbenefits of any rule that includes aFederal mandate which may result incosts to State, local, or tribalgovernments, or to the private sector, of$100 million or more. Section 204 ofthat title requires each agency thatproposes a rule containing a significantFederal intergovernmental mandate todevelop an effective process forobtaining meaningful and timely inputfrom elected officers of State, local, andtribal governments.

This proposed rule is not likely toresult In the promulgation of any finalrule that includes any Federal mandatethat may result in the expenditure byState, local, and tribal governments inthe aggregate, or by the private sector, of$100 million or more in any one year.Further, the Guidelines in 10 CFR part.960 and the proposed amendments topart 960 in this rule largely incorporaterequirements specifically provided insections 112 and 113 of the NWPA.Moreover, sections 112,113 and 114 ofthe NWPA provide for meaningful andtimely input from elected officials ofState, local and tribal governments.Accordingly, no assessment or analysisIs required under the Unfunded-Mandates Reform Act of 1995.IX. Review Under Executive Order12612

Executive Order 12612, 52 FR 41685,requires that regulations, rules,legislation, and any other policy actionsbe reviewed for any substantial directeffect on States, on the relationshipbetween the Federal government andthe States, or in the distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongvarious levels of government. If thereare substantial effects; then theExecutive Order requires a preparationof a Federalism assessment to be usedin all decisions involved inpromulgating and implementing policyaction. The rule proposed In this noticewill not have a substantial direct effecton the institutonal interests ortraditional functions of the States.Accordingly, no assessment or analysisis required under Executive Order12612.X. Review Under Executive Order12866

Section 1 of Executive Order 12866("Regulatory Planning and Review"), 58FR 51735, establishes a philosophy andprinciples for Federal agencies to followIn pro promulgating regulations. Sectionl(b)(9) of that Order provides:

Federal Register/ Vol. 6 1. No. 242 Monday, December 16, 1996 / Proposed Rules66167 66167

"Wherever feasible, agencies shall, seekviews of appropriate State, local, andtribal officials before imposingregulatory requirements that mightsignificantly or uniquely affect thosegovernmental entities. Each agency shallassess the effects of Federal regulationson State, local, and tribal governments,including specifically the availability ofresources to carry out those mandates,and seek to minimize those burdens thatuniquely or significantly affect suchgovernmental entities, consistent withachieving regulatory objectives. Inaddition, agencies shall seek toharmonize Federal regulatory actionswith regulated State, local and tribalregulatory and other governmentalfunctions."

Section 6 of Executive Order 12866provides for a review by the office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs(OIRA) of a "significant regulatoryaction," which is defined to include an

action that may have an effect on theeconomy of S 100 million or more, or

adversely affect, in a material way, theeconomy, competition, jobs,productivity, the environment, publichealth or safety, or State, local, or tribalgovernments. The Department hasconcluded that this rule is not asignificant regulatory action thatrequires a review by the OIRA. -

XI Review Under Executive Order12875

Executive Order 12875 ("EnhancingIntergovernmental Partnership"),provides for reduction or mitigation tothe extent allowed by law, of the burdenon State, local and tribal governments ofunfunded Federal mandates notrequired by statute. The analysis underthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995, above, satisfies the requirementsof Executive Order 12875. Accordingly,no further analysis is required underExecutive Order 12875.XII. Review Under Executive Order12988

With respect to the review of existingregulations and the promulgation ofnew regulations, section 3(a) ofExecutive Order 12988, "Civil JusticeReform, 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),imposes on Executive agencies thegeneral duty to adhere to the followingrequirements: (1) Eliminate draftingerrors and ambiguity; (2) writeregulations to minimize litigation; and(3) provide a clear legal standard foraffected conduct rather than a generalstandard and promote simplificationand burden reduction. With regard tothe review required by section 3(a),section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988specifically requires that Executive

agencies make every reasonable effort toensure that the regulation: (1) Clearlyspecifies the preemptive effect, if any:(2) clearly specifies any effect onexisting Federal law or regulation; (3)provides a clear legal standard foraffected conduct while promotingsimplification and burden reduction; (4)specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)adequately defines key terms; and (6)addresses other important issuesaffecting clarity and generaldraftsmanship under any guidelinesissued by the Attorney General. Section30 of Executive Order 12988 requiresExecutive agencies to review regulationsin light of applicable standards insection 3(a) and section 3(b) todetermine whether they are met or it isunreasonable to meet one or more ofthem The DOE has completed therequired review and determined that, tothe extent permitted by law, theproposed regulations meet the relevantstandards of Executive Order 12988.List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 960

Environmental protection, Geologicrepositories, Nuclear energy, Nuclearmaterials, Radiation protection, Wastedisposal.

Issued in WASHINGTON, DC, on December 9,1996.Daniel A. Dreyfus,Director. Offce of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, part 960 of title 10 of theCode of Federal Regulations is proposedto be amended as follows.

PART 960-GENERAL GUIDELINESFOR THE RECOMMENDATION OFSITES FOR NUCLEAR WASTEREPOSITORIES

1. The authority citation for 10 CFRpart 960 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., 42 U.S.C.5801 etseq., 42 U.S.C. 7101 etseq.. 42 U.S.C.10101 et seq.

Subpart A-General Provisions

2. Section 960.1 is revised to read asfollows:

§960.1 Applicability.These guidelines were developed in

accordance with the requirements ofsections 112(a) and 113(b)(1)(A)iv) ofthe Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,as amended, for use by the Secretary ofEnergy in evaluating the suitability ofsites for the development ofrepositories. Subpart B of this partexplains the procedure and basis forapplying the guidelines in subparts C, Dand E of this part. The guidelines insubparts C and D of this part will be

used for comparative suitabilityevaluations and determinations madepursuant to section 112(b). Only subpartE of this part will be used for evaluatingthe suitability of the Yucca Mountainsite pursuant to section 113(b)(l)(A)(iv).In the event of an Inconsistencybetween the guidelines and theapplicable NRC regulations, the NRCregulations would apply. The DOEcontemplates revising the guidelinesfrom time to time, as permitted by theAct, to take into account revisions madeto the NRC regulations and to otherwiseupdate the guidelines as necessary. TheDOE will submit the revisions to theNRC and obtain its concurrence beforeissuance.

3. Section 960.2 is amended byrevising the definitions of "Act.""Application," "Closure,""Determination," and "Evaluation" asfollows:

$960.2 Definitions.

Act means the Nuclear Waste PolicyAct of 1982, as amended.* * * * *

Application means the act of makinga finding of compliance ornoncompliance with the qualifying ordisqualifying conditions specified in theguidelines of subparts C and D of thispart, n accordance with the types offindings specified in appendix III to thispart, or with the qualifying conditionsspecified in the guidelines of subpart Eof this part.* * * * *

Closure means the final closing of theremaining open operational areas of theunderground facility and boreholes aftertermination of waste emplacement,culminating in the sealing of shafts andramps.

*. * * * .

Determination means a decision bythe Secretary that a-site is suitable forcharacterization consistent with theguidelines of subparts C and D of thispart or that the Yucca Mountain site issuitable for development as a repositoryconsistent with subpart E of this part.

Evaluation means the act of carefullyexamining the characteristics of a site Inrelation to the requirements of thequalifying or disqualifying conditionsspecified in the guidelines of subpart Cand. D or subpart E of this part.

4. Section 960.3 is revised to read asfollows:

$960.3 Implementation guidelines.The guidelines of this subpart

establish the procedure and basis forapplying the guidelines in subparts C, D

66168 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 242 / Monday, December 16, 1996 / Proposed Rules

and E of this part. The postclosure andthe preclosure guidelines of subparts Cand D of this part, respectively, apply tocomparative evaluations of thesuitability of multiple sites forcharacterization.As may be appropriateduring the comparative siting process,this procedure requires consideration ofa variety of geohydrologic settings androck types, regionality, andenvironmental impacts and consultationwith affected States, affected Indiantribes, and Federal agencies. Thepostclosure and preclosure guidelines ofsubpart E of this part apply toevaluations of the suitability of theYucca Mountain site for development asa repository

5. Section 960.3-1 is amended byrevising the final sentence of the sectionto read as follows:

$ 960.3-1 Siting provisions.Section 960.3-1-5 establishes the

basis for site evaluations against thepostclosure and the preclosureguidelines of subparts C, D and E of thispart.

6. Section 960.3-1-5 is revised to readas follows:

$960.3-1-5 Basis for site evaluations.(a) General provisions Evaluations of

individual sites and comparisonsbetween and among sites shall be basedon the postclosure and preclosureguidelines specified in subparts C and Dof this part, respectively, except that theevaluation of the suitability of the YuccaMountain site for development as arepository shall be based on theguidelines in subpart E of this part.Except for screening for potentiallyacceptable sites as specified in $ 960.3-2-1 and in the implementation ofsubpart E of this part, such comparisonsshall place primary significance on thepostclosure guidelines and secondarysignificance on the preclosureguidelines, with each set of guidelinesconsidered collectively for such

purposes.(b) Site evaluations. Both the

postclosure and the preclosureguidelines of subparts C and D of thispart consist of a system guideline orguidelines and corresponding groups oftechnical guidelines. The postclosureguidelines of subpart C of this partcontain eight technical guidelines inone group. The preclosure guidelines ofsubpart D of this part contain eleventechnical guidelines separated into threegroups that represent, in decreasingorder of importance, preclosureradiological safety; environment,socioeconomics, and transportation; andease and cost of siting, construction,operation, and closure. The relative

significance of any technical guidelineto its corresponding system guideline issite specific. Therefore for eachtechnical guideline, an evaluation ofcompliance with the qualifyingcondition shall be made in the contextof the collection of system elements andthe evidence related to that guideline,considering on balance the favorableconditions and the potentially adverseconditions identified at a site. Similarly,for each system guideline, suchevaluation shall be made in the contextof the group of technical guidelines andthe evidence related to that system

guideline. The guidelines of subpart E ofthis part contain two systemperformance guidelines withoutcorresponding technical guidelines. Forpurposes of recommending the YuccaMountain site for development as arepository, such evidence shall includeanalyses of expected repositoryperformance to determine the ability ofthe site to comply with the standards setforth in subpart E of this part. A siteshall be disqualified at any time duringthe siting process if the evidencesupports a finding by the DOE that anapplicable disqualifying conditionexists or an applicable qualifyingcondition cannot be met.

(c) Site comparisons. Comparisonsbetween and among sites shall be basedon the system guidelines in subparts Cand D of this part, to the extentpracticable and in accordance with thelevels of relative significance specifiedabove for the postclosure and thepreclosure guidelines. Suchcomparisons are intended to allowcomparative evaluations of sites interms of the capabilities of the naturalbarriers for waste isolation and toIdentify innate deficiencies that couldjeopardize compliance with suchrequirements. If the evidence for thesites is not adequate to substantiate suchcomparisons, then the comparisonsshall be based on the groups of technicalguidelines under the postclosure andthe preclosure guidelines, consideringthe levels of relative significanceappropriate to the postclosure and thepreclosure guidelines and the order ofimportance appropriate to thesubordinate groups within thepreclosure guidelines. Comparative siteevaluations shall place primaryimportance on the natural barriers of thesite. In such evaluations for thepostclosure guidelines of subpart C ofthis part, engineered barriers shall beconsidered only to the extent necessaryto obtain realistic source terms forcomparative site evaluations based onthe sensitivity of the natural barriers tosuch realistic engineered barriers. For a

better understanding of the potentialeffects of engineered barriers on theoverall performance of the repositorysystem, these comparative evaluationsshall consider a range of levels in theperformance of the engineered barriers.That range of performance levels shallvary by at least a factor of 10 above andbelow the engineered-barrierperformance requirements set forth in10 CFR 60.113, and the rangeconsidered shall be identical for all sitescompared. The comparisons shall

assume equivalent engineered-barrierperformance for all sites compared andshall be structured so that engineeredbarriers are not relied upon tocompensate for deficiencies in thegeologic media. Furthermore,engineered barriers shall not be used tocompensate for an inadequate site; maskthe innate deficiencies of a site; disguisethe strengths and weaknesses of a siteand the overall system and maskdifferences between sites when they arecompared. Site comparisons shallevaluate predicted releases ofradionuclides to the accessibleenvironnent. Releases of differentradionuclides shall be combined by themethods specified in appendix A of 40CFR part 191. The comparisonsspecified above shall consist of twocomparative evaluations that predictradionuclide releases for 100,000 yearsafter repository closure and shall beconducted as follows. First, the sitesshall be compared by means ofevaluations that emphasize theperformance of the natural barriers atthe site. Second, the sites shall becompared by means of evaluations thatemphasize the performance of the totalrepository system. These secondevaluations shall consider the expectedperformance of the repository system; bebased on the expected performance ofwaste packages and waste forms incompliance with the requirements of 10CFR 60.113 and on the expectedhydrologic and geochemical conditionsat each site; and take credit for theexpected performance of all otherengineered components of therepository system. The comparison ofisolation capability shall be one of thesignificant considerations in therecommendation of sites for thedevelopment of repositories. The first ofthe two comparative evaluationsspecified above shall take precedenceunless the second comparativeevaluation would lead to substantiallydifferent recommendations. In the lattercase, the two comparative evaluationsshall receive comparable consideration.Sites with predicted isolationcapabilities that differ by less than a


factor of 10, with similar uncertainties,may be assumed to provide equivalentisolation.

7. Section 960.3-2-4 Is revised to readas follows:

$960.3-2-4 Recommendation of a site forthe development of a repository.

characterization and non-geologic datagathering activities at the YuccaMountain site, the site shall beevaluated on the basis of the guidelinesspecified in subpart E of this part.Together with any recommendation tothe President to approve the YuccaMountain site for the development of arepository, the Secretary shall makeavailable to the public, and submit tothe President, a comprehensivestatement of the basis of suchrecommendation pursuant to therequirements specified in section114(a)(1) of the Act, including anenvironmental impact statementprepared in accordance with theprovisions of sections 114(a)(1)(D) and114(f) of the Act.

0. Subpart E is added to read asfollows:

Subpart E-Yucca Mountain Site GuidelinesSec.960.6 Yucca Mountain site guidelines.960.6-1 Postclosure system guideline.960.6-2 Preclosure radiological safety.

system guideline.

Subpart E-Yucca Mountain SiteGuidelines$960.6 Yucca Mountain site guidelines.

The guidelines in this subpart specifythe qualifying conditions that a geologicrepository at Yucca Mountain shall meetfor the site to be determined suitable fordevelopment as a repository. Theguidelines are separated intopostclosure and preclosure systemguidelines. Compliance with thepostclosure system guideline shall bedetermined by the ability of a geologicrepository to meet the applicablestandards through a postclosure systemperformance assessment. Compliancewith the preclosure radiological safetysystem guideline shall be determined bythe ability of a geologic repository tomeet the applicable standards through apreclosure performance assessment.

§960.6-1 Postclosure system guideline.Qualiyng condition. The geologic

repository shall allow for the

containment and isolation of radioactivewaste after permanent closure inaccordance with the EPA standardsestablished specifically for the YuccaMountain site and the NRC regulationsimplementing those standards.

$960.6-2 Preclosure radiological safetysystem guideline.

Qualifying condition. Duringconstruction, operation, and closure, thegeologic repository shall perform inaccordance with the EPA standardsestablished specifically for the YuccaMountain site and the applicable safetyrequirements set forth in 10 CFR parts20 and 60 or their successor provisions.

9. Appendix III is amended in theintroductory text of paragraph number Iby adding a new sentence immediatelyafter the first sentence of that paragraphto read as follows:Appendix Ill-Application of the Systemand Technical Guidelines During the SitingProcess

1. This appendix does not apply tothe guidelines of subpart E for the evaluationof the Yucca Mountain site for its suitabilityfor development as a repository.

[FR Doc. 96-31603 Filed 12-13-96; 8:45 am]Billing CODE 64501-0-P

66160, better suggests a Congressional admonition to comply with the technical factor approach

mandated by section 10132(a), rather than to propose a subterfuge for avoiding it. My office

will be forced to challenge the Department's interpretation.

Congress left section 10132(a) intact when it amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in

1987, as it did in the several opportunities it has had to amend it since then. Section 10132(a)

provides the only authoritative direction to the department. It is entirely clear that the statute

prevails and the Secretary should not rely on conflicting statements or erroneous departmental

interpretations of less authoritative sources a a pretext to subvert the statute.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SITINGGUIDELINES ARE BAD PUBLIC POLICY

The selection of a sound solution to the nation's nuclear waste problems is a process of

managing potentially huge risks to the environment and public health. As with the protection

of any investment against the risk of loss, the policy alternatives are consolidation of all venture

assets into one risk opportunity or spreading venture assets into broad and alternative risk

opportunities. We submit that spreading the risk is the better alternative, for it does not portend

total failure. Unfortunately, Congress chose the poorer alternative when it consolidated all the

Department's efforts at Yucca Mountain in 1987. If Yucca Mountain fails, the United States

has no viable alternative for a geologic disposal site.

Once the bad policy choice has been made, however, it becomes imperative to learn the

real deficiencies of the chosen single risk opportunity as soon as possible. Evaluation of Yucca

Mountain under specif[ic] factors that qualify'or disqualify any site from development as a

repository" provides that early warning. The Department's objective should be to provide"

Congress and the public with the greatest possible information regarding the technical merits of

-7-

the Yucca Mountain site at the earliest opportunity. The guidelines claim in Watkins I was an

effort by Nevada to persuade the DOE to recognize this basic proposition. Unfortunately, the

Department did not get the message.

A "performance assessment" which overlooks Yucca Mountain's technical competence

and determines merely that the site "allows for" containment and isolation of radioactive waste

does not provide an early warning of the deficiencies of the site. Rather, it permits the

Department to hide Yucca Mountain's technical deficiencies and shortcomings in an abyss of

subjective opinion. Deficiencies involving unreasonable environmental and public health risks

will cause severe investment loss when it becomes necessary to confront them. The question

is not if, but when.

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Watkins I and Watkins II that assessment of the risk of

environmental and public health injury against predetermined technical factors was not required

until the Secretary makes a site recommendation and could not be reviewed before then, although

technically correct, was bad public policy because it has permitted postponement of the decision

to terminate site characterization at Yucca Mountain pursuant to 10134(f) when such termination

is warranted by known deficiencies in the site. The abdication of a credible technical assessment

through the substitution of a subjective performance assessment for true evaluation against

objective technical factors is an even worse public policy decision because it carries with it the

pronounced risk that an unsuitable site will be selected for development as a repository. My

office will ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene, if necessary, to see that this does

not happen.

-8-

The DOE should find little comfort in the Court's decisions in the Watkins cases because

the Court did recognize that it would review a circumstance in which the Department failed to

promulgate any guidelines. The proposal put forth in the December 16, 1996, Federal Register

notice is tantamount to a such a failure.

CONCLUSION

The Department of Energy should not amend 10 CFR 960 in the manner proposed in 61

Fed. Reg. 66158. Performance assessments are not a wise or legal substitute for solid

evaluation of Yucca Mountain's physical characteristics against preestablished geophysical and

institutional prerequisie. The public interest in the health and well being of our nation

citizens demand that theDepartment of Energy comply with established federal law.

STATE OF NEVADA TELEPHONE

BOB MILLER Capitol Complex (702) 687-4670Governor Carson City, Nevada 89710 Fax: (702) 687-4486

December 24, 1996

The Honorable Hazel O'LearyThe Department of EnergyIntergovernmental Affairs OfficeCI-30, Room #7B1641000 Independence Ave., S.W.Washington; D.C. 20585

Dear Secretary O'Leary:

On Monday, December 16th, the office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management(OCRWM) of the Department of Energy published, for public comment, a proposed rule revising10 CFR 960, General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear WasteRepositories. I am writing to express my very strong objection to this action on the followinggrounds.

First, the proposed rule does not comply with the clear direction in Section 112(a) of theNuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, which requires specific factors that qualify or disqualifyany site from development as a repository. It further sets out a number of technical factors whichmust be addressed by these qualifing and disqualifying conditions, including geology, hydrology,the location of valuable natural resources, nearby atomic energy defense activities, proximity towater supplies and effect on the rights of water users, transportation and safety factors involved inmoving the waste to a repository, etc. The proposed rule violates the statute as it does notaddress these factors and the requisite qualifying and disqualifying conditions.

Second, the Guideline revision substitutes, for these specific factors, a more generalsystem analysis approach, OCRWM is proposing that, if the overall performance at YuccaMountain can be shown to meet the yet-to-be promulgated Environmental Protection Agencyradiation standards, then the site should be recommended for development as a repository. Notonly does this approach violate the clear direction in the statute, but it ignores the same technical

p.4

The Honorable Hazel O'LearyDecember 24, 1996Page 2

factors described above that are not capable of being evaluated in a total systems performanceassessment.

One can only assume that the Department of Energy officials believe that Yucca Mountainwould be disqualified as a repository under the existing Section 112(a) guidelines. This approachappears to continue a very tradition of this program: If Yucca Mountain can't meet the safetyrules-then change the rules.

Madam Secretary, this approach is totally unacceptable, and the proposed rule should bewithdrawn. This is simply too important an issue to substitute a new, subjective approach todetermining the suitability of Yucca Mountain, one that is of DOE's own making for the clear,objective approach that Congress prescribed in adopting section 112(a) of the Nuclear WastePolicy Act of 1982, as amended.

The proposed approach, if adopted, will result in legal challenge by the State of Nevadaand further erode the credibility of an already controversial program. This attempt to rewrite thelaw to eliminate the need to consider and evaluate important factors which, if present as theyappear to be, would compromise the safety of the site and of the citizens of this state far into thefuture, something that -as Governor, will not allow to happen.

Sincerely,

BOB MILLERGovernor

SIERRA CLUB - Toiyabe ChapterSouthern Nevada GroupP.O. Box 19777, Las Vegas,, Nevada 89132

January 14, 1997

Ms. April V. GilU.S. Department of EnergyYucca Mtn. Site Characterization

Office, M/S 523P.O. Box 98608Las Vegas, NV 89193-8608

Dear Ms. Gil,

On behalf of the Sierra Club, Toiyabe Chapter, Southern Nevada Group, ConservationCommittee, I am writing to place on record the following comments on the DOEproposal to amend the siting guidelines for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclearwaste repository.

Current rules require EACH important category of the siting process tomeet apredetermined scientific safety qualification for-that category. Failureof any single major category to meet such a minimum level of safety woulddisqualify the entire site for selection as the nuclear waste repository.

The intent of the proposed rule change is to AVERAGE the pros and consof these categories to determine "system performance approach". This assumesthat a scientifically proven safety hazard in one category can be offset byan equally strong, but different, proven safety factor in another category.

"This approach would include consideration of technical factors inan integrated manner within the system postclosure and preclosurequalifying. conditions. Discrete, independent findings on technicalfactors would not be required.".

Federal Register, Vol.-- 61, No. 242, pg. 66160, 12/16/1996

*The proposed new rules advocate the illogical, scientifically incorrect procedureto attempt the averaging of dissimilar qualities and quantities. This is junkscience and, as such, is a deceitful proposal to imply safetywithout provingsafety.

The Sierra Club, Toiyabe Chapter, Southern Nevada Group objects to the proposedrule change for the afore mentioned reason.

Sincerely,

Conservation Ccmittee Member

January 20, 1997

GENERAL GUIDELINES NOPR, DOCKET NUMBER RW-RM-96-100

April V. GilU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementYucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, M/S 523P.O.'Box 98608Las Vegas, NV 89193-8608

Re: Proposal to amend the siting guidelines

I am opposed to amending the siting guidelines to concentrate the regulatoryreview on the analyses of overall repository performance, and govern theevaluation of the Yucca Mountain site.

l)The guidelines are still applicable even though there is no needforcomparative analysis between sites at this point in time.

2) The amendments you have suggested change the entire meaning of theguidelines and should not be accepted.

3) An analyses based on overall repository performance is not acceptable. Thislowers the standards for licensing significantly.

4) A new subpart to govern the evaluation of Yucca Mountain is not necessaryand it lowers the standards significantly.

I am opposed to amending the siting guidelines as proposed. The intent is thatif the site is suitable it-should become a repository, not to make the sitesuitable by changing the guidelines. This lowering of the standards for Yucca.Mountain is not acceptable.

Sincerely,

Terri Hale159 Ortiz CourtLas Vegas, Nevada 89110

PUBLIC COMMENT LOG - 10 CFR 960 RULEMAKING

8 1/27/97 Fred Dexter, Jr. Conservation Committee MemberSierra Club - Toiyabe Chapter Sierra Club - Toiyabe ChapterSounthen Nevada Group Southern Nevada GroupPO Box 19777, Las Vegas, NV 89132

9 1/29/97 Terri Hale Self159 Ortiz CourtLas Vegas, NV 89110

10 1/29/97 Barbara Hanson Self159 Ortiz CourtLas Vegas, NV 89110

11. 2/3/97 Dr. Robert Bass Self Fax (5 pages total)Innoventech, Inc.PO Box 1238Pahrump, NV 89041-1238

12 2/3/97 Mrs. Ruth Niswander Self622 Barbara PlaceDavis, CA 95616-0409

13 2/4/97 Richard H. Bryan U.S. Senator from NevadaUnited States Senate364 Russell Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20010-2804

14 2/15/97 Marty Grey Women Speak Out for Peace andWomen's International League for Peace and Justice branch of Women'sFreedom International League for Peace andP.O. Box 18138 FreedomCleveland, OH 89193-8608

January 18, 1997

GENERAL GUIDELINES NOPR, DOCKET NUMBER RW-RM-96-100

April V. GilU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementYucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, M/S 523P.O. Box 98608Las Vegas, NV 89193-8608

Re: Proposal to amend the siting guidelines

I am opposed to amending the siting guidelines to concentrate the regulatoryreview on the analyses of overall repositoryperformance, and govern theevaluation of the Yucca Mountain site.

1) Your determination that the guidelines should be amended is erroneous. Theguidelines are still applicable even though there is no need for comparativeanalysis between sites at this point in time.

2) The amendments you have suggested change the entire meaning of theguidelines and should not be accepted.

3) An analyses based on overall repository performance is not acceptable. Thislowers the standards for licensing significantly..

4) A new subpart to govern the evaluation of Yucca Mountain is not necessary.-

You mention that the general guidelines required by section 112 were developedin 1983 and 1984 when the DOE had only a general understanding of geologicdisposal and a mandate to use the general guidelines to screen sites. In the13 years since, your understanding of geologic disposal could not bethat muchadvanced; however, your knowledge of the Yucca Mountain site is much moredeveloped. There is still the mandate to use the general guidelines to screenthis site. If the Yucca site fails, the guidelines would then be used toscreen any other site selected for review.

If contributions of engineered barriers to the ability of a repository wasminimized initially, it was for a reason. The site alone should be thedetermining factor as to whether a license is granted. Anyone who claims to beable to predict how safe this material will be within a repository for the next10,000 years is not being rational. We have a long'way to go before we reachthis level of competence and knowledge. The evaluation of the relevanttechnical factors' against the specific independent technical guideline gives amore reasonable assurance of safety than any evaluation of the overall systemwould give. These guidelines which require weighing each factor against thespecific independent technical guidelines are site specific guidelines andapply to any site selected or which will be selected in the future. Safety isof primary concern here. Any changes to the guidelines which reduce safety isunacceptable, and the amendments reduce this safety substantially. If there isa potential problem, such as of water rising into the repository, this issue

Page 2 of 5

should be considered of primary importance on its own and be made known inplain language to the people of Nevada as well as the licensing agency. If thesite cannot pass because of the weighing of the relevant technical factorsagainst the specific independent technical guidelines, then it'should not belicensed. It should not be forced into a possible passing solution by arewording of the guidelines. Congress intends that the DOE is to determine ifYucca Mountain is suitable, not to make Yucca Mountain suitable by changing theguidelines. The discrete, independent findings on the specific independenttechnical guidelines are of high importance in determining this suitability andmust not be diluted as they would be in an overall system analysis. A systemsanalysis approach does not make a more meaningful method for determiningsuitability as you state, it just makes it easier to overlook flaws that wereintended to be given careful consideration.

The whole system is based on unknown factors and events of the future. Anysystems analysis approach would be very subjective and open to seriouschallenges. Considering each specific independent technical guideline is amuch more precise manner to consider suitability, and it is important thatthisbe retained.

Just because the comparisons between sites are out at this time does not givereason to change the approach to screening as well. Your assessment that thenew Subpart E would provide a more meaningful indicator of the ability of arepository to protect the public is a flawed concept. It would provide a lessmeaningful indicator of the ability to protect the public. This is too major achange and should not be undertaken.

You give an example that water flowing quickly through the mountain may bebenefited by repository design. There is nothing that man has constructed everthat will last anywhere near 10,000 years. In addition, potential naturaldisasters, such as earthquakes, could change things drastically. If this werethe case, it may be necessary to disqualify this site and eventually find asite with a slow water flow. To change the guidelines'to take intoconsideration the construction of a repository so that the quickly flowingwater is given less weight should not be undertaken. If there is any potentialfor a problem, it hould be taken seriously and be considered of utmostimportance.

Too much emphasis is being placed by the DOE on the comparative analysis.Because one part ofthe guidelines' is not currently applicable does not makethe other partsof the guidelines inapplicable It is not necessary to amendthe guidelines. Just because Yucca Mountain was the only site selected doesnot mean that you should make the guidelines to fit the site rather than thesite fitting the guidelines. There will be lawsuits if Yucca Mountain is foundsuitable for a repository, and these amendments will only weaken your hand.

You mention that the suites of technical guidelines considered characteristicsthat might be important to apply to any type of site in any geologic orhydrologic setting. If one of the guidelines is not applicable to an area, youdon't throw them all out. You consider what is applicable to the area you arestudying. If any of the guidelines fail in a particular area, the area shouldnot be considered further as a potential site. The guidelines should not be

Page 3 of 5

changed because a predetermined qualification cannot be met or may not be met.Anyone can make guidelines to fit a site; however, this is not what wasintended. The geological aspects are important and should not be minimizedbecause you are not comparing sites at this time.

There is no reason to add subpart E, Yucca Mountain site requirements. If arequirement such as this were intended from the beginning, it should have beenincluded at the beginning. The way it is worded it could apply to any otherpotential site which could be selected if the words "Yucca Mountain" werechanged. Subpart E should not be accepted no matter how it is worded as it wasnot the original intent.

The following are some comments on specific sections up for amendment:

Section 960.1 - The proposed amendments are very limiting. Although theguidelines in subparts C and D would be used for comparative analysis (whichis at this time not applicable), only subpart E would be used to evaluate YuccaMountain. Subpart E is very limiting. The amendment should not recognize thatthe EPA standards promulgated under 40 CFR part 191 not longer apply to YuccaMountain. The words that the guidelines are intended to complement therequirements set forth in the Act, 10 CFR part 60, and 40 CFR part 191, shouldnot be deleted. The standards for evaluating a site should not be lowered andthis section should not be amended.

Section 960.2 - The definition under "Application" again is limiting to YuccaMountain with the use of "or" in the sentence that the act of making a findingwiththe qualifying or disqualifying conditions specified in subparts C and D,or with the qualifying conditions specified in subpart E. The word "and" wouldbe more applicable. You are making newer less stringent rules and saying thelesser stringent rules apply to Yucca Mountain.

The definition under "Determination" is again limiting by the use of "or" inthe sentence that a decision that a site is suitable for characterizationconsistent with subparts C and D or Yucca Mountain is suitable for developmentas a repository under subpart E. In addition, subpart E should not be the soledecision for suitability for development as a repository. Section 960.2 shouldnot be amended.

Section 960.3 - This is again a limiting section for Yucca Mountain. It wasintended that none of the sites should be able to qualify for licensing if theyare not safe according to the standards which were set. Because theamendedments reduce the safety standards for Yucca Mountain and change theintent, this section should not be amended.

Section 960.3-1 - This section should not be amended.

Section 960.3-1-5 - Again we have a limiting section for Yucca Mountain withwords such as "except" as in the sentence that evaluations of individual sitesand comparisons shall be based on guidelines in subparts C and D, exceptevaluation of Yucca Mountain for development as a repository is to be based onthe limiting guidelines in subpart E. The guidelines of subpart E of this partshould contain the technical guidelines. For recommending Yucca Mountain for

Page 4 of 5

development as a repository should not be determined on the expected repositoryperformance, which is subjective. You mention that the proposed systemguideline approach of subpart E would not eliminate or disguise considerationof'any specific characteristic of Yucca Mountain; however, this is a falsestatement. In addition, the relevant technical factors in subparts C and Dwould no longer be evaluated against a specific independent technicalguideline as intended. You mention that therelevant technical factors insubparts C and D would still be considered; however, subparts C and D asamended are to be'used for comparative suitability determinations to determinewhich sites are characterized. Yucca Mountain is already past that point as itis already being characterized. These relevant technical factors in subparts Cand D need to be evaluated against the specific independent technicalguideline. This section should not be amended.

Section 960.3-2-4 - This section should not be amended.

Subpart E - This section should not be added.

\Sections 960.6, 960.6-1, and 960.6-2 - This section requires only a singlequalifying condition at Yucca Mountain for it to be found suitable as arepository. This-condition is-that the repository is to be able to limitradioactive releases as required by site-specific standards to be promulgatedby the EPA. Again we have a severely limiting section which applies to YuccaMountain only. This section would not-include technical guidelines. Aperformance assessment of the ability of the repository to contain and isolateradioactive waste after permanent closure would be very subjective, especiallywithout the evaluation against the specific independent technical guidelines.These sections should'not be added.

The intent is being changed substantially in this amended guideline with theseverely limiting sections which are added and changed. This is not a minorchange to make this more understandable to the public as you claim. What isneeded is a reliable method for determining the suitability of a site tocontain this waste for 10,000 years. These amendments give a much-lessreliable method for determining this and, in fact, make the method fordetermining site suitability very subjective.

Although you would like to be able to lower the standards, get Yucca Mountainlicensed, and get this problem off your back, the only real answer to this isto provide all the necessary checks to determine that this facility will besafe for the next 10,000 years, and if there is any chance that this cannot bedone, there is only one solution possible, and that is not to build thefacility. Making it easier to get licensed by changing the rules and not beingconcerned about the future should not be the-stance taken. The above.amendments are all very self-serving and helpful to the DOE; however, reducingthe safety requirements -is not an option.

This entire process of characterizing Yucca Mountain is only monetarily andpolitically motivated. The utility industry is only out to make a profit fortheir shareholders. The safety of the American people is of primaryimportance. I can understand your concern as you feel you have a problem ofattempting to find this waste site suitable (which was not the original

Page 5 of 5

intent); however, once any site is approved for licensing,-the problem willonly get worse. They will almost immediately have to look for another siteelsewhere as the first site will be filled within 30 years. Nuclear energywill continue to proliferate, and your children and our children are going tohave a very serious problem.

I am opposed to amending the siting guidelines as the rules should notup as you are playing the game and can see what will be needed to win.unfair, unethical, and stands a good chance of defeat by the Courts.

Sincerely,

Barbara Hanson159 Ortiz CourtLas Vegas, NV 89110

be madeThis is

Federal Register / Vol. 62. No. 22 / Monday, February 3. 1997 / Proposed Rules 4941.

Employment Security (UnemploymentInsurance and Employment Services). SocialSecurity Act (Title III), as amended by theSocial Security Act Amendments of 1939,Section 301. on August 10. 1939. and theWagner-Peyser Act, as amended by Pub. L.81-775. section 2. on September 8. 1950; 42U.S.C. 503(a)(1) and 29 U.S.C. 49d(b).

Aid to Families with Dependent ChildrenSocial Security Act (Title IV-A), as amendedby the Social Security Act Amendments of1939. section 401, on August 10, 1939; 42U.S.C. 602(a)(5).

Aid to the Blind. Social Security Act (Titlex). as amended by the Social Security Act

Amendments of 1939. section 701. on Augu10, 1939; 42 U.S.C. 1202(a)(5)(A).

Aid to the Permanently and TotallyDisabled. Social Security Act (Title XIV, asamended by the Social Security ActAmendments of 1950, section 1402, onAugust 28. 1950; 42 U.S.C. 1352(a)(5)(A).l

Aid to the Aged. Blind or Disabled. SocialSecurity Act (Title XVI). as amended by thePublic Welfare Amendments of 1962. section1602. on July 25, 1962; 42 U.S.C.1382(a) (5) (A) .

Medical Assistance (Medicaid). SocialSecurity Act (Title XIX. as amended by theSocial Security Amendments of 1965. section1902. on July 30,1965: 42 U.S.C.1396(a)(4)(A).

State and Community Programs on A&V(Older Americans), Older Americans Act of1965 (Title III) as amended by theComprehensive Older Americans ActAmendments of 1976. section 307 on October18.1978; 42 U.S.C. 3027(a)(4).;

Foster Care and Adoption Assistance,Social Security Act (Title IV-E) as amendedby the Adoption Assistance and ChildWelfare Act of 1980; 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(5).

Part II

The following programs have a regulatoryrequirement for the establishment andmaintenance of personnel standards on amerit basis.

Program, Legislation, and RegulatoryReference

Occupational Safety and Health StandardsWilliams-Steiger Occupational Safety andHealth Act of 1970; Occupational Safety andHealth State Plans for the Development andEnforcement of State Standards; Departmentof Labor. 29 CFR 1902.3(h).

Occupational Safety and Health Statistics.Williams-Stelger Occupational Safety andHealth Act of 1970; BLS Grant ApplicationKit, May 1. 1973, Supplemental AssuranceNo. 15A.

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance andEmergency Relief Act (42 U.S.C. 5196b), asamended; 44 CFR 302.4.

[FR Doc. 97-2616 Filed 1-31-97; 8:45 am]Billing CODE 6325-O1-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Civilian and RadioactiveWaste Management

10 CFR Part 960

RIN 1901-1172

General Guidelines for theRecommendation of Sites for NuclearWaste Repositories

AGENCY: Office of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management, Energy.ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

st public comment period.

SUMMARY: In response to requests fromseveral interested persons, theDepartment of Energy has grantedadditional time to comment onproposed amendments to 10 CFR part960 that were published at 61 FR 66157December 16, 1996.

n DATES: Comments should be received nolater than March 17. 1997.ADDRESSES: All written comments are tobe submitted to April V. Gil. U.S.Department of Energy, Office of CivilianRadioactive Waste Management, YuccaMountain Site Characterization Office,P.O. Box 98608, or provided byelectronic mail to10 [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:r April V. Gil, U.S. Department of Energy/

Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement, Yucca Mountain SiteCharacterization Office, P.O. Box 98608,Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8608, (800)967-3477.

Issued in Washington. D.C. on this 28thday of January. 1997.Lake H. Barrett,Acting Director. U.S. Department ofEnergy.Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement.IFR Doc. 97-2553 Filed 131-97:8:45 amlBilling CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

Docket No. 96-NM-108-AD]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BombardierModel CL-600-2B19 (Regional JetSeries 100) Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes thesupersedure of an existing airworthinessdirective (AD), applicable to certainBombardier Model CL-600-2B19(Regional Jet Series 100) seriesairplanes. That AD currently requiresrevisions to the Airplane Flight Manual(AFM) to advise the flight crew of theneed to perform daily checks to verifyproper operation of the elevator controlsystem, and to restrict altitude andairspeed operations under certainconditions. That AD also requiresremoval of all elevator flutter dampers.That AD was prompted by reports thatthe installation of certain shear pinsmay jam or restrict movement of theelevator. The actions specified by thatAD are intended to prevent suchjamming or restricting movement of theelevator and the resultant adverse effecton the controllability of the airplane.This new proposed action would addinspections of certain airplanes to detectdeformation or discrepancies of theflutter damper hinge fittings and lug ofthe horizontal stabilizer, the elevatorhinge/damper fitting, and the shear pinlugs;And require replacement ofdiscrepant parts with serviceable parts.This proposed action also would requireinstallation of new elevator flutterdampers, and replacement of shear pinsand shear links with new, Improvedpins and links.DATES: Comments must be received byMarch 14, 1997.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA). TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM-103,Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-108-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington 98055-405&Comments may be inspected at thislocation between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00p.m., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays.

The service Information referenced inthe proposed rule may be obtained fromBombardier, Inc., Canadair, AerospaceGroup. P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9,Canada. This information may beexamined at the FAA, TransportAirplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or atthe FAA, Engine and PropellerDirectorate, New York AircraftCertification Office, 181 South FranklinAvenue. Valley Stream, New York.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Franco Peri. Aerospace Engineer,Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, New York Aircraft CertificationOffice, FAA, Engine and PropellerDirectorate, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor,Valley Stream, New York 11581;

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF FRANKIE SUE DEL PAPAATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEVADA

REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'SPROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR 960

SUBMITTED AT HEARINGLAS VEGAS, NEVADA

JANUARY 23, 1997

INTRODUCTION

On December 16, 1996, the Department of Energy proposed to aMend 10 CFR 960;

General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories (Siting

Guidelines), 61 Federal Register 66157 (December 16, 1996). The proposed amendments to the

Siting Guidelines are inconsistent with the federal statute (Section 112(a) of the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 10132 (a)); inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit Court of 'Appeals

reasoning in three cases: Nevada v. Watkins, 914 F.2d 1545, 1562 (9th Cir. 990)(Watkins I);

Nevada v. Watkins, 939 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir. 1991) (Watkins II); and Nevada v. Watkins, 943

F. 2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1991) (Watkins III); and bad public policy. The office of the Attorney

General of the State of Nevada opposes the proposed amendments in their entirety. Nevada's

Governor has also stated his opposition on behalf of the State of Nevada. See attached letter,

Governor Robert Miller to Secretary Hazel O'Leary, dated December 24, 1996.

In 1982, Congress established a political compromise with the states in which the

Department of Energy was then exploring the potential for deep geological- sites for the

placement of high-level nuclear waste repositories, a compromise now long since dashed by

inconsistent administrative actions of the Department and the political power and self interest of

the nuclear power industry. The compromise resulting in the enactment of the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. §§. 10101 et seq., required the Department to study sites in

-1-

various geologies (site characterization," 42 U.S.C. 10133), measure what DOE scientists

found against pre-established minimum physical conditions (siting guidelines, 42 U.S.C.

10132(a)) and compare the waste containment competence of each site on the basis of the

respective site's physical attributes.

In 1984, the Department of Energy began what was to become a pattern of compromises

to the site characterization process envisioned by the Congress in 10133(b) by the enactment of

siting guidelines which contained subjective evaluation criteria and subjective minimum

conditions (49 Fed. Reg. 5670, December 6, 1984).- Nearly every state which had a candidate

site challenged the guidelines in court cases which were eventually consolidated in the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals.

By 1987, the Department had so politicized the evaluation process, thereby offending

politically powerful states, that a frustrated Congress abandoned site characterization at other

potentially competent sites. Congress, however, left intact the requirement in 42 U.S.C.

10132(a) that the Department measure what it learned about Yucca Mountain against objective,

preestablished minimum physical conditions.

Now the Department wants to make the comparative process even more subjective by

removing the requirement that the physical attributes of Yucca Mountain be measured against

the present guidelines. The Department's proposed new approach would establish nothing more

than a subjective prediction that Yucca Mountain will work in terms of total system

performance. This approach abandons the statute, further abandons the political compromise,

and most importantly, abandons the policy expectation that minimum physical attributes will

exist in any deep geological disposal site.

-2-

N

Nevada sought the Ninth Circuit Court's assistance in 1985 to direct the Department to

enact objective siting guidelines. In 1991, the Ninth Circuit found the issue premature,

determining that the issue must be addressed when the Department uses the guidelines, not when

it drafts them. Watkins II, supra. In 1990, Nevada again sought the Court's assistance in

requiring the DOE to institute a "methodology,some formalized system of data collection,

evaluation and decision making, to determine early and throughout the [site characterization]

process, whether or not any Disqualifying Conditions exist, and if so, for making the required

decision to terminate work at the site whenever such a condition is found." Watkins 11, supra,

at 1561. The Court held that although "the guidelines developed by the Secretary pursuant to

section 10132(a), are. to be utilized to determine the suitability of Yucca Mountain for the

location of the repository," (Id. at 1562), [b]ecause the Secretary is not required to promulgate

regulations governing the timing of a disqualification decision, judicial review of his decision

not to do so is not available under. section 10139(a)" (Id. at 1563), and "the timing of a

disqualification decision is committed to the Secretary's discretion by law" (Id. at 1564).

Watkins I and Watkins II, at a minimum, stand for the proposition that the guidelines

which were promulgated by the DOE in 1984 and upon which the Yucca Mountain site was

selected for characterization were to be used to determine the suitability of the site, and at the

time of a suitability determination the validity of the guidelines would be subject to review by'

the Ninth Circuit or District of Columbia Courts of Appeals. The DOE's present intention to

substitute the proposed new guidelines for the guidelines which have governed the site

characterization process for the past 12 years is an admission either that the guidelines will not

satisfy such a review or'that the site cannot satisfy the guidelines. In either case, the process

-3-

self destructs. It is improper for the DOE to obfuscate the deficiencies of either the guidelines

or the site by substituting a new set of guidelines which is based upon the subjective opinion by

unspecified persons that the site may perform satisfactorily, a process which has no support in

law. My office will have no choice but to challenge this improvident decision, if pursued, in

court.

THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 112(a) OF THENUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT WILL BE VIOLATED BYTHE PROPOSED RULE.

The proposed rule does not comply with the clear direction of Section 112(a) of the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act which clearly requires that the siting guidelines specify factors that

qualify or disqualify any site from development as a repository.

"Such guidelines shall specify detailed geologic considerations that shall beprimarv criteria for the selection of sites.. . . Such guidelines shall specifyfactors that qualify or disgualify an site from development as a repositoryincluding factors pertaining to the location of valuable natural resources.hydrology. geophysics. seismic activity and atomic energy defense activities.proximity to water supplies. proximity to populations, the effect upon the rightsof users of water, and proximity to components of the National Park System, theNational Wilderness Preservation System, or National Forest Lands.. Suchguidelines shall take into consideration the proximity to sites where high-level-radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel is generated or temporarily stored andthe transportation and safety factors involved in moving such waste to arepository.... Such guidelines also shall require the Secretary to consider thecost and impact of transporting to the repository site the solidified high-levelradioactive waste and spent fuel to be disposed of in the repository and theadvantages of regional distribution in the siting of repositories.

Under the DOE's proposed amendment to the siting guidelines "Discrete, independent

findings on individual technical factors would not be required." 61 Fed. Reg. 66160. But

independent findings on individual technical factors is required by Section 112 (a). Those

technical factors which should make up the guidelines must be "use[d] . .. in considering

-4-

candidate sites for recommendation [to the President for development as a repository] under

subsection (b) of this section." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that "the site

recommendation guidelines, issued pursuant to section 112(a) of the NWPA, 42

U.S.C.§10132(a) (1988) require the Secretary to address site ownership and jurisdiction issues

as well as transportation issues in any recommendation he [she] makes to develop Yucca

Mountain as a repository site. Watkins III at 1086, note 9. Predictably, in a case which my

office may be compelled to bring, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will likely hold that the

siting guidelines must also require that the Secretary address the other independent factors listed

in section 10132(a) in advance of recommending Yucca Mountain for development as a

repository.

In its "Description of Proposed Action" the Department states that:

the DOE has now determined that a system performance assessment approachprovides the most meaningful methodof evaluating whether the Yucca Mountainsite is suitable for development of a repository. The performance assessments (4-6) conducted to date have consistently driven the DOE to focus its evaluation ofthe Yucca Mountain site on those aspects most important to predicting how theoverall system will perform in isolating and containing waste. 61 Fed. Reg.66160.

Overall system performance is not, however, the determination required by section 112(a). The

Department is not permitted to "focus its evaluation," but rather to determine how Yucca

Mountain stacks up against all the statutorily required technical factors.

Although Congress's 1987 Amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act "eliminat[ed]

the [Department's] authority to consider other potential sites" for development, or consider them

as alternative choices in the Department's final environmental impact statement, 42 U.S.C.

10134(f)(3); (Watkins III, supra), Congress did not eliminate the requirement that the

-5-

Department compare what it learns about Yucca Mountain against what it knows about other

sites as a means of evaluating the competency of Yucca Mountain as a repository site. Had

Congress wanted to eliminate that, requirement, it could have repealed or, amended section

112(a). Congress has not.

THE DEPARTMENT DERIVES IMPROPER AND WRONGCONCLUSIONS FROM THE AUTHORITIES ON WHICH ITRELIES TO SUPPORT ITS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

The Department relies on language within the Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 1996

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, H.R. Rep. No. 293, 104th Cong., 1st Sess,

68 (1995) and the Report on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1997, H.

R. Rep. No. 782, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 82 (1996) for the suggestion that Congress is prepared

to accept a subjective performance assessment" approach in place of an objective technical

factor approach to site suitability. It is an elementary principle of statutory interpretation that

construing courts need not consider the legislative intent contained in committee reports or

individual expressions of members where an unambiguous statute provides clear direction. The

clear direction of section 10132(a) obviously prevails over later observations about its meaning,

notwithstanding the fact that individual, pro-nuclear utility oriented members of the Congress,

Congressional committees or the Department of Energy would impose a different interpretation.

The Department misconstrues those statements in any event. The direction of the Conference

Report on the Fiscal Year 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, H.R. Rep.

No. 293, 104th Cong., 1st Sess, 68 (1995), that the Department "refocus the repository program

on completing the core scientific activities at Yucca Mountain' and "collect the scientific

information needed to determine the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site," 61 Fed. Reg.

-6-

Innoventech, Inc.P.O. Box 1238, ah rump, NV 89041-1238

Voice-Mail: (702) 387-7213Retun FAX: (702) 751-0739

FAX COVER SHEET

Date: 1997

FROM: Robert W. Bass, M.A.Oxon, Ph.D.Registered Patent Agent 29,130

rbrtbassepahrump.com:Unlisted personal: (702) 751-0932

TO

.

FAX NUMBER

To: allen [email protected] (Allen Benson)From: [email protected] (Robert W. Bass)Subject: Follow-up to my Public Testimony

cc: Editor. Las Vegas Review-Journal,cc: Editor. (Las Vegas) Suncc: Drs. Miley & Kim

Allen B. BensonDirector, Office of Institutional AffairsU.S. Department of Energy (DOE)Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementYucca Mountain Project

1551 Hillshire Drive, Suite ALas Vegas, NV 89134(702) 794-141 1; FAX (702) 794-543 1Allen benson enotes.yp.gov

Dear Mr. Benson,Thank you for giving me your card with your e-address.Please note that the single sentence-which propose to add to

the Proposed Revised Guidelines is:(a) constructive [not merely negative

castigation];(b) face-saving for the Secretary of Energy.

If what I am claiming has been'done and published in refereedarchival journals is not replicable by the DOE labs, then the sentence I

propose would be inoperative! Notice that I have placed the burden ofproof on the minority-group of nuclear physicists whose opinions Ishare! If the obsolete dogmatists running the National Academy ofScience and the Office of Energy Research at DOE Headquarterscontinue to insist that my proposed" providential solution" for thepresent crisis is "physically impossible then ask them why theywould object to the addition of my proposed sentence,since it places

Page I of 4

demonstration which, if the existing dogatists are correct, can not bemet?

The two best-credentaled dissenters who come immediately tomy mind are:,

(1) Dr. George Miley, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaigne;Fusion Studies Lab & long-time Editor of

Fusion Technology" Journal:[email protected]

(2) Dr. Yeong Kim, Prof. of Nuclear Physics, [email protected]

both of whom presented papers at the recent "2nd InternationalConference on Low-Energy Nuclear Transmutations."

If the DOE-Hq dogmatists are truly certain in their hearts thatthe dissenters are scientifically mistaken, they would have no objectionto adding the constructive sentence I propose; however, if theyobject to it, then the only logical reason for such objection would bethat they are secretly afraid that the dissenters might be right (whichwould adversely affect their own status & prvileges), which is anIGNOBLE motive for censorship

Please do not fail to warn the Secretary of Energy that theactivist dissenters who object to the nation's high-level wastes beingtrucked into Nevada are dead-serious! If DOE trucks drive over andkill Non-Violent Protestors, the Federal Government will be starting anew Civil War! Notice that Nevada's Governor, both Senators, andmost local opinion-makers (regardless of differences on many politicalissues) are UNITED in their opposition to the "Screw Nevada Bill."Does the DOE _truly_ want to be responsible for starting a new Civilwar?

Before I presented my Testimony, the highest-level DOEofficials were merely guilty of

CULPABLE DERELICTION OF DUTY.(Don't forget that Admiral Short was Court-Martialed for being asleepon his watch at Pearl Harbor.) How can the DOE explain the fact thatthe Japanese have started a $50Million "cold fusion" research institute,whereas the

POLITICIZED MANAGEMENTS

Page 2 of 4

of the DOE Labs continue to insist that "cold fusion" is a mirage? Ipersonally know many EXCELLENT scientists at the DOE Labs whotell their most trusted friends privately that they would like to work oncold fusion & low-energy nuclear transmutation but are afraid of beingpunished by their bosses! Someday this will be a scandal worse than"who lost China?" and the dogmatists presently responsible will beexposed to historical obloquy, if not jail-sentences. Indeed, now that Ihave placed indisputably upon the historical record that there is a

LESS EXPENSIVE,SAFER SOLUTIONthen these dogmatists will be guilty of

CRIMINALLY CULPABLE DERELICITION OF DUTY-if they continue to ignore and to censor minority-dissenting Views.

Thank you for your attention.Sincerely,

Bob Bass

OFF THE RECORDBusiness CONFIDENTIAL

NOT for Public Quotationt

if you get the sentence added to the proposed guidelines, therewill be immediately forthcoming enough private investment funds todemonstrate the Low-Energy ANNIHILATION of Radionuclides on asufficiently massive scale that the public will demand the adoption ofthis allegedly heretical new technology, and DOE will be off thehook! As proof I cite the following business-CONFIDENTIALinformation.

I know a patent attorney, Mr. X, who is so brilliant that While hewas a high-school student in Princeton the university allowed him toattend graduate courses in physics. During the past 8 years, he has hadonly 2 clients, one of them being a well known muti-bilion DOEcontractor, corporation Y, which reportedly presently has a multibillioncontract with the DOE to remediate certain nuclear wastes now storedin liquid form in vast quantities: Mr. X has the confidence of theChairman & President of corporation Y. After I drafted thePatent

page 3 of 4

Application on the Neal-Gleeson Process, Mr X revised my first draftuntil he was totally satisfied that it would pass muster at corporation Y,before I filed it. He then told my clients, verbally, "if you can getCREDIBLE 3rd party verification of your technology [such as in VicePresident Al Gores home state by the DOE lab at Oak Ridge, TN, orby George Miley at UIUC], then I will recommend to the Chairman ofcorporation Y that they offer to purchase your patent for $250 Millionwith a $25 Million down-payment!". Since my clients are unwilling tosell at any price, the situation is at an impasse. However,. if the DOEadded the sentence I propose, then private funds would materialize thatwould permit my clients to make an IMMDIATE large-scale publicdemonstration., This would get the DOE off the hook and wouldprovide a providential constructive solution that would be clean, safe,

ANEUTRONIC, and otherwise environmentally ideal and wouldsatisfy the anti-FISSION activists (who are not yet aware of thebenefits of Cold Fusion). The DOE ought to pay Clean EnergyTechnology, Inc. the annual leasing fee of $3,750 for one of thedo-it-yourself Demonstration Kits from, CETI in order to verify thatCold Fusion is a reality. if they continue to insist dogmatically thatCold Fusion is a mirage, then the Public Testimony of the 20 scientistsor institutions now testing the CETI kits (offered for sale at the lastmeeting of the American Nuclear Society) will cause them to become

INDICTABLE. for CRIMINAL FRAUD ON THE, PUBLIC!

Page 4 of 4

The Honorable Charles CurtisActing Secretary

U. S.Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue S.W.

Washington, DC 20585

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I a writing to register my strong opposition to proposedrulemaking by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Mangement(OCRWM) titled "General Guidelines for the recommendation of Sices forNuclear waste Repositories" published in the Federal Register nn

December 16,1996. In addition, I strongly urge you to extend by atleast 120 days the comment period on these proposed changes,:r.a- c for a cprsenuiv sries o aasirags ete B qct at theearliest possible date..

The proposed changes to the siting guidelines would represent yetanother In a long of broken comitments of the Department ofEnergy to the people of Nevada. A change from demonstating compliance

with a variety of important health and safety factors, as required bythe Nuclear waste Policy Act, to a simple estimtion of whethe or notthe repository can meet a single radiation release standard reducerPublic confidance in the suitability determination and places thehealth and safety of Nevadana at risk. The proposed change is wholly

inappropriate, and will, if made final, justifiably result in a lawsuitagainst the doe from the State of Nevada.

In addition to being completely misguided for substantive reasons.the Department of Energy' s token efforts to meet its obigations forpublic input further compromise the integrity of any eventualsuitability determination by the department. At a minimum the.Depatment should provide for at least an additional 120 days forpublic comment. and schedule a series of hearings n a manner which

substantial and exhaustive public comment. The one day hearingon the subject recently comp1etd in Nevada is completely indadequatefor a proposed change of the magnitude suggested by the OCRWM anDecember 16.

-I appreciate your attention to this matter, and look forward toyour response.

Women Speak Out for Peace and Justicebranch ofWOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUEFOR PEACE AND FREEDOMP. 0. Box 18138 - Cleveland, Ohio 44118'

Junuary 28, 1998

April V. GilU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste ManagementYucca Mountain Site Characterization OfficeP 0 Box 98608Las Vagas, NV 89193-8608

Dear Ms. Gill:

I am writing to comment on the DOE change in rules to exempt the Yucca Mountain Site fromprevious specific general site qualifications for storage of high level radioactive waste for the interimand the long term.

Throwing out the current-guidelines in a rush to assure Yucca Mountain is the only site that can beconsidered is short-sighted. A long range, safe-for-living-things, policy is what is required seeing that'interim' storage may be forever, and the future of thousands of generations is at stake.

Transportation to Yucca Mountain will involve 43 states. In Ohio we have experienced 692 toxicspills from 1992 through 1995. When 50 million Americans could be affected by this transportation ofradioactive materials, we are being sensible in demanding a public safety plan devised in public by theaffected citizens. In Ohio hazardous chemicals are banned from highly traveled routes, but HC does notinclude radioactive materials so all will be at risk in funnel effect from the East to Yucca Mountain.

This change must be politically rather than scientifically motivated when the Nuclear Waste PolicyAct Section 112 is set aside make sure only Yucca Mountain can be selected. We at Women Speak Outfor Peace and Justice/ WILPF again demand a public national debate on this issue. The charges ofenvironmental racism must be-brought against the DOE in their actions against the Western ShoshoneNation. The collusion of the Departnent and the Nuclear Industrial Complex seem to be the only pos-sible explanation for these actions.

Sincerely,Marty Grey

Environment Committee

CC: President Bill ClintonSenator John GlennSenator Mike DeWineRepresentative Steve ChabotRepresentative Rob PortmanRepresentative Tony HallRepresentative Michael OxleyRepresentative Paul GillmorRepresentative Ted Strictland

Representative David Hobson'Representative John BoehnerRepresentative Marcy KapturRepresentative Dennis KuciniclRepresentative Louis StokesRepresentative John KaiichRepresentative Sherrod BrownRepresentative Thomas SawyerRepresentative Deborah Piyce

Representative Ralph'RegulaRepresentative James TraficantRepresentative Robert Ney

Resentative Steve LaTouretteHon. FREDERICO Pena, DOELake L Barrett, DOEUS EPA Radiation protectionShoshone NationPlain Dealer

Date post:	14-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

General Guidelines for Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear … · 2012-11-18 · Independence...

Documents