The 12th International Conference on Environmental ... - Events

Abstracts Session 28
posal of spent fuel and radioactive wastes) are not neglected. Furthermore, the costs of national geological repositories imply that,
for new or small nuclear programmes, such facilities can be implemented only in the far future, if at all. <strong>The</strong> international community
should continue to strengthen its efforts to highlight the risks and to facilitate solutions that reduce the threats of nuclear materials
being distributed widely across the globe.
In practice, this challenge has been taken up by a number of organisations that are developing initiatives that can alleviate the
potential global security and proliferation problems by promoting multinational approaches to the fuel cycle. This paper addresses
those initiatives that are concerned with the storage and final disposal of radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel.
2) US EPAS EXPERIENCES IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY STANDARDS
AT THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT - 16103
Tom Peake, Chuck Byrum, Mike Eagle, Ed Feltcorn, Shankar Ghose,
Rajani Joglekar, US Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
<strong>The</strong> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) developed environmental standards for the disposal of
defense-related transuranic wastes for the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE or the Department) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP). EPA implements these standards for WIPP, which has been in operation for over ten years. <strong>The</strong> general environmental standards
are set forth in the Agencys 40 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes. <strong>The</strong>se standards are implemented by site-specific compliance criteria.
<strong>The</strong> WIPP Land Withdrawal Act requires DOE to submit a re-certification application every five years after the initial receipt
of waste. DOE submitted the latest WIPP re-certification application in March 2009. For re-certification, DOE must identify
changes that have occurred over the previous five years and analyze their impact on the potential long-term performance of the
repository. Once EPA determines that the re-certification application is complete, the Agency has six months to review the application
and make a final decision. During this review, EPA solicits and incorporates public comment where appropriate. During the
first re-certification in 2004, several stakeholder groups brought up issues (e.g., karst) that were addressed in the original certification.
EPA has received comments again raising some of these same issues for the 2009 re-certification.
In addition, DOE must submit proposed changes to the WIPP repository to EPA for review and approval. This paper describes
selected issues of concern to WIPP and highlights interactions between EPA as the regulatory authority and DOE as the implementing
organization. In general EPAs experience points out the importance of communication, documentation and the regulators
responsibility in determining how much is enough.
3) REPOSITORY SITE CHARACTERIZATION — COMPARING INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE - 16082
Martin Goldsworthy, Golder Associates (Germany); Till Popp, IfG Institut für Gebirgsmechanik GmbH (Germany); Knut
Seidel, GGL Geophysik und Geotechnik Leipzig GmbH (Germany); Johannes Bruns, Golder Associates (Germany)
An important part of the work described here was a study of existing international experience in investigating deep geological
repository sites. <strong>The</strong> objective of this study was to derive a basis for planning the content and extent of investigations which might
be carried out in Germany in the future. Such investigations would be required in the course of a site selection process for a repository
for HLW (high level radioactive waste). For this purpose information on suitable sites was gathered, mainly from literature
sources. Suitable in this context meant two things. Firstly, the investigated site should be in rock similar to four being considered
in Germany (salt, clay, crystalline and other hard rock under a clay cover). Secondly, the investigations carried out could reasonably
be considered as being intended to lead to the use of the site as a repository.
<strong>The</strong> investigation processes were presented, analysed and compared. <strong>The</strong> comparison was based on the quality and the intensity
of the methods employed to obtain the information necessary for deciding between candidate repository sites in terms of safety
and the feasibility of construction. In the final stage of the work the analysis and presentation method developed for the international
sites was applied to the investigations already carried out at three German sites (Gorleben — a prospective HLW repository,
Morsleben — an existing but now not operational repository for radioactive waste and Konrad — a repository currently under construction).
<strong>The</strong> reported investigatory work was compared with the ideal investigations developed on the basis of the existing international
experience.
4) AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYS PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA - 16156
Ray L. Clark, Ken Czyscinski, Reid J. Rosnick, Daniel Schultheisz, US Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
<strong>The</strong> Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EnPA) directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) to establish
standards to protect public health and safety from releases of radioactive material stored or disposed in the proposed repository for
spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. <strong>The</strong> EnPA also required EPA to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) for a study on reasonable standards for disposal, and for the standards to be based upon and consistent
with the findings and recommendations of the NAS.
In June 2001, the Agency issued standards addressing both storage and disposal at the Yucca Mountain facility. <strong>The</strong> disposal
standards included three components: an individual-protection standard, a human intrusion standard, and ground-water protection
standards. A number of parties, including the State of Nevada, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Nuclear Energy
Institute, filed petitions for review of the standards. In July 2004, a Federal Court upheld EPA on all counts except for the compliance
period associated with the individual-protection standard, which the Agency had limited to 10,000 years for a number of technical
and policy reasons. However, NAS had recommended that the standard be set for the time of peak risk, within the limits
imposed by the long-term stability of the geologic environment, which NAS estimated at 1 million years. EPAs standards required
that the Department of Energy (DOE) project doses to the time of peak dose, but did not apply a compliance standard to these
longer-term projections. <strong>The</strong> Court ruled that EPAs 10,000-year compliance period was inconsistent with the NAS recommendation.
This aspect of the rule was vacated and remanded to the Agency for revision.
91