Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0083-0083
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-08-08T04:00Z

RMBernero
09/
29/
2004
02:
45
PM
To:
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Ray
Clark/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
TJM3@
NRC.
gov,
KCrowley@
NAS.
edu
bcc:

Subject:
EPA
Standard
for
Yucca
Mountain
Jeff,

When
you
asked
for
comments
at
the
September
20
meeting
of
the
Board
on
Radioactive
Waste
Management,
I
gave
you
a
vague
comment
that
I
wish
to
clarify.
The
attached
note
is
offered
as
that
clarification.
Of
course,
I
do
not
speak
for
the
Board;
this
is
my
personal
comment.

Bob
Bernero
September
29,
2004
Note
to:
Jeffrey
Holmstead,
Asst.
Adm.
For
Air
and
Radiation,
EPA
From:
Robert
M.
Bernero,
USNRC,
ret'd
Subject:
Options
for
40CFR
Part
197­
Consideration
of
peak
dose
You
appeared
in
an
open
meeting
of
the
Board
on
Radioactive
Waste
Management
on
September
20,
2004.
You
asked
for
input
in
your
exploration
of
options
for
dealing
with
the
recent
Court
ruling
that
40CFR
Part
1
failed
to
consider
the
peak
dose
occurring
at
Yucca
Mountain.
I
spoke
to
you
as
an
individual,
not
as
a
memb
of
the
Board,
and
urged
you
to
choose
an
option
that
considered
the
peak
dose.
I
regret
that
my
comment
wa
so
vague
that
it
was
probably
of
no
use
to
you.
I
left
on
travel
right
from
the
Board
meeting.
I
have
now
returned,
and
after
studying
my
copy
of
the
Final
Notice
promulgating
40CFR
Part
197,
I
would
like
to
offer
you
a
more
specific
version
of
my
comment.

For
my
comment
I
refer
to
Section
II.
G.
1.
g.
How
Far
Into
the
Future
Is
It
Reasonable
To
Project
Disposal
System
Performance?,
(
pages
57­
65
in
the
plain
printed
version
of
the
Final
Notice),
and
to
40CFR
Part
197.3
In
the
third
paragraph
of
this
section
of
the
Final
Notice
(
p.
58),
EPA
notes:

"
We
require
DOE
to
include
the
results
and
bases
of
the
additional
analyses
[
calculation
of
peak
dose]
the
EIS
for
Yucca
Mountain
as
an
indicator
of
the
future
performance
of
the
disposal
system.
The
rul
does
not,
however,
require
that
DOE
meet
a
specific
dose
limit
after
10,000
years.
We
have
concerns
regarding
the
uncertainties
associated
with
such
projections,
and
whether
long­
term
projections
can
be
considered
meaningful;
however,
existing
assessment
results
indicate
that
the
peak
dose
may
occur
beyond
10,000
years
(
see
Chapter
7,
Section
7.3,
of
the
BID).
Such
results
may,
therefore,
give
a
mor
complete
description
of
the
repository
of
repository
behavior.
We
acknowledge,
however,
that
these
results,
because
of
the
inherent
uncertainties
associated
with
such
long­
term
projections,
are
not
likely
be
of
the
quality
necessary
to
support
regulatory
decisions
based
upon
a
quantitative
analysis
and
thus
need
to
be
considered
cautiously.
In
any
case,
these
very
long
term
projections
will
provide
more
complete
information
on
disposal
system
performance."

The
last
sentence
of
the
preceding
passage
implies
that
the
"
more
complete
information
on
disposal
system
performance"
would
be
available
for
the
NRC
and
DOE
to
evaluate
in
the
repository
licensing
process.
That
licensing
evaluation
should
determine
whether
the
repository,
even
if
it
satisfies
the
terms
of
compliance,
pos
a
long­
term
threat
to
public
protection.
For
example,
careful
consideration
during
the
licensing
review
might
reveal
that
the
engineered
features
of
the
repository
alone
assure
compliance
with
the
standard,
but
weaknesse
in
the
geologic
barriers
indicate
that
releases
after
failure
of
the
engineered
features
would
pose
a
grave
publi
health
risk
after
the
compliance
period.
Calculation
of
the
peak
dose
in
the
time
after
the
compliance
period
might
not
be
of
the
quality
to
support
a
regulatory
decision
such
as
required
by
40CFR
Part
197.20,
" 
reasonable
expectation
that 
the
exposed
individual
receives
no
more
than 
150
microsieverts
(
15
millirem)
from
releases
from
the
undisturbed
Yucca
Mountain
disposal
system."
Recall
that
this
dose
and
ris
is
a
strict
standard
for
compliance;
it
sets
this
strict
standard,
the
same
as
for
presently
permitted
practices,
for
compliance
time
longer
than
recorded
human
history.
The
NAS
recommended
"
that
compliance
assessment
conducted
for
the
time
when
the
greatest
risk
occurs,
within
the
limits
imposed
by
the
long­
term
stability
of
th
geologic
environment."
It
appears
that
the
NAS
Report,
and
the
Court
ruling,
would
apply
the
same
strict,
reasonable
expectation,
compliance
standard
out
to
hundreds­
of­
thousands
of
years
without
distinction
regarding
the
different
uncertainties
with
the
10,000­
year
projection,
and
with
the
1,000,000­
year
projection.

The
EPA
has
recognized
the
differences
in
the
cited
passage
above,
and
noted
that
the
long­
term
decisions
should
be
considered
cautiously.
I
suggest
that
EPA
modify
its
rule,
40CFR
Part
197,
to
require
an
additiona
regulatory
decision
for
the
post­
compliance
period.
As
presently
worded,
Part
197.35
simply
requires
that
DO
calculate
the
peak
dose
after
10,000
years
and
states;
"
No
regulatory
standard
applies
to
the
results
of
this
analysis ".
I
suggest
that
Part
197.35
be
amended
to
apply
a
regulatory
standard,
applied
in
a
less
certain
w
than
in
Part
197.20.
The
revised
rule
should
require
these
long­
term
projections
to
be
evaluated
carefully
in
t
repository
licensing
process
to
assess
the
peak
dose,
the
timing
of
peak
dose
and
the
expectation
of
geologic
stability.
If
the
peak
dose
projections
fall
within
the
10,000­
year
compliance
terms,
then
they
are
evidently
acceptable,
and
consistent
with
compliance.
If
the
peak
dose
projections
exceed
the
10,000­
year
compliance
terms,
then
the
factors
that
influence
the
time
and
the
degree
to
which
the
terms
are
exceeded
should
be
evaluated
to
determine
whether
disposal
system
design
changes
or
even
site
abandonment
are
warranted.
I
believe
that
this
second
level
of
regulatory
decision
should
be
required
by
EPA
and
carried
out
in
the
NRC
licensing
process,
just
as
multiple
barrier
and
defense­
in­
depth
concepts
are
carried
out.