' DoE/EW--0354P I -1 TI92 014239 - 

May 1992 

1. US. Department of Energy 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Washington, DC 20585 ,I I. 
DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored 

by an agency of the United States Government. Neither. the 

United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any 

of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, ' 

or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the 

accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, 

apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that 

its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference 

herein to any specific commercial product, process, or 

service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or 

otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its 

endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United 

States Govemment or any-agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily 

state or reflect those of the United States Government or 

any agency thereof. 
DlSCLAlMER 

Portions of this document may be illegible 

in electronic image 

produced Prom the 

document. 

products. Images. are 

best avaiiabie original 
-0CRWM 

Bulletin 

United States Department of Energy 

Ofice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Washington, DC 20585 

Introduction 

The OCRWM Bulletin is published by the Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, to provide current information about the national program for managing spent fuel and 

high-level radioactive waste. This document is a compilation of issues from the 1991 calendar year. 

A table of contents and an index have been provided to reference information contained in this year's 

Bulk tins. Consecutive page numbers can be found at the bottom of each page. 

Table of Contents 

December/January 199 1 ...................................................................................................... 1 

April 199 1 ......................................................................................................................... 27 

July/August 199 1 ............................................................................................................... 49 

September/October 1991 ................................................................................................... 63 

NovemberDecernber 199 1 ............................................................................................... 7 1 

1991 Index ......................................................................................................................... 79 

Februarymarch 1991 .......................................................................................................... 9 

May/June 1991 .................................................................................................................. 39 
OCRWM 

Bulletin 

DOURW4301P 

United States Department of Energ: 

Ofice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Managemen 

Washington, DC 2058: 

December 199OlJanuary 199, 

DOE Issues Assessment of Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy 

In December 1982, Congress passed the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) 

which includeda direction that a feeof 1.0 

mill per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of 

electricity generatedand sold by a nuclear 

utility shall be collected into a NWF to 

pay the full costs of the program to 

dispose of civilian nuclear waste. In 

addition, DOE would pay its fair share of 

the costs to permanently dispose of the 

high-level radioactive waste generated by 

its weapons production activities. 

Through Fiscal Year (FY) 1989, 

approximately $4.0 billion has been paid 

by the utilities into them. The NWF 

has earned $609 million on interest on 

investments in Government securities 

through FY 1989. At the end of FY 1989, 

the NWF had a balance of $2.2 billion. 

The FY 1990 financial figures are 

currently being audited. The unaudited 

NWF balance form 1990 is $2.6 billion. 

It is to be expected that the NWF will 

exhibit a large positive balance when 

program expenses are low. The fund 

balance is presently estimated to peak in 

the mid-2020s, and then decline steadily 

to zero at the end of the repository 

decommissioning about the year 2075. 

Congressanticipated thepotentialneedat 

some time in the life of the program for 

changing the 1.0 mill per kwh fee, and 

provided a method for recommending a 

change. DOE has recognized in previous 

fee adequacy reports that the fee may need 

to be increased at some time in the future. 

DOE’S policy is to conduct a thorough 

analysis annually, and to recommend a 

change in the fee when there is a 

compelling case for the change. Two 

methods have been considered by DOE 

for adjusting the fee when necessary. 

They are (1) indexing to inflation and (2) 

less frequent step adjustments. DOE’S 

preferred method for changing the fee is 

the step adjustment. This method 

provides for a change in the fee based 

upon programmatic as well as economic 

factors, and requires DOE to fully justify 

each fee change proposed. 

DOE’S current evaluation, the sixth in a 

series of fee adequacy reports, considers 

all program changes that have taken place 

since thelast report was published in June 

1987. In making this evaluation, analyses 

were made of a variety of scenarios 

involving construction of either one or 

two repositories, and various inflation 

rate projections. Based on the findings in 

the analysis for a base-case scenario 

utilizing an inflation rate of 4 percent and 

a real interest rate of 3 percent, DOE does 

not find a compelling case for 

recommending a fee adjustment at this 

time. The report, “Nuclear Waste Fund 

Fee Adequacy: An Assessment,” DOE/ 

RW-O291P, contains the methodology, 

sumptions and analyses supporting thir 

~nclusion. A copy of this report i! 

railableonrequestby calling (202) 586. 

722 or by writing to the U.S 

epartment of Energy, OCRWM (RW. 

l), 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

rashington, DC 20585. * 

DOE Issucs Assessmat of Nuclear Wpstc Fund 

Fee Adequacy 1 

DOE and Oftice of Nuclear Waste Negotiator Sign Manormdurn of Undcrstanding 2 

Nuclcar WasteTedmid Review 

Board Issua Its Second Rcport to Cmgrcss and the Secrrtary of En= 2 

OCRWM Holds Wohhop on V+ac 

hfanaganat P&Q~ and Strategc Rinaplcs 4 

SaGodtaffM&rwirhFordgnCountapam 

fcuRadioaaive WasteManaganat comminec 

and Bilateral Agreemat Mccring 4 

WE Issues Rogrcss Repon on the Sciatific 

Invcztigation Rogram forthc Nevada Yucca 

Mountain Site 5 

New Publications and Docrrmatr. 5 

WE Holds Rojcct Update Mcaings in Nevada 6 

Transpoxtaticn Coordination Group Mcets in 

Albuquerque, NM 6 

Publfshed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of CIvIIIan Radloactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 

For further information about the national program or for copies of new OCRWM publications and documents listed in the OCRWMBullehmtact the U.S. Department t 

Energy, OCRWM, Office of External Relations, Mail Stop RW-5.1,1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington. DC 20585, (202) 586-5722. The OCRWM Informatio 

Servlcss Dkecfory Is available to provide sources of program information. 

91:l 
2 

mode1,acceptablewithahighdegree 

of confidence, shouldnot beviewed 

as prerequisite to site suitability or 

to ensuring public safety and 

environmental protection. 

Geologic licensing criteria and 

December 1990lJanuary 1991 

6. The DOE should consider 

expanding its development program 

for dry-drilling equipment to 

include the capability to drill 

inclined holes. 

Performance Assessment 

DOE and Office of Nuclear Waste Negotiator 

Sign Memorandum of Understanding 

The Office of the Nuclear Waste 

Negotiator (O"), an independent 

office in the Executive Branch, was 

established by amendments to the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1987. The 

mission of 0" is to attempt to reach a 

proposed agreement between the United 

States and a State or Indian Tribe willing 

to host a monitored retrievable storage 

facility or a permanent repository within 

their jurisdiction as part of an integrated 

waste management system for the 

disposal of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel radioactive waste. 

On November 29, 1990, the Negotiator 

and the Secretary of Energy signed an 

initial Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) that specifies the working 

relationship and points of contact 

between the two organizations. This 

agreement facilitates the use of DOE 

services, personnel, facilities, and 

information in furtherance of the 

objectives of 0" while maintaining 

the integrity and inde-pendence of both 

organizations. DOE intends to cooperate 

fully with the ON", in accordance with 

the Secretary's rights and responsibilities 

under the amended NWPA. 

SubsequentMOUs may beentered into at 

a later date regarding other provisions of 

the NWPA, as amended, addressing such 

matters as the environmental assessment 

of potential sites for a monitored 

retrievable storage facility or apermanent 

repository, and financialassistancegrants 

to potential host jurisdictions to assess the 

feasibility of siting a monitored 

retrievable storage facility. * 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board lssues Its Second Reporf 

fo Congress and the Secretary of Energy 

Congress created the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board (NWTRB) in 

1987 to evaluate the scientific and 

technical validity of activities undertaken 

by DOE in its civilian high-level nuclear 

waste disposd program. In accordance 

with the requirements of the amended 

MA, theNWTRB submitteditssecond 

report to Congress and DOE Secretary 

Watkins on November 27, 1990. This 

report contains the following 

recommendations: 

Effects of seismicity and faulting on 

facilio design and site suitability 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Increasedemphasisshouldbeplaced 

on understanding the engineering, 

public safety, and environmental 

consequences of seismic events at 

Yucca Mountain, including 

earthquakes of magnitudes larger 

than those that are likely to occur 

during the lifetime of the facility. 

Discussionsofsitesuitability should 

be basedon thelikelihood ofadverse 

consequences and not on the 

occurrence of earthquake ground 

motion or fault displacement alone. 

Formulation of a specific tectonic 

4. 

stan&& for the repository and its 

surface facilities should reflect the 

nature and relative vulnerability of 

the repository compIex and the 

problems it poses. The criteria and 

standards should ensure public 

safety and environmental protection 

in the light of current scientific 

knowledge and engineering 

practice, including the feasible 

mitigation of adverse consequences. 

Testing for site suitability 

5. Planned scientific testing of the 

Yucca Mountain geologic block 

should be re-evaluated to give 

highest priority to those tests and 

studies that provide the data 

essential to assess the suitability of 

the site. Eachproposedstudy should 

be evaluated in terms of procedures, 

technologies, test locations, and 

appropriateness in meeting stated 

objectives. 

The DOE should continue using 

decision-aiding methodology to 

provide more explicit and formal 

means for relating program 

decisions to risk and performance 

issues. Such issuesshouldbeusedin 

an iterative and ongoing fashion to 

explain the reasoning behind major 

programmatic decisions before 

these decisions are committed. The 

four existing DOE task force studies 

applying these methods should be 

closely coordinated. 

TheDOE shouldcontinue to develop 

methods for assessing expert 

judgment in areas of significant 

uncertainty. Furthermore, theDOE 

should incorporate into the current 

task force studies the views of 

technical experts outside the DOE 

and its contractors. The basis for 

each expert judgment needs to be 

carefully documented. 

(continued on page 3) 
December 1990lJanuary 1991 3 

Nuclear Wasfe Technical Review Board Issues lis Second Reporf io Congress and the Secrefary of Energy (confinued from page 2) 

+ 

9. The DOE should consider 

investigating more extensively the 

usc of ~aual analogues to support 

performance assessment for a 

ljotential repository at the Yucca 

Mountain site. 

Longllived waste packages 

10. Atafuturemeeting,theDOEshould 

' respond to the Engineered Barrier 

System (EBS) Panel's four 

questions of January 6, 1990, 

relating to EBS performance. It 

should be emphasized that the 

NWTRB interest in a robust, 

extended-life EBS does not imply a 

diminished interest in the geologic 

barrier's contribution to overall 

repository performance; rather, the 

Board is suggesting engineered 

barriers may reduce the adverse 

consequences associated with 

difficult-to-predict geologic or 

climatological events. 

11. A .workshop should be held to 

investigate the practicality, 

advantages, and disadvantages of 

developing a robust, extended-life 

EBS that would contribute to 

containment for periods of time well 

beyond 1,OOO years. The NWTRB 

would be pleased to assist in 

developing an agenda for such a 

workshop. 

Waste container materials, 

configurations, and disposal 

environments 

12. Studies of alternative materials 

should be restarted. These studies 

should include evaluation of 

container materials and designs, 

emplacementdesigns, andcontainer 

configurations, including both 

intemal absorbing materials and 

external back-fill materials. ,, * , 

13. Heater tests should be reinitiated. 

These tests should examine the 

effects of alternative emplacement 

orientations and three-dimensional 

and multiple heat sources for arange 

of thermal loads. 

14. The EBS development and testing 

program should be coordinated and 

funded at a level sufficient to 

produce a statistical basis for 

assessing its contribution to longterm predictions of repository 

behavior. Tests should be longterm, preferably exceeding five 

years, and include both laboratory 

and field testing. 

Coordination and integration of 

environmental studies 

15. TheDOE shouldcontinue to include 

in its study plans the interests and 

concerns of Native Americans, the 

States of CalifomiaandNevada, the 

National Park Service, the Soil 

Conservation Service, and the U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

16. The DOE and the State of Nevada 

should explore the poss'ibility of 

initiating a cooperative program to 

develop baseline environmental 

information. 

17. All environmental programs at the 

Yucca Mountain site funded by the 

Nuclear Waste Fund should be 

developed and conducted in a 

manner that the data obtained are 

appropriate to and can be used 

during licensing. 

18. An integrated environmental 

program that takes cognizance of 

ecosystem processes should be I developed for the Yucca Mountain 

i , . site.. The results of this program ' should permit assessment of the 

effects of site characterization and 

repository construction and 

operation on the local ecosystem. 

The program should also provide a 

basis for understanding ecologic 

pathways for any radioactive 

materials that might escape 

containment during repository 

construction, operation, and 

decommissioning. 

Human factors and system safety 

in transportation and handling of 

spent fuel 

19. TheNuclearRegulatoryCommission 

should develop policy statements, 

program guidelines, and, if feasible, 

criteriadocuments in human factors 

and system safety engineering that 

will help ensure that the DOE'S 

and utilities' system acquisition 

programs address future accident 

potentials. The goal should be for 

the system acquisition programs to 

be complete in all the technologies 

that can contribute to operational 

safety and efficiency including 

emergency and mitigation planning. 

- 

20. Priority should be placed on 

developing a high-level waste 

management system that minimizes 

handling of spent fuel. 

In its concluding perspectives, the 

NWTRB expressed its pleasure with 

DOE'S efforts to address issues and 

concerns thattheBoard hasraised. Italso 

indicated that the DOE has made a goodfaith effort to address the 

recommendations contained in the First 

Report of NWTRB. OCRWM is 

currently reviewing the Second Report of 

NWTRB, and arespnse is scheduled for 

May 1991. * 

91:3 
4 

The OCRWM Bulletin for October/ 

November 1990 announced workshops 

on waste management policies and 

strategic principles to be held on 

December 4-5,1990, in Salt Lake City, 

UT, and January 15-16, 1991, in 

Washington, DC. These workshops are 

part of DOE’songoingeffortto secure the 

effective participation by affected and 

involved parties in the development of 

waste management policies and strategic 

December 1990lJanuary 1991 

principles that will be used for planning, 

decision making, and to guide program 

implementation. 

The Salt Lake City workshop focused 

primarily on strategic principles relating 

to ensuring public safety and protecting 

the environment. Because of the very 

productive dialogue that took place 

during this meeting, a third workshop will 

be scheduled to inform intcrested parties 

OCRWM Holds Workshops on Waste Managemenf Policies 

and Strategic Principles 

Senior Staff Meet with Foreign Counterparts for Radioactive Waste Managemenf Commiffee and 

Bilateral Agreement Meetings 

During the period September 3 - 13,1990, Dr. J. W. Bartlett, Director of OCRWM, and 

Mr.T.H.Isaacs,Directorof theOfficeofStrategicPlanningandInternationa1 Programs, 

traveled to France, Switzerland, and Sweden for Radioactive Waste Management 

Committee and Bilateral Agreement meetings. 

The purpose of Dr. Bartlett’s travel to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) in Switzerland and Sweden was 

to meet with official representatives from other nations to discuss salient features of, and 

to exchange information relevant to, high-level radioactive waste management 

programs. In addition, the bilateral agreement meeting with Sweden provided Dr. 

Bartlett the opportunity to sign an extension of the U.S./Sweden radioactive waste 

management agreement through September 9,1995. 

Isaacs travelled toFrance in order to officiallyrepresent theunited States at the OECD/ 

NEARadioactive Waste Management Committee meeting to present U.S. positions on 

OECD/NEA agenda items and present the current U.S. program status. 

Isaacs’ travel to Switzerlarid and Sweden was to represent OCRWM as the Principal 

Coordinator at thebilated agreement meetings with the Swiss National Cooperative for 

the Disposal of Radioactive Waste (NAGRA) and the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste 

Management Company. The purposes of the bilateral agreement meetings were to: 1) 

conduct a brief review of each organization’s radioactive waste management program; 

2) assess current exchange activities and organizational interactions; and 3) to identify, 

discuss, and record plans for implementation of cooperative activities. 

The NAGRA/OCRWM bilateral agreement meeting also provided the opportunity for 

the U.S. representatives to discuss plans associated with implementation of the latest 

ProjectAgreement. Severalsitevisitstookplacetoestablishanimprovedunderstanding 

of both Swiss and Swedish programmatic activities for identification-of sites for 

radioactive waste disposal and underground research. * 

about DOE’S response regarding the 

issues raised at the earlier workshops. 

The Washington, DC, workshop, 

concentrated on the stewardship of 

resources and the effectiveness of 

operations. Discussionsat this workshop 

were directed at the specific issues 

addressing the use of dual purpose casks 

for transportation and storage, 

contingency planning, the role of utilities 

and the Federal Government in the 

management of spent fuel before 

disposal, monitored retrievable storagerelated issues, and management issues. 

In order to ensure full and free discussion, 

the workshops are moderated by aneutral 

facilitator experienced in guiding such 

public discussions. Participants are asked 

to speak as individuals rather than as 

official representatives of specific 

organizations. Notes are taken for use in 

further development of strategic 

principles for the program, but individual 

participants will not be quoted in written 

products prepared on the basis of 

conference discussions. This approach is 

being taken in order to encourage all 

parties to express their views at the 

workshops. * 
December 1990lJanuary 1991 5 

DOE Issues Progress Report on fhe Scientific lnvesfigafion Program for fhe Nevada Yucca Mounfain Sife 

In accordance with the requirements of 

the amended Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 

DOE haspreparedareport on theprogress 

of scientific investigation activities at 

Yucca Mountain, NV, from October 1, 

1989,, through March 31, 1990. This 

progress report is the second of a series of 

reports that are issued at intervals of about 

six qonths during site characterization. 

The .fKst progress report was issued in 

February 1990 (see OCRWM Bulletin, 

February/hkuch, 1990, foradescription). 

This and future progress reports will be 

submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) and to the Governor 

and legislature of Nevada. It will also be 

made available to the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board, affected units 

of local government, and the general 

public. 

The progress report provides highlights 

of workstartedduringtheperiod, work in 

progress, and work completed and 

documented during the reporting period. 

Among the highlights of the report arc 

A formal evaluation of configuration and construction 

alternatives for theexploratory shaft 

facility (ESF) was initiated during 

the October 1989-March 1990 

period. The study began by 

establishing a formal decision 

methodology to evaluate therelative 

attributes of various exploratory 

shaft and ramp configurations at the 

Yucca Mountain site. In parallel, 17 

options for the ESF configuration 

have been developed that 

incorporate shafts and ramps at 

various locations and have been 

integrated with conceptual layouts 

for a potential repositoxy at Yucca 

Mountain. 

In February 1990, theU.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service issued a Biological 

Opinion that scientific investigation 

activities at Yucca Mountain would 

not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the desert tortoise. The 

Biological Opinion contained 

specific terms and conditions that 

the DOE is implementing to 

minimize the potential effects on the 

tortoise. 

DOE continued efforts to qualify 

thequalityassurance(QA) programs 

of OCRWM and participating 

organizations. Following the 

November 1989 and March 1990 

audits of Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, OCRWM has 

determined that all primary 

participant QA programs are 

acceptable for further implementation. In addition, all project 

participant QA Program Plans 

submittedduring thereportingperiod 

were accepted by the NRC. 

Anew YuccaMountain Information 

Office was opened in Las Vegas in 

March 1990. Both this office and 

the information office in Beatty, 

NV, are open daily to the public 

to provide additional information 

about the program and scientific‘ 

investigation activities. 

A report was issued entitled “The 

Potential Use of Lead in the Waste 

Package for a Geologic Repository 

at Yucca Mountain, Nevada” (see 

OCRWM Bulletin, FebruaryjMarch, 

1990, for a description). 

Work continued on the characteristics and behavior of the waste 

form. Amodeltorepresentthestress 

dependence on the platelet 

orientation of hydride precipitates 

was completed. 

The report also provides updated 

schedule information relevant to 

scientific investigations and a list of 

documents cited in the text. In addition, 

the report includes a selective annotated 

bibliography of recent publications 

relevant to the scientific investigations. 

Copies of thereport areavailable from the 

US. Department of Energy, Office of 

Scientific and Technical Information, 

P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. f? 

New Publicafions and Documenfs 

Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy: An Assessment, DOE/RW-029 lP, 

November 1990. 

This report provides a description of the methodology, assumptions, and analysis 

used to assess the adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund fee. For more details, see 

article on page 1. 

Progress Report on the Scientijic Investigation Program for the Nevada Yucca 

Mountain Site, October I, I989 - March 31, 1990, Number 2, DOE/RW-O292P, 

November 1990. 

This report describes the progress of scientific investigation activities at . Yucca Mountain, NV. For more details, see article on page 5. 

Second Report to the US. Congress and the US. Secretary of Energy, November 

1990. 

This reportby theNuclw WasteTechnicalReview Boardtracksprogress on topics‘ 

that were identified in the Board‘s first report (March 1990) and discusses issues 

central to determining the suitability of the proposed site for a geologic repository 

at Yucca Mountain, NV. Conies of the Second ReDort can be reuuested in writing 

from the SuDerintendcnt of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington. DC 20402. (Stock number 061-000-00752-1: $4.75) * 

915 
6 - December 1990lJanuary 1991 

Transpoflation Coordination Group Meets in Albuquerque, NM 

More than 112 people attended the 

twelfth Transportation Coordination 

Group Meeting on December 4 and 5, 

1990, in Albuquerque, NM. Attendees 

included representatives from Federal, 

State, local, and Tribal governments, as 

well as their contractors, representatives 

from the transportation industry, interest 

groups, utilities, and education groups. 

The meeting began with presentations by 

representatives of DOE, the State of 

Nevada, utilities, affected Nevada 

counties, and national and regional 

groups. In the afternoon, attendees broke 

into small groups for workshops devoted 

to discussions on the operations and 

institutionalprograms. These workshops 

continued the following morning. A 

panel discussion and wrap-up briefing for 

all attendees concluded the meeting in the 

afternoon. 

The institutional session participants 

focused their discussion on the 

preliminary draft document, “Strategy to 

Provide Training Assistance as Required 

by Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act, as Amended,” which wassent 

to them before the meeting. In this draft, 

OCRWM outlies its proposed five-step 

implementation strategy as follows: 

1) Continue efforts with the interested 

groups to resolve assistance issues; 

2) Develop a policy options paper 

identifying possible implementation processes; 

statement identifying the option 

selected; 

Issue a plan detailing the 

implementation proccss; and 

3) Issue an assistance policy 

4) 

5) Initiate training assistance. 

DOE Holds Project Update Meetings in Nevudu 

In order to provide the public with current information, and to answer questions about 

DOE’S Yucca Mountain studies to determine the possible suitability of the site for a 

geologic repository for nuclear waste, the DOE Yucca Mountain Site Characterization 

Project Office held Project Update Meetings in Hawthorne, Amargosa Valley, and 

Henderson, NV, on November 7,8, and 20, respectively. 

The meetings in Amargosa and Henderson were well attended, while the meeting in 

Hawthorne attractedonly a few interested citizens. During the Amargosa and Henderson 

meetings,ProjectManager CarlP. Gertz gavea general overview of the currcnt status of 

the Project. A representative from Clark County also gave a presentation during the 

Henderson meeting. This was followed by a question and answer session conducted by 

Gertz. The State of Nevada declined an invitation to participate in the meetings. 

Following thequestion andanswersessionsatthethreemeetings,audiencemembers had 

the oppomnity to join in informal “poster sessions.” During these sessions, scientists 

gave brief presentations in their respective fields of expertise. This allowed more 

personalized discussion between Project staff and community members. Some of the 

topics discussed during the “poster sessions” were transportation, seismology, 

hydrology, Native American Indian cultural resources, and radiation. * 

Panel discussions at the conclusion of the 

workshop sessions helped facilitate 

interaction among participants. One 

panel, with representatives from the 

DOE, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, the Western 

Interstate Energy Board, the ShoshoneBannock Indian Tribes, and the 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

initiated discussion on issues presented 

in the Section 180(c) strategy. Audience 

feedback during these discussions 

focused on elements of potential training 

assistance. 

The operations session discussion 

focused on the current activities in the 

following seven areas: 

1) Transportation requirements and 

description; 

2) Overview of current operations 

planning activities; 

3) Potential impacts on the 

transportation system in 

implementing waste acceptance; 

4) Cask maintenance - requirements 

and feasibility study; 

5) Facility constraints; 

6) Infrastructure studies; and 

7) Site specific service planning and 

OCRWM observations of ongoing 

handling/shipping activities. 

The opportunity for a predecisional 

forum to comment on the Section 180(c) 

strategy and make recommendations 

prior to its being presented to the public 

was well received. DOE representatives 

encouraged the audience to submit 

written comments on the draftby January 

31, 1991, for evaluation. To receive 

further information regarding this 

meeting, please contact Christopher 

Kouts at (202) 586-9761. * 
December 1990JJanuary 1991 7 

8' 

Selected Events Calendar 

Feb. 24-28 

Apr. 28-May 2 

Waste Management '91, Holiday Inn Downtown, Tucson, AZ. Contact Roy Post, (602) 621-6158. 

'91 International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference. Sponsored by DOE, ASCE, 

and ANS, Las Vegas, NV. Contact Robert Philpott, (202) 586-5396. 

May 2-4 National Conference of State Legislatures State-Feded Assembly, Grand Hyatt, Washington, DC. 

Contact NCSL Meetings Office, (202) 624-5400. 

June 2-6 American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting, Marriott's Orlando World Center, Orlando,FL. Contact John I DeMastry, (407) 694-3616. 

DOEINRC INTERACTION MEETINGS 

Feb. 20 

Mar. 12 

Mar. 20-21 

Apr. 16 

Seismic Hazards Investigation Staff Technical Position. (Location To Be Determined.) 

Procedural Agreement Meeting. (Location To Be Determined.) 

Radionuclide Retardation Testing Modeling. (Location To Be Determined.) 

Thermal Loads and Repository Design. (Location To Be Determined.) 

For details on DOE/NRC meetings call (1/800) 368-2235 for a recorded message. In the Washington, DC, area call 479-0487. 

A telephonerecording service has been established for theannouncementoEupcoming meetingsrelated tothewastemanagement 

program of the NRC. The number is (1/800) 368-5642, ext. 20436. Washington, DC, area residents should call 492-0436. 

For information on meetings and events occurring between issues of the OCRWM Bulletin use OCRWM INFOLINK, a 

computerized data base containing information about the OCRWM program. The OCRWM Bulletin is also available online 

through INFOLINK. * 

91:7 

DOURW-0305P 

United States Department of Energy 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Washington, DC 20585 

-0CRWM 

Bulletin 

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) FY 

1992 request for the Nuclear Waste Fund 

FebruarylMarch 1991 

million forFY 1991 (see tablebelow and 

accompanying budget allocation chart). 

CivilianRadioactiveWasteResearchand 

Development program, as part of DOE’s 

is $305.1 million as compared to $242.8 The FY 1992 budget request for the 

\ 

FY 1992 Congressional Budget Request, 

Nuclear Waste Fund (Dollars in Thousands) 

Energy Supply Research and 

FY 1990 FY 1991 

Appropriation 

First Repository 

Operating Expenses $ 175,685 $154,180 

Subtotal $177,816 $155,180 

Monitored Retrievable 

Capital Equipment 2131 1.000 

Storage 

Operating Expenses 5 3,000 $ 8,797 

Subtotal 5 3,000 $ 8,797 

Capital Equipment 0 0 

Transportation, Systems Integration, 

and Engineering Development 

Operating Expenses 5 22,Ooo $ 27,483 

Subtotal 5 22,Ooo $ 27,483 

Program Management and 

Technical Support 

Operating Expenses $ 65,240 $ 51,173 

Subtotal $65,240 $ 51,373 

Nuclear Regulatory 

CommissionFees ’ $ 27.100 u 

Total $295,156 $242,833 

Capital Equipment 0 0 

Capital Equipment 0 2oc! 

summary 

Total Program $295,156 

wating Expenses $293,025 $ 241,633 

1.200 

$242,833 Capital Equipment 2131, 

FY 19 

Request 

$ 170,241 

2ooo 

$172,241 

$ 32,225 

0 

$ 32,225 

$ 38,851 

0 

$ 38,851 

$ 61,554 

200 

$ 61,754 

u 

$305,071 

$ 302,871 

2200 

$305,071 

Iighlfght of OCRWM’S request, 

ncluding a budget table, a budget 

lllccation chart, and a summary of the 

udget are provided. 

Page 

OCRWMFIJcalYcar1992BudgaRcquest 1 

DOEhblkhaPnliminnry&timatuofthcTotal 3 

SystanCoatfarthcRut~~dPmgnm 

WEIssuesCommentResponscDonrmer.tf~rthc 4 

Secruary of Eny’s ‘Xcpon to Cmgrcss on Rcasscssment of c Civilran Radioactive Waste 

MvrnganaltRognm” 

WE Issues Annual Capacity Rcpo~t 

WEReadytoB NcwWoxkst 5 

Yucca Mountain,C&in’da 

NWTRB Reviews DOE Quality 5 ASJUnnCCMUXCS 

WEIssuesEn~entalPmtcCtion 5 

Implanaltatiffl Plan far the 

Yucca Mountainhjcct 

SecondAnnualInkmationalHi Level 6 

Waste Managanent Confumc% Bc Held 

OCRWM to Hold Third 6 

Strategic Prinaples Workshop 

Yucu Mountain Engineered Banio System 8 

Conccp!-s Workshop 

NCAI Condu*s Wcaluhop m 8 

Radioactive Wasfeksuu 

Sdcctul Events Calendar 9 

New Publiutiom and DoMnenu 9 

Index to all IssueJ of 1990 OCRWM Bulletins 

tOTETO READERS:The OCRWMBJ&t%a ivdkbletc 

isen ofINFO~Klboutoneweekbetomplblisltion. Tc 

#pkctdonthemlilingli~~m~emyrddrtumrrealonr 

)r to ~ucstmulttple copier of the 0CRWMB~ctin.plcuc nntact Judy Hockmbcrry, MA-234-2, DOE, Ocnnmto~m 

hildimg, WsJbington, lX20545,(301) 353-3118. 

4 

~~ 

Published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 

For further Information about the national program or for copies of new OCRWM publications and documents listed in the OCRWMBulletincontact me U.S. Department of 

Energy, OCRWM, Office of External Relatlons, Mail Stop RW-5.1,Idbo Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, Dc 20585, (202) 586-5722. The OCRWMIntbrmarion 

Sedces Dlrecfory Is available lo provide sources of program Information. 

91:9 

I 
2 FebruarylMarch I991 

OCRWM Fiscal Year 1992 Budget Requesf 

(confinued from page I) 

Highlights of activities to be 

undertaken during FY 1992 include: 

First Repository ($1 72.2 million) 

Continue data collection from 

existing monitoring stations and 

initiate new surface-based testing 

activities including Midway Valley 

and Trench 14 field activities ($44.2 

million); 

9 Complete exploratory shaft facility 

(ESF) design and initiate site 

preparation construction activities. 

Continue Title 11 design for ESF 

surface and sub-surface facilities. 

Begin planning for long lead-time 

procurements to support the 

commencement of ESF construction 

in Fy93 ($24.4 million); 

Ensure regulatory requirements are 

maintained. , Continue interaction 

with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC), Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board, Advisory 

Committee on Nuclear Waste, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

and the State of Nevada ($20.2 

million); 

9 Provide financial assistance to the 

State of Nevada (grants and 

payments-equal-to-taxes), grants to 

affected local governments, and 

grants directly toNevada universities 

($13.0 million); and 

9 Intemationalactivities ($8.0 million). 

Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) 

($323 million) 

Principal MRS activities include the 

initiation and completion of Title I 

design, initiation of Title 11 design, 

issuance of a final Environmental 

Assessment, initiation of the license 

application, MRS prototype 

demonstrations, and continued 

support to the Negotiator. 

OCRWM Program Proposed FY 1992 Request 

System 

Program Mgmtrrech integration - 5% 

- 7% 

Engineering 

Developmenl 

' Disposal - 56% 

:-lYo 

Systems Integration ($15.0 million) 

9 Ensure integration of various system 

components into a single waste 

management system and 

9 Conduct special studies on 

programmatic needs and 

recommendations from program 

participants and oversight groups. 

Engineering Development 

($2.5 million) 

9 Continue development and 

demonstration of new, cross-cutting 

technologies to support the operation 

of the waste managerncnt system and 

Program ManagementandTec hnical 

Support ($61.8 Million) 

Provide for salaries, bcnefits, travel, 

and contractual servicesand supplies. 

Fund technical support se,rvices. 

Transportation ($21.4 million) 

9 CompleteandsubmitSafetyAnalysis 

Report for Packaging to the NRC for 

certification of Legal-Weight Truck 

Cask and RailBarge Cask designs; 

Continue existing cooperative 

agreements with various national, 

regional and local groups. Add 

Northeastern Regional Group to the 

existing agreement; 

Support MRS planning activities by 

conducting MRS environmental 

assessment transportation analyses; 

and 

9 Continue the development of 

capabilities for operational testingand 

develop alternative testing 

scenarios.* 

91:lO 
FebruaryfMarch I991 

Single Repository I No-new-orders 

3 

Two Repository 

No-new-orders 

DOE Publishes Preliminary Estimates of the 

Tofal-Sysfem Cosf for fhe Resfrucfured Program 

Each year a comprehensive analysis of 

the total cost of the radioactive waste 

management system over its complete 

life cycle is performedas an aid to fmancial 

planning for the OCRWMprogram. The 

primary use of the total-system life cycle 

cost (TSLCC) analysis is to provide cost 

data necessary for determining whether 

the fees paid by the waste generators will 

be sufficient to cover fully the costs of the 

prow (see the fee adequacy analysis 

discussion in theDecember 199O/January 

1991 issue of the OCRWMBulletin). 

In May 1989, DOE published i6 fifth 

Analysis of the Total-System Life Cycle 

Cost for the Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management Program. Shortly after this 

analysis was completed, work was 

initiated to assess the overall program 

strategy, This activity culminated in 

November 1989, when the Secretary of 

Energy issued the Report to Congress on 

Reassessment of the Civilian Radioactive 

Wasre Management Program (DOE'S 

respnse to the comments on this report 

appear on page 4). 

The current TSLCC study was prepared 

as an addendum to the May 1989 TSLCC 

report, and represents a preliminary 

assessment of the impact of the 

restructured program on the total-system 

costs. This study providcd the basis for 

the sixth annual fee adequacy assessment. 

A more thorough evaluation of the cost 

impacts associated with thc restructured 

program will be contained in the next 

complete TSLCC analysis. 

Analysis Results 

Total-system life cyclc costs were 

estimated for three cam that are 

distinguished by thenumber of'qositories 

and the quantity of spent fuel requiring 

disposal. The principal findings of this 

analysis follow: 

The total-system cost for a single 

repository system is estimated at 

$25.6 billion (in constant 1988 

dollars) based on the no-new-orders, 

end-of-the-reactor-life spent-fuel 

projection. 

The total-system cost for a two 

repository system is estimated at 

$33.6 billion for the no-newaders, 

end-of-reactor-life spent-fuel 

projection, or $34.6 billion for an 

upper reference case spent-fuel 

projection. 

The defense waste share of the totalsystemcostisestimatedtorangefiom 

$3.8 billion (single repository system) 

to $5.8 billion (two repository 

system).. 

Changes from the May 1989 

TSLCC Analysis 

The table below summarizes the cost 

impact by major cost component of the 

changes from the previous analysis: 

(continued on page 6) 

Comparison of total-system costs to previous estimates 

(Millions of 1988 dollars) 

Wot applicable ' (Nom Columns may not add to totals due to independent rounding.) 

91:ll 
4 FebruaryIMarch 1991 

DOE Issues Comment Response Document for the Secretary 

of Energy's "Reporf to Congress on Reassessment of 

the Civilian Radioacfive Waste Management Program 

On November 29,1989, the Secretary of 

Energy published his Report to Congress 

on the Reassessment of the Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management Program, 

and sent copies to numerous interested 

parties for their review and 

comment. Twenty-five letterscommenting 

on the Report were received. In these 

letters, 130comments wereidentified that 

related to the following seven categories: 

management, institutional, regulatory, 

transportation, monitored retrievable 

storage, scheduling, and therepository. 

DOE has issued a comment response 

document that provides a synopsis of the 

comments received, and DOE's current 

responses to those comments. DOE's 

views on these matters will be further 

reflected in the Drajl Mission Plan 

Amendment, also to be issued for public 

comment. The comment response 

DOE Issues Annual Capacity Report 

The Standard Contract for Disposal of 

Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level 

Radioactive Waste (10 Code of Federal 

Regulations 961) provides for the 

acquisition of title to spent nuclear fuel 

(SNF)and/orhigh-levelradioactive waste 

(HLW)byDOE,itstransportationtoDOE 

facilities, and its subsequent disposal. It 

also requires DOE to issue an Annual 

Capacity Report (ACR) for planning 

purposes to project DOE's annual SNF/ 

HLW receiving capacity and present the 

annual acceptance ranking of the 

Purchasers for 10 years following the 

projectedcommencementof DOE facility 

operations. Beginning in April 1991, the 

contract requires an annual Acceptance 

Priority Ranking Report. 

This 1990 issue of the ACR utilizes two 

projected WMS waste acceptance 

schedules as the bases for allocation of 

acceptance capacity to the Purchasers for 

a 10-year period following the projected 

commencement of facility operations. The 

acceptance schedules were selected to be 

representative of upper and lower 

boundariesfor a WMS which includesan 

MRS facility capable of receiving and 

storing SNF starting in 1998. Use of an 

MRS facility would require early MRS 

facility siting and modifications to the 

licensing conditions of theNuclear Waste 

Policy Amendments Act. 

During the first 10 years of projected 

WMS operation, thetotal quantityofspent 

fuel that could be accepted is projected to 

be: 24,100 Metric Tons Uranium 0 

for the upper bounding case, as projected 

in the Draft 1988 Mission Plan 

Amendment; and7,375MTUforthelower 

bounding case. Acceptance priority 

ranking for the annual allocation of this 

WMS capacity is based on assigning the 

highestpriority, on an industry-wide basis, 

to the owners of the oldest SNF as 

determined by the date of final discharge. 

The annual acceptance rates provide an 

approximation of the systcm throughput 

ratesforthetwo selected wasteacceptance 

schedules and are subject to change as 

program activities progress. 

Section 1.0 of the ACR provides a 

discussionof therequirement forthe ACR 

and the role it plays in DOE's interaction 

with the Purchasers in implementing the 

provisions of the Standard Disposal 

Contract. Th,e two sefeclcd bounding 

cases for WMS waste acceptance 

schedules are presented in Section 2.0. 

Section 3.0 discusses the basis and 

procedure for allocating this capacity to 

each Purchaser, and summarizes the 

annualallocationsfor each selectedreceipt 

rate for the 10-year periodcovered by this 

report. A description of the ACR issue 

(continued on page 7) 

document also includes as appendices: 

(1) a list of commenters; (2) a matrix that 

maps the comments highlighted in each 

letter to the appropriate section of the 

response summary that addresses that 

comment; (3)copiesofthecommentletters 

with specific comments brackqed for 

response; and (4) copies of DOEregJopse 

letters. 

In general, the comments supported the 

Secretary's revised program strategy, 

including thereorganization of the Office 

of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, the appointment of the 

OCRWMDirector, andamoreaggrqsive 

management of the waste management 

program. Although many commenters 

stated their concern about the delay in the 

repository schedule, most agreed that the 

revised schedule was a more accurate 

indication of the amount of the work to be 

accomplished prior to waste acceptance 

at the repository. There were many 

comments supporting the emphasis on 

surface-based testing and the DOE'S new 

approach to the scientific investigation of 

Yucca Mountain. Many commenters 

indicated that some linkages should be 

maintained between the repository and 

monitored retrievable storage (MRS) 

facility, and that the MRS facility should 

not become a de factQ repository. Others 

noted that the schedule adjustments will 

actually reduce the time available for 

certain transportation-related activities, 

includingrouteselection,mix oftransport 

modes, and provision of emergency 

response training. There were also 

numerous comments on the roleofaffected 

parties in the DOE'S management of the 

waste program. 

For copies of the comment response 

document, contact the U.S. Department 

of Energy, OCRWM, Office of External 

Relations, Mail Stop RW-5.1, 1000 

Independence Avenue, S .W., Washington , 

DC 20585, (202) 5865722. a 

91:12 
FebruarylMarch 1991 5 

DOE Ready to Begin 

New Work at 

Yucca Mounfain, Nevada 

Several sites in Midway Valley (east of 

YucpMountain) offerpotentiallocations 

for repository surface facilities if Yucca 

Mountain is determined to be a suitable 

site. As pm, of site characterization, the 

geologic stability of Midway Valley must 

be determined. 

DOE has completed the necessary study 

plans and readiness review, and received 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

approval on the study plans. DOE is now 

ready to begin new site characterization 

work &sociated with Midway ., ,Valley 

Trenching, 

Study plans havealsobeendevelopedand 

approved to study th9,Iarge vein-like 

deposits of calcite and silica that ~ur in 

faults near the site to determine the origin 

and age of the calcite and silica veins and 

infer possible future hydrologic condi tions 

at the site. 

However, before new siteclpacterization 

activities could be undereen it was 

necessary for OCRWM to verify through 

itsreadinessreview,and thqNRC toagree, 

thattheQuality Assurance (QA)program 

was being effectively implemented. The 

NRC staff stated that fie OCRW QA 

program is acceptable for new site 

characterizationactivitieslimitkdtbthose 

associated with the Midway Valley 

Trenching and Calcitesilica Activities, 

provided that certain recommended 

actions in a QA audit were completed and 

verified. A satisfactory resolution of the 

recommended action was completed, and 

the NRC was notified on January 31, 

1991. 

Despite the actions described above, the 

State of Nevada, by refusing to issue 

necessary environmental permits, 

continues to impede OCRWM's 

Congressionally mandated responsibility 

to conduct scientific investigations to 

determine whether or not the Yucca 

Mountain site is suitable for a high-level 

radioactive waste repository. * 

NWTRB Reviews DOE 

Quality Assurance Procedures 

Two panels of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will hold a joint meeting on 

March26,1991, in Dallas, TX, toreview thequality assurance (QA)program thatDOE 

has implementedforthedcsignandconstructionofanexploratoryshaftfacilityatYucca 

Mountain,NV. Pending rcsolution ofasuit filed by thestate ofNevada, theDOEintends 

to sink an exploratory shaft at the site at Yucca Mountain, which is being characterized 

by DOE as a possible location of a repository for permanent disposal of spent nuclear 

fuel and defense high-level waste. The meeting, which will be sponsored by the panels 

on Structural Geology and Geoengineering and Quality Assurance, will run from 8:30 

a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and will be held at the Adolphus Hotel, Sam Rayburn Room, 1321 

Commerce, Dallas, TX 75202; (214) 742-8200. 

(continued on page 8) 

DOE Issues Environmenfal Profecfion 

lmplemenfafion Plan for the 

Yucca Mountain Project 

The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project is committed to performing its 

activities in an environmentally safe and sound manner that complies with all applicable 

environmental statutes and regulations. To achieve that objective, an environmental 

program has been establishcd for the YuccaMountain Site CharacterizationProject +at 

includes the plans and activitics necessary to satisfy applicable environmentalregulatory 

and programmatic rcquircments as documented in a recently issued Environmental 

Protection Implementation Plan (EPIP) and in the Environrpental Program Overview 

(see OCRWM Bulletin, Deccmber 1988). 

It is important to note that the Project is not a DOE industrial, production, or operating 

type of facility. The Projcct is currently performing only the following activities: 

operation ofasamplemanagcmentfacility; small scale,lowimpactgeological,ecological 

ad archaeological studies; and ongoing meteorological, radiological, and air quality 

monitoring. 

This EPIP addresses environmental protection only duringsite characterization of $e 

Yucca Mountain site. The Project site characterization program is described in the Site 

Characterization Plan (see OCRWM Bulletin, December 1988). If Congress approves 

Yucca Mountain as the location for the ~gh-level nuclear wasterepository, a new EPIP 

will be prepared d&ng site characterization to address environmental protection during 

construction, operation, and closure of the repository. 

The EPIP applies to all Project activities, including management, administration, 

planning, design, construction, and operation. It also applies to all Project staff and the 

various ProjectparticipanLs involved in performingparts of theenvironmental protection 

program. 

Requesk for copies and information regarding details of the EPIE'should be addressed 

to Kathleen Grassmeicr, Chicf, Operations Control Branch,U.S. Department of Energy, 

YuccaMountain SiteCharactcrizationProject Office,P.O. Box98608,lOl Convention 

Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 99193-8606, (702) 794-7525. * 

91:13 
6 FebruarylMarch I991 

Second Annual lnfernafional High-level 

Radioactive Waste Management Conference 

to be Held 

Th Second Annual International HighLevel Radioactive Waste Management 

ConferencewillbeheldonApri128-May 

2, 1991, at Caesar's Palace Hotel, Las 

Vegas, NV. The Conference will be an 

international forum featuring 

presentations and the discussion of 

scientific and technical information on 

management and disposal of high-level 

radioactive wastes. More information 

regarding topics to be addressed at the 

yonference can be found on the program 

shown on page 7. 

Papers presented at the Conference,will 

be distributed there. Abstracts of these 

papers have been peer reviewed. Key 

speakers who are expected to address the 

Conference include John W. Bartlett 

(Director, OCRWM); Sten Ejurstrom 

(Fresident,SvenskKarnbranslehantering); 

James R. Curtis (Commissioner,Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission); Don U. Deere 

(Chairman, Nuclear Waste Technical 

Review Board): Kunihiko Uematsu 

(Director General, Nuclear Energy 

Agency); and Michael M. Wilson 

(Commissioner, Florida Public Service 

Commission). The keynote speaker will 

be Margaret Maxey of the University of 

Texas, Austin. 

The Conference is expected LO provide an 

informative exchange of scicntific and 

technical information. In addition, a 

variety of exhibits sponsored by leading 

contractors and busincsscs providing 

safety and security serviccs and products 

dealing with high-level radioactive waste 

will be shown. For morc information on 

the Conference contact Robcrt Philpott, 

U.S. Department of Encrgy, Office of 

External Relations, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585, 

(202) 586-5396. * 

DOE Publishes Preliminary Estimates of the 

Total-System Cost for the Restructured Program 

(confinued from page 3) 

The majority of the assumptions and methodologies remain the same in both estimates. 

However, a major change in the schedule as a result of the restructured program had a 

significant impact on the updatedestimates. The overall impactranges from an increase 

ofapproximately$l.7 billion forthesingle-repository case toapproximatcly$2.4 billion 

for the two-repository case. 

For both cases, the majority of the cost impact ohhe rebtructured program is due to an 

increase of approximately $2.0 billion in the development and evaluahn cost @&E) 

component. This component covers all siting, preliminary design devclopment, testing, 

regulatory compliance, and institutional activities for the program. It also includes the 

costs of administration by the Federal government and the fees charged by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission for licensing. The increase in D&E cost is due to additional 

costs from the delay in the start of repository operations. 

For copies of the Preliminary Estimates of the Total-System Cost for the Restructured 

Program: An Addendum to the May 1989 Analysis of the Total-System Life Cycle Cost 

for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, contact the U.S. Department 

of Energy,OCRWM, Officeof ExtemalRelations,Mail StopRW-5.1, IOOOIndependence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5722. * 

OCRWM to Hold Third 

Straiegic Principles 

Workshop 

On April 3-4, 1991, in Denver, CO, 

OCRWM will hold the third in a series of 

workshops on waste management policies 

and strategic principles. In the first 

workshop, heldin SaltLakeCity,UT, the 

discussion focused primarily on strategic 

principlesrelatedto ensuring public safety 

and protecting the environment. The 

second workshop, held in Washington, 

DC,dealtwiththestewardshipofresources 

and effectiveness of operations. Because 

ofthevery productivedialoguein the first 

two workshops,athirdworkshophasbeen 

scheduled to focus on the approach that 

OCRWMplans to take regarding the issues 

discussed at the earlier workshops. The 

results of these workshops will be 

considered in preparing an amended 

Mission Plan to be issued later this year. 

Themeetings willbeopen tothepublic,as 

they were during the previous workshops. 

In order to ensure full and free discussion, 

they will be moderated by a professional 

and neutral facilitator experienced in 

guiding such public discussions. 

Participanp will be asked to speak as 

individuals rather than as official 

representatives of their organizations. 

Notes will be taken, but individual 

participants will not be quoted in written 

products prepared on the basis of 

conference discussions. This approach is 

being taken in order to encourage parties 

to express their diverse views at the 

workshops. 

Dr. John W. Bartlett, Director of OCRWM, 

will be attending the conference. For 

further information, contact Richard 

Blaney, U.S. Department of Energy, 

OCRWM, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW,MaiI StopRW-42, Washington, DC 

20585, (202) 586-1252. * 
FebruuryfMarch I991 7 

Wednesday, May 1 

830 am.-900 am. 

Social Systems 

Plenary 

9:45 am.42 noon 1:45 pm.-5:W pm. 

Reguiztory Aspects of lmpiementatbn of 

Site Characterlzalion Selected Regulatory 

Procassss 

PROGRAM 

Thursday, May 2 

11 un.-12:30 pm. 

Rapporteur Session 

1991 International Hig h-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference April 28 - May 2,1991 Caesars Palace Hotel Las Vegas, Nevada 

300 pm-5:15 pm. 

Transportation 

System1 

Monday, Aprll29 

1:30 pmr230 pm. 

Natural Systems 

Plenary 

~~ ~ 

9:45 am.42 noon 1:45 pm.-5:W pm. 830 rm.-lO:45 am. 

Matedals and Analyses Systems-ll 

j WastePackage Tansport Cask Testing Transportation 

Tuesda 

830 un.800 am. Engineered Systems 

3:W pm.-5:15 pm. 

Monitored Retrievable 

Storage 

245 pm.-5:W pm. 

Current Issues In US. 

and lolematlonal HLW 

Regulatlons 

~~ 

9% am.-12 noon Unsaturated Zone Saturated Zone 

Hydrologic Testing Hydrology 

1:45 pm.-5W pm. 

0% am.42 noon Aspecls of Repository 

Performance Under €PA 

Regulations 

300 pm.-5:15 pm. 

VitrMed Waste Form 

Charaaeristlcs 

Aprll30 

1:45 pm.-2:45 pm. 

Integrated Systems 

Plenary 

300 pm.-5:15 pm. 

Experience Appiiedto 

the Hlgh-Level Waste 

Repository Program 

UtiGly Regulatory 

0:45 am.-12 noon, 1:45 pm.-5:W pm. 830 am.-10:45 am. intergovernmental Issues INtitUtlonal Appmaches to Sacbecommic Impacl 

Resohrlng Technical lssues Assessment 

3m pm-5:15 pm 

Risk Perception and 

Public Involvement 

Z45 pm.-b:W pm. 

Transport Cask Systems 

Oeslgn and Techmbgy 

~ 

9:45 am.-12 noon 1:+5 pm.-5:W pm. 830 am.-10:45 am. Radbnudide Release Near-Fleid Processes Thermal Consideratlorn 

from the Engineered AIfecling the Engineered in Underground Design 

Barrier System Systems I 

945 am42 noon 

Underground Fadlly 

Design 

9:45 am.-12 noon Assessment and 

Evaluation of 

Underground Excavation 

Technlques 

1:45 pm.-SW pm. 830 am.-10:45 am. 

, Geochemistry-ll Urdergmund Mechanical 

Excavation Techniques 

andTechmbgy 

2:45 pm-500 pm. 

Sekmotedonlcs and 

Volcambgy 

2:45 pm.-s:~ ph, 

Qeomechanlcs 

9A5 ml2noon 

At-Reador Storage 

0:45 am.42 noon 3:00 pm.-5:15 pm. 6:45 am.-12 noon 1:45 pm.-B:W pm. 830 am.-10:45 am. 

lnSIuand Laboratory Performance Assessment Performance Assessment Performance Assessment Performance Assessment 

Testing SclentMc Basis and case studies Scenarios and System Analpis 

Regulatory Needs Uncertainties 

2:45 pm.-J:W pm. 

Spent Fuel 

Charaderlstlcs 

945 am.42 noon Vltrlfled Waste 

Procesdng 

245 pm.-B:W pm. 

Science Education yd 

Public Awarenw 

0:45 am.-12 noon international Panel on 

Publlc Education About 

HlghLevel Waste 

z45pm.-B:wpm: , I 9:45 am.42 noon I 300 pm.-5:15 pm. 

Tramport Procad Geochemktry-l GeotecMcal Exploration 

9:45 amA2 noon Unsalurated Zone I Hydrology-I 

2# pm.-500 pm. 

Deslgn Control 

Melhodobgy 

830 am.-10:45 am. 

Interim Storage I 1:45 pm.-S:W pm. 

Environmental Rasourca I Assessmenls and ModeGng 

0:45 am.42 noon Waste Management I System Development 300 pm&15 pm. 

Unsaturated Zone 

Hydrology-ll 

resolution process and a report on its 

:urrentstatusarecontainedinSection4.0 

dong with DOE’S responses to Purchaser 

:omments on previous ACRs. Annual 

icceptance capacity allocated to each 

Purchaser, based on the chronological 

listing of spent fuel assembly final 

iischargedatesand the two selected WMS 

icceptance rates is summarized in 

~ ~ ~~~ 

DOE Issues Annual Capaciiy Repotf 

(confinued from page 4) 

Appendix A. Appendix B is a detailed 

listing of the eligible SNF, by date of final 

discharge, covered by the Standard 

Disposal Contract. These data will be the 

basis forthe AcceptancePriority Ranking 

report. 

Comments on this ACR should be 

addressed to Mr. Alan Brownstein, 

Department of Energy, OCRWM, 

RW-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, DC 20585. For 

copies of the Annual Capacity Report, 

contact theU.S. DepartmentofEnergy, 

OCRWM, Office of ExternalRelations, 

Mail Stop RW-5.1,lOOO Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC20585, 

(202) 586-5722. * 

91:15 
8 FebruaryiMurch 1991 

Yucca Mountain Engineered Barrier System Concepts Workshop 

DOE is seeking participants who may be 

interestedinpresentingEngineeredBanier 

System (EBS) concepts at a workshop to 

be heldJune 18-20,1991, inDenver, CO. 

The objectives of the workshop are to: (1) 

provide a forum for the discussion of 

engineered banier system concepts and 

their applicability to extended life 

performance, and (2) solicit the opinions 

of experts regarding extended life 

engineered barrier system concepts at the 

potential high-level radioactive waste 

repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. The 

EBS is defined as the waste packages and 

the underground facility including 

openings and backfill materials, but 

excluding shafts,boreholes, and their seals. 

Extended life refers to exceeding the 

on the EBS and its components. 

regulatory perfomancestandardsimposed 

Participants for the workshop will be 

selected based on their personal 

qualifications and their technical submittal 

of the proposedconcept. Interested parties 

should submit a qualification statement 

that includes a one-page discussion on 

why the individual believes he or she is 

qualified to address the subject. DOE will 

then ask those who have qualifiedto submit 

a technical analysis. This analysis should 

include a description of the concept, 

physical and/or chemical processesrelied 

on for containment andimlation,predicted 

performance, degree of insensitivity to 

variations in service environment, 

fabricationandemplacement aspects, and 

rough cost estimates. 

DOE will send an information package 

about requirements imposed on design 

when requests for technical analyses of 

the qualiing parties are issued. This 

invitation forparticipationin the workshop 

should not be construed as a request for a 

proposal for future work in this area or as 

acommitmenttocompensateparticipants 

in any manner. 

Individuals interested in pgrticipating in 

the workshop should submit their 

qualifications by March 15, 1991, for 

consideration by DOE. Requested 

technical submittals will be due to DOE 

by April 19, 1991. Send qualification 

statement to Diane J. Harrison-Geisler, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca 

Mountain Site Characterization Project 

Office, M/S 523, P.O. Box 98608, Las 

Vegas, NV 89193-8608. * 

NCAl Conducts Workshop on 

Radioucfive Waste lssues 

As part of an ongoing cooperative agreement between’the National Congress of 

American Indians (NCAI) and DOE, the NCAI conducted a workshop on January 15- 

16,1991, in Sacramento, CA. The purpose of the workshop was to provide a forum 

where the DOE and tribal officials could present information and their respective views 

regarding the DOE’S radioactive waste programs and the possible impact of these 

programs on Indian Tribes. 

The workshop consistcd of presentations by NCAI, DOE and NRC officials, question 

and answer sessions, and a film. The NCAI presentations focused on Tribal plans, 

needs, and priorities for Tribal radioactive waste programs, as well as current Tribal 

activities in these programs. Other presentations discussed the spiritual and cultural 

bases of Tribal concerns about radioactive waste issues. 

DOE presented an overview of the U.S. high-level waste programs as well as more 

specific topics such as the Yucca Mountain investigations, environmental restoration 

activities, transportation plans, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant with emphasis on 

Tribal interests. Other presentations included a discussion of the NRC’s role in highlevel nuclear waste, and other DOE programs of special interest to Indian Tribes. * 

NWTRB Reviews DOE Qualify Assurance Procedures 

(confinued from page 5) 

The next day, March 27,1991, the Quality Assurance Panel will hold a meeting from 

1030 a.m. to 4:OO p.m. in the same room to review several aspects of the DOE’S overall 

QAprogram for designing and constructingapermanentrepository. DOErepresentatives 

will update panel members on recent progress in remedying a number of QA 

implementation problems and brief members on an important component in the QA 

process called “grading,” which refers to the process of determining whether and how 

an activity should be subjected to the QA process. 

Themembers of theQualityAssurancePane1 also are hoping tobebriefed by amember 

of a new QA technical advisory committee, which is being created to address QA 

problems raised by researchers in the DOE’S site-characterization program. 

The public is welcome to attend the meeting as observers. Transcripts of the meeting 

will be available on a library-loan basis beginning April 22,1991, from Ms. Victoria 

Reich, Board librarian. * 

91:16 
FebruarylMarch I991 9 

> 

March 26 

Selected Evenfs Calendar - 199 1 . 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Joint Panel Meeting in Dallas, TX, of Quality Assurance Panel 

and Structural Geology and Geoengineering Panel on Quality Assurance of Exploratory Shaft Facility 

Preliminary Design. Contact Paula Alford, (703) 235-4473. 

March 27 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Quality Assurance Panel on DOE Quality Assurance Program, 

Dallas, TX. Contact Paula Alford, (703) 235-4473. 

March 30-April4 Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Spring Confercnce, Colorado Springs, CO. Contact Russ Fiste, 

(202) 775-8658. 

April 3-4 OCRWM Workshop on Waste Management Policies and Strategic Principles, Denver, CO. Contact 

Richard Blaney, (202) 586-1252. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Second Annual Full Board Meeting, Reno, NV. Contact Paula 

Alford, (703) 235-4473. 

NuclearRegulatory Commission Committeeon NuclearWaste,Bethesda,MD. ContactBarbaraJo White, 

April 15-19 

April 23-25 

(301) 492-7288. 

April 28-May 2 2nd Annual International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference sponsored by DOE, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, and American Nuclear Society, Las Vegas, NV. Contact Robert 

Philpott, (202) 586-5396. 

National Conference of State Legislaturcs State-Federal Assembly, Grand Hyatt, Washington, DC. 

Contact NCSL Meetings Office, (202) 624-5400. 

May 2-4 

New Publications and Documenfs 

Annual Capacity Report, DOE/RW-O294P, December 1990. 

This report de&bes two selected bounding cases for waste management system waste acceptance schedules and discusses - the basis and p.medure for‘allocating capacity to each Purchaser. For more details, see article on page 4. 

Preliminary Estimates of the Total-System Costfor the Restructured Program: An Addendum to the May 1989 Analysis of the TotalSystem Life Cycle Costfor the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, DOE/RW-0295PY December 1990. 

This report contains updates of estimates contained in the May 1989 Total-System Life Cycle Cost analysis that are affected 

’ by the restrucm,ed program strakgy. For more details, see article on page 3. 

Comment Response Document for the Secretary of Energy’s Report to Congress on Reassessment of the Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management Program, DOE/RW-O298P, November 1990. 

This report summarizes comments received on, the Secretary’s Rcport and presents the DOE’S current responses to those 

comments. Included as appendices are a lit of commenters, a crosswalk showing where each comment is addressed, the 

comment letters themselves with specific comments delineated, and the DOE’S responses to those letters. For more details, 

see article on page 4. 

Environmental Protection Implementation Plan for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, November 1990. 

This document describes the Yucca Mountain Site Characterimion Project Environmental Implementation Protection Plan 

including environmental’ protection program plans and monitoring programs. For more details, see article on page 5. 

91:17 

United States Department of Energy 

Ofice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Washington, DC 20585 

-0CRWM 

Bulletin 

1990 Index 

Accident dose criteria, Jn:3 

effect during licensing phase, Jn:3 

request for rulemaking, Jn:2-3 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

F/Mr: 1 1 

American Indian Tribes 

and cooperative agreement with OCRWM, S:4 

development of news reports, S:4 

feasibility grants, O/N:l 

National Congress of American Indians, S:4 

and potential negotiated MRS site, S:4 

and potential negotiated repository site, S:4 

review of cultural resources studies, F/Mr:ll, 13 

technical assistance . 

information needs, S:4 

public safety, Jn:2 

Apache Leap, Arizona, Jn:4 . 

and Forest Service land, Jn:5 

prototype drill site, photo Jn:4 

Babcock & Wilcox, Ja:3 

Battelle Memorial hstitute, F/Mr:4 

Bechtel Systems Management, Inc. (BSMI), 

Jl/Ag:5 

Brookhaven National Laboratory, F/Mr:4 

Bureau of Land Management, O/N:4 

Casks (see Transportation) 

Churchill County, Nevada, Ap/My:2 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Program 

concerns with management, F/Mr: 1 

review by Secretary of Energy, F/Mr: 1 

Clark County, Nevada, F/Mr:8 

Code of Federal Regulations 

10 CFR 60, Jn:2-3 

40 CFR 191, F/Mr:lO; Jl/Ag:3 

Commission of European Communities, Jl/Ag:3 

Conferences 

Conference of Radiation Control Program 

Directors (CRCPD), Jn:2; Jl/Ag:5 

International High-Level Radioactive Waste 

Management Conference, Ap/My:l 

National Conference of State Legislatures, S:4-5 

31st Annual Meeting of the Institute of Nuclear 

Materials Management (INMM), Jl/Ag:4 

Consultation and cooperation, Jl/Ag:3 

Controlled zones, figure Jn:3 

accident control zone (proposed), Jn:3 

routine access zone (proposed), Jn:3 

Cooperative agreements, Jl/Ag:5; S:4 

with Conference of Radiation Control Program 

with National Conference of State Legislatures, 

with National Congress of American Indians, S:4 

Directors, Jl/Ag:5 

s:4 

\% 

91:19 
2 INDEX 

Department of Justice, on Nevada and 

environmental permits, O/N:4 

Document integration, Jn:l 

Education (see Science education) 

Educational fellowships, S:5 

Emergency preparedness, Jn:2 

Environmental permits 

impasse on approval, F/Mr: 10 

refusal to grant and effect on schedule for site 

investigation, Jn: 1 

Environmental Protection Agency, JVAg:3 

performance limits for radionuclide release from 

repository, JVAg:4 

and standards, F/Mr: 10 

suggested review by, JVAg:3 

Environmental recommendations for Yucca 

Mountain studies, F/Mr:lO 

Environmental restoration, F/Mr: 1 

Environmental studies, desert tortoise, F/Mr:8 

Exploratory Shaft Facility, F/Mr:2,6-7 

Federal Register Notice, S:5 

Federal Waste Management System, S: 1 

Fenix and Scission, O/N:5 

Forest Service, Jn:5 

Funding 

accountability as guiding principle, S: 1 

budget request, F/Mr:6-7,figure F/Mr:6 

costs of nuclear-generated energy, Ap/My:4 

credits for past Nuclear Waste Fund 

overpayments, S:5 

economic incentives for potential host State or 

Indian Tribe, S:4-5 

feasibility mts, Om: 1 

National Congress of American Indians fund for 

technical assistance, S:4 

Nuclear Waste Fund, S:3,5 

fee calculation, S:3,5 

status of, F/Mr:7 

summary,figure F/Mr:7 

payments-equal-to-taxes (PE?T>, F/Mr:3 

General Atomics, Ja:3 

Highway route selection, Jn:2 

Holmes & Narver, O/N:5 

Hydrogeology, recommendations at Yucca 

Mountain site, F/Mr:5,9 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), 

F/Mr:4 

Indian Tribes (see American Indian Tribes) 

INFOLINK 11, S:6 

Interim storage, Ap/My:4 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAE. -I 

JVAg:3 

International cooperation, JVAg:3 

International Lead Zinc Research Organization, 

F/Mr:4 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

(LLNL), F/Mr:4; O/N:5 

Lawsuits (see Litigation) 

Legislation (see Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as 

amended, and Public Laws) 

Licensing 

dose requirements, JI/Ag:3 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements, 

JI/Ag:3 

process, Ja:2 

and grank'io States, Indian Tribes, or units of local Lincoln County, Nevada, F/Mr:8 

government, F/Mr:7 
INDEX 3 

Litigation 

appeal by State of Nevada intended on Ninth 

and award of systems engineering, development, 

countersuit by DOE on disapproval of Yucca 

by Department of Justice to permit scientific 

and environmental permits, Ja: 1 

by Nevada, F/Mr:2-3 

ruling in suit brought by State of Nevada, O/N:4 

and scientific studies gf Yucca Mountain, Ja:1-2 

and Systems Engineering, Development, and 

Circuit Court’s decision, O/N:4 

and management contract, JVAg:5 

Mountain site, Ja:1-2 

investigations, F/Mr:2-3; O/N:4 

Management Contract, JVAg:5 

Management Systems Improvement Strategy, 

S:1-2; O/N:l;figure S:3 

initiatives and tasks, S:1-2 

management control systems, O/N:l 

Management Systems Improvement Plan, Jn:l, 6 

Mission Plan Amendment, O/N:4 

discussion draft of policies and strategic 

workshops on key issues, O/N:4 

‘ 

principles, O/N:4 

Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility, 

economic incentives to host State or American 

key activities,figure O/N:2 

linkages with repository schedule, F/Mr:2,3 

potential negotiated site, S:5 

potential value of, F/Mr:5 

schedule, F/Mr:2 

shared oversight responsibilities at negotiated ’ 

site selection, F/Mr:2 

strategy to ensure spent fuel acceptance, S:l 

summary of DOE position, S:l 

support for, O/N: 1 

Ja:3; F/Mr:7; Ap/My:4; Jn:2,6 

Indian Tribe, S:5 .I 

site, S:5 

. National Academy of Engineering, JI/Ag:3 

National Academy of Sciences, JVAg:3; O/N:1-2 

National Conference of State Legislatures 

(NCSL), S:4,5 

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), 

s:4 

National Energy Strategy, Ap/My:2,4 

National Research Council, JVAg:3 

Board on Radioactive Waste Management, 

recommendations, JVAg:3,6 

JVAg:3; O/N:3 

National Science Foundation, JVAg:3 

Native American Tribes (see American Indian 

Tribes) 

Nevada State Historic Preservation Office 

(NSHPO), F/Mr:ll 

Nominations 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management 

Bartlett, J.W., Director, Ja:1; F/Mr:2 

Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator 

Leroy, D.H., Negotiator, Jn:l 

J 

Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECD/NEA),JVAg:3; ON3 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Ja:2; 

F/Mr:2, 10; Jn:l, 3; JVAg:3 

and cask certification, Jn:2 

requirements for quality assurance program, 

0/n:5 

Nuclear Waste Fund (see Funding) 

Nuclear Waste Negotiator (see Office of the 

Nuclear Waste Negotiator) 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, Ja:l, 2; 

F/Mr:lO, 11; Ap/My:l; Jn:2; S:3,4 

activities, O/N:4 

and attempted veto of site characterization 

initiatives to meet requirements of, F/Mr:l 

required payments, F/Mr:3 

9121 
4 INDEX 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. 

(NWTRB, also referred to as TRB), 

DOE to brief on spent fuel studies, Jl/Ag:5 

Engineered Barrier System Panel, Jl/Ag:4-5 

and independent review, O/N:1-2 

interaction with DOE, F/Mr:lO 

issuance of fit report, F/Mr:5 

panels, Jn:6 

public comment invited, Jl/Ag:4 

relocation, Jl/Ag:5 

technical and scientific recommendations, 

F/Mr:5,9,10 

Transportation Panel meeting, Jl/Ag:4 

F/Mr:2; Jl/Ag:4 

international scientific review recommended for 

review of transportation program, O/N:5 

shared responsibilities at a negotiated facility, 

DOE plans, Jl/Ag:3 

s:5 

Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL), F/Mr:4 

Packaging alternatives, Jl/Ag:5 

Performance assessment, Jl/Ag:3,4; O/N:l 

Professional society participation, Jl/Ag:4 

Nye County, Nevada, Ap/My:2 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management (OCRWM), Jl/Ag:l-2, chart 

action plan, O/N:4 

appointments, Ap/My:l; JVAg: 1-2,figure 

direct-line reporting with Yucca Mountain 

facility siting, Ap/My: 1 

independent review of management, F/Mr:3 

management approach, Ap/My:3 

management review, Jn: 1 

1989 Publications,figure Ja:5 

program planning, Ap/My: 1,3; Jn:2 

reorganization of, Jl/Ag:1-2,4; O/N:3 

Jl/Ag:2 

JVAg:2 

Project Office, F/Mr:3 , 

Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator, F/Mr:2; 

authorization to offer incentives, S:4-5 

international precedent for negotiated waste sites, 

nomination of Negotiator, Jn: 1 

timely siting, Ap/My: 1 

Jn:l; S:4; O/N:l 

s:5 

Office of Quality Assurance, O/N:5 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (see Nuclear Energy Agency) 

Oversight 

cultural study review by American Indian Tribes, 

independent review, F/Mr:4; Jl/Ag:3; ON: 1-2 

F/Mr:ll, 13 

Program planning, Jn: 1; Jl/Ag:3; S: 1 

contingency planning, Jl/Ag:3-4 

reorganization, JVAg: 1 

transportation, Jn:2 

workshops with external parties, O/N:l 

development of methods, Jn:4 

dry drilling and coring, Jn:4 

dry drilling techniques, F/Mr:lO 

dual wall drilling/coring system,figure Jn:5 

dust collection and sampling, photo Jn:4 

steps for dry drilling, Jn:4-5 

Prototype testing, Jn:4 

Public communication, O/N:3 

Public health, safety, and environment, F/Mr:4 

Public laws 

F/Mr: 1 1 

O/N:4 

National Historic Preservation Act ("PA), 

release of Bureau of Land Management land, 

Public participation, F/Mr:4; O/N:4-5 

and historic preservation at Yucca Mountain, 

and National Energy Strategy, Ap/My:2 

and Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board's 

and public confidence, F/Mr:4; Ap/My:2 

perceptions of risks, Ap/My:2 

in repository program, Jl/Ag:3 

through cooperative agreements, S:4 

and Yucca Mountain Information Office, Ja:2 

F/Mr:ll, 13 

Transportation Panel, Jl/Ag:4 

91:22 . 
INDEX 

___ 

5 

Quality assurance, F/Mr:7; S:l 

contractor programs, O/N:5 

current NRC acceptance of laboratory and 

as guiding principle, S: 1 

implementation of controls, Jn: 1; O/N:5 

monthly briefings with NRC, F/Mr:lO 

and oversight, O/N:5 

postponement of audits, Jn:l, 6 

Quality Assurance Qualification Audits, 

required certification of all DOE and DOE 

Jn:l, O/N:5 

contractor personnel, O/N:5 

Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste 

Safety Analysis Report, requirements, Jn:2 

Site Characterization Plan, F/Mr:lO 

Disposal, JVAg:3,6; O/N:3 

Research and development 

cask development, Ja:3 

possible research center for host of waste facility, 

regulatory compliance in waste package design, 

use of lead in repository waste package, F/Mr:4 

waste disposal technologies, Ap/My:4 

Ap/My: 1 

F/Mr:4 

Radiation safety 

radionuclide adsorption workshop, F/Mr:9 

safety, Jn:3 

RADTRAN (computer code), F/Mr:9 

Regulations for geologic repositories, Jl/Ag:3 

Reorganization, OCRWM (see Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management) 

Reports 

Annual Capacity Report for 1989, Jn:6 

Annual Report for the Programmatic Agreement 

on Historic Preservation, F/Mr: 11 

Directory of State Agencies Concerned with the 

Transportation of Radioactive Material, 

Draft floodplaidwetlands assessment, Ja:3 

Environmental Field Activity Plan for Soils, 

Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, 

F/Mr: 1 1 

Environmental Program Overview, Ap/My:5 

interim report on National Energy Strategy, 

Ap/My:2 

legal developments reports (Transportation 

Legislative Data Base), Ap/My:5 

Management Systems Improvement Strategy, 

s:1-2 

Mission Plan Amendment (in development), 

O/N:4 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on fee 

calculation, S:3 

Reclamation Feasibility Plan, Ap/My:5 

Report to Congress on the Reassessment of the 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Program, Jn:l; S:l; O/N:4 

Jl/Ag:5 

ApFzy:5 

Reynolds Electric and Engineering Company, 

O/N:5 

Right-of-Way-Reservation (ROWR), O/N:4 

Risk communication, Ap/My:4; Jl/Ag:2,3 

Safety 

as guiding principle, S: 1 

and performance standards, JVAg:3 

public and environmental safety workshop, 

and public perceptions, Ap/My:4 

radiation, Jn:3 

and radiation protection standards, F/Mr:lO 

recommendations by NWTRB, F/Mr:9 

transportation, Jn:2 

O/N:4 

Sandia National Laboratories, Ja:3; O/N:5 

Savannah River Laboratory, Jl/Ag:5 

Schedule 

and delays, F/Mr:1-2; Ap/My:2 

and postponement of quality assurance audits, 

for prototype drilling, Jn:4 

recommendations by National Research Council, 

for repository program, Ja:2; F/Mr:lO; Jn:6 

for restructured radioactive waste management 

for site investigation, Jn:l 

for spent fuel acceptance, Ap/My:l; Jn:2; O/N:5 

Jn:6 

JI/Ag:3 

program, S:2 

91:23 
6 

Science education 

importance of, F/Mr:4; S:5 

initiatives, ON3 

OCRWM graduate fellowship program, S:5; 

partnerships, S:5 - O/N:3 

Scientific investigations, F/Mr:5, 11; Jn:l; S:4; 

Om: 1 (see also Site characterization) 

key activities,figure O/N:2 

near-term emphasis on identification of 

potentially unsuitable site conditions, O/N:l 

Secretary of Energy’s Energy Advisory Board, 

om: 1-2 

Senate Committee on Appropriations, F/Mr:4 

Site characterization, F/Mr:l; Jn:4 (see also 

and biological assessment of desert tortoise, 

environmental program, Ap/My:5 

focus on key suitability issues, Fm:2 

and historic preservation, FM: 1 1 

litigation by State of Nevada, Ja:l 

progress report, F/Mr: 10 

and quality assurance audits on controls, O/N:5 

studies and need for required permits, Ja:2; 

surface-based tests, F/Mr:2 

training programs to protect archaeological and 

Scientific investigations) 

F/Mr:8 

F/Mr:2 

historic resources, F/Mr:ll, 13 

Site selection, repository, Ap/My:l 

grants and tax incentives, S:5 

opportunity for negotiated site, S:4-5 

Site selection, Monitored Retrievable Storage 

WS) facility, F/Mr:2; Ap/My:l 

Spokesmen 

DOE Representatives 

Watkins, J.W., Ja:1-2; F/Mr:5; S:l 

Bartlett, J., Ja:l; Jn:l, 2; JVAg:Q; S:l, 4 

Rousso, S., Ap/My:l 

Leroy, D., Jn:l; O/N:l 

Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator 

State of Nevada, F/Mr:lO 

Nuclear Waste Project Office, F/Mr:8 

and quality assurance oversight, .O/N:5 

Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, O/N:l 

Subseabed disposal, Jl/Ag:3 

Systems engineering, development, and 

management, Jl/Ag:5 

Technical exchanges, F/Mr: 10 

Testimony, Congressional, .by Bartlett, J.W., 

om: 1 

Training, Jn:2; S:2; O/N:3 

TRANSNET (computer code), F/Mr:9 

Transportation (see also Reports) 

cask design 

capacity, Ja:3 

certification, Ja:3 

“from-reactor” casks, Ja:3 

legal-weight truck cask, Ja:3 

overweight truck cask, Ja:3 

railbarge design, Ja:3 

cask development, F/Mr:8; O/N:l 

cask certification, F/Mr:8; Jn:2 

cooperative agreement with Conference of 

defense high-level waste; Ja:3 

directory of State agencies, Jl/Ag:5 

identification of routes; Jn:2 

independent review of OCRWM plans, O/N:5 

institutional issues, Jn:2 

key activities,figure O/N:3 

legal-weight truck casks, F/Mr:8 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 

plan for safety during increased spent fuel 

program planning, 3, Jn:2 

proposed safety program, F/Mr:9 

railbarge casks, F/Mr:8 

Radiation Control Program Directors, JvAg:5 

Transportation Panel, public hearing, JVAg:4 

shipments, Jn:2 

9 1 :24 
INDEX 7 

rate of spent fuel shipments, Jn:2 

reduction in cask design studies, F/Mr:7 

review team head, Dr. Edward Bentz, O/N:5 

safety, Jn:2 

seminar on design and development of transport 

system design, ON5 

technical assistance to American Indian Tribes, 

casks, Ja:2 

s:4 

Yucca Mountain Information Office, Ja:2 

Yucca Mountain Project (1990 terminology), 

F/Mr:8 

equipment testing, Jn:4 

and information offices, Ja:2 

and quality assurance, Jn:l 

Update Meeting, Ap/My:2 

Transportation Coordination Group 

Albuquerque, New Mexico meeting, O/N5 

Lexington, Kentucky meeting, Ja:2; F/Mr:8 

and National Congress of American Indians, S:4 

Transportation Legislative Data Base (TLDB), 

Ap/My:5 

Transportation program activities,figure O/N:3 

Tribal issues (see American Indian Tribes) 

TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc. 

(TRW), Jl/Ag:5 

U.S. Bureau of Mines, FM4 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), F/Mr:8 

- 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), O/N:5 

Utilities Transportation Working Group, 

F/Mr:8 

Waste acceptance, Ap/My:l; Jn:2; O/N:5 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), F/Mr:l 

Waste package, use of lead, F/Mr:4 

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Ja:3 

Yucca Mountain Project Office (1990 

terminology for the present Yucca Mountain 

Site Characterization Project Office), 

F/Mr:3,11 

Yucca Mountain site, Fm6; O/N:l 

and assertion of disapproval by State of Nevada, 

and desert tortoise, F/Mr:8 

and environmental permit applications, Ja:1-2 

examination of potentially unsuitable conditions, 

historic preservation at, F/Mr: 11 

hydrogeology, F/Mr:5,9 

inapplicability of lead-based foreign waste 

independent review, Ja:2 

and proposed radionuclide adsorption workshop, 

prototype drilling equipment for, Jn:4 

and quality assurance audits on controls, O/N:5 

and radionuclide retention in potential repository, 

reclamation, Ap/My:5 

schedule for repository operation, Ja:2 

site suitability, Ja:2; FM2; Ap/My:l, 3; S:l 

surface-based tests, FM2 

technical and scientific recommendations, 

O/N:4 

om1 

package designs at, Fk4 

F/Mr:9 

JI/Ag:4 

F/Mr:5,9, 10 

91% 

DOURW-0308P 

United States Department of Energy -0CRWM Ofice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Bulletin Washington, DC -20585 

April 1991 

Siaius of Nuclear Waste Policy Aci Relaied 1 iiigaiion 

Supreme Court refuses to hear Nevada’s 

appeal; lets stand Ninth Circuit decision 

favoring DOE. (“Notice of Disapproval 

Case”) 

In a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit filed on Jan. 5, 

1990, the State of Nevada challenged the 

DOE decision to conduct scientific 

investigations at Yucca Mountain, as a 

potential site for the location of a national 

high-level radioactive waste repository, 

pursuantto theNuclearWastePolicy Act 

of 1982, as amended (”PA). Nevada 

asserted that Congress’ selection of Yucca 

Mountain was not constitutional, and that 

actions by the Nevada State Legislature 

constituted a valid and effective “notice 

of disapproval” pursuant to the “PA. 

Nevada finally contended that the 

Secretary of DOE must promulgate 

regulations that govern the timing of site 

disqualification decisions. On Sept. 19, 

1990, the Court held that Nevada’s 

attempted legislative veto of the 

Secretary ’ssitecharacterization activities 

is preempted by the “PA, and that the 

decision to continue site characterization 

is not contrary to law. 

On Dec. 17, 1990, the State of Nevada 

petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a 

writ of certiorari from the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision. On Mar. 4, 1991, the 

Court denied certiorari and, by so doing, 

rejected Nevada’s legal challenges to 

DOE’S efforts to conduct scientific 

evaluations of the Yucca Mountain site. 

In commenting on the Supreme Court’s 

decision, Secretary of Energy Watkins 

stated, “The public interest requires that 

we promptly turn to the task of 

conducting the scientific evaluation of 

the Yucca Mountain site, as the law 

mandates...We would welcome a 

cooperative and constructive approach 

with officials at all levels in the State 

of Nevada.” 

Complaint by DOE that the state of 

Nevaa’a has unlawfully refused to act 

on DOE’s environmental permit 

applications. (“Permits Case”) 

On Jan. 25, 1990, the Department of 

Justice, at DOE’S request, filed a suit in 

theU.S. District Court,District of Nevada, 

contendipg that Nevada has prevented 

DOE from carrying out necessary 

scientific investigations to determine the 

Yucca Mountain site‘s suitability for a 

nuclear waste repository by unlawfully 

refusing to act on DOE’s environmental 

permit applications. On May 23,1990, 

the District Court granted a State motion 

to stay the proceeding pending resolution 

of the “notice of disapproval“ case 

described above. After the U.S. Court of 

Appeals decision in the “notice of 

disapproval” case, DOE permit 

applications were returned to the State on 

Oct. 1,1990, and DOE filed a motion for 

summary judgment on Oct. 4, 1990. 

Nevadafiledamotion tomaintain thestay 

onOct23,199O,onthebasis of its petition 

for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Following theSupremeCourtdecisionin 

the “notice of disapproval“ case, the 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection requested, in a letter dated 

Mar. 12, 1991, that DOE resubmit 

applications for surface disturbance and 

(Continued on page 2) 

Page 

Sutu~dNWPARclatedLitigation 1 

Sccrr~aryWatkinsU csCoopcration 

BetweenNevada md%E 

2 

lctn statcgic 3 

EgElELhOp6 

WE Awards M&O Contract lo TRW 

Enviraunental Safay Systpnr 

Dcfcnse waste 

DOE Announw Availability of Systan Dcsign Documattatim for the L.icasing 6 

Support System 

Rcport Issued on Cask Mainta~ance Facility 6 

OCRWMIssucsSevmthhualRcport 6 

PublicTausofYuccaMountain.NV,Sitc 11 

WEIntcractionswiU~thcStatcafNcvada 11 

and Affected Units of Local Gwmuncnt 

11 

OCRWM’s Strategy (0 PrOvideTRtdng 

Assistance 

New publications and Documents 12 

Selected Evenu Cltmdar 12 

N0TETOREADERS:ThcOCRWMBlrNcfinh avlikblcul 

urenofINFO~KIIaboutonew~~~~bliation. Tc 

bcpkccd on LcmdingIit,to make my .ddrru dm 

om request multiple copies of h OCRWMBuUclin, plcacc contact Judy Hockenberry. AD-235.2-CiTN, U.S 

Ikprmentof Energy, WuhIngtrm,DC.(301)353-3118. 

5 

InitialF’aymattMadeforDisposalaf 5 

External Gmps Provide Canmenu on 

Published by the US. Department of Energy (DOE), Fflce of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 

For further Information about the national program or for copies of new OCRWM publications and documents listed in the OCRWMBulletinwntact the U.S. Department of 

Energy, OCRWM, Officeof External Relations, Mail Stop RW-5.1,lOOO Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5722. The OCRWMlnformation 

SeNllces Direclory is available to provide sources of program information. 

91:27 
2 April 1991 

secretary Wakins Urges Cooperation Between Nevada and DO€ 

OnMar.4,1991,theU.S.SupremeCourt 

denied Nevada’s request that the Court 

review last September’s decision by the 

U.S. CourtofAppeals fortheNinth Circuit 

This decision rejected Nevada’s legal 

challenges of DOE’S efforts to conduct 

scientific evaluations of the Yucca 

Mountain siteasapotentialnuclearwaste 

repository (see page 1 of this Bulletin for 

more details of this case). Subsequent to 

thatdecision, SecretaryofEnergy Watkins 

wrote the following leuer to Governor 

BobMillerofNevadatourgecooperation 

between Nevada and DOE. 

“Now that the United States Supreme 

Court has let stand the decision of the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 

Nevada v. Watkins, the way is clear for us 

to join in ensuring the fulfillment of 

Congress’ mandate to objectively 

evaluate the suitability of the Yucca 

Mountain site as a potential location for 

a high-level waste repository. I am 

writing tourgecooperationbetweenthe 

State of Nevada and the Department of 

Energy in this process. 

“In response to prior recommendations 

from the State of Nevada and others, the 

Department has prioritized its plans for 

scientific evaluation activities in order to 

determine as rapidly as possible if thesite 

is qualified or disqualified as a potential 

repository location. The Department has 

also established its readiness to proceed 

expeditiously in this process; has put into 

place both @icy and capability to make 

raw data available to the State of Nevada 

and others as soon as possible; has 

committed to a policy of open, external 

review of technical plans and findings by 

expert groups such as the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board; and has begun 

development of the bases for ultimately 

making a suitability evaluation; using a 

policy of external reviews. 

“The Department has taken significant 

steps upon which a strong and effektive 

partnership with your State in the Yucca 

Mountain siteevaluation processcan take 

place. We have established a community 

of professional expertise and critique 

which, through national and international 

oversight activities, draws on worldwide 

personnel of the highest capabilities in 

all relevant disciplines to help assure that 

our environmental, technical, and 

socioeconomic work is sound. We would 

welcome the input of the professional 

resources of the State of Nevada as a 

partner in this process. 

“I firmly believe that expeditious action 

to move forward with evaluation of the 

Yucca Mountain site is not only the 

Department’s mission as established by 

law but will serve the best interests of the 

State of Nevada. I stand ready to work 

with Nevada, and I look forward to your 

joiningmeinseeingtoitthattheobjective 

evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site is 

successfully completed.” * 

Status of Nuclear Waste Policy Act hU Related Litigafion 

underground injection control (UIC) 

permits. DOE resubmitted the permit 

applications on Mar. 20,1991. 

In a hearing held on Mar. 20,1991, the 

U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, NV, 

ordered that 

1) The State and the DOE should submit 

a stipulation (mutual agreement) by 

Apr. 22, 1991, providing that the 

pending applications will be 

expeditiously processedinaccordance 

with State law on the merits, and will 

not be denied for any reason disposed 

of by the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 

Ninth Circuit. 

2) Final action on the air quality permit 

application and final action on the 

UIC permit application will take place 

by June 3,1991. 

(continued from page’ 7) 

3) AhearingwillbeheldonJuly 17,1991, 

to report on pmessing of the water 

appropriation permit application. 

Request by Countyof Esmeralda, NV, and 

County of Inyo, CA, for designation as 

affected units of local government 

On Feb. 20,199 1, theU.S.Court of Appeals 

for theNinthCircuit, in consolidated cases 

filed by Inyo County, CA, and Esmeralda 

County, NV, vacated the decision by the 

Secretary of Energy not to designate the 

counties as “affected units of local 

government” under the NWPA and 

remanded the cases to DOE for further 

action. 

The NWPA provides that the Secretary of 

Energy has discretion to designatecounties 

that arecontiguous to theYuccaMountain 

siteas “affectedunits of local government.” 

The funding provisions of the NWPA 

require DOE to make grants to affected 

units (see article on page 11 about 

Clark, Nye andLincoln Counties in this 

Bulletin). In its decision, the Court 

ruled that it could review whether 

DOE “meaningfully consider(ed) the 

possibility and extent of the suggested 

impacts ofrepository operations at Yucca 

Mountain upon the counties at issue and 

made a reasoned decision based upon 

such consideration.^' 

The Court found merit to the Counties’ 

arguments that DOE did not adequately 

consider the possibility of groundwater 

or airborne contamination in Inyo 

County, and transportation by rail and 

highway of wastes through Inyo and 

Esmeraldacountiestotherepository. * 
April 1991 3 

OCR WM Completes Strafegic Principles Workshops 

On Apr. 3-4, 1991, in Denver, COY 

OCRWM heldits third workshop on waste 

management policies and strategic 

principles. In the firstworkshop,convened 

in Salt Lake City, UT, on Dec. 45,1990, 

the discussion focused primarily on 

strategic principles related to ensuring 

public safety and protecting the 

environment. Thesecondworkshop, held 

in Washington DC, on Jan. 15-16,1991, 

dealt with the stewardship of resources 

and effectiveness of operations. 

The Denver workshop concentrated on 

the approach that OCRp pl+s to take 

regarding theissuesdiscussedht the earlier 

workshops. Theresultsoftheseworkshops 

will be considered in preparing an 

amended Mission Plan to be issued later 

this year. The amended Mission Plan, 

currently under development, willbebased 

on policies and strategic principles that, 

when adopted in final form, will be used 

to guide program implementation. 

Strategic principles discussed at the 

workshops and suggested by the 

participants are presented blow. These 

principles will provide a guiae for decision 

making anddevelopmentofmoiedetailed 

plans and studies needed by OCRWM to 

successfully conduct wake mahagement 

activities. 

Management Principles 

Maintain the focus of the program on 

permanent disposal. 

Disposal is the primary objective, it-is the 

DOE’S principal responsibility under the 

law, and success in achieving it is vital to 

maintaining the nuclear energy option. 

All program activities must &’conducted 

in a manner that suppork and facilitates 

permanent disposal. 

Provide facilitiesfor the timely acceptance 

of spent fuel. 

This principleis critical toachievingtimely 

and adequate waste acceptance and 

obtaining the system development and 

operational benefits that have been 

identified for a Monitored Retrievable 

Storage (MRS) facility, including the 

flexibility essential for spent fuel 

management. 

Maintain stict environmental compliance 

programs. 

preliminary analyses indicate that the 

development of facilities and waste 

management and disposal operations are 

not likely to result in significant 

environmental impacts. Nonetheless, this 

principle is important because its 

implementation will ensure that we give 

environmental protection priority andthat 

we closely monitor field activities for 

compliance with all applicable 

environmental protection standards. 

Ensure that funds are spent in a cost 

effective manner. 

Given that standards of excellence are 

establishedandapplied, we must maintain 

effective means for controlling the costs 

of the program. This principle will be 

based on optimizing the use of resources 

over the long term, recognizing potential 

impacts on the wastemanagement efforts 

of the utilities, and evaluating potential 

impacts on public confidence. , 

Maintain standards of excellence. 

Technical excellence has always been a 

fundamental requirement of the program , and its importance increases with the 

increasingly difficult challenges as the 

program moves fohard. It is essential 

for success in licensing, establishing 

scientific consensus, increasing public 

confidence, and the prudent management 

of resources. We will apply standards of 

excellence to all aspects of the program, 

includinginstitutionalac~ties,outreach, 

and management. 

Ensure that all quality assurance 

requirements are met. 

Quality assurance comprises the planned 

and systematic actions necessary to 

provide adequate confidence that the 

productorresultofanactivity coveredby 

91:29 

the quality assurance program will meet: 

its intended purpose and/or function; it is 

a prerequisite for licensing. The extent to 

which quality assurance and procedural 

controls will be applied to particular items 

and activities will depend upon their 

relative importance to safety, waste 

isolation, or program objectives. 

Consider public trust and confidence in 

program decisions. 

In making management, technical, and 

institutional decisions for the program, 

we must recognize the importance of 

public concerns and consider the potential 

implications for building and maintaining 

public trust and confidence. 

Assign equal importance to institutional 

and technical activities. 

Thehistory of theprogram hasshown that 

institutional challenges are as difficult as 

the technical ones, and we mustrecognize 

their importance in program plans, 

activities, and resource applications. 

Diminish uncertainties related to spentfuel management by utilities. 

We will identify system parameters that‘ 

may affectutilityeffortsorplansforspent 

fuel management as early as practicable. 

We will maintain effective channels of 

communication with the utilities. 

Provide alternatives and contingency 

plans. 

We need this principle to ensure success 

despite the inevitable surprises and 

unexpected problems that will pse in a 

complex, first-of-a-kind enterprise. It 

requires that we analyze in parallel, 

alternatives to key components of the 

system so that if the primary candidate 

site encounters difficulties, we can come 

up with a workable alternative with 

minimal delay. It also requires that we 

anticipate the difficulties which might be 

encountered, and that we develop, in 

advance, plans for minimizing their 

effects. While the provision of backups 

(Continued on page 4) 
4 April 1991 

OCR WM Completes Sfrafegic Principles Workshops 

(Continued from page 3) 

‘aha contingency planning increase the 

initial costs of the program, they are 

insurance against unforeseen problems 

that could otherwise lead to delays and 

real or perceived programmatic failure. 

Coordnate the technical, institutional, 

andmanagement mtivitiesof theprogriunA 

Implementation of this principle should 

enhance the integration of technical and 

institutional activities, contribute to the 

controlofprogram schedules, andenhance 

theprospectsfor thesuccessof themission. 

Assess our own performance rigorously. 

It is notenoughto havepolicies,objectives, 

and strategic principles to guide 

decisionmaking; they have to beused. To 

objectively determine the adequacy of 

our performance and how it can be 

improved, we will maintain an 

assessment program. We will apply 

performancemeasures systematically and 

periodically to determine how we can 

remedy inadequacies and further 

strengthen our efforts. 

Technical Principles 

Apply the concept of defense-in-depth in 

waste management and disposal. 

We will emphasize safety in the design 

and planning for all operations involving 

waste handling, including backup safety 

systems and fail-safe designs where 

appropriate, and use multiple barriers 

against waste migration. This approach 

should facilitate licensing and help to 

establish public confidence in safety. 

Use state-of-the-art system engineering 

techniques in developing and designing 

waste-management facilities and 

operations. 

Systemsengineeringis anorderly process 

for the development of complex systems. 

It consists of defining objectives and 

requirements, developing a design that 

meets the requirements, evaluating the 

design against therequirements, revising 

the design as needed, and repeating the 

process with increasing detail to ensure 

that the requirements are complete and 

satisfiedby thesystem and itscomponents. 

Important features of the process are its 

emphasis on ensuring that all the 

components work together, on sped 

studies of the entire system’s ability to 

meet requirements, and on rigorous 

control of the technical information used 

in the process. Systems engineering is 

essential for the success of the program 

because it provides the means for 

identifying, controlling and coordinating 

the many interfaces among the elements 

of the system, coordinating the multiple 

scientific and engineering disciplines 

involved in the program, and optimizing 

the design and operation of the system. 

Use simple and proven designs and 

technologies. 

The use of simple and proven 

technologies, particularly those already 

licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, and the use of designs that 

approximate those of licensed facilities 

should facilitate licensing and increase 

cost effectiveness. This principle is 

applicable to a Monitored Retrievable 

Storage (MRS) facility, a repository, and 

a transportation system. 

Provide for outside review. 

The purpose of this principle is to ensure 

that, in resolving important issues and 

making important decisions in the 

program, we have the benefit of appraisal 

by outsideexperts. Such appraisal, which 

includes peer reviews, is important in 

verifying or validating assump tions,plans, 

results, or conclusions critical to the 

successofaprogram. Itbolstcrs technical 

confidence, and may also generate fresh 

ideas and approaches to problems. 

Further, theuseofrecognizcd independent 

authorities strengthens ourcrcdibility. We 

will not limit the outside reviews to 

technical issues; we will extend them to 

institutionalandmanagerid issuesas well. 

Institutional Principles 

Provide for the involvement of aflected 

governmentsand interestedparties in the 

decisionmaking process. 

As the organization charged with the 

‘development of the waste management 

system, we have certain responsibilities 

that cannot be shared. One of these 

responsibilities is making technical and 

programmatic decisions. However, the 

views of affected governments and 

interested parties are essential to the 

decisionmaking process and will be 

actively solicited. The involvement of 

affected governments and interested 

parties early in the decisionmaking process 

will help us identify emerging issues and 

formulate appropriate alternatives. This 

will make issue resolution moreproductive 

and willalsoallow theprogram tobenefit 

from theknowledgeand experienceof the 

affected parties. 

Work cooperatively with affected 

governments and interested parties. 

To foster productive links with affected 

governments and interested parties, @e 

will consult and cooperate with them and 

will seek to exchange information and 

ideas. Wewillusecooperative agreements 

to bring additional groups into the 

program,both for technicaladviceand for 

the dissemination of information to their 

members. 

Share information and data. 

We will share technical information and 

data on a timely basis and in an 

appropriate form. 

Provide support to educationalprogram. 

Gmterunderstandingofthehealth,safety, 

and environmental issues surrounding 

waste generation and management is key 

to the success of the program. It is also 

needed to help develop theskillsnecessary 

to meet the future human resource needs 

of the program. We will implement this 

principle by stimulating the teaching of 

(Continued on page 5) 

91:30 
April 1991 5 

DOE has awarded a management and 

operating (M&O) contract to TRW 

Environmentalsafety Systems (TESS) for 

’ systems engineering, development, and 

management of the nuclear waste 

management system for KRWM.. The 

contract has a ten-year term’. The award to 

TESS for the frst six months is $15.8 

million. After the initial ten-year period, 

the contract is subject to DOE’S review of 

contractor performance. A decision 

whether to renew the contract for up to 

five additional years will be made at that 

time. The negotiations and award of this 

contract arein accordancewitharuling of 

the U.S. Claims Court (see OCRWM 

Bulletin, July/August 1990). 

In announcing this award, OCRWM 

Deputy DirectorFranknG. Peters stated, 

“A management and operating contract is 

needed to consolidate and improve 

integration and direction of the OCRWM 

program resources and to proceed with 

program priorities. The M&O contractor 

DOE Awards M&O Corltract to TRW Environmental Safety Systems 

will provide the additional expertise that 

is necessary to implement this complex 

program. The contract will facilitate the 

implementation of the rcstructured 

OCRWM program as announced by 

Admiral Watkinsin hisReporttoCongress 

& November 1989. Having an M&O 

contractor on board will allow us to 

effectively respond to previous 

Congressional concerns about lack of 

integratedcontractorefforts, and industry 

concerns about duplicative contractor 

support and the need to selcct contractors 

Initial Payment Made for 

Disposal of Defense Waste 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 

~A)requiredtheh.esidenttoevaluate 

whether high-level wastes generated by 

atomic energy defense activities should 

be disposed of in a geologic repository 

along with commercial nuclear wastes. In 

February 1985, the Secretary of Energy 

OCR WM Completes Strategic Principles Workshops 

(Confinued from puge 4) 

science at the secondary, undergraduate, 

and graduate levels and by developing 

cumculaand instructionalmateria1s - both 

print and electronic - for primary, 

secondary, and undergraduate studies. A 

related effort will be to foster 

undergraduate and graduate studies for 

the public policy aspects of waste 

management. 

Evaluate socioeconomic issues in 

cooperation with affected governments. 

We will apply standards comparable to 

those applied to environmental and 

technical issues, including independent 

review, to socioeconomic effects. And 

we will seek the cooperation of affected 

governments to ensure that we consider 

significant local issues. 

I 

In siting, designing, and constructing 

waste-management facilities, consider 

potential benefits to the host States and 

communities. 

TheNuclearWastePolicy Act of 1982as 

amended (NWPA) requires the Secretary 

of Energy, in siting Federal research 

projects, to give special consideration to 

proposals from States where a repository 

is located. It also authorizes the Secretary 

ofEnergy to enter intoabenefits agreement 

with the State of Nevada concerning a 

repository or with any State or Indian 

Tribe concerning an MRS facility. Such 

a benefits agreement would include 

specific benefits, including enhanced 

program participation, idcntified in the 

“PA. Other benefits to jurisdictions 

willingtohostarepository orMRS facility 

could be developed through the Nuclear 

Waste Negotiator. ~. * 

who have successfully integrated very 

complex programs in the past. The 

TESS team, which includes Babcock 

& Wilcox, Duke Engineering, Flour 

Daniel, INTERA, Morrison-Knudsen, 

Woodward-Clyde Consultants, RDA, 

E.R. Johnson Associates, and J.K. 

Associates, will also provide therequisite 

contractor capability to proceed with 

advanced design of a Monitored 

Retrievable Storage facility. This 

resource was not previously available in 

the OCRWM program.” * 

sent a report (An Evaluation of 

CommercialRepository Capacity for the 

Disposal of Defense High-Level Waste, 

DOE/DP/0020/1, June 1985) to the 

President recommending that defense 

wastes be commingled with commercial 

nuclear wasterather thanbuilding separate 

repositories. The President, on April 30, 

1985, advised the Secretary of Energy 

that defensewasteandcommercial spent 

nuclear fuel should be disposed of in the 

same repository. 

As directed by the NWPA, the costs 

resulting from the disposal of defense 

high-level waste (DHLW) must 

include “the allocation of costs of 

developing, constructing, operating and 

decommissioning” the repository or 

repositories WhereDHLWisplaced. The 

principle underlying this statutory 

direction is that users of a repository, 

whether civilian or federal, pay for that 

use. Neither the taxpayer paying for 

DHLW disposal nor the ratepayers of 

nuclear utilities paying for disposal of 

spentnuclearfuel aintendedtosubsidize 

one another. 

DOE issued a fmal notice in the Federal 

Register, on August 20, 1987 (51 FR 

43566), which statea that the cost 

allocation methodology for calculating 

defense high-level waste fees willbefullcostrecovery based on facility usage and 

activities perfoxmed. Therefore, the total 

(Continued on page 6) 

91:31 
6 April 1991 

. DOE Announces AvaiIabiIity of System Design Documentation 

for the Licensing Supporf System 

Final computer system design 

documentation for the Licensing Support 

System @SS) is now available to the 

public in the DOE’S Freedom of 

Information reading mms at the DOE 

Headquarters Building at 1000 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington 

DC, and at the Nevada Operations Office 

in Las Vegas, NV. 

TheLSS will be used to support the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

process for review of DOE’S license 

application for construction of a geologic 

repository forhigh-levelradioactive waste. 

It is an electronic information system 

intended to contain the documentary 

materiaI of the license applicant, DOE, its 

contractors, and documentary material of 

all other parties, interested governmental 

participants andpotential partiesandtheir 

contractors. The LSS will provide a 

mechanism for document discovery during 

the licensing proceedings, a means for 

electronic submission of filings by the 

parties, and for the dissemination of 

findings of the Commission and its 

adjudicatory boards during the 

proceedings. 

The system design documentation 

respondstopreliminary conceptual design 

developed for DOE for continued detailed 

design efforts. The documents available 

for public review include: the Licensing 

Supportsystem Search and ImageDesign 

Document: Volumes I and II: theLicensing 

Support Communication System Design 

Document, and the Licensing Support 

Capture System Design Document. In 

addition, two volumes which discuss 

assumptions made in the design, the 

Licensing Support System4 ystem 

Level Requirements Document and a 

series entitled White Papers for the 

Licensing Support System, willbe made 

available. No procurement actions by 

the DOE, based on these design 

documents are anticipated. 

For further information, contact Daniel 

J. Graser, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, RW-12, Washington, DC 

20585, or call (202) 586-4589. 

Reporf lssued on Cask Maintenance Facility (CMF) 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, under 

contract with OCRWM, recently issued a 

npxt,Feasibility Study for Transportation 

Operations System Cask Maintenance 

Facility (ORNL~-11019). The report 

discusses the role of a CMF within the 

transportation system as well as 

preliminary costs, design specifications 

and schedules. This study provides a 

basis for initiating the conceptual design 

of a CMF. 

A CMF would be an integral part of the 

OCRWM program. The design and siting 

of a CMF will be integratcd with other 

elements in the OCRWM program, 

including the monitored retrievable 

storage (MRS) facility, the geologic 

repository, and the components of the 

transportation cask system. The CMF 

could be co-located with an existing DOE 

facility, locatedas part of therepository or 

MRS, or developed as a stand-alone 

facility. 

A CMF would centralize maintenance 

operationsforcasksusedtotransportspent 

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste to a geologic repository or an MRS 

facility. Primary CMF functions listed in 

the report include inspecting, servicing, 

testing, and repairing cask components. 

The CMF could also provide for the 

reconfiguration of casks to accommodate 

different spentfuel baskets. ACMFcould 

also be used to prepare casks or cask 

components, that are no longer fit for 

service, for decommissioning anddisposal. 

(Continued on page 17) ~~ ~~ 

Initial Payment Made for Disposal of Defense Waste 

(Continued from page 5) 

cost of developing adisposal system will Environmental Restoration and Waste 

be shared between the defense and Management detailing the specific terms 

commercial sectors, with common and conditions for accepting and paying 

variablerepositorycostsallocatedonthe for the disposal of DHLW. Prior to 

basisofthefollowingcostsharingfactors: finalizing that agreement, however, 

(1) areal dispersion and (2) piece count. DOE has now made an initial payment of 

five million dollars into the Nuclear 

Discussions are under way to develop a Waste Fund for the disposal of defense 

OCRWM and DOE’S Office of 

Memorandum of Agreement between nuclear waste. * 

91:32 
April I991 7 

NUCLEAR WASTE FUND 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Balance Sheet.. 

September30.1989 and 1988 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Assets 

Cash 

U.S. Treasury securities 

Receivables from utilities: 

One-time spent fuel fees 

KWH fees 

Interest on one-time spent fuel fees 

1989 

$ 1,196 

2,248,544 

899.659 

130,100 

567.447 

1,597206 

1988 

1.025 

1.923.027 

902,162 

125.802 

454.483 

1,482,447 

Receivable from Department of Energy for defense 

Accrued intmst on U.S. Treasury securities 

Other receivables and advances 

Capital equipment, less accumulated depreciation 

high-level waste disposal costs 

of $20,019 in 1989 and $16.495 in 1988 

- 

72.197 

1925 

31,713 

- 

58.150 

1.394 

34,047 

$3,952,181 3.500.090 ,, 

Liabilities 

Accounts payable and amed expenses 

Estimated payable to utilities on overpayment 

of KWH fees 

Deferred revenue 

Total liabiities 

Fund balance 

67.508 

200,000 

3,684,673 

3,952.181 

42.706 

- 

3,457.3 84 

3,500.090 

- 

Contingencies $ 3,952,181 3,500,090 

91:33 

. . . 
8 April I991 

NUCLEAR WASTE FUND 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Statements of Operations 

Years ended September 30.1989 and 1988 

and cumulatively from January 7,1983. date of inception 

to September 30.1989 

(Dollars in thousands) 

1989 1988 Cumulative 

Revenue: 

Fees: 

One-time spent fuel fees 

KWH fees 

One-time spent fuel fees 

US. T~eanuy seuuities 

Gain (loss) on sale of US. Txeasury 

Interest: 

seuuities 

Less amount deferred 

$ - 

317.186 

116,490 

169304 

(132) 

602,848 

(227,289) 

84.450 

141,586 

3,694 

745,258 

(357.227) 

375359 388,031 

2,334.777 

2,508,535 

583,215 

608.697 

32.181 

6,067.405 

(3.684.673) 

2,382,732 

wen.=: 

First repository 

Second repository 

Monitored mrievable storage 

Transpo~ta$mand systems 

Rogram management 

Interest 

Transfer appropriation 

integration 

237306 

989 

1,567 

38,269 

93395 

45 

3.988 

294,695 

8,126 

1374 

3 1.432 

44,741 

7,663 - 

1,761.618 

108.610 

39,766 

116,380 

334,362 

18,008 

3,988 

Excess of revenue over expenses 

375359 

$ - 

388,031 2,382,732 

91% 
April 1991 , '9 

NUCLEAR WASTE FUND 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTNE WASTE MANAGEMENT 

UNlTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Statements of Changes in Financial Position 

Years endedSeptember30.1989 id 1988 

and cumulatively from January 7,1983, date of inception 

to September30,1989 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Cash provided from: 

Revenue received 

Expenses paid 

Cash provided from 

Opemtions 

Borrowings from US. Treasury 

proceeds from sales and maturities 

of U.S. Treasury securities 

Borrowings from DOE for capital 

equipment 

Total cash provided 

1989 1988 Cumulative 

$ 733,368 

(337.840) 

395,528 

- 

181,112 

- 

694,796 

(399,779) 

295.017 

- 

388,579 

- 

576,640 683,596 

cash used for: 

Capital equipment 

Repayment of borrowings . from DOE for capital equipment 

Repayment of borrowings from 

US. Treasury 

Purchase of US. Treasury . 

securities 

Purchase of accrued interest 

on U.S. Treasury securities 

hcrease (decrease) in advances 

Total cash used 

Increase (decrease) in cash 

10.450 

- 

- 

552.41 6 

13,672 

(69) 

576,469 

S 171 

4,789,529 

(2,270,602) 

2,518,927 

264,964 

2,265,410 

9,739 

5,059,040 

12,369 

- 

- 

669,679 

1.126 

(307) 

682,867 

729 

76,202 

9,739 

264,964 

4,689,611 

16,003 

1325 

5,057,844 

1,196 

(COntinued) 
10 April 1991 

NUCLEARWASTEWND 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Statements of Changes in Financial Position, Continued 

Years ended September 30,1989 and 1988 

and cumulatively from January 7,1983, date of inception 

to September 30. 1989 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Changesincash 

Charges not affecting cash 

Depreciation 

Amoaization of premiums 

and adon of discounts 

on U.S. Treasury securities 

Net book value of dispositions 

and charge-offs of capital 

equipment 

Increase in assets excluding cash 

US. Tmwuy securities 

Receivables 

Capital equipment 

Increase (decrease) in liabilities: 

Accounts payable and accrued 

Deferred revenue expenses 

Increase (decrease) in cash 

1989 1988 

(45.654) 

(5.808) 

(58,570) 

(5.440) 

(5,268) 

(57.118) 

Cumulative 

(175,524) 

(19,260) 

(220.145) 

371,303 

128,737 

10,450 

510.490 

281,100 

97.691 

12,369 

391.160 

2,424,200 

1,670,728 

76,202 

4.171.130 

224.802 

227,289 

452,091 

$ 171 

(22,456) 

357,227 

334.771 

729 

267,508 

3,684,673 

3.952.181 

1,196 
April I991 

Financial Assistance Grants 

Pursuant to theNuclear WastePolicy Act 

of 1982 as amended, DOE has recently 

awarded $3,006,000 to the State of 

Nevada, $2,637,OOO to Clark County, and 

$395,779 to Lincoln County for the 

conduct of oversight of the scientific 

investigationsattheYuccaMountain,NV, 

candidate site. The funding request for 

Nye County is under review. * 

11 

Framework for Formal Interactions 

Between Nye County and DOE Sigried 

Representatives of Nye County and DOE 

havedeveIopeda“framework”document, 

effectiveApd2,1991, for improving and 

formalizing interactions between the two 

institutions. This document is the first 

step in defining the manner in which Nye 

County and DOE will formally address 

issues ofconcern thathavearisenandmay 

arise in the future. * 

Public Tours of Yucca 

Mouniain, NV, Siie 

More than 325 people toured the Yucca 

Mountain, NV, area on March 23,1991, 

as guests of the DOE’S high-level nuclear 

waste repository site characterization 

project. The tour andopen house featured 

stops at the newly-remodeled Facility 

Operations Center, where managementof 

new fieldworkwillbe headquartered; and 

at Yucca Mountain itself, where Project 

scientists told visitors about the studies 

that will be conducted to determine the 

suitability of the Yucca Mountain site as 

a repository. Other stops included a 

hydrology laboratory and a facility for 

housingrockandenvironmentalsamples, 

as well as the actual location where new 

field work will begin. 

Buses picked up visitors in Las Vegas and 

two locations in Nye County where the 

site.is located, for the day-long event. 

Guests were members of the public who 

had asked to take the tour. The tour was 

advertised in local newspapers and through 

DOE mailing lists, and more than 1,200 

calls were received in one week Because 

of the overwhelming public response, a 

second open house was conducted on 

Apr. 20, and subsequent tours will take 

place on May 10 and June 8,1991. * 

Report Issued on Cask 

Mahfenance Facilify (CMF) 

(Continued from page 6) 

In addition to cask service and maintenance, 

a CMF could also be used to maintain an 

inventoryofequipment,tools,andhandling 

devices, and spare parts, and also provide 

for the temporary storage of unloaded 

casks. Maintenanceequipmentandfacilities 

to perform basic services such as the 

decontamination and repainting of transport vehicles such as trailers and railcars 

could also be incorporated at the facility. 

Copies of the Feasibility Study for a 

Transportation Operations System Cask 

Maintenance Facility are available by 

contacting: Office of Scientific and 

Technical Information, U.S. Department 

of Energy, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 

37831, (615) 576-1301. * 

Exiernal Groups Provide 

Commenis on OCRWM’s Siraiegy 

io Provide Training Assisfance 

Participants at the Transportation 

CoordinationGroup(TCG) meeting held 

in Albuquerque, NM, Dec. 4-5, 1990. 

wereencouragedto providecomments to 

DOE on its preliminary draft Strategy to 

Provide Training Assistancc as Required 

by Section 18O(c) of the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act of 1982 as Amended. Section 

180(c) of the NWPA states that “the 

Secretary [of Energy] shall provide 

technical assistance and funds to States 

for training for public safcty officials of. 

appropriate units of local government 

and Indian Tribes through whose 

jurisdiction the Secretary plans to 

transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level 

radioactive waste...” . 

Eight institutional groups provided 

comments on the preliminary strategy. 

Thesegroups included thesouthem States 

Energy Boaid; ,the Western Interstate 

Energy Board; the National Conference 

of State Legislatures; the Association of 

AmericanRailroads, theStatcsofIllinois 

and Nevada; Lincoln County, W, and 

Esmeralda County, NV. 

The major categories that were addressed 

in the comments include: defining the 

scope of the assistance: Vansportation 

route designation; the working group; 

state, local, and industry involvement; 

Hazardous Materials TransportationUniform Safety Act of 1990; 

implementation effects; coordination with 

existingprograms; resolu tion ofidentified 

issues; recommendations on actual 

implementation such as program 

flexibility,equipment, funding,andcourse 

development and contingency planning. 

OCRWM is currently revising the 

pre1iminarydraftsmtegy. Thenewdraft 

willreflectthewrittencommentsreceived, 

input received at the TCG meeting, and 

information on the inter-agency planning 

activities under way for the 

implementation of Section 117a of the 

Hazardous Materials Transportation 

Uniform Safety Act of 1990. 

No formal response to the comments 

received on the preliminary draft is 

planned. Announcement of the next draft 

willbeissuedin theFederalRegister,and 

formal comments will be requested. 

Responses willbe prepared for comments 

received regarding the formal draft. 

Announcement of the Federal Register 

notice will be sent to TCG participants. 

For more information on the status of 

Section 180(c) planning contact 

Christopher A. Kouts at (202) 586-9761 

or FR3 896-9761. * 

91:37 
12 April 1991 

New Publications and Documents 

DQE's Yucca Mountain Studies: What 

are'they? Why are they being done?, 

DOE/RW-O293P, December 1990. 

This booklet is about the disposal of 

high-level nuclear waste in the United 

States, and is intended for readers who 

do not have a technical background. It 

discusses why scientists and engineers 

think that high-level nuclear waste may 

-be disposed of safely underground. It 

also descni why Yucca Mountain, 

NV, is being studied, and provides basic 

information about thosestudies. Copies 

maybeobtainedby contacting the Yucca 

Mountain Site CharacterizationProject, 

P.O.Box98608,LasVegas,NV89193- 

8608, (702) 794-7900. 

Information Services Directory, DOE/ 

RW-O302P, March 1991. . 

This report is a reference document that 

lists sources of program information 

available to States, Indian Tribes, and the 

public. This is the third update since the 

Information Services Directory was first 

issued in August 1986. 

1990 OCRWM Bulletin Compilation and 

Index, DOE/RW-O303P, March 1991. 

This document is a compilation of 

OCRWM Bulletin issues for the 1990 

calendar year. A table of contents and 

index have been provided to assist in 

finding topical information. 

Feasibility Study for Transportation 

Operations System Cask Maintenance 

Facility, ORNL./TM-l1019. 

This report discusses the role of a Cask 

Maintenance Facility within the 

transportation system as well as 

prelhinary costs, design specifications 

andschedules. Forfurtherdescriptionsee 

article on page 6 of this Bulletin. 

May 20-21 

End of May 

June 2-5 

June 6-7 

June 12-13 

June 19-21 

June 25-27 

July 15-16 

July 16-18 

July 24-26 

Selected Events Calendar 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Risk and Performance Analysis Panel meeting. Arlington, VA. Contact 

Paula Alford, (703) 235-4473. 

Western Interstate Energy Board, High-Level Waste Committee meeting. Location to be announced. Contact Lori 

Friel, (303) 573-8910. 

American Nuclear Society, Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, Marriott's Orlando World Center. Contact John DeMastry , 

National Academy of Sciences,BoardonRadioactiveWasteManagementmeeting, Albuquerque,NM. ContactBetty 

King, (202) 334-3066. 

Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel Mccting, Bethesda, h4D. Contact MarileeRood, (301) 492-4030. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste meeting, Bethesda, MD. Contact Barbara 

Jo White, (301) 492-7288. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Hydrogeology and Geochemisfry/Structural Geology and Geoengineering 

Joint Panel meeting, Arlington, VA. Contact Paula Alford, (703) 235-4473. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Structural Geology and Geoengineering/Hydrogeology and Geochemistry 

Joint Panel meeting, Arlington, VA. Contact Paula Alford, (703) 235-4473. 

Nuclk Waste Technical Review Board meeting, Arlington, VA. Contact Paula Alford, (703) 235-4473. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Commit& on Nuclear Waste meeting, Bethesda, MD. Contact Barbara 

Jo White, (301) 492-7288. 

(407) 694-3613. 

For details on DOE/NRC meetings call (1/800) 368-2235 for a recorded message. In the Washington, DC, area call 479-0487. 

A telephone recording service has been established for the announcement of upcoming meetings related to the waste management 

program of the NRC. The number is (1/800) 368-5642, ext. 20436. Washington, DC, area residents should call 492-0436. 

For information on meetings and events occurring between issues of the OCRWM Bulletin use OCRW INFOLINK 11, a 

computerized data base containing information about the OCRWM program. The OCRWM Bulletin is also available online 

through INFOLINK II. 
-0CRWM 

Bulletin 

Secretary of Energy James D. Watkins 

has notified Esmeralda, Eureka and 

White Pine Counties, NV, and Inyo 

County, CA, that they have been 

designated as affected units of local 

government under provisions contained 

in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 

as amended. These counties now join 

Nye, Clark, and Lincoln Counties in 

Nevada as affected units of local 

DOURW-0309P 

United States Department of Energ: 

Ofice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Managemen 

Washington, DC 20.58 

The decision by the Secretary of Energ] 

follows a ruling by the Ninth Circui 

Court of Appeals in February 1991 

concerning extension of affected count] 

status to Esmeralda and Inyo Counties 

As designated affected units of loca 

government, Esmeralda, Eureka, Inyo 

and White Pine Counties will be eligiblt 

to receive financial assistance to overw 

the DOE'S activities at the YuCCi 

MaylJune 199i 

Secreiary of Energy Exiends Affected Counfy Siafus 

County, the local government 

with jurisdiction over the Yucca 

All of these designated 

counties are contiguous to Nye Y' 

I 

U" 

Mountain candidate site. This site 

was chosen by Congress in 1987 for 

scientific studies to determine its 

suitability' as a potential high-level 

radioactive waste repository for spent 

fuel from commercial reactors and highlevel radioactive waste from the Nation's 

defense programs activities. * Map not to scale 

Mountain candidate site and to mitigab 

impacts of the scientific investigativc 

activities or potential development of thc 

repository. * 

Page 

sccntary of Energy 

Extends Affcncd County Status 1 

Obtaining State urL.ocalpcmriU 2 

LitigaticnUpdatc 2 

EPA hats Views cn Le@ation to Pennit DOE Site Charactcnzaticn Without 

DOE and the office of thcNuclur Waste 

Negotiatorhe Announamaus Regarding 

the Manitorcd Rmicvable Storage Facility. 3 

OCRWM Relcascs Third Site Charactuization 

ProgressRepcarforYucctMountain,NV 3 

4 

sccntary of Energy w* to 

Rcadcrs of Las Vegas Newspaper 

Radioactive Waste Managanat 4 

OCRWM's Seventh AnnualRcpoa 4 

First M&g Held by the Sccrrtnry of Enegv 

Advisory BoardTaskForccon CWiXan 

F'inancialStatanmtsfran 

DOEIYuesDdtAcceprana 

F'riority Ranking 6 

NuclcarWaskT&dRcviewBoard 

Rclcaza Its Third Rqmt to the U.S. congress andtheU.S. Sccntary ofEncgy 6 

Select& Evmts Caladar 9 

RcadaRcsponscCard 9 

lIOTET0 READERS:The OCRWMBdlctin is available o users of INFOLINK about one week before 

nrblicrtion. To be placed onthemailinglist.to make my 

lddrus corroctioec, or to reqvutmultiple copies of the 

ICRWM Bulkfin, plcaro contact Judy Hockenberry, 

iD-235.2-0TN. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, DC 2.0545 (301) 353-3118. 

Published by the US. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 

For further Information about the national program or for copies of new OCRWM publications and documents listed in the OCRWMBuMerin contact the US. Department( 

Energy, OCRWM, Office of External Relations. Mail Stop RW-5.1,lOOO Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, CC 20585, (202) 586-5722. The OCRWMlnfomatiO 

Sedces DIIeclory is available to provide sources of program information. 

91:39 
2 MaylJune I991 

€PA Presents Views on Legislation to Permit DOE 

Site Characterizafion Wthout Obtaining State or Local Permits 

f~ testimony before the Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources on May 13,1991, the Deputy 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), F. Henry 

Habicht II,presented the views of EPAon 

Section 511 of Senate bill 570, the 

Administration’s National Energy 

Strategy Act of 1991. His statement is 

excerpted below: 

“Section 51 1 amends the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act of 1982 to facilitate the 

Department of Energy’s site 

characterization activities fora high-level 

radioactive waste repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada. This section would 

allow DOE to conduct site 

characterization activities at Yucca 

Mountain without the need to obtain 

permits for such activities from the State 

of Nevada, a local government, or an 

Indian Tribe. 

“Specifically, Section 51 1 would 

withdraw approval under Federal 

environmental statutes for the State of 

Nevada to exercise enforcement and 

administrative authority over site 

characterization activities. Such 

authorities would now be exercised 

directly by EPA under Federal law. The 

Section would also preempt, in favor of 

Federal law, all State, Tribal and local 

laws which impose requirements for 

permits, rights-of-way, licenses, 

certifications and approvals. 

“Mr. Chairman, EPA endorses this 

provision because it provides a workable 

solution to a very difficult and important 

problem. 

“As a matter of general policy, the Bush 

Administration supports and strongly 

defends programs of cooperative 

federalism, whereby Federal and State 

authorities enforce parallel regulatory 

schemes. Under such programs, once the 

State and Federal authorities reach 

agreement on the substance of the 

regulatory requirements, the Federal 

government will look to the State to be 

principally responsible for enforcement 

under State law. We believe that the 

States, in many instances, are better 

equipped and more capable to carry out 

public policy programs, particularly 

environmental protection programs, than 

the Federal government. 

“In fact, it is a fundamental assumption 

underlying all three Federal 

environmental statutes most likely to be 

affected by Section 511 - the Clean 

Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

- that the States will assume principal 

responsibility for enforcing, as part of 

State law, all or part of the regulatory 

program delegation of the States. This is a 

principle which the EPA and the 

Administration strongly endorse. 

“Nevertheless, the Administration has 

concluded, in this very limited situation, 

that the requirement to proceed with site 

characterization studies at Yucca 

Mountain mandated by Congress in the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act outweighs the 

general presumption in favor of State 

administration and enforcement of laws 

to protect the environment. 

“I would note the approach envisioned by 

Section 511 is analogous to provisions 

found in all Federal environmental 

statutes which authorize the President to 

exempt unilaterally Federal agencies 

from the requirements of those statutes 

when he determines it to be in the 

paramount interestof theunited States to 

do so. The Administration believes that it 

is in the paramount interest of the United 

States to proceed on site characterization 

work at Yucca Mountain as directed by 

Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act. However, rather than take unilateral 

action to waive all environmental 

requirements, Section 51 1 simply 

modifies the process through which those 

requirements are enforced. The 

legislation ensures that the substantive 

requirements of our Nation’s 

environmental laws will be met. 

“As DOE has testified, the State of 

Nevada’ has consistently and effectively 

thwarted efforts to conduct the scientific 

investigations mandated by the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act. In the absence of a 

provision such as Section 511, it is 

possible that those investigations will 

never occur. Failure to move toward 

identification of an appropriate site for 

deep geologic disposal of spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level radioactive waste 

means an indefinite continuation of the 

undesirable practice of storage of such 

waste at multiple sites. 

(Continued on page 3) 
MaylJune 199I 3 

DOE and the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator lssue Announcemenfs 

Regarding the Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility 

Section 406(b) of the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act of 1982, as amended, 

authorizes the Secretary of Energy to 

make grants of financial assistance to any 

State, Indian Tribe or affated unit of 

local government to assess the feasibility 

of siting a Monitored Retrievable S torage 

(MRS) facility at a site under their 

jurisdiction. On June 5,1991, WRWM 

issued a notice of availability of a 

restricted eligibility solicitation inviting 

the submission by eligible States, Indian 

Tribes and affected units of local 

government of applications for such 

grants for studies in order to assess the 

feasibility of sitingan MRS facilityunder 

their jurisdiction. 

On the same date, the Office of the 

Nuclear Waste Negotiator published a 

notice of operating procedures, a notice of 

intent to coordinate with the DOE on the 

review and evaluation of financial 

assistance feasibility grants, and a notice 

of intent to negotiate agreements with 

potential host jurisdictions. Requests for 

more information should be addre-ssed to 

the Office of the Nuclear Waste 

Negotiator, 1823 Jefferson Place, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20036. 

The DOE solicitation provides for two 

types of feasibility study grant 

applications: Preliminary (Phase 1) and 

advanced (Phase 2). Preliminary study 

grants willbe for amaximum of $l00,OOO 

and be based upon conformance with 

eligibility requirements set forth in the 

solicitation document. There is no 

predetermined limit on the amount of an 

advanced study grant, but such grants as 

may be awarded will be based upon 

OCR WM Releases Third Sife Characferizafion 

Progress Reporf for Yucca Mounfain, NV 

OCRWM's Office of Geologic Disposal 

has recently released the third semiannual Progress Report (PR) on the status 

of the Yucca Mountain site 

characterization program for determining 

the site's suitability to host a geologic 

repository forspentfuel fromcommercial 

reactors and high-level radioactive waste 

from the Nation's defense programs 

activities. 

The overall style and format of the third 

editionofthePRhaschangedfromthatof 

thefusttwo. Adescriptionofthestatusof 

each Site Characterization Plan (SCP) 

study activity, and design/performance 

from Chapter 8 of the SCP is provided. 

There is also a section on preparatory 

activities,to discuss elements of progress 

nottiedtoChapter8. Brief discussionsof 

important information or conclusions 

resulting from site characterization 

activities are included in the PR, but the 

PR's main role is to reference where this 

information can be found in he literature. 

The PR also reports changes in site 

characterization planning from the 

baselined program outlined in the SCP. 

The PR is not the mechanism for 

controlling changes to the SCP's 

technical baseline, it is intended only to 

report when a change has been made. 

When OCRWM reorganized in 

November 1990, the responsibility for 

producing and distributing the PR was 

transferred to the Office of Geologic 

Disposal. As a result, distribution is 

taking place from the Yucca Mountain 

Site Characterization Project Office in 

and determined by the eligibility 

requirements prescribed in the 

solicitation. 

Applications will be accepted through 

Dec. 31, 1991, will be processed and 

acted upon -in the order received, if 

complete, and will be subject to the 

availability of funds for such purpose at 

the time of decision on the application. 

DOE currently has available $1.097 

million for the purpose of such grants. 

Requests for more information and for 

copies of the solicitation shouldbe made 

in writing to: Office of Placement and 

Administration, Attn: Ms. Kristin 

Wright/PR-322.2, 1OOO Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585. 

Ms. Wright can be reached on 

(202) 586-4285. * 

Las Vegas, NV. The PR will be 

distributed to recipients of the SCP and 

othersexpressing interest in wiving it, 

rather than by automatic distribution to 

recipients of the OCRWM Bulletin. If 

you would like to receive copies of the 

Progress Report, please send a card or 

brief note to the US. Department of 

Energy, Yucca Mountain Site 

Characterization Project Office, P.O. 

Box 98608, Las Vegas, NV 89193- 

8518, sothat yournameand address may 

be added to the distribution list of the 

Office of Geologic Disposal. * 

EPA Presents Views on Legislation to Permit DOE Site Chafacterizafion 

Without Obfaining Sfafe of Local Permits 

(Continued from page 2) 

"In light of this situation, EPA endorses oversee DOE'S activities and to ensure 

Section 511 as the appropriate response. that such activities comply withboth the 

As we ask to support this provision, we letter and spirit of the federal law 

want to assure the Committee that there protecting human health and the 

will be no relaxation or minimization of environment. We also believe that this 

enforcement of Federal environmental provision should not establish a 

statutes and regulations which govern precedent for future activities at Yucca 

DOE'S site characterization activities at Mountain or elsewhere. The 

Yucca Mountain. The Administration is Administration remains committed to 

committed to ensuring thatEPA has all of . State preeminence in administration and 

the necessary authority and capability to enforcement of environmental statutes." 

47 

91:41 
4 MayfJune 1991 

Secretary of Energy Writes to Readers of Las Vegas Newspaper 

On Mar. 22,1991, theReview-Journal of 

Las Vegas, NV, published a letter to its 

readers from Secretary of Energy James 

D. Watkins. In his letter, Secretary 

Watkins stated: 

“The National Energy Strategy 

introduced by the President in February 

represents more than two years of 

planning fora balanced approach to meet 

America’s future energy needs. 

However, I am concerned that citizens of 

Nevada may have been deliberately 

misled by reports and statements that 

Nevada may have no more oversight 

authority for Yucca Mountain if the 

National Energy Strategy becomes law. 

This is Simply wrong. 

“The State of Nevada has already spent 

more than!MO million inFederal funding 

foroversightactivitiesconnected with the 

Department of Energy7sYuccaMountain 

program, and will continue to receive 

funding in the future. The Department of 

Energy welcomes Nevada’s scientists to 

oversee the conduct and evaluation of all 

phases of this complex geotechnical 

research project. 

“The National Energy Strategy’s 

propod for Yucca Mountain deals with 

the narrow issue of which agency would 

review environmental permits. Like any 

other construction project in Nevada that 

disturbs the surface of the land, the 

Department of Energy must comply with 

Federal and State requirements that apply 

to air quality, water usage and other 

environmental considerations. As a 

consequence, the Department of Energy 

will, under any circumstance, fully 

comply with Federal and State 

environmental requirements. Nevada, to 

date, has refused even to process the 

necessary permits. -’ 

“Yet, the Department of Energy is 

requiredby law to completean exhaustive 

series of studies to determine whether 

Yucca Mountain is a suitable site to 

isolate high-level radioactive waste from 

the environment. In fact, the 1987 

amendments to theNuclear Waste Policy 

Act make it very clear: ‘The Department 

of Energy must determine the suitability 

of Yucca Mountain before Congress will 

consider alternatives.’ 

“The National Energy Strategy proposal 

only allows the permitting process to go 

forw&d without the burden of endless 

litigation. The safety and health of 

workers, the citizens of Nevada, and 

protection of the environment will 

continueasourhighestpriority duringthe 

entire scope of the Yucca Mountain 

project. 

“I have repeatedly asked for coopration 

from Nevada’s elected leaders and 

regulatory agencies. Had State officials 

been willing to consider options to 

proceed, we wouldnot now beat thebrink 

of congressional intervention. 

“The time has come to begin the 

important research work at Yucca 

Mountain. Ifitrequiresthedesignationof 

a Federal instead of a State agency to 

allow the Department of Energy to 

comply with all State and Federal 

environmentalrequirements, then $is is a 

course of action I must urge Congress to 

endorse. 

I 

(Continued on page 5) 

~ 

First Meeting Held by the 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Managemen f 

The Department of Energy recognizes 

that the resolution of outstanding 

institutional issues is as critical to the 

ultimate success of the civilian 

radioactive waste management program 

as theresolution of outstanding technical 

issues. No institutional issue commands 

as much attention and is as widely 

regarded and far reaching as the question 

of public trust and confidence. 

The objective of the Secretary of Energy 

Advisory Board Task Force on Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management, which 

held its first meeting on May 14,1991, is 

to suggest approaches for establishing 

public trustworthiness so as to facilitate 

progress toward the Department’s 

achieving its statutory obligations. 

Among the questions that the Task Force 

will consider are: 

The Meaning and Development of 

Public Trust and Confidence 

Whose trust and confidence is most 

What are the most important factors 

affecting the level of public trust and 

confidence in the program? 

critical? why? 

{Continued on page 5) 
MaylJune 1991 '5 

First Meeting Heid by the Secretary of Energy 

Advisory Board Task Force on Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

What lessons has the program learned 

from the past? What can be done to 

build on past successes and avoid past 

failures? 

Opportunities for Ensuring Public Trust 

and Confdence 

How can the challenges that tend to 

make public trust and confidence in the 

radioactive waste management 

program problematic be addressed? 

Under what circumstances, if any, can 

alternative financial, organizational, 

and regulatory arrangements for the 

program promote public trust and 

confidence? 

Can the organizational structures and 

processes adopted for similar programs 

in other nations provide models 

for increasing the perceived 

trustworthiness of the U.S. program? 

Consequences of Ensuring Public Trust 

and Confdence 

To whatdegreewouldadditionalefforts 

to foster public trust and confidence 

disrupt established program routines 

and organizational interactions? 

How would efforts toensurq high levels 

of public trust and confidence influence 

the timeliness and the cost of the 

radioactive waste management 

program? 

* To what extent would initiatives to 

increase public trust and confidence 

affect or be affected by the regulatory 

regime for developing and licensing a 

repository? 

When the Task Force has assessed 

alternative approaches for ensuring public 

trust and confidence, and has considered 

in general terms what'the central 

advantages and disadvantages of each 

might be, it anticipates presenting its 

recommendations to the Secretary of 

Energy. These recommendations would 

alsoincludeguidanceon whatstepscanbe 

taken to implement them. 

(Conffnued from puge 4) 

Members of the Task Force include: 

Dr. William Bishop 

Vice President 

Desert Research Institute 

Las Vegas, NV 89120 

Mi. William Eichbaum 

Vice President 

Resources for the Future 

Washington, DC 20037 

Mr. Robert Fri 

President 

Resources for the Future 

Washington, DC 20036 

Ms. Kristine Gebbie 

Secretary of Health 

State of Washington , 

Olympia, WA 98504 

Dr. John Landis 

Senior Vice President 

Stone and Webster Engineering Corp. 

Boston, MA 94720 

Dr. Todd La Porte, Chair 

Professor, Political Science 

University of California 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Dr. David Lester 

Executive Director 

Council of Energy Resource Tribes 

Denver, CO 80202 

Dr. Alfred Schneider 

Professor, Nuclear Engineering 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Atlanta, GA 30338 

Mr. Mason Willrich 

Chief Executive Officer 

PG&E Enterprises 

San Francisco, CA 94106 

Mr. Michael Wilson 

Member 

Florida Public Service Commission 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 

91:43 

Dr. Mayer Zald 

Professor of Sociology and 

Social Work 

University of Michigan 

Ann Arbor, MI 48019 

For further information on the Task 

Force, contact Dr. Daniel Metlay, 

Director, Secretary of Energy Advisory 

Board Task Force on Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. 

Department of Energy, AC-1, 

Washington, DC 20585, or call (202) 

586-3903. 32 

Secretary of Energy Writes 

to Readers of 

Las Vegas Newspaper 

(Continued from page 4) 

"This process of evaluation cannot be 

done by snap judgments, press releases 

or scientists debating theories. It can 

only be accomplished through years of 

thorough, painstaking tests of the 

mountain itself. Numerous independent 

scientists, including those employed by 

Nevada, are involved in fully reviewing 

the order andmethods for conducting the 

scientific studies. Independent oversight 

groups such as theNatioilal Academy of 

Sciences and the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board will join 

Nevada's scientists and those employed 

by the Department of Energy in 

analyzingthedatafrom thestudies.Only 

then will it become clear whether the site 

is suitable. 

"Some Nevadans already feel convinced 

that Yucca Mountain is unsuitable for 

isolating high-level radioactive waste. It 

is surely, therefore, in their best interest 

to allow the scientific studies to proceed 

as a means to confirm their beliefs. A 

scientific determination of the suitability 

of Yucca Mountain is also vitally 

important to the Department of Energy, 

since we are required to carry out the 

mandate of Congress." * 
6 MaylJune 1991 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Releases Its Third Report to the U.S. 

Congress and fhe U.S. Secretary of Energy 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review 

Board (the Board), as part of its 

congressional mandate to provide an 

independent review of the DOE program 

to manage the disposal of the Nation's 

high-level radioactive waste, has released 

its ThirdReport to the US. Congress and 

the US. Secretary of Energy. The Board 

makes 15 recommendations on technical 

aspects of DOE'S program, which 

includes evaluating a site at Yucca 

Mountain,NV,asapossiblelocationfora 

repository for the permanent disposal of 

spent fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste. The report also outlines the 

Board's future plans and reviews 

observations the Board made during its 

visit to research sites in Sweden and the 

Federal Republic of Germany in June 

1990. The ThirdReport primarily covers 

Boardactivitiesfrom Aug. 1,1990,toJan. 

31,1991. 

The report recommends that DOE 

reexamine its test plans to ensure an 

adequateevaluation of thesaturated zone 

of the Yucca Mountain candidate site, 

which was determined in recent DOE 

studies to contribute to long-term waste 

isolation. The Board also recommends 

assigning higher priority to studies on 

developing a more robust engineered 

barrier system (EBS). The Board 

believes that much of the research on 

developing an EBS can be carried 

out simultaneously with sitecharacterization activities. 

Other recommendations include seeking 

clarification of some regulations from the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

scheduling a workshop on ways to 

minimize handling of waste during the 

management cycle, improving the 

quality assurance grading process, and 

DOE fssues Draf7 Accepfance 

Priority Ranking 

The Standard Contract for Disposal of 

Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level 

Radioactive Waste requires that DOE 

issue an Acceptance Priority Ranking 

(APR) beginning on Apr. 1,1991. The 

APR details the order in which DOE will 

allocate Federal acceptance capacity to 

the owners and generators (Purchasers) 

of spent nuclear fuel. As required by the 

Contract, the priority ranking is based on 

the age of permanently discharged fuel 

with owners of the oldest spent nuclear 

fuel given the highest priority. 

The publication of the APR begins the 

formal waste acceptance process. Since 

the APR will become the basis for 

allocating waste acceptance capacity, as 

well as for approving Delivery 

Commitment Schedules, DOE is 

offering, until July 1, 1991, the 

Purchasers a final opportunity to verify 

the accuracy of the information in the 

rankings, by issuing a Draft APR prior to 

issuance of the first annual APR. The 

first annual APR will be issued after July 

1,1991, and will incorporate Purchaser 

comments. 

Although DOE has previously indicated 

that the 1990 issue of the Annual 

Capacity Report (ACR) would be the 

final issue published, (see OCRWM 

Bulletin, FebruaryMuch 1991), DOE 

has elected to continue publication of the 

ACR for planning purposes. The ACR 

will use the APR as the basis for the 

allocation of waste acceptance capacity 

to the Purchasers. 

For further information, contact Alan 

Brownstein attheDepartmentofEnergy, 

OCRWM, RW-43, lo00 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585 

or (202) 586-4973. * 

addressing theapplicability of laboratory 

measurements in geochemistry and 

hydrology to site characterization. 

Also included in the Board's Third 

Report is the Department of Energy's 

response to recommendations made in 

the Board's SecondReport of November 

1990. The responses address the seven 

broad areas of the Board's 

recommendations. 

The Board's Third Report (Stock No. 

061-000-00762-8) is available for $5.50 

from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC 20402; (202) 783-3238 

Purchases can be made by check, money 

order, Visa or Mastercard. * 

91:44 
MaylJune I99I 7 

NUCLEARWASTEWND 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOAcllvE WASTE MANAGEMENT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Balance Sheets 

September 30,1990 and 1989 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Assets 

Cash 

US. Treasury seauities 

Receivables from utilities: 

One-time spent fuel fees 

KWH fees 

Interest on one-time spent fuel fees 

Receivable hrn Department of Energy for defense 

Accrued intenst on U.S. Treasury Securities 

Other leceivables and advances 

Capital equipment, less accumulated depreciation 

high-level wastedisposal costs 

of $24.209 in 1990 and $20.109 in 1989 

Total Assets 

Liabilities 

Accounts payable and accrued expe-nses 

Estimated payable to utilities on overpayment 

of KWH fees 

Defd revenue 

Total Liabilities t 

(Unaudited) 

1990 

$ 2,489 

2,630,169 

896,875 

131.600 

685,707 

1.714.1 82 

- 

92334 

586 

31,238 

4,470,928 

31.352 

280,000 

4,159,576 

4,470,928 

1989 

1.196 

2,248,544 

899,659 

130.100 

567,447 

1,597,206 

- 

72.197 

1,325 

31.713 

3,952,181 

67,508 

200.000 

3.684.673 

3,952,181 

9 1 :45 
8 MaylJune 1991 

NUWWASTENND 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Statements of Operations 

Years ended September 30,1990 and 1989 

and cumulatively from January 7,1983. date of inception 

toSeptember30.1990 

@0llars in thousands) 

(Unaudited) 

1990 

(Unaudited) 

Cumulative 

Revenue: 

FWS: 

Onetime spent fuel fees .$ - 

KWH fees 551,512 

Onetime spent fuel fees 121,503 

us. Trearury securities 199.428 

Gain (loss) on sale of US. Treasury 

securities 17 

872,460 

Interest: 

Less amount defend (474,903) 

397357 

repqdtory 203,304 

Secondrepository 249 

Monitored retrievable storage z109 

Transpaaation and systems 

integmtion 39,875 

Program management 61,191 

Interest 60.000 

Transferappropliations 30.829 

397357 

Expenses: 

Excess of revenue over expews $ - 

- 

317,186 

116,490 

169.304 

(132) 

602,848 

(227.289) 

375359 

237906 

1,567 

989 

3839 

3,988 

375359 

93995 

45 

- 

91:46 
MaylJune d99I 9 

Selected Events Calendar 

July 15 

July 16-17 

July 17-18 

July 24-26 

August 11 

August 15 

August 28-29 

Nuclear WasteTechnicalReview Board, Structural Geology andGeoengineeringPane1, StoufferConcourseHote1 

Alexandria, VA. Contact Paula Alford at (703) 235473. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Full Board Meeting, Stouffer Concourse Hotel, Alexandria, VA. Contac 

Karyn Severson at (703) 235473. 

East-West Towers, Bethesda, MD. Contact Marilee Rood at (301) 492-4030. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting, 

Bethesda, MD. Contact Barbara Jo White at (301) 492-7288. 

National Conference of State Legislatures Annual Meeting, 

Orlando, FL. Contact NCSL Meetings Office at (202) 624-5400. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Transportation and Systems Panel Public Hearing 

on Transportation Issues, Denver, CO. Contact Paula Alford at (703) 235473. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting, 

Bethesda, MD. Contact Barbara Jo White at (301) 492-7288. 

- Licensing Support Systems Advisory Review Panel Meeting, 

For details on DOE/NRC meetings call (1/800) 368-2235 for a recorded message. In the Washington, DC, area call 479-0487. 

A telephonerecording service has been established for the announcement of upcoming meetings related to the waste management 

program of the NRC. The number is (1/800) 368-5642, ext. 20436. Washington, DC, area residents should call 492-0436. 

For information on meetings and events occurring between issues of the UCRWM Bulletin use OCRWM INFOLINK, a 

computerized data base containing information about the OCRWM program. The UCRWM BuZZetin is also available online 

through IIGOLINK. 

~-___,,,,--__

Reader Response Card 

Starting with this issue, a reader response page will be enclosed with every OCRWM Bulletin. The purpose of this page is to 

encourage communication between the readers of the Bulletin and OCRWM. 

Your views, comments and any suggestions are appreciated so that we can make the UCRWM BuZlefin as useful and responsive 

to our readers as possible. , 

COMMENTS: 

e 

NAME: 

AFFILIATION: 

Please detach this page and mail to: 

Mr. Jerome D. Salaman, Director 

Office of External Relations Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy 

Room 5A-051 lo00 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 

--------------------------------------- 

-0CRWM 

Bulletin 

DOURW4317P 

United States Department Of Energy Office Of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management 

Washington, DC 20585 

JulylA ugust 1991 

DOE Initiates New Site Characterization Studies At Yucca Mountain 

As part of an overall site characterization 

program to determine if Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada, is a suitable, safe place for a 

high-level nuclear waste repository, DOE 

began new surface-disturbing activities in 

July 1991. These activities were started 

after the State of Nevada issued an air quality 

permit on June 12, 1991 (see OCRWM 

Bulletin, April 1991 andMay/June 1991 for 

discussions of litigation relating to the issuance of permits). 

The types of investigations to be undertaken 

at Yucca Mountain include geology, volcanology, hydrology, tectonics, and 

geoengineering studies. They will be conducted through a series of drill holes, 

trenches, geophysical surveys, monitoring 

stations, and laboratory work. The investigations undertaken in July at the Yucca 

Mountain site involve trenching work at 

Midway Valley andTrench 14, and volcanism studies at Crater Flat. 

Midway Valley 

The nature of potential faulting and surface 

materials will be investigated in Midway 

Valley, the candidate site for potential repository surface facilities. The activities 

begun in Midway Valley in July included 

the excavation and mapping of exploratory 

trenches. 

The data from the trenches will be used to 

help characterize the magnitude and history 

of past movements on faults throughout the 

site area that may have been active within 

the last 2,000,000 years. An additional 

objective is to investigate the minerals found 

in these fault zones. 

Seismic hazard studies are being done to 

ensure that, should the repository be sited at 

Yucca Mountain, facilities on the surface 

and underground would not be disturbed by 

cracks and movement of the rock. At the 

present, it appears that the risk of damage to 

underground facilities from earthquakes is 

small. 

Trench 14 

In the early 1980s, trenches were excavated 

across the Bow Ridge Fault. The already 

existing Trench 14 will be deepened to at 

least twice its current depth of 10 to 12 feet 

in order to gain more evidence on the origin 

of the calcite/silica deposits found in the 

trench. The vein-like deposits of calcite and 

silica extending to the floor of the trench 

(see photograph on page 2) have been the 

subject of considerable scientific debate. 

The issues of this debate are currently under 

review by two separate peer review panels -- 

one consisting of 17 members of the National Academy of Sciences and the other 

comprising a panel whose 5 members were 

chosen by proponents of 2 different views. 

The debate concerns the origin of the water 

responsible for depositing the minerals in 

theveins. Most scientistsbelievethedeposits 

were formed by downwardpercolatingrainwater that dissolves carbonate minerals and 

silica as it moves through the soils and 

redeposits them when the waters evaporate 

at lower levels. A small number of scientists 

have asserted that the minerals represent 

ancient spring deposits and therefore indicate that a water table has been at the current 

surface in the past. DOE believes it is 

Continued on page 3 

DOE Initiates New Site 

Characterization SNdies at 

Yucca Mountain 

Information now available on 

I-800-225-NWPA 

DOE Continues Testing of Prototype 

Dry Drilling and Coring 

Equipment 

Secretary of Energy Approves 

Project Decision Schedule 

OCRWM Director Addresses 

International Workshop on the 

Need for Science Education 

Pilot SNdy Tests Vehicle 

Inspection Procedures 

Selected Events Calendar -1991 

New Publications and Documents 

Reader Response Card 

Page 

I 

2 

3 

4 

10 

11 

ij 

, 14 

L4 

NO'k TO READERS: The OCRWM Bulletin is 

.availabletousersofINFOLINKIIaboutoneweek 

before publication. To be placed on the mailing 

list, to makeany addrw corrections, or to request 

multiple copies of the OCRWM Bulletin, please 

contact the OCRWM Information Center, P.O. 

Box 44375, Wuhlngton, D.C. 20026,1-800-225. 

NWPA OT (202) 488-5Sl3 in Washlnglon, D.C 

Published by the US. Department of Energy (DOE), Oflice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 

For further information about the national pmgram or for copies of new OCRWM publications and documents listed in the OCRWM Bulletin, contact the U.S. Dcpanment of Energy, OCRWM. 

OfIiceofExternd Relations, EducationandInformationDivision, Mail StopRW-5.1.1ooO 1ndependenceAvenue.S.W.. Washington, DC20585.(202)5865722ortheOCRWM Informarioncenter. 

p.0. BOX 44375, Washington, D.C. 20026, 'I-ROO-2iS-NWpA or (202) 488-5513 in Washington. D.C "kc OCRWhf Infonnatim Swim Dirraoty is available (0 pmvidesounrr of p"gm 

infomution. 

91:49 
2 July /August 1991 

Information Now Available On 1-800-225-NWPA 

[n response to increased requests for information, OCRWM will activate an 800 numberpublic information system. This system 

will provide a convenient, centralized 

mechanism for all interested parties -- from 

the general public to educators -- to obtain 

timely information about the Nation's 

high-level radioactive waste management 

program. Printed materials, including fact 

sheets, brochures, program publications, 

educational materials, and videotapes will 

be available to the caller. 

The 800 number approach allows the public 

to access the most up-to-date information 

about the OCRWM program, and will be a 

valuable added resource for teachers as well 

as students studying issues of nuclear waste 

management. 

OCRWM's Office of External Relations, 

Education and Information Division, will 

manage the 800 number system. The 800 

number system will begin operation on September 16, 1991. This system can be accessed by dialing 1 -800-225-NWPA (6972). 

except in Washington, D.C., where callers 

may dial 488-5513. Written,inquiries and 

comments may be directed to OCRWM 

Information Center, P.O. Box 44375, 

Washington, D.C. 20026. 

Carl Gertz, Project Manager of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, points to calcite and silica deposits (light-colored material) in 

Trench 14 before new trenching activities were undertaken. 

91:SO 
JulylA ugust 1991 3 

LM-300 Drill Rig wifh mast raised. This is the largest rig of this type in existence - with a capacity 

over 3 times greater than the largest%ornmercial rig. 

Continued from page 1 

important to study and understand ,the evidence of past hydrologic conditions at. the 

site because credible release mechahisms 

fot! a'repository involve the dissolution and 

transport of radionuclides in ground water. 

Volcanism Studies 

At Crater Flat, small scale soil pits were dug 

during July near the Lathrop Wells cone. 

This work is necessary to collect samples 

which will be used to further characterize 

certain volcanic features such as age, origin, 

and other features. 

Volcanism studies during the past 10 years 

show that the lqst eruptions from one of 7 

volcan'ic centers located about 12 miles from 

Yucca Mountain may have occurred less 

than 50,000 years ago. Project scientists 

think another eruption at this volcanic tenter would not affect the integrity of Yucca 

Mountain. However, more studies are 

planned to prove or disprove this conclusion. 

Areas of study include examining the possibility of another volcanic eruption within 

10,000 years at one of the younger volcanic 

centers or the formation of a new volcanic 

DOE Continues Testing Of 

Prototype Dry Drilling And 

Coring Equipment 

Performance testing of prototype dry drilling and coring equipment is underway at the 

BarfickResources Corporation Mercur Gold 

Mine about 55 miles southwest of Salt Lake 

City, Utah. The purpose is to examine 

elements of the LM-300 Drill Rig and Pipe 

Handling System, designed and built specifically for DOE at an approximate cost of 

$4 million, for application to future drilling 

and coring procedures in support of site 

characterization for the Yucca Mountain 

Site Characterization Project. The Yucca 

Mountain Project Office plans to use four of 

these rigs during site characterization activities. 

The LM-300 drilling rig with its dual wall 

dry drilling and coring system is the key to 

acquiring scientific samples at depth for the 

unsaturated zone study program on Yucca 

Mountain. The overall objective of the 

current phase of the drill testing is to per-' 

form shakedown testing of the equipment 

on the prototype drill rig for verification of 

reliability. 

The drill site in Utah was selected because, 

of suitable geologic conditions and its close 

proximity to the manufacturing facility in 

case repairs might be needed. The rocks at 

the site are sedimentary, primarily massive 

bedded limestones .with interbedded sand-' 

stone layers. 

The 13-inchdiameterborehole willbedrilled' 

to about 2,000 feet. Samples will be collected every five feet. Limited coring will 

be accomplished near the surface and at an 

intermediate depth, but most of the coring 

will be near and below 2,000 feet. * 

center. Project scientists now think the 

probability of a new volcanic center erupting at Yucca Mountain is extremely low. * 

9151 
Secretary Of Energy Approves Project Decision Schedule 

Section 114(e) of the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act ("A) of 1982 requires that the 

Secretary of Energy issue and update, as 

necessary, a Project Decision Schedule 

(PDS). The purpose of the PDS is to pomay 

the optimum way .to attain operation of a 

geologic repository. The PDS contains a 

description of activities and deadlines for 

Federal agencies required to take action to 

achieve repository deadlines. It serves as a 

commitment by those agencies to the activities, attendant milestones, and deadlines for 

taking action in support of OCRWM's repository schedule. 

ThePDS issued in June 1991 constitutes the 

fmt revision of the PDS since the original 

document was issued in March 1986. Revision of the PDS was initiated following 

passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act of 1987 (NWPAA), but 

was delayed pending completion of the 

Secretary's reassessment of the Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management Program 

and approval of a new Program Schedule 

Baseline (see OCRWM Bulletin, NovemberDecember 1989). 

Program Schedule for OCRWM 

The Federal agency activity schedules and 

milestones in the PDS are based on the 

OCRW Program Schedule Baseline developed from the current supporting logic 

networks used in maintaining that baseline. 

Figure 1 (page 5) displays the current schedule baseline for development and operation 

of the waste management system. If significant changes in the schedule baseline are 

approved that affect PDS milestones for 

other Federal agencies, OCRWM will, after 

consultation with affected agencies, issue a 

revision or amendment to the PDS. 

Geologic Repository Site 

Nomination and Characterization 

Schedule 

OCRWM is currently in the site characterization phase of the repository project. The 

passage of the NWPAA designated the 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada, candidate site as 

the only site to be characterized. If the site 

is found to be unsuitable, DOE will terminate all site investigation activities and report to Congress, not later than 6 months 

aftersuch determination with the Secretary's 

recommendations for further action. The 

schedule for the geologic repository site 

nomination and site characterization phases 

taken from the PDS is shown in Figure 2 

(page 6). 

Assuming the scientific investigation process shows the Yucca Mountain candidate 

site to be suitable, and after approval and 

designation of the site, OCRW will submit a license application,for a repository ro 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Construction of the repository is scheduled to 

beginin2004, which willallow OCRWM to 

begin accepting spent fuel at the repository 

in 2010. The schedule for the licensing 

review and construction phases in the PDS 

is shown in Figure 3 (page 7). 

Monitored Retrievable 

Storage Summary Schedule 

Schedules for the Monitored Retrievable 

Storage (MRS) facility (Figure 4, page 8) 

are included in the PDS to provide an overview of this component of the waste management system. The reference schedule 

fortheMRS facility assumes (1) avolunteer 

site will be obtained, and (2) the statutory 

schedule linkages between the MRS facility 

and the repository will be rescinded. Under 

these assumptions, it is estimated that waste 

acceptance at a simple receipt facility could 

begin, on alimited basis, as early as January 

1998; a full capability MRS facility would 

be available in the year 1999. 

Transportation Schedule 

The transportation system will move waste 

from designated points of origin and storage 

locations to the MRS facility and the repository. The schedule for the development of 

the transportation system has been coordinated with that of the waste management 

system as a whole, and therefore is to be 

ready to support MRS and repository operations. Currently, the development of the 

transportation system has a basic goal of 

establishinga limited capability to transport 

spent fuel by 1998. Figure 5 (page 9) 

presents the schedule for the transportation 

system. I% 

9152 
Figure 1 

Offxe Of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program Schedule 

I 
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n I 1 

I SWPFACE-BASED 

TESTmIG 

I srm 

Figure 2 

Geologic Repsitory Slte Nom*n&on And Charaterization Phases 

\o 
.I 

JulylAugust I991 

I) 

Df 

t I 
I 

Figure 4 

Monitored Retrievable Storage Summary Schedule 
I 

FROY-REACTOR 

CASK 

OPERATIONS 

FROYYRS CASK 

INSrrmTIONAL 

Figure 5 

Transportation Schedule 
JulylAugust 1991 

and between energy and the environment. 

Add to that modem communications systems, such as those which we recently 

watched on live television the War in the 

Gulf, and we not only increase our global 

awareness, but we also magnify global actions and issues. 

“We all are impacted by what other nations 

do. We all are impacted by what we do 

collectively. The concerns ofourrespective 

citizens are the same. We all need energy 

andelectricityproduction. Weneed to work 

togetherto identify andaddress theconcerns 

of the public. We need to prepare the youth 

of today and future generations to make 

decisions concerning energy and protection 

of the environment. Exchanges and workshops such as this will contribute significantly to this challenge. 

“Energy is a major component of OECD 

economies, both as an industrial sector in 

itself and as an essential input to most other 

economic activities, whether it be agriculture, industries, or services. Energy also 

plays an important role in everyday life, 

whether it be for heating or cooling houses 

or business establishments, supplying power 

for domestic services, or providing the capacity to travel to one’s workplace and 

business or holiday activities. Energy plays 

an important economic and political role in 

the world context. But the locations of 

major energy resources, such as oil, gas, and 

coal fields, relative to the large consuming 

counties, give rise to complex relationships 

between producers and consumers. And, 

finally, energy is concerned by worldwide 

preoccupations with sustainable development and the “greenhouse effect,” as well as 

energy security and economic growth. 

“Consumption of total primary energy in 

the world is projected to grow steadily between now and 2010 spurred primarily by 

continued economic growth. As with economic growth, energy consumption is projected to grow mostrapidly inthedeveloping 

countries. Overall, the total energy requirements of OECD countries have increased by 

almost 30 percent over the past 20 years. 

OCR WM Director Addresses International Workshop On 

The Need For Science Education 

“Electricity generation continues to grow. 

There are now more than 430 nuclear reactors operating in the world in 25 countries 

andanother 10Ounderconstruction. Worldwjde, these nuclear reactors provide more 

than 17 percent of the world’s electricity; 

approximately 80 percent of the world’s 

nuclear-generated electricity is produced by 

OECD countries. Three countries produce 

more than 50 percent of their electricity 

from nuclear power -- France (more than 75 

percent), Belgium (more than 60 percent), 

and South Korea (more than 50 percent). 

“But prospects for nuclear power vary considerably among even OECD countries. 

Several European countries are scaling back 

on plans for future nuclear power development due to concerns about nuclear plant 

safety and waste disposal. The problems 

concerning nuclear power center around 

three main issues: its low level of public 

acceptance -- particularly since the 

Chernobyl accident; its economics, especially in the context of low fossil fuel prices; 

and its own unique environmental problems, the most important of which being the 

disposal of radioactive waste. 

“What is lost in this discussion, however, is 

the lack of understanding among the publics 

of our nations of the environmental advantages, and disadvantages of each energy 

sourceand theconsensus among ournations 

of the solutions for radioactive waste management and disposal. 

“Clearly, a key to greater public confidence 

in radioactive waste management, electricity generation needs, and public consensus 

is through long-term education by means of 

global focus and projects that contribute 

both to greater scientific literacy and increased overall understanding. 

“This workshop is a giant step toward education by building an information base and 

network for education systems between and 

among our nations on the global aspects of 

radioactive waste management. This workshop and the subsequent workshops and 

The fmt International Workshop on Education in the Field of Radioactive Waste Management was held on June 16-20, 1991, in 

Engelburg, Switzerland. Jointly organized 

by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) NuclearEnergy Agency and DOE’s Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management, in cooperation with the Swiss Cooperative for the 

Storage of Radioactive Waste (CEDRA/ 

NAGRA), this international workshop was 

held to address the important issues relating 

to public education in the field of energy, 

science, and the environment. 

The objectives of the workshop were to 

contribute to an information base for education systems on global aspects of radioactive waste management and to achieve an 

international consensus on the basic tools 

and methods required to develop this information base. All of the 12 OECD countries 

involved in this workshop are dealing with 

the serious problem of educating the public 

about nuclear energy in general and nuclear 

waste in particular. The workshop provided 

a better understanding of common educational needs to help nations developcurriculum and instruction in nuclear energy that 

meets the needs of contemporary society in 

the various countries. 

Dr. John W. Bartlett, the Director of DOE’s 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and Mrs. Ginger King, Director of 

OCRWM’s Education and Information Division, represented the U.S. waste management program at the International Workshop. Dr. Bartlett, who chaired the Workshop, addressed the opening session and 

spoke about the need for science education 

and science literacy and the importance of 

participation in the international education 

project. His remarks are excerpted below: 

“As the Director of the U.S. program for 

high-level radioactive waste management, I 

have a great appreciation for the need for 

science education and science literacy in 

today’s high tech society. In today’s society 

throughoutthe world wefacemany problems 

of interface between science and society 

9158 
JulyJAugust 1991 

Continued’from page 10 

education programs, which I hope will result from this workshop, will contribute to 

building the knowledge’bases of the sciences and environmental fields required for 

our citizens to make informed decisions 

required at the crossroads of energy, science, and the environment. 

“As an educator, a scientist, and a global 

citizen, I have come to realize that science 

and technology address the problems and 

provide the solutions, but science and technology do not in themselves ensure that the 

solutions will be accepted andimplemented. 

It takes society and societal decisions, 

awareness, and acceptance to decide which 

solutions to accept and which solutions to 

implement. 

“The objectives of this International Workshop on Education in the Field of Radioactive Waste Management are: 

To contribute to an information base for 

education systems, on global aspects of 

radioactive waste management; and 

To achieve an international consensus 

on the basic tools and methods required 

to develop this information base. 

t’ ,?. 

11 

“This workshop wasconceivedas aresultof 

information exchanges and collaborative 

efforts of an informal OECD/NEA Radioactive Waste Public Information Working 

Group that was established in 1987. The 

purposeof the Working Groupis toexchange 

information on effective public information 

programs, to recognizepublic concerns and 

exchange lessons learned, and to provide 

support and resources among member 

countries. 

“The safe management of radioactive waste 

is an integral part of the responsibilities of 

all modem societies with nuclear power, as 

well as those without nuclear power. 

Teaching youngerandfuturegenerations on 

thissubjectisanimportantelementofenergy, 

science, and environmental education. 

“I encourage each of you to learn from each 

other; to help develop a higher awareness of 

the global aspects of energy, science, and 

the environment as it relates to radioactive 

waste management; and to then take home 

anduse yourincreasedknowledgeto expand 

the knowledge of our young. * 

Pilot Study Tests Vehicle Inspection Procedures 

In 1986, OCRWM entered into a cooperative agreement with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) for CVSA to 

evaluate the vehicle inspection needs of the 

States, and to develop a model standard for 

theinspectionofhighway shipments ofspent 

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. 

The CVSA is an association of State and 

Provincial officials in the United States and 

Canada who are responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier 

safety laws for any commercial and hazardous materials shipments within their respective jurisdictions. The CVSA developed the highway inspection procedures 

known as the North American Standard. 

Under its OCRWM cooperative agreement, 

CVSA developed national draft State inspection proceduresfor the transport ofspent 

nuclear fuel andhigh-levelradioactive waste 

by commercial highway vehicles. Minimum performance standards included inspection procedures for drivers, shipping 

papers, vehicles, and packages. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, also under cooperative agreement 

with OCRWM, drafted the radiological inspection procedures incorporated into the 

CVSA inspection procedures. 

With input from cooperative groups, utilities, Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) 

and OCRWM Transportation Program 

personnel, apilotstudy was createdin 1989 

to comprehensively test the procedures (see 

illustrations on page 12). DOE’S WIPP 

Office has agreed to provide the study a 

sample of waste shipments from the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, to 

the WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico. State 

inspectors will be trained to use the proposed procedures and to supply research 

data for the pilot test. The Western Governors’ Association, under its agreement with 

DOE’S WIPP Office, monitors developments and participates in the planning process. While the study plans to focus on 

WIPP shipments, other shipments of spent 

fuel and high-level radioactive waste may 

be included. 

The pilot study is expected to validate 

CVSA’s final inspection procedures and 

help establish a coordinated Federal/State 

system to ensure the safety of highway shipments of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. For more information, contact 

Gary Curtis, CVSA Project Manager, at 

(301) 553-6420 or Christopher A. Kouts, 

OCRWM Transportation Branch Chief, at * (202) 586-9761. 

91:59 
12 JulylAugust 1991 

I Tasks FY90 I FY91 FY92 p193 1 FY94 

1. Develop Research Design 

2. Develop and Conduct 

3. Develop Data Collection 

4 Conduct Inspections 

Training 

and Analysis Techniques 

I 

CVSA Pilot Study Milestones 

J 

A 

5/94 

4 

5194 

I' 

CVSA Pilot Study Participants 

DOE I CVSA I 

0 OCRWM, Headquarters Washington, D.C. 

0 Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant, New Mexico 

Research Design 

Committee 

Training Committee 

Data Collection and 

Analysis Committee 

I I 

Inspection Committee 

Western Governors' 

Association 

Conference of Radiation 

Control Program Directors 

91:m 
JulylAugust 1991 13 

Selected Events Calendar - 1991 

0 

August 11 

August 15 

August 28-29 

September 5-6 

September 12 

September 16-17 

September 18-19 

September 25-27 

October 8-1 1 

October 29-30 

November 12-13 

November 19 

National Conference of State Legislatures Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL. Contact 

NCSL Meetings Office at (202) 624-5400. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Transportation and Systems Panel, Public 

Hearing on Transportation Issues, Denver, CO. Contact Paula Alford at (703) 

235-4473. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Meeting, 

Bethesda, MD. Contact Barbara Jo White at (301) 492-7288. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Panel on Structural Geology and 

Geoengineering, Meeting on Seismic Risk, Salt Lake City, UT, Red Lion Hotel. 

Contact Paula Alford at (703) 235-4473. 

DOE/Nucle& Regulatory Commission Meeting on Procedural Arrangements, ' 

location to be determined in the Washington, D.C. area. Contact Linda Desell 

at (202) 586-1462. 

DOE/Nuclear Regulatory Commission Meeting on Exploratory Studies Facility/ 

Design Control, Las Vegas, NV. Contact Priscilla Bunton at (202) 586-9896. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Panel on Structural Geology and 

Geoengineering, Meeting on Exploratory Studies Facility Design Review, Las 

Vegas, NV, St. Tropez Hotel. Contact Paula Alford at (703) 235-4473. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Panel on Transportation and Systems, 

Meeting on DOE Update on Transportation Issues. Board Offices, 1100 Wilson 

Boulevard, Suite 910, Arlington, VA 22209. Contact Paula Alford at 

(703) 235-4473. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Full Board Meeting on Thermal Loading/Repository Design, Las Vegk, NV, St. Tropez Hotel. Contact Paula Alford at ' 

(703) 235-4473. 

DOE/Nuclear Regulatory Commission Meeting on Scenario Development, location 

to be determined in Washington, D.C. area. Contact Priscilla Bunton at 

(202) 586-9896. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Panel on Structural Geology and 

Geoengineering, Meeting onTechaology of Backfill, Sealing, and Openings; Exploratory Studies Facility Design Review. Seattle, WA, Wyndham Garden Hotel. 

Contact Paula Alford at (703) 235-4473. 

DOE/Nuclear Regulatory Commission Meeting on Regulatory Strategy, location to 

be determined in Washington, D.C. area. Contact Linda Desell at (202) 586-1462. 

I% J 

91:61 
14 JulyfAugust 1991 

Project Decision Schedule, RevisionI,DOEIRW-O310P, June1991. 

This is the first revision of the Project Decision Schedule (PDS) for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, 

replacing the original PDS issued in March 

1986. RequiredbytheNuclearWastePolicy 

Act of 1982, as amended, the, PDS is to 

portray the optimum way to attain the operation of the repository. This document 

includes a description of objectives and a 

sequence of deadlines for all Federal agencies that are required to take action in 

achieving this goal. The activity deadlines 

New Publications And Documents 

included in this issue of the PDS are based 

on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments 

Act of 1987 and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's Program 

Schedule Baseline. 

A Monitored Retrievable Storage 

Facility: Technical Background 

Information, DOEIRW-031 IP, July 

1991. 

This document presents an overview of 

various aspects of a monitored retrievable 

storage facility, including the process by 

Reader Resvonse Card 

which it will be developed. While each 

section of the document treats a different 

topic, some sections are closely interrelated, 

and cross references are provided where 

appropriate. 1$ 

A reader responsepage is enclosed with every OCRWMBulletin. The purpose of this page is to encourage communication between 

the readers of the Bulletin and OCRWM. 

Your views, comments, and suggestions are appreciated so that we can make the OCRWM Bulletin as useful and responsive to 

our readers as possible. 

Comments: 

Name: 

Address: 

AffirMtion: 

Please detach this page and mail to: Mr. Jerome Saltzmun, Director 

Ofice of External Relations Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management US. Department of Energy 

Mail Stop RW 5.1 IO00 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 
-0CRWM 

Bullet in 

DOERW-0323P 

United States Department Of Energy Office Of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management 

Washington, DC 20585 

SeptemberlOctober 1991 

DOE Awards First MRS Grant To Mescalero Apache Tribe 

On October 18,1991, DOE awarded its 

firstgranttostudythefeasibilityofsiting 

an above-ground, monitored retrievable 

storage (MRS) facility for the temporary 

storageofcommercial spentnuclearfuel. 

The grant for $lOO,OOO was awarded to 

the Mescalero Apache Tribe of 

Mescalero, New Mexico, and will be 

UsedbytheTribetogainanunderstanding 

of the Nation's nuclear waste 

management system, including the MRS 

facility component, and to determine 

whether it has an interest in pursuing 

further feasibility studies. 

In commenting on the grant award, Dr. 

JohnBartlett,DirectorofOCRWM, said, 

"This award is an important step forward 

for the program and is the result of 

successful efforts by the Nuclear Waste 

Negotiator, David Leroy. We will 

respond to requests from the Mescalero 

Tribe for assistance in their evaluations 

as effectively as possible." -- 

The MRS facility that will be studied would 

be an above-ground storage facility using 

proven technology to the maximum extent 

practicable. The facility would receive, 

temporarily store, and stage spent nuclear 

fuel for ultimate disposal in a permanent 

geologic repository. The MRS facility 

wouldbe subject to licensing by theNuclear 

Regulatory Commission and to applicable 

federal and State environmental, safety, 

and health regulations. 

Grant applications for feasibility studies 

will be accepted until December 31,1991. 

Requests for copies of the solicitation can 

be made in writing to the Department of 

Energy, Office of Placement and 

Administration, Am: Ms. Kristin Wright./ 

PR-322.2, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington,D.C. 20585, (202)586- 

4285. 

"'"'i I 

Page 

DOE Awards Fmt MRS Grant to 

Mdem Apache Tribe 1 

DOE Issues Amendment to June 1991 

Solicitation for Grant Applications to 

Study Siting of an MRS Facility 2 

DOE Issues Report on Preliminary Site 

Requirements and Considerations for an 

MRS Facility 2 

State Regional Cooptive Agreements 

Aim at Resolving Transportation Issues 4 

DOE Issues Draft Mission Plan Amendment 5 

DOE Issues Notice of Interpretation and 

Procedures for Payments-Equal-To-Taxes 

provisions of the NWPA 

DOE Announces Cooperative Agreement 

with Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited 

1-800-2Z-NWPA Responds to Public 

Information Requests 

USJSwiss Cooperation Extended 

ORNL Releascs Historical Overview of 

Domestic Spent Fuel Shipments Report 

New Publications and Doeummts 

Selected Events Calendar- 1991/1992 

ReadaRespomcCard 

5 

6 

6 

6 

7 

7 

8 

8 

- 

NOTE TO READERS: The OCRWM Bulletin is 

available Io usersof INFOLINKIIabout one week 

before publication. To be placed on the mailing 

list, to make any address corrections, or to request 

multiple copies of the OCRWM Bullet& please 

contact the OCRWM Information Center, P.O. 

Box 44375, Wdgton, D.C ~1-8oo.wNWPA or (202) 488-5513 In Washington, D.C. 

Publfshed by the US. Department of Energy (DOE), OM# of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 

For funha information about the national program or for copies of new OCRWM publications nnddocumentr listed in the OCRWM B,detin. contact the U.S. Depamncnt of Energy. OCRWM. 

Office of External Relations. Educafion and Information Division, Mail Stop RW-5.1. IO00 Independence AvenUC. S.W.. Warhington, D.C. 20585. (202) 5865722 or the OCRWM Information 

Center, P.O. Boxg375. Washington. D.C. 200%. I -800-W-NWPAor (202)488-55 13 in Washington, D.C. The OCRWM InformationServivicts Directory is available topvidesources ofprom 

information. 

91:63 
2 September1 October 1991 

DOE Issues Amendment To June 1991 Solicitation For Grant Applications 

. To Study Siting’Of An MRS Facility .. The DOE is accepting applications for 

financial assistance from eligible .States, 

IndianTribes, andunitsoflocalgovernment 

interested in assessing.the feasibility of 

siting an above-ground, MRS facility for 

thetemporaj storage of commercial, spent 

nuclear fuel. 

In response to a number of queries, DOE 

has issued an amendment to its J-e 1991 

solicitation (see OCRWM Bulletin, July/ 

August 1991) for grant applications. The 

amendments clarify several points in the 

previous notice and broaden the scope of 

the study activities. 

Two types of feasibility assessment grants 

are available. A Preliminary, or Phase I, 

assessment grant will be for a maximum of 

$100,000, and the advanced, or Phase II, 

grant will have no predetermined limits. 

Both phases of assessment grants will be 

awarded based upon restricted eligibility 

requirements as specified in the solicitation. 

The activities that may be undertaken are 

intended tobe flexible, enabling grantees to 

study and address specific areas in which 

they would like additional information, 

including the potential effects and benefits 

of hosting an MRS facility. 

DOE will view an application for a grant 

on~yas anexpressionofinterestirpsessing 

the feasibility of possibly hosting the MRS 

facility. Acceptance of a grant will not be 

construed as a. commitment on the part of 

the grantee or the State to host the facility, 

nor willitprejudice siting of theMRS either 

in favor of or against the grantee’s 

jurisdiction. The deadline for applications, 

which will be acted upon in the order 

received, is December 3 1, 1991. 

Requests for copies of the solicitation and 

amendment can be made in writing to the 

Department of Energy, Office of Placement 

and Administration, Attn: Ms. Kristin 

WrightPR-322.2, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, 

(202) 586-4285. -1 .. 

f3OE Issues Report On Preliminary Site Requirements And 

Considerations For An MRS Facility 

In order to provide guidance for assessing 

the technical suitability ofpotential sitesfor 

a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) 

facility, DOE has published a. dokument, 

“Preliminary Site Requirements and 

Considerations foraMonitoredRetrievable 

Storage Facility.” This document has been 

reviewed by the staff of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) that will 

license the MRS facility. .. 

The Secretary of Energy has.announcedthe. 

availabilityofgrants toStates,IndianTribes, 

and affected units of local government that 

want to conduct studies to assess the 

feasibility of hosting an MRS facility (see 

lead article on page 1 of this issue and. 

OCRWMBulletin,May/June 1991). These 

studies will help interested States, Tribes, 

and affected units of locd government 

determine whether they want to proceed to 

negotiations and, if so, to define the terms 

of the agreement they want to negotiate. 

Examination of the applicable Federal 

statutes, regulations, executive orders,.and 

DOE Orders suggests that suitable sites for 

an MRS facility could be found throughout 

the contiguous United- States. The 

preliminary site requirements are derived 

from Federal statutes and regulations 

(including Subparts E and F of 10 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 27);- and the 

preliminary 4te considerations identify 

conditions that are preferable. . If a site 

meets the preliminary site requirements, it 

could then be examined in terms of the site 

considerations for additional favorable 

factors. 

The preliminary site requirements and 

considerations are not now part of DOE’S 

technical baseline of requirements and are 

not intended to cover all regulatory 

rquirements orrequirements forthelicense 

application that will be submitted to NRC. 

The. purpose of. the preliminary site 

requirements andconsiderations is to peimit 

a reasonable determination, on the basis of 

available information without efiensive 

.&alysis,.that a site is potentially suitable 

.for & hdRS facility. 

The preliminary site requirements and 

constraints cover the following: colocation 

with a geologic repository, site size, singleuseprotectedlands,coastalbarriers,cdtical 

habitatforendangered orthreatened species, 

and hazardous wastes. The site 

considerations are divided into five groups: 

(1). geologic. and other hazards, (2) 

environmental factors, (3) socioeconomic 

factors, (4) transportation, and (5) cost and 

development time. A matrix showing the 

preliminary siting requirements and 

considerations together with their statutory 

and regulatory bases appears in Table 1 

(page 3). To secure a copy of “Preliminary 

SiteRequirements and Considerations for a 

Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility,” 

please see page 7. * 

91:64 
a 

W. 

8 

f 

E 

TAllJTES 

7 U.S.C. 4201 et scq. 

16 U.S.C. 1 et Mq. 

16 U.S.C. 431 et seq. 

16 U.9.C; 461 et mq. 

16 U.S.C. 460 at mq. 

16 USC, 470 at .oq. 

16 U.S.C. 47Oaa ot seq. 

16 U.S.C. 621 dl seq. 

16 U.S.C, 668 et rcg 

16 U.S.C. Wdd et'soq. 

16 U.S.C. 703 et 80% 

16 U.S.C. 1131 et .eq. 

16 U.S.C. 1248 et scq. 

16 U.S.C. 1273 et saq. 

16 U.S.C. 1331 et saq. 

16 U.S.C. 1451 et wq. 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et scq. 

16 U.S.C. 3501 ot soq. 

42 U.S.C. 3wI at wq. 

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

42 U.S.C. 10101 ot soq. 

43 U.S.C. 315 et wq. 

43 U.S.C. 1701 et soq. 

REGULATIONS 

23 U.S.C. 138 et .sp 

42 U.S.C. 1996 et soq. 

7 CFR Part658 

IOCFR Part72 

lOCFA Partl00,App.A 

lOCFR Part 1022 

CFR Part 283 

CFR ~art2m 

CFR Part800 

CFR Part264 

CFR Part 7 

CFA Part 2800 

CFA Part 8560 i CFR Part29 

CFR Pan 35 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS 

Exocutivo Order llSQ3 

Executive Order 11888 

Ex~utivo Order 11090 
4 SkpternberlOctober 1991 

State Regional Cooperative Agreements Aim At Resolving Transportation Issues 

As part of the OCRWM transportation 

institutional program, regional associations 

and State policy and agency personnel are 

participating in identifying and resolving 

key transportation issues for shipments of 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste 

(HLRW). 

Under the OCRWM Program, cooperative 

efforts have been ongoing with the Western 

Interstate Energy Board and the Southern 

States Energy Board since 1984, and with 

the Midwestern Office of the Council of 

State Governments since 1989. A similar 

agreement with aNortheast organization of 

States is expected by the end of 199 1. (Figure 

1 shows the States in the regional groups 

with HLRW cooperative agreements.) 

Each regional group identifies issues of 

interest to its participants. In the West, 

emergency response, routing, - and rail 

transport have been emphasized. The 

Southern States have focusedonemergency 

response, lessons learned in designating 

alternatehighway routes, and transportation 

related to a monitored retrievable storage 

facility. The Midwest group has addressed 

issues such as emergency response, routing, 

and onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

Each group has convened a committee-of 

State representatives who meet to discuss 

the OCRWM transportation program. 

Committee members range from the 

Governor’s policy staff to State agency 

people in charge of radiologic& health or 

emergency management in the State. 

All the regional groups have developed 

transportation “primers” or reports that serve 

as resources to describe the OCRWM 

program, summarizethekey issues, and put 

the issue resolution activities in regional 

context for the State members. The 

committees define the specific issues of 

interest to the regions and, in conjunction 

withOCRWMtransportationprogramstaff, 

agree on the mutually-beneficial studies 

and reports. 

Meetings are held approximately twice a 

year to brief the members of each regional 

group on the completed work and OCRWM 

activities,andtodiscussitemsofimportance 

to the States. Two specific activities have 

helped shape the OCRWM Transportation 

technical program activities. One activity 

has been the continued studies and 

discussion of emergency responseplanning, 

training, and assistance needs in relation to 

the OCRWM program. The other has been 

the recommendation to initiate a pilot 

inspection program to test procedures 

developed by the Commercial Vehicle 

Safety Alliance under a cooperative 

agreement with OCRWM. 

States Represented By Regional Groups UnL.,r Agreement 

With OCRWM Transportation 
SeptemberlOctober 1991 

DOE Issues Draft Mission Plan Amendment 

In November 1989, the Secretary of 

Energy issued the “Report to Congress on 

Reassessment of the Civilian Radioactive 

WasteManagementProgram.” Thisreport 

established an action plan that included 

initiatives to provide waste acceptance in 

1998 at a facility formonitoredretrievable 

storage, and waste disposal starting in 

2010 in a geologic repository. This report 

statedthat furtherdetails on the Secretary’s 

actionplan wouldbe provided inarevised 

Mission Plan. 

In developing the draft Mission Plan 

Amendment (MPA), DOE adopted an 

approach that is different from that used 

for earlier versions of the Mission Plan, 

and even different from what had been 

envisioned in November 1989. 

Specifically, DOE conducted a series of 

workshops (see OCRWM Bulletin, 

OctoberlNovember 1990 and April 1991) 

with individuals from various affected 

governments and interested parties on the 

strategic principles that should guide the 

program over the coming years. The 

input of these individuals and the exchange 

of views at the workshops was informative, 

stimulating, and productive. In no small 

part, the shape and content of the draft MPA 

attest to the impact of these workshops and 

the contributions of the individuals who 

attended them. 

Because of the importance of these 

workshops in the development of the draft 

MPA, a workshop w& held on October 22- 

23,1991, in Denver, Colorado, to build on 

the dialogue of the previous Strategic 

Principles Workshops. In particular, the 

Denver workshop is to secure reactions to 

the draft MPA and to determine how well 

OCRWM responded to the comments and 

concerns expressedatthe earlier workshops. 

This draft MPA workhop will be open to 

the public and will follow the same ground 

rules that encouraged diverse p&es to 

express their views freely as in the past. 

ThedraftMission Plan Amendment is being 

made available for comment by Federal 

agencies, States, Indian Tribes, and units of 

local government; the utilities; the 

National Association ofRegulatory Utility 

Commissioners; other interested parties; 

and the public. Written comments on the 

draft Mission Plan Amendment should be 

submitted by November 8, 1991, after 

which the formal comment period will be 

closed. Comments should be addressed 

to: 

Thomas H. Isaacs, Director, Office of 

Strategic Planning and International 

Programs, Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. 

Department of Energy, RW-4, lo00 

Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20585. 

Additional copies of the draft MPA can 

be obtained by calling (202) 586-5722. 

After all comments on the document have 

been considered, appropriate revisions 

will be made to the draft Mission Plan 

Amendment, and it will be submitted to 

Congress. 

DOE Issue’s Notice Of Interpretation And Procedures For Payments-Equal-To-Taxes 

‘Provisions Of The Nuclear Waste Policy Act Of 1982 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 amount they would receive if authorized to of PETT based on the information 

(NWPA), asamended,providesthatDOE taxtheFederalsitecharacterizationactivities provided by the eligible jurisdictions, as 

will make payments-equal-to-taxes at such site. well as applicable DOE accounting 

(PEW to eligible States, affected units directives and standards. DOE will 

of government, andaffectedIndianTribes TheNoticeincorporatesDOE’s response to document its analysis of this information 

for activities related ‘to siting, public comments received on a noposed and calculation of the PETT. 

development,andoperationof arepository Notice issued on March 7,1990. Based on 

forthepermanentdisposalofspentnuclear comments received, and after further DOErecognizes that apotentialexists for 

fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and consideration, DOEhasrevisedits proposed differences between the PETT estiiates 

any monitoredretrievable storage (MRS) interpretation and procedures by (1) developed by eligible jurisdictions and 

facility, modifying the proposed geographical basis theamountcalcu1atedbytheDepartment.- 

for determining which site characterization Therefore, DOE has provided for an 

The scope of the Notice, issued by DOE activities are eligible for inclusion in PETT appeal process through its Office of 

on August 27, 1991, is limited to site calculations, ,and (2) giving eligible Hearings and Appeals (OHA) for those 

characterization activities related to the jurisdictions the opportunity to provide to jurisdictions having disputes with the 

repository or MRS facility. Development DOEestimates ofPElT, including thebasis Departmentregarding PE’IT. WhileOHA 

and operational phases of the repository for such calculations. Because PETT would issue the final determination of 

and MRS facility will be addiessed at a paymentsarenottaxpaymentsbutpayments DOE on PE’IT disputes, it is subject to 

later date. The jurisdictions involved are made by DOE pursuant to statute, DOE has review in the Federal courts. 

eligible for payments equivalent to the the responsibility to determine the amount 

Continued on page 6’ 

.. ’ 91:67 
6 SeptemberlOctober 1991 

DOE Announces Cooperative Agreement With Atomic 

Energy Of Canada, Limited 

On October 1,1991, DOE announced that 

OCRWM has concluded an agreement with 

Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL) 

to cooperate on conducting technical 

activities for the disposal of spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level waste. By cooperating 

with Canada on technical issues related to 

nuclear waste management, this 

international project supports President 

Bush’s National Energy Strategy and will 

be instrumental in developing technologies 

to be usedin support of the YuccaMountain 

Site Characterization Project. 

The new project agreement will ‘involve 

cooperative experimental and analytical 

activities associated with geoscientific and 

engineering aspects of a mined geologic 

repository forhigh-level nuclearwaste. The 

project agreement will develop new data 

andimprove technologies inacost-effective 

fashion, ‘allow for further experience for 

U.S.personne1, and gain access to additional 

generic information and exclusive research 

facilities. 

AECL operates unique surface and 

subsurface facilities not readily available in 

the United States. Scientists and engineers 

who support AECL research in Manitoba 

and the Yucca Mountain Site 

Characterization Project Office in Nevada 

will cooperate in performing the technical 

work. 

This agreement is linked to a Master 

Agreement DOE and AECL signed in 1982 

and extended in 1987 establishing general 

provisions for cooperation on topics 

associated with the managment of 

radioactive waste. The United States will 

benefit fiom thenew agreementby assuring 

that the appropriate technology, procedures, 

and instrumentation are available when 

required during U.S. site ,characterization 

activities. * 

1 -800-225-NwpA Responds To Public Information 

Requests 

The OCRWM Information Center has 

received and responded to numerous 

telephone inquiries and requests to its new 

toll-free number, 1-800-225-NWPA, since 

the startup of the 800 number information 

systemonSeptember 16,1991. Thissystem 

provides a convenient, centralized 

mechanismforallinterestedparties to obtain 

timely information about the Nation’s highlevel radioactive waste management 

program. Inthepasttwo weeks, 8OOnumber 

calls have been .received from practically 

every region of the United States, reflecting 

the interests of educators, students, libraries, 

federal and State officials, electric utilities, 

and other members of the public. 

Should you have a question about the 

program or wish to request information or 

publications, the 800 number system can be 

accessed by dialing 1-800-225-NWPA 

(6972), except in Washington, D.C., where 

callers may dial 488-5513. The OCRWM 

Information Center’s hours are Monday, 

through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time. Written inquiries and 

comments are welcomed and may be 

directed to the OCRWM Information 

Center, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, D.C. * 20026. 

U.S.lS wiss Cooperation 

Extended 

On September 23, 1991, DOE and 

Switzerland’s National Cooperative for the 

Disposal of Radioactive Waste (NAGRA) 

signed an agreement to extend their umbrella 

agreement and to establish a new project. 

The extended umbrella agreement will 

continue through September 1996 and 

focuses on exchange of personnel and 

technical information. NAGRA operates 

unique facilities not available in the United 

States, giving DOE the opportunity to test 

critical instrumentation, computer models, 

and field methods. 

The project agreement deals with the 

geological, geophysical, geochemical, 

hydrological, and structural effects from a 

mined geologic radioactive wasterepository. 

The new project’agreement will be very 

important to U.S. efforts at the Yucca 

Mountain Project Site, as it will stress the 

effects of the flow of ground water and 

radionuclide transport on a repository in a 

fractured rock formation. The technical 

publications and data produced from 

previous agreements are presently being 

used in U.S. research activities. * 

Continued from page 5 

Copies of theNotice and documents referred 

to in, the Notice are available for public 

review atDOEHeadquders reading room, 

1000 Independence Avenue S.W., Room 

1E-190, Washington, D:C. 20585, (202) 

586-6020; Nevada Operations Office 

reading room,2753 S. Highland,Las Vegas, 

NV 89109, (702) 295-1274; and the 

Richland Operations Office reading room, 

825 Jadwin, Richland, WA 99352, (509) 

376-8583. For further information, contact 

AllenBenson, Office ofExternal Relations, 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, U.S. Dephnent of Energy, 

RW-5,1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Wqhington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-2289. ,* 
Se~temberIOctober 1991 7 

ORNL Releases Historical Overview Of Domestic Spent Fuel 

Shipments Report 

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

(ORNL) recently finished compiling data 

for OCRWM that comprises an historic 

overview of commercial and research 

reactor spent fuel shipments made in the 

United States between 1964-1989. Data 

collected during the 25-year period include 

the sources of commercial and research 

reactor spent fuel shipped, the types of 

shipping casks used, the number of fuel 

assemblies shipped, and the number of 

shipments made; This report, Historical 

Overview of Domestic Spent Fuel 

Shipments -An Update (ORNL./Sub/88- 

997962/1), is intended for planning purposes 

to support program decisions of OCRWM 

and to inform the interested public and 

representatives from Federal, State, and 

local governments; Indian Tribes; and the 

transportation community, 

Analysis of the co,mmercial spent fuel data 

produced anumber of observations. During 

the period of 1964- 1989, approximately 

2600 commercial shipments were made, 

totalling about 1900 metric tons of spent 

fuel (MTU) shipped. Ninety-one percentof 

the shipments, which represented only 52 

percent of the spent fuel by weight, was 

carried by truck. 

Although the greatest number of fuel 

assemblies was movedin 1986, thegreatest 

number of shipments was made in 1974. 

Due to the greater capacity of the rail casks 

used in later campaigns as compared with 

hck casks that were used mostly in the 

earlier campaigns, the number of cask 

shipments decreased from 224 in 1974 to 

144 in 1986. 

The amount of spent fuel shipped reflects 4 

periods ofmajoractivity: (1) themid 1960’s, 

(2) the early 1970’s, (3) themid 1970’~~ and 

(4) the mid to late 1980’s. These peri’ods 

correspond with the startup of the Nuclear 

Fuel Services West Valley plant (NFSWest Valley) in New York (1964-1966), 

additional shipments for commercial 

reprocessing at NFS-West Valley (1971- 

1974). storageat GE-Morris inIllinois (mid 

1970’s), and the decommissioning of NFSWest Valley (1984-1986), and GE-Morris 

contract shipments (1984-1989). 

respectively. 

NFS-West Valley received shipments of 

spentfuel forreprocessinguntil1976, when 

reprocessing was discontinued. 

Decommissioning of the plant meant that 

all of the commercially owned, spent fuel 

onsitehadto beshippedbacktotheutilities’ 

ownstoragepools. Asmallamountof spent 

fuel remains in storage at the West Valley 

facility. Shipment of this spent fuel to a 

DOE facility is pending. GE-Morris never 

operated as a reprocessing plant, even 

,though it was designed for reprocessing and 

did accept spent fuel from 1972-1989.- 

Three motor carriers participated in the 

majority of shipping cahpaigns involving 

truck shipments: Tri-State MotorTransport, 

Home Transport, ahd McGil Specialized 

Carriers. Spent-fuel shipments have been 

historically dominated by a few carriers. 

These carriers have chosen to provide the 

driver training, specialized equipment, and 

communications operation needed to 

support shipments of spent fuel. 

Shipments made from reactors used for 

research and test purposes (reactors from 

universities and DOE reactors) during the 

period 1983-1989 were all made by truck 

with236 shipments and20.2933 MTU being 

transported. The largest number of research 

reactor fuel shipments took place in 1986 

with the largest campaigns occurring 

between Brookhaven National Laboratory 

in Brookhaven, New York, to the Idaho 

Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) inIdaho, 

the Oak Ridge National Laboratory High 

Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) in Tennessee, 

and the Rockwell International Reactor in 

California to the Receiving Basin for Offsite 

Fuels (RBOF) at Savannah River in South 

Carolina. 

This report is available to DOE and DOE 

contractors from the Office of Scientific 

and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831. Copies are 

available to the public from the National 

Technical Information Service, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal 

Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161. I2 

New Publications And 

Documents 

Draft Mission Plan Amendment, DOE/ 

RW-O316P, September 1991. 

The Draft Mission Plan Amendment reports 

plans for the Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management that include initiatives to 

provide waste acceptance in 1998 at an 

MRS facility and waste disposal starting in 

2010 in a geologic repository. 

Preliminary Site Requirements and 

Considerations for a Monitored 

Retrievable Storage Facility, DOEBW0315P, August 1991. 

This report presents preliminary 

requirements and considerations for siting 

a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) 

facility. Its purpose is to provide guidance 

for assessing the technical suitability of 

potential sites for the facility. 

NOTE: To order copies of new OCRWM 

publications and documents listed in the 

OCRWM Bulletin, contact the OCRWM 

Information Center, P.O. Box 44375, 

Washington, D.C. 20026, 1-800-225- 

NWF’A or (202) 488-5513 in Washington, 

D.C. 12 

~ 

’91:69 

- -. 

(, 
8 

Selected Events Calendar - 1991 

SeptemberlOctober 1991 

November 6-7 

8 

November 12-13 

November 19 

November 20 

December 1-6 

December 5-7 

January 7-10 

January 15-17 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Task Force on Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Meeting, Thomas and Mack Center, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV. 

Contact Dan Metlay (202) 586-7092. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board;Panel on Structural Geology and Geoengineering, 

Meeting on Technology of Backfill, Sealing, and Openings; Exploratory Studies Facility Design 

Review. Seattle, WA, Wyndham Garden Hotel. Contact Paula Alford (703) 235-4473. 

DOE/Nuclear Regulatory Commission Meeting on Regulatory Strategy, location to 

be determined in Washington, D.C. area. Contact Linda Desell(202) 586-1462. 

DOE/Nuclear Regulatory Commission Interactions Meeting, location to be determined 

in Washington, D.C. area. Contact Linda Desell(202) 586-1462. 

National Congress of American Indians 48th Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA. 

Contact Carol Gipp (202) 546-9404. 

National Science Teachers Association Meeting, Reno, NV. Contact Ellie Snyder 

(202) 328-5800, ext. 44. 

1992 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Full Board Meeting, location to be determined 

in Washington, D.C. Contact Paula Alford (703) 235-4473. 

Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, Ninth Spent Fuel Seminar, Loew’s L’Enfant 

Piaza, Washington, D.C. Contact Barbara Scott (708) 480-9080. * 

Reader Response Card 

A reader responsepage is enclosed with every OCRWM Bulletin. Thepurpose ofthispage is to encourage communication between the readers 

of the Bulletin and OCRWM. 

Your views, comments, and suggestions are appreciated so that we can make the OCRWM Bulletin as kef31 and responsive to our readers as 

possible. 

Address: 

Please detach this page and mail to: Mr.’Jerome Saltzman. Director 8 Ofice of External Relations 9 Ofice of Civilian Radioactive Waite Management 

US. Department of Energy Mail Stop RW 5.1 8 I000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 
-0CRWM 

Bulletin 

DOURW-0331 P 

United States Department Of Energy -. Office Of Civilian .. 

Radioactive Waste Management 

Washington, DC 20585 

NovemberlDecember 1991 

DOE Awards Second MRS Grant To Grant 

County, North Dakota 

OnNovember25,1991,DOEawardeda 

grant to Grant County, North Dakota, to 

study the feasibility of siting an aboveground, monitored retrievable storage 

(MRS) facility for the temporary storage 

of commercial spent nuclear fuel. 

The grant, awarded for nearly $100,000, 

will be used by Grant County to gain an 

understanding of the Nation's nuclear 

waste management system, including the 

MRS facility component, and to 

determine whether it has an interest in 

pursuing further feasibility studies. This 

is the second grant awarded for a 

feasibility study. TheMescalero Apache 

Tribe of New Mexico was awarded a 

grant for the amount of $100,000 on 

Octoberl7,1991 (seeOCRWMBulletin, 

September/October 1991). 

The MRS facility will be an above-ground 

storage facility using proven technology to 

the maximum extent practicable. The 

facility will receive, temporarily store, and 

stage spent nuclear fuel for shipment to a 

permanent geologic repository for ultimate 

disposal. The MRS facility will be subject 

to licensing by the Nuclear Regiilatory 

Commission and to applicable federal and 

State environmental, safety, and health 

regulations. 

Grant applications for feasibility studies 

are currently being accepted. Requests for 

copies of the solicitation can be made in 

writing totheDepartmentofEnergy, Office 

ofplacement and Administration, Am. Mr. 

Nick Graham/PR-322.1, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 

20585, (202) 586-9634. 

--. 

MONTAN/ 

SOUM DAKOTA / 

Page 

DOE Awards Second MRS Grant to 

Grant County, Nonh Dakota 1 

DOE Holds Workshop in Denver to 

Review Ddt Mission Plan 

Amendment 2 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board's 

Fourth Report Recommends Early 

Underground Excavation --2 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review 

Board Discusses Repository 

Sealing Program and Tours 

Tunnel-Boring Machine Factory 3 

Status of Site Characterization 

at Yucca Mountain 4 

OCRWM Exhibits Provide Opporlunity. 

for Increased Knowledge and 

Understanding of Radioactive 

Waste Management 6 

Selected Events Calendar - 1992 7 

New Publications and Videos 8 

Reader Response Card 8 

NOTE TO READERS: The OCRWM BuIlcrtr Is 

availabletousersofINFOLINKIIaboutoneweek 

before publication. To be placed on the malllng 

list, tomakeany addresscorrectioxqor torequest 

multiple coples of the OCRWM Bulletin, please 

contact the.OCRWM Information Center, P.O. 

Box 44375, Washington, D.C. 20026,1-800-225- 

NWF'A or (202) 488-5513 in Washington, D.C. 

Published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Off& of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 

For further information about the national program or for copies of new OCRWM publications and documents listed in the OCRWM Bulletin, wntact the U.S. Department of Energy, OCRWM, 

Office of Extemd Relations, Education and Information Division, Mail Stop RW-5.1. IO00 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C 20585. (202) 5865722 or the OCRWM Information 

Center, P.O. Box44375. Washington. D.C. 20016,1-800-255-IWF'Aor(202) 488-5513 in Washingt0n.D.C. The OCRWhl Information Serviceshtory is available to provide sources of program information. ,. 

91:71 
2 NovemberlDecember 1991 

DOE Holds Workshop In Denver To Review 

Draft Mission Plan Amendment 

On October 22-23,1991, OCRWM held a 

workshop in Denver, Colorado, to review 

thedraftMission Plan Amendment (MPA). 

Twenty-four individuals from the State of 

Nevada; local governments in Nevada and 

California; the utilities; scientific, public 

interest, andothergroups; andotherFederal 

agencies participated in the workshop. 

The hal MPA is intended to be the waste 

management program’s guideline and will 

report on how OCRWM intends to achieve 

its mission to manage and dispose of the 

Nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level 

waste in a manner that protects the health 

and safety of the public and of workers and 

the quality of the environment. OCRWM 

issued the draft MPA on September 16, 

199 1, for a 60-day public comment period. 

The primary objective of the draft MPA 

workshop was to enable affected 

governments and interested parties to 

discuss and respond to the draftMPA. The 

workshop wasplannedasafollow-up tothe 

three previous Strategic Principles 

Workshops heldearlierinthe yeartodevelop 

management, technical, and institutional 

principles needed to guide the program (see 

OCRWM Bulletin, April 1991). 

The draft MPA workshop’s participants 

examinedhow wellOCRWMhadintegrated 

the strategic principles into the draft MPA 

and submitted comments on its substantive 

content. Althoughthe draftMPAdidreceive 

criticism and suggestions for improvements, 

the participants complimented OCRWM 

for presenting a well-written, organized 

document and expressed appreciation for 

the opportunity ,to participate in the 

workshop. 

In addition, OCRWM presented plans at 

the workshop for a “Director’s Forum” to 

provide ongoing participation by affected 

governments, interested parties, and the 

public. While the concept of a Director’s 

Forum as presentedwasnotfully developed, 

participants at the workshop responded 

positively to continuing this kind of 

interchange. TheForum will meet on an asneeded basis to provide input to significant 

upcoming program decisions and to evaluate 

OCRWM’s efforts to strengthen public trust 

and confidence. The initial Forum meeting 

will be held in the spring of 1992. 

The public comment period for the MPA 

ended on’November 8, 1991. OCRWM 

plans to incorporate appropriate comments 

into the revised document, prepare a 

commentresponse document, and issue the 

final MPA in April 1992. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board’s Fourth Report Recommends 

Early Underground Excavation 

On December 10,1991, the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board (the Board) 

submitted its Fourth.Report to the U.S. 

Congress and the Secretary of Energy. This 

report, which represents the Board’s most 

recent scientific and technical review of 

DOE’s civilian radioactive waste disposal 

program, expresses its concern that DOE’s 

postponement of underground excavation 

due to funding restrictions will delay the 

exploration of key geologic features 

necessary fc$. the early assessment of site 

suitiibility. Further, the Board is concerned 

about the potential effects that postponing 

underground excavation and evaluation 

could have on achieving the major 

milestones of the repository development 

program, especially meeting key program 

target dates, assuming that the site is found 

to be suitable. 

The reportrecommends thatDOErevise its 

program to include earlier underground 

excavation. The Board feels that‘ early 

underground access to examine and evaluate 

key geologic features is critical to 

determining site suitability, and it believes 

that these activities should be made an early 

goal regardless of DOE budgetary 

constraints. 

TheBoard also recommends that, inlight of 

recent budgetary constraints, DOE should 

consider developing contingency plans for 

fiscal year 1993 and beyond. This will 

enable DOE to proceed with the program 

evenduringtimes of budgetary uncertainty. 

Such plans would ensure that underground 

exploration would be given high priority, 

allowing DOEtoprogress toward themajor 

milestones of the program in a timely and 

efficient manner. 

Further Board recommendations include: 

Structulal Geology and Geoengineering 

Smaller tunnels. (16- to 20-foot 

diameters) beconsidered forthe ramps 

and exploratory tunnels, offering 

benefits such as reduced excavation 

volumes, lower ventilation 

requirements, and smaller surface 

facilities. Also, smaller,lessexpensive 

tunnel-boring machines could be used. 

Continued on page 3 

91:72 
NovemberIDecem ber 1991 3 ,(, . 

I Continuedfrom page 2 

Using a structured probabilistic 

approach that can provide useful 

estimates of volcanic hazard at Yucca 

Mountain and help discriminate 

between those differences in input 

assumptions that have .a significant 

impact on volynic hazard and those 

that do not. 

Place an added emphasis on the 

evaluation of volcanic vulnerabilities 

and consequences. 

Hydrology and Geochemistry 

Carry out sensitivity studies to 

determine the effect of.limitations, in 

instrument accuracy on estimates, of 

water flux and performance iq the 

‘8 unsaturatedzone. The results of 

these studies should be used to refine ’ 

testing strategies, determine the need 

for new instrumentation, and provide 

arealisticestimateof DOE’s ability to 

adequately characterize the 

unsaturated zone. 

Engineered Barrier System (EBS) 

Studies of the potential contribution 

of engineered barriers, such as multipurpose canisters, should not be 

deferred. 

The Department should consider 

organizing a follow-up meeting of 

EBS workshop experts plus other 

selected participants in early 1992,to 

review and consolidate the 

recommendations and comments 

aboutEBS conceptsgatheredat DOE’s 

June 1991 workshop. 

Environment and Public Health . 

DOE should seek clarification from 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) of the procedures by. which 

alternative levels of subsystem 

performance could be authorized. 

Risk and Performance Analysis. 

The Department .should refine ‘its 

methods for assessing ‘ exper.t 

judgment, and DOE and NRC should 

attain agreement on the potential use 

of experts prior to beginning the 

licensing process. A workshop should 

be held in 1992 to examine the use of 

expert judgment in ’DOE’S current 

performance assessment and in the 

. performance assessment exercis,es 

carriedout by other organizations such 

asNRC, the Electric Power Research 

. . Institute;andGolderAssociates,anta 

’propose improvements. 

The Board’s Fourth Report to the U.S. 

Conmess and the Secretarv of Energy is 

available for $5.50 from the Superintendent 

of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 

Office,MailStop: SSOP, Washington, D.C. * 20402-9328; 

.. ... .. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Discusses Repository Sealing Program 

And Tours Tunnel-Boring Machine Factory 

As part of its congressional mandate to 

independently review DOE’S Civilian. 

Radioactive Waste Management Program, 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 

Board’s Panel on Structural Geology & 

Geoengineering met <with DOE 

representatives and its contractors on 

November 12 and 13, 1991, in Seattle, 

Washington. During the two-day meeting, 

panel members reviewed DOF’s plans for 

sealing and backfilling repository boreholes, 

shafts, tunnels, and underground openings. 

In addition, panel members toured The 

Robbins Company, the world’s largest 

manufacturer of tunnel-boring machines. 

Onthefirst day,panelmembers were briefed 

on the status of the proposed repository 

sealing program. Presentations focused on 

the program’s history, regulatory 

requirements, design philosophy, sealing 

concepts, and the rationale for these concepts. 

Following discussions concentrated on the 

technical requirements of sealing aid the 

development of a numerical model of the 

permeability of the zone surrounding the 

openings of the proposed repository. ,me 

model’s purgose is to demonstrate sealing 

performance in response to potential water 

flow into the repository, and potential 

gaseous flow out of therepository or zkound 

sealed and backfilled boreholes, shafts, 

tunnels, and underground openings. 

On the second.day, following discussions 

on the materials selection process, seal 

degradation, and proposed field test efforts 

panel members were given a half-day tom 

of The Robbins Company. 

Transcripts of the meeting are available or 

a library-loan basis from Victoria Reich 

librarian, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technica 

Review Board, 1100 Wilson Boulevqd 

Suite 910, Arlington, VA 22209. * 

.. .. ..~ .. 91:73. 
4 NovernberlDecernber 1991 

Status Of Site Characterization At Yucca Mountain 

Surface-Based Testing 

The site characterization programrecognizes 

theimportanceofmaking anearl yevaluation 

of site suitability at the candidate site for the 

Nation's first geologic repository for spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level waste at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada. For this reason, and 

after an initial evaluation of priorities for 

surface-based and in-situ testing, it has been 

determined that an early emphasis of 

investigation at the candidate site will be on 

determining the potential for gaseous 

releases over the long term, and 

resolving the geologic complexity of the 

site as related to radionuclide migration 

by ground-water transpok 

To pursue these areas of emphasis through 

surface-based testing as soon as possible, 12 

neutron boreholes, onsite dry drilling, and 

coring of deep boreholes into the unsaturated 

zone will begin early in 1992. 

Characterization of rocks and ground water 

in the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain 

presents considerable challenges. 

Contamination by drilling fluids of the rocks 

surrounding the borehole and of samples 

removed from the borehole must be avoided 

or minimized. Testing and sampling must 

be conducted under conditions as close as 

possible to the original conditions of the 

rock. To achieve these goals, OCRWM 

plans to use dry drilling and coring for many 

boreholes at Yucca Mountain rather than 

standard drilling techniques that use drilling 

fluids. 

Prototype drilling activities in Utah and 

Arizona have been conducted (see OCRWM 

Bulletin, June 1990 and July/August 1991). 

Results of these activities led to 

improvements in the design of the LM-300, 

alargerdrillingrigthatwillbeusedat Yucca 

Mountain for drilling deep boreholes. The 

LM-300 has completed acceptance testing 

and has been brought to YuccaMountain to 

begin site characterization drilling in early 

1992. The prototype operations also 

provided an opportunity for the Sample 

Management Facility to refine procedures 

for handling drilling samples. 

In addition to the planned drilling, trenching 

will be undertaken for detailed studies of 

faults, the characteristics of soils and rocks, 

andevidenceofpastclimates (seeOCRWM 

Bulletin, July/August 1991). In the area of 

Yucca Mountain, OCRWM has excavated 

about 40 trenches and plahs to excavate 

approximately 25 new trenches, the first of 

which was completed in July 1991 (see 

photoonpage5). This activity willcontinue 

throughtout 1992. Most of these trenching 

activities are undertaken to determine the 

timing of the faulting and the amount of 

fault displacement, and to look for any 

evidence of recurrent displacement. The 

study of surfacecharacteristics, investigation 

of past climates, and volcanic issues will 

also require new trenches, possibly as many 

as40, butthese willbeshorterandshallower 

than those trenches excavated for fault 

studies. These trench locations will be 

selected from aerial photographs and field 

reconnaissance. 

Ongoing monitoring activities are 

continuing, including the monitoring of 

meteorological conditions, streamflow, 

seismicity, and ground-water levels. 

Exploratory Studies Facility 

In addition to the surface-based testing 

program, OCRWM plans to construct an 

exploratory studies facility (ESF) at Yucca 

Mountain to provide access to the potential 

host rock for arepository and to evaluate the 

geologic, hydrologic, ,geochemical, 

geomechanical, and thermal conditions in 

the potential host rock and the surrounding 

units. Original plans for the ESF were 

reviewed by the Nuclear, Regulatory 

Commission and the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board, and their 

recommendations led to a major review 

known as the ESF Alternatives Study. 

The ESF Alternatives Study was a 

comprehensive, formal evaluation of 

configuration and construction alternatives 

for the ESF that also considered preferred 

options for interface of the ESF and the 

repository design. The results of the study 

indicate that an ESF providing access to 

both the candidate repository horizon and 

the underlying Calico Hills unit through 

mechanically excavatedramps could provide 

advantages over the original configuration 

OftheBFthatcalled fortwoverticalshafts. 

The ESF will include an underground test 

facility and horizontal drifts to characterize 

major geologic features. 

Themostfavorableaspets ofthealternatives 

considered were combined into a revised 

design concept that has provided the basis 

for the revised ESF Title I Design Summary 

Report. This report was completed in 

September 1991 and accepted by OCRWM 

Director, Dr. John W. Bartlett. Approval to 

proceed with limited ESFTitle II design has 

been granted by the Undersecretary of 

Energy who is responsible for overseeing 

majorprogram acquisitions forthe program. * 

91:74 
Novem berlDecem ber 1991 5 

Trench A, Midway Valley at Yucca Mountain 

8 

91:75 
6 NovemberlDecember 1991 

OCRWM Exhibits Provide Opportunity For Increased Knowledge And Understanding Of 

Radioactive Waste Management 

kience education has long been a critical 

:lement in DOE’S Civilian Radioactive 

Naste Management Program. To that end, 

ICRWM has developed educational 

rograms aimed at improving the science 

iteracy of students from kindergarten 

hrough college and post-graduate levels, 

:nhancing teacher skills, encouraging careers 

in science and engineering, and developing 

a keener awareness of science issues among 

the general public. Among these varied 

educational activities, OCRWM’s Education 

andInformationDivision, Ofice ofExtemal 

Relations, has developed specialized 

travelling exhibits for presentation at 

technical and non-technical meetings and at 

WRWM Full-Sue Exhibit 

national and regional teacherleducator 

conferences to provide an overview of the 

integrated waste management system. 

The OCRWM exhibits, entitled “Managing 

the Nation’s Nuclear Waste,” consist of 

both full-size and tabletop displays. The 

full-size exhibit (see photo) has two video 

Continuted on page 7 

91:76 
NovemberlDecember 1991 7 

Because the transportation of spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level waste will receive 

significant public attention in the future, 

specialized exhibits and other outreach 

activities have been developed to enhance 

the public’s perception and understanding 

of transportation safety and risk. The new 

transportation exhibit is now available and 

will be helpful in providing updated 

information to the public .on OCRWM’s 

transportation- program. The modular 

traveling exhikt provides models of the 

new rail and truck cask initiatives as well as 

photographs and graphics of transportation 

activities and developments specific to the 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Program. 

The new OCRWM transportation exhibit 

will be shown at various educational 

Continuted from page 6 

symposia; State, Tribal, and local 

conferences and meetings; and 

conventions for professional and technical 

organizations. 

To schedule the “Managing The Nation’s 

Nuclear Waste” exhibit, or to obtain more 

information on its availability, please 

contact: Christina Maher, OCRWM 

Information Center, P.O. Box 44375, 

Washington, D.C. 20026, 1-800-225- 

NWPA. Schedulinginformationregarding 

the OCRWM transportation exhibit may 

be obtained by contacting: Susan Smith, 

Office of Storage and Transportation, 

Office of Civilian ,Radioactive Waste 

Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 

RW-4.31, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 

586-5616.* 

monitors, offers numerous free publications, 

and describes the U.S. Waste Management 

Program, types of nuclear waste, site 

investigations, disposal, storage technology, 

and transportation. The tabletop exhibit is a 

five-panel display that also describes the 

program and offers free publications. 

. January 7-8 

January 10 

January 15-17 

January 22-23 

February 10-1 1 

The 1992 schedule for showings of the 

OCRF eThibits consists of 41 showings 

in 26‘Shtes - exposing the exhibits to a 

potential audience of 183,800. This 

represents an effort to maintainrelationships 

establishedin previous years while reaching 

52,000 attendees through nine new shows. 

An emphasis ’has been made to reach 

educators, who make up 52 percent of the 

year’s total attendees. The second largest 

audience,at 19percent,isthegenerqlpublic, 

representing 34,800 attendees. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Full Board Meeting, Key Bridge Maniotf, Arlington, VA. 

Contact Paula Alford (703) 235-4473. 

House Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment (Chairman 

Kostmayer), FieldHearing on YuccaMountain permitting provisions intheNationalEnergy Strategy 

Act, H.R. 1301, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada. Contact Subcommittee staff 

at (202) 226-4085. 

‘ Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, Ninth Spent Fuel Seminar, Loew’s L’Enfant Plaza, 

Washington, D.C. Contact Barbara Scott (708) 480-9573. 

Nuclear WasteTechnical Review Board, Panel on Structural Geology and Geoengineering, Meeting 

(topic: seismic vulnerabilities), Hyatt Regency, Irvine, CA. Contact Paula Alford (703) 235-4473. 

Nuclear WasteTechnical Review Board, Panel onEngineered Barrier SystemManagement, Meeting 

(topic: overview of defense high-level waste management activities), location to be detehed in 

Augusta, GA. Contact Paula Alford (703) 235-4473. 

I 

* 

Selected Events Calendar - 1992 

91:77 -3 
8 NovemberfDecem ber 1991 

New Publications And Videos 

I NEwvIDEos: 

JEW PUBLICATIONS: 

pent Fuel Storage at the Monitored 

Letrievable Storage Facility, DOE/RW324P, December 1991. 

Ms fact sheet provides basic information 

bout Monitored Retrievable Storage 

KRS) through text and illustration. It 

escribes several possible design concepts 

ir an MRS facility and presents the 

ifferences between them by examiningthe 

arious technologies being considered, 

icluding concrete and metal containers, 

ansportable storage containers, concrete 

iodules, and modular vaults. 

Monitored Retrievable Storage, 8 

minutes, 15 seconds. 

A description of a Monitored Retrievable 

Storage facility, how it might look and 

operate, and its role in the waste management 

system. 

World Wide Waste Management, 20 

minutes. 

2: 

A look at what other counties are doing in 

theareaofnuclearwastemanagement. This 

provides a good description of the 

Need More Infomalion? 

Call 1-800-225-MA 

international consensus for deep geologic 

disposal andeach country's plan to proceed 

with this issue. 

NOTE: To order copies of new OCRWM 

publications and videos listed in the 

OCRWM Bulletin, contact the OYRWM 

Information Center, P.O. Box 44375. 

Washington, D.C. 20026, 1-800-225- 

NWPA or (202) 488-5513 in Washington, 

D-C* 72 

Reader Response Card 

A reader response page is enclosed with every OCRWM Bulletin. Thepurpose of thispage is to encourage communication between the readers 

of the Bulletin and OCRWM. 

Your views, comments, and suggestions are appreciated so that we can make the OCRWM Bulletin as useful and responsive to our readers as 

possible. 

Name: 

Affiliation: 

Please detach this page and mail to: Mr. Jerome Saltzman. Director Ofice of External Relations Ofice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

US. Deparhnent of Energy Mail Stop RW 5.1 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington. DC 20585 

91:78 
United States Department of Energy 

Ofice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Washington, DC 20585 

-0CRWM 

Bulletin 

1991 Index 

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, 10 

Affected units of'iocal government 

extension of affected county status, 39 

American Indian Tribes 

hosting of nuclear waste facilities, 2 

Mescalero Apache Tribe, 63,71 

MRS feasibility grant awarded, 63 

National Congress of American Indians, 16 

and participation in environmental studies, 3 

and potential negotiated MRS site, 41 

public participation, 6 

Shoshone-Bannock Indian Tribes, 6 

training of public safety officials, 37 

Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL), 68 

Babcock & Wilcox, 31 

Brookhaven National Laboratory, 69 

Clark County, Nevada, 6,37 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Subparts 3 and F of 10 CFR 29,64,figure 65 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), 

6,49,66, figure 60 

pilot study milestones for inspection procedures, 

60 

Conference of Radiation Control Program 

and drafting of radiological inspection 

Directors 

procedures, 59 

Conferences 

Second International High-Level Radioactive 

Waste Management Conference, .14, ' . . I 

Cooperative agreements and vehicle inspection 

procedures, 59 

Costs (see Funding) 

Counties 

Clark County, Nevada, 6,37 

Esmeralda County, Nevada, 28,39 

Grant County, North Dakota, 71 

Inyo County, California, 28 

Lander County, Nevada, 39 

Lincoln County, Nevada, 37 

Mineral County, Nevada, 39 

Nye County, Nevada, 37,39 

White Pine County, Nevada, 39 

Duke Engineering, 31 

E.R. Johnson Associates, 31 

Engineered Barrier System (EBS), 16,73 

Environment 

Environmental Program Overview, 13 

Environmental Protection Implementation Plan 

@PIP), 13 

priority during field activities, 29 

Pqwm, 13 

refusal to grant environmental permits, 13 

studies of 

3" 

coordination and integration, 3 

desert tortoise, 5 

and Yucca Mountain Project, 13 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2 

and endorsement of Section 51 1 amendment, 

40-41 

Esmeralda County, Nevada, 28,39 ,, I.. . 

*... I..) program 15 . I -. -: __---.-'.I, -. . _-: 'Eureka County, California, 39 

The cited reference numbers represent the page numbers of a compilation of 1991 OCRWM Bulletins. This pagination can be found 

at the bottom of each page and supplements each issue's notation. 91 :79 

. --- . 

r r 

I.'. ;;~ 
2 INDEX 

Exploratory Shaft Facility, 5 

exploratory shaft pending resolution of suit by 

review of quality assurance program, 13 

State of Nevada, 13 

Exploratory Studies Facility, 74 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), 6 

Fluor Daniel, 3 1 

Funding 

amendment to financial assistance funding, 64 

benefits agreements with host States and 

budget request (FY 1992), 9-10, table 9, 

figure 10 

cost containment, 29 

costs 

communities, 31 

of delay in repository operations, 14 

of LM-300 Drill Rig and Pipe Handling System, 

51 

63,71 

government, 39 

feasibility grant applications for MRS facility, 

financial assistance to affected units of local 

public safety training, 37 

State of Nevada and affected counties, 37 

financial assistance to affected units of local 

financial statements (unaudited), 42,45-46 

MRS facility feasibility grants awarded 

to Grant County, North Dakota, 7 1 

to Mescalero Apache Tribe of New Mexico, 

government, 2 

63,71 

need for contingency plans, 72 

Nuclear Waste Fund, 1 

and analysis of fee adequacy, 1 

and environmental programs, 3 

Balance Sheets for Ey 1989, Ey 1988, 

tables 33-36 

payment for disposal of defense waste, 31-32 

payments-equal-to-taxes @?E"), 67 

provisions for appeals in calculations of paymentsequal-to-taxes (PETT), 67 

significance of development and evaluation 

activities on total-system of restructured 

program, 11,14, chart 11 , 

Grant County, North Dakota, 71 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform 

Safety Act of 1990,37 

Health, environment, and safety 

and site characterization, 42 

Hydrology 

and international cooperative activities with 

models, 73 

Switzerland, 68 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), 

59 

INTERA, 31 

International cooperation, 14 

and bilaterial agreement meeting, 4 

DOE and Atomic Energy of Canada, 68 

DOE and Switzerland's National Cooperative for 

the Disposal of Radioactive Waste (NAGRA), 

68 

International programs 

potential use as models for U.S. programs, 43 

Inyo County, California, 28,39 

J.K. Associates, 31 

Lander County, Nevada 

possible request for designation, 39 

Licensing 

desired criteria for repository, 2 

Licensing Support System, 32 

process for repository, 52 

repository schedule, figures 54,55 

schedule,figure 55 

Lincoln County, Nevada, 37 

Litigation 

affected units of local government, 28 

concerning air quality permit and underground 

environmental permits, 27-28 

and Management and Operating Contract, 3 1 

injection control, 40 
INDEX 3 

“notice of disapproval,” 27 1 

partnership with Nevada urged by Watkins, 28 

petition by State of NV challenging scientific 

rejection of challenges to site characterization 

status of decisions, 27-28 

investigations, 27 

efforts, 27 

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), 5 

Management and Operating Contract (M&O), 

‘11 

JL 

Meetings 

Radioactive Waste Management Committee and 

Bilateral Agreement, 4 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force 

on Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, 

42-43 

Midwestern Office of the Council of State 

Governments, 66 

Mineral County, Nevada 

possible request for designation, 39 

Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility 

assessment of siting feasibilility, 2 

contractor capability, 3 1 

description, 63,71 

feasibility assessment grants, 41 

and linkages to repository, 12 

planned activities, 10 

Preliminary Site Requirements and 

Considerations for a Monitored 

Retrievable Storage Facility, 64 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 5,9, 

44,64,71,74 

and approval of study plans at the Yucca 

Mountain site, 13 

imd licensing fees,l4 

and Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 

recommendations, 3 

and support role of Licensing Support System, 

32 

Nuclear Waste Negotiator (see Office of the 

Nuclear Waste Negotiator) 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

and Nuclear Waste Fund, 1 

Sections 114(e), 52 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, 37 

modifications to licensing conditions for MRS 

payments-equal-to-taxes provision, 67 

and Project Decision Schedule, 52 

proposed amendment and permitting, 40 

and report on scientific investigations, 5 

training assistance provisions of Section 

facility, 12 

18O(c), 6 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 

(NWTRB), 2,5,10,28,43,74 

and recommendations, 2-3,72 

review of DOE plans to seal and backfill underground excavations, 73 

review of DOE quality assurance program for 

ESF, 13 

technical recommendations on DOE program, 44 

Nye County, Nevada, 37,39 

Morrison-Knudsen, 3 1 

National Academy of Sciences, 43 

and origin of calcite/silica deposits, 49 

Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECDNA), 4,58 

National Energy Strategy, 42 

Nuclear facilities, 69 . ,. 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management (OCRWM) 

award of Management and Operating Contract, 

development of alternatives, 29-30 

draft strategy for training assistance, 37 

institutional principles, 30 

joint sponsorship of international workshop, 58 

management principles, 29 

overview of DOE program presented, 16 

program planning, 10 

31 

\ 

91:81 
4 INDEX 

program requirements of standard contract for 

and public trust and confidence, 43 

and solicitation provision of MRS feasibility 

technical principles, 30 

terms for acceptance and payment of disposal of 

defense high-level radioactive waste, 32 

toll-free telephone number for information 

center, 68 

disposal, 12 

grants, 41 

Office of Geologic Disposal, 41 

Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator 

(om), 2 

and Memorandum of Understanding with DOE, 

and Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) 

negotiated agreements for siting MRS facility, 41 

2 

facility, 10 

Oversight, 44 

review of scientific studies, 43 

role of States in regulatory program delegation, 

. 

40 

Performance assessment 

and decision-aiding methodology, 2 

Program planning, 74 

Program schedule, 74 

Prototype testing 

dry drilling and coring, 5 1 

LM-300 drill rig, 74 

Public health, safety, and environment, 71 

Public information 

available materials, 50,76-77 

800 number established, 50 

importance of public education in energy, 

science, and the environment, 58,76-77 

and public confidence, 58 

toll-free information number, 68 

Public participation, 5,6 

importance of public concerns and involvement, 

29-3 1 

and input on administration of payments-equalinput on draft Mission Plan Amendment, 72 

public trust and confidence, 42-43 

workshop involvement, 14 

to-taxes, 67 

Quality assurance 

definition and application, 29 

and site characterization, 5,13,16 

Public laws 

Clean Air Act, 40 

Clean Water Act, 40 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 40 

RDA, 31 

Reports 

Acceptance Priority Ranking Report, 44 

Analysis of the Total-System Life Cycle Costs 

for the Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management Program, 11 

Annual Capacity Report, 14 

Annual Report to Congress, 32 

comment period, 67 

Draft Acceptance Priority Ranking, 44 

importance of workshops in draft development, 

67 ’ 

ESF Alternatives Study, 74 

Feasibility Study for Transportation Operations 

System Cask Maintenace Facility, 32,37 

Historical Overview of Domestic Spent Fuel 

Shipments-An Update, 69 

Mission Plan Amendment (MPA), draft, 12,29, 

67,72 

Notice of interpretation and procedures for 

payments-equal-to-taxes provisions, 67 

Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy: 

An Assessment, 1 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board’s 

Fourth Report to the U.S. Congress and the 

U.S. Secretary of Energy, 72 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board’s Third 

Report to the U.S. Congress and the U.S. 

Secretary of Energy, 44 

The Potential Use of Lead in the Waste Package 

for a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada, 5 

91:82 
INDEX 5 

Preliminary Estimates of the Total-System Cost 

for the Restructured Program: An Addendum 

to the Total-System Life Cycle Cost for the 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Program, 14 

Progress Report on status of site characterization 

program, third semi-annual, 41 

Project Decision Schedule, 52 

Report to Congress on Reassessment of the 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Program, 67 

Report to Congress on the Reassessment of the 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Plan, 

response to comments, 12 

Review Board, 3 

Required by Section 180(c) of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act, as Amended (preliminary 

draft), 6 

Second Report of the Nuclear Waste Technical 

Strategy to Provide Training Assistance as 

Repository 

and international studies, 68 

Research and Development 

Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, 68 

prototype dry drilling and coring equipment, 51 

Switzerland's National Cooperative for the 

Disposal of Radioactive Waste (NAGRA), 68 

Risk assessment, 73 

and performance assessment, 2 

Risk communication, 58,76 

Robbins Company, 73 

Safety 

during spent fuel handling and shipment, 3 

Safety, health, and environment, 73 

Schedule 

assumptions for Monitored Retrievable Storage 

baseline for development and operation of waste 

importance, 29 

licensing, 52,jigure 55 

Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility, 

52,jigure 56 

(MRS) facility, 52 

management system,jigure 53 

Project Decision, 52 

projected acceptance of spent nuclear fuel, 14,15 

spent fuel receipt at repository, 52 

transportation system, 52,figure 57 

underground excavation, 72 

Science education, 76 

and decisionmaking, 58 

educational programs and exhibits, 76 

importance of institutional support, 30-31 

and international workshop, 58 

need for scientific literacy, 58 

and nuclear power, 58 

and public confidence, 58 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task 

Force on Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, members, 43 

Site characterization, 5 

activities planned for Ey 1992, 10 

Bow Ridge Fault, 49 

Calico Hills, 74 

challenges, 74 

early emphases, 74 

and effects of environmental studies, 3 

importance of early underground excavation, 72 

initiation of surface-disturbing activities, 49 

investigations, 49 

Midway valley, 49 

need to proceed, 40 

oversight by affected units of local government, 

and payments-equal-to-taxes, 67 

plan for environmental protection, 13 

planned surface-based tests and boring activities, 

procedures if potential repository site found 

Progress Report available, 41 

proposed amendment to facilitate, 40 

role of dry drilling and coring equipment, 51 

and schedule, 72 

status, 49,74 

Trench 14,49 

trenching activities, 49,74,jigure 75 

39 

74 

unsuitable, 52 

Site selection, 49 

Site suitability 

,, 

importance of scientific evaluation, 43 

91233 
6 INDEX 

Soil Conservation Service, 3 

Southern States Energy Board, 66 

Spokesmen 

DOE Representatives 

Bartlett, J.W., 4, 14,58,63 

Gem, C.P., 6 

Isaacs, T.H., 4 

King, G., 58 

Watkins, J.W., 28,42 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Habicht II, F.H., 40 

Florida Public Service Commission 

Wilson, M.M., 14 I 

Nuclear Energy Agency 

Kunihiko Uematsu, 14 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Curtiss, J.R., 14 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 

Deere, D.U., 14 

Svensk Karnsbranslehantering 

Bjurstrom, S., 14 

University of Texas, Austin 

Maxey, M., 14 

State of Nevada, 5,10,37 

air quality permit issuance, 49 

authority in site characterization activities, 40 

financial assistance to, 10 

and oversight role, 10 

and participation in environmental studies, 3 

partnership urged for Nevada and DOE, 28 

and refusal to issue environmental permits, 13 

states 

Arizona and prototype drilling, 74 

California and participation in environmental 

New Mexico, 71 

North Dakota, 7 1 

Utah 

studies, 3 

and prototype drilling, 74 

selection as prototype drill site, 51 

Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management 

Company, 4 

Swiss National Cooperative for the Disposal of 

Radioactive Waste (NAGRA), 4,58 

Transportation (see also Reports) 

Cask Maintainance Facility, 32,36 

cooperative agreements, 10 

emergency planning, 66 

exhibit available, 76 

historical overview of spent nuclear fuel 

shipments, 69 

implementation of Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Uniform Safety Act, 37 

institutional issues, 6 

integrated role of transportation system with 

repository and MRS, 52 

North American Standard for highway 

inspection, 59 

operational issues, 6 

pilot inspection program, 66 

pilot study 

milestones for inspection procedures, 

participants,figure 60 

figure 60 

planned activities, 10 

potential impacts on waste acceptance, 6 

proposed five-step implementation strategy for 

training assistance, 6 

regional associations and issues, 66, 

figure 66 

risk perception, 77 

schedule for development of transportation 

system,figure 57 

testing of inspection procedures, 59 

training of public safety officials, 37 

Transportation Coordination Group 

Albuquerque, New Mexico meeting, 6,37 

TRW Environmental Safety System', In'c. . 

(TESS), 31 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 3 

and Biological Opinion on desert tortoise, 5 

.Volcanism, 51,73 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), 16 

and testing of vehicle inspection procedures, 59 

Waste package 

alternative materials research, 3 

contribution to waste isolation, 3 

and Engineered Barrier System, 3 

and heater tests, 3 

91% 
INDEX 7 

Western Governors’ Association, 59 

Western Interstate Energy Board, 6,66 

White Pine County, Nevada, 39 

Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 3 1 

Workshops, 4 

and draft Mission Plan Amendment, 14,67,72 

Engineered Barrier System (EBS), 16 

forum for DOE, NRC, and National Congress of 

importance of workshops in formulation of draft 

International Workshop on Education in the 

performance assessment workshop planned, 

Strategic Principles Workshops, 67 

waste management 

American Indians (NCAI), 16 

Mission Plan Amendment, 67 

Field of Radioactive Waste Management, 58 

73 

Denver, Colorado, 14 

Salt Lake City, Utah, 4 

Washington, DC, 4 

Yucca Mountain Information Office, 5 

Yucca Mountain Project, 13 

Yucca Mountain site, 5 

affected units of local government, 39 

Bow Ridge Fault, 49 

determination of suitabilility impeded, 13 

and environmental permitting, 13 

and exploratory shaft facility design, 5 

Facility Operations Center, 37 

faulting studies, 49 

and forum on Engineered Barrier System (EBS), 

hydrology and isolation of waste, 49,51 

legal requirement to study, 42 

Midway Valley, 49 

and origin of calcite/silica deposits, 49 

and performance assessment, 2-3 

potential sites for repository surface facilititesJ3 

progress, 41 

quality assurance program approved for ne* 

activities, 13 

recommendations 

for engineered barrier system, 44,73 

for evaluation of saturated zone, 44 

16 

seismic studies, 49 

site characterization 

schedule, 5,52 

status, 74 

and site suitability, 2,6,49,52 

and study plans for hydrological investigations, 

tours to, 37 

Trench 14,49 

volcanism studies, 51 

13 

Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project 

Office, 41 

91:85