other repositories have been or are being developed.

§ 960.3-1-4 Evidence for siting decisions.

The siting process involves a sequence of four decisions: The identification of potentially acceptable sites; the nomination of sites as suitable for characterization; the recommendation of sites as candidate sites for site characterization; and after the completion of site characterization and nongeologic data gathering, the recommendation of a candidate site for the development of a repository. Each of these decisions will be supported by the evidence specified below.

§ 960.3-1-4-1 Site identification as potentially acceptable.

The evidence for the identification of a potentially acceptable site shall be the types of information specified in appendix IV of this part. Such evidence will be relatively general and less detailed than that required for the nomination of a site as suitable for characterization. Because the gathering of detailed geologic data will not take place until after the recommendation of a site for characterization, the levels of information may be relatively greater for the evaluation of those guidelines in subparts C and D that pertain to surface-identifiable factors for such site. The sources of information shall include the literature in the public domain and the private sector, when available, and will be supplemented in some instances by surface investigations and conceptual engineering design studies conducted by the DOE. Geologic surface investigations may include the mapping of identifiable rock masses, fracture and joint characteristics, and fault zones. Other surface investigations will consider the aquatic and terrestrial ecology; water rights and uses; topography; potential offsite hazards; natural resource concentrations; national or State protected resources; existing transportation systems; meteorology and climatology; population densities, centers, and distributions; and general socioeconomic characteristics.

§ 960.3-1-4-2 Site nomination for characterization.

The evidence required to support the nomination of a site as suitable for characterization shall include the types of information specified in appendix IV of this part and shall be contained or referenced in the environmental assessments to be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The source of this information shall include the literature and related studies in the public domain and the private sector, when available, and various meteorological, environmental, socioeconomic, and transportation studies conducted by the DOE in the affected area; exploratory boreholes in the region of such site, including lithologic logging and hydrologic and geophysical testing of such boreholes, laboratory testing of core samples for the evaluation of geochemical and engineering rock properties, and chemical analyses of water samples from such boreholes; surface investigations, including geologic mapping and geophysical surveys, and compilations of satellite imagery data; in situ or laboratory testing of similar rock types under expected repository conditions; evaluations of natural and man-made analogs of the repository and its subsystems, such as geothermally active areas, underground excavations, and case histories of socioeconomic cycles in areas that have experienced intermittent large-scale construction and industrial activities; and extrapo

lations of regional data to estimate site-specific characteristics and conditions. The exact types and amounts of information to be collected within the above categories, including such details as the specific types of hydrologic tests, combinations of geophysical tests, or number of exploratory boreholes, are dependent on the sitespecific needs for the application of the guidelines of subparts C and D, in accordance with the provisions of this subpart and the application requirements set forth in appendix III of this part. The evidence shall also include those technical evaluations that use the information specified above and that provide additional bases for evaluating the ability of a site to meet the qualifying conditions of the guidelines

or

of subparts C and D. In developing the above-mentioned bases for evaluation, as may be necessary, assumptions that approximate the characteristics conditions considered to exist at a site, or expected to exist or occur in the future, may be used. These assumptions will be realistic but conservative enough to underestimate the potential for a site to meet the qualifying condition of a guideline; that is, the use of such assumptions should not lead to an exaggeration of the ability of a site to meet the qualifying condition.

§ 960.3-1-4-3 Site recommendation for characterization.

The evidence required to support the recommendation of a site as a candidate site for characterization shall consist of the evaluations and data contained or referenced in the environmental assessment for such site, unless the Secretary certifies that such information, in the absence of additional preliminary borings or excavations, will not be adequate to satisfy applicable requirements of the Act.

§ 960.3-1-5 Basis for site evaluations. (a) Evaluations of individual sites and comparisons between and among sites shall be based on the postclosure and preclosure guidelines specified in subparts C and D of this part, respectively. Except for screening for potentially acceptable sites as specified in § 960.3-21, such evaluations shall place primary significance on the postclosure guidelines and secondary significance on the preclosure guidelines, with each set of guidelines considered collectively for such purposes. Both the postclosure and the preclosure guidelines consist of a system guideline or guidelines and corresponding groups of technical guidelines.

(b) The postclosure guidelines of subpart C of this part contain eight technical guidelines in one group. The preclosure guidelines of subpart D of this part contain eleven technical guidelines separated into three groups that represent, in decreasing order of importance, preclosure radiological safety; environment, socioeconomics, and transportation; and ease and cost of siting, construction, operation, and closure.

(c) The relative significance of any technical guideline to its corresponding system guideline is site specific. Therefore, for each technical guideline, an evaluation of compliance with the qualifying condition shall be made in the context of the collection of system elements and the evidence related to that guideline, considering on balance the favorable conditions and the potentially adverse conditions identified at a site. Similarly, for each system guideline, such evaluation shall be made in the context of the group of technical guidelines and the evidence related to that system guideline.

(d) For purposes of recommending sites for development as repositories, such evidence shall include analyses of expected repository performance to assess the likelihood of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 191 and 10 CFR part 60, in accordance with §960.4 1. A site shall be disqualified at any time during the siting process if the evidence supports a finding by the DOE that a disqualifying condition exists or the qualifying condition of any system or technical guideline cannot be met.

(e) Comparisons between and among sites shall be based on the system guidelines, to the extent practicable and in accordance with the levels of relative significance specified above for the postclosure and the preclosure guidelines. Such comparisons are intended to allow comparative evaluations of sites in terms of the capabilities of the natural barriers for waste isolation and to identify innate deficiencies that could jeopardize compliance with such requirements. If the evidence for the sites is not adequate to substantiate such comparisons, then the comparisons shall be based on the groups of technical guidelines under the postclosure and the preclosure guidelines, considering the levels of relative significance appropriate to the postclosure and the preclosure guidelines and the order of importance appropriate to the subordinate groups within the preclosure guidelines. Comparative site evaluations shall place primary importance on the natural barriers of the site. In such evaluations for the postclosure guidelines of subpart C of this part, engineered barriers shall be considered only to the extent

necessary to obtain realistic source terms for comparative site evaluations based on the sensitivity of the natural barriers to such realistic engineered barriers. For a better understanding of the potential effects of engineered barriers on the overall performance of the repository system, these comparative evaluations shall consider a range of levels in the performance of the engineered barriers. That range of performance levels shall vary by at least a factor of 10 above and below the engineered-barrier performance requirements set forth in 10 CFR 60.113, and the range considered shall be identical for all sites compared. The comparisons shall assume equivalent engineered barrier performance for all sites compared and shall be structured so that engineered barriers are not relied upon to compensate for deficiencies in the geologic media. Furthermore, engineered barriers shall not be used to compensate for an inadequate site; mask the innate deficiencies of a site; disguise the strengths and weaknesses of a site and the overall system; and mask differences between sites when they are compared. Releases of different radionuclides shall be combined by the methods specified in appendix A of 40 CFR part 191.

(f) The comparisons specified in paragraph (e) of this section shall consist of two comparative evaluations that predict radionuclide releases for 100,000 years after repository closure and shall be conducted as follows. First, the sites shall be compared by means of evaluations that emphasize the performance of the natural barriers at the site. Second, the sites shall be compared by means of evaluations that emphasize the performance of the total repository system. These second evaluations shall consider the expected performance of the repository system; be based on the expected performance of waste packages and waste forms, in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 60.113, and on the expected hydrological and geochemical conditions at each site; and take credit for the expected performance of all other engineered components of the repository system. The comparison of isolation capability shall be one of the significant considerations in the recommendation of sites

for the development of repositories. The first of the two comparative evaluations specified in the paragraph (e) of this section shall take precedence unless the second comparative evaluation would lead to substantially different recommendations. In the latter case, the two comparative evaluations shall receive comparable consideration. Sites with predicted isolation capabilities that differ by less than a factor of 10, with similar uncertainties, may be assumed to provide equivalent isolation.

[66 FR 57334, Nov. 14, 2001]

§ 960.3-2 Siting process.

The siting process begins with site screening for the identification of potentially acceptable sites. This process was completed for purposes of the first repository before the enactment of the Act, and the identification of such sites was made after enactment in accordance with the provisions of section 116(a) of the Act. The screening process for the identification of potentially acceptable sites for the second and subsequent repositories shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements specified in §960.3-2-1 of this subpart. The nomination of any site as suitable for characterization shall follow the process specified in §960.3-2-2, and such nomination shall be accompanied by an environmental assessment as specified in section 112(b)(1)(E) of the Act. The recommendation of sites as candidate sites for characterization shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements specified in § 960.3-2-3.

[49 FR 47752, Dec. 6, 1984, as amended at 66 FR 57335, Nov. 14, 2001]

§ 960.3-2-1 Site screening for potentially acceptable sites.

To identify potentially acceptable sites for the development of other than the first repository, the process shall begin with site-screening activities that consider large land masses that contain rock formations of suitable depth, thickness, and lateral extent and have structural, hydrologic, and tectonic features favorable for waste containment and isolation. Within those large land masses, subsequent site-screening activities shall focus on

successively smaller and increasingly more suitable land units. This process shall be developed in consultation with the States that contain land units under consideration. It shall be implemented in a sequence of steps that first applies the applicable disqualifying conditions to eliminate land units on the basis of the evidence specified in § 960.3-1-4-1 and in accordance with the application requirements set forth in appendix III of this part. After the disqualifying conditions have been applied, the favorable and potentially adverse conditions, as identified for each remaining land unit, shall be evaluated. The presence of favorable conditions shall favor a given land unit, while the presence of potentially adverse conditions shall penalize that land unit. Recognizing that favorable conditions and potentially adverse conditions for different technical guidelines can exist in the same land unit, the DOE shall seek to evaluate the composite favorability of each land unit. Land units that. in the aggregrate, exhibit potentially adverse conditions shall be deferred in favor of land units that exhibit favorable conditions. The siting provisions that require diversity of geohydrologic settings and rock types and consideration of regionality, as specified in §§ 960.3-11, 960.3-1-2, and 960.3-1-3, respectively, may be used to discriminate between land units and to establish the range of options in site screening. To identify a site as potentially acceptable, the evidence shall support a finding that the site is not disqualified in accordance with the application requirements set forth in appendix III of this part and shall support the decision by the DOE to proceed the continued investigation of the site on the basis of the favorable and potentially adverse conditions identified to date. In continuation of the screening process after such identification and before site nomination, the DOE may defer from further consideration land units or potentially acceptable sites or portions thereof on the basis of additional information or by the application of the siting provisions for diversity of geohydrologic settings, diversity of rock types, and regionality (§§ 960.3-1-1, 960.3-1-2, and 960.3-1-3, respectively). The deferral of

potentially acceptable sites will be described in the environmental assessments that accompany the nomination of at least five sites as suitable for characterization. In order to identify potentially acceptable sites for the second and subsequent repositories, the Secretary shall first identify the State within which the site is located in a decision-basis document that describes the process and the considerations that led to the identification of such site and that has been issued previously in draft for review and comment by such State. Second, when such document is final, the Secretary shall notify the Governor and the legislature of that State and the tribal council of any affected Indian tribe of the potentially acceptable site.

§ 960.3-2-2 Nomination of sites as suitable for characterization.

From the sites identified as potentially acceptable, the Secretary shall nominate at least five sites determined suitable for site characterization for the selection of each repository site. For the second repository, at least three of the sites shall not have been nominated previously. Any site nominated as suitable for characterization for the first repository, but not recommended as a candidate site for characterization, may not be nominated as suitable for characterization for the second repository. The nomination of a site as suitable for characterization shall be accompanied by an environmental assessment as specified in section 112(b)(1)(E) of the Act. Such nomination shall be based on evaluations in accordance with the guidelines of this part, and the bases and relevant details of those evaluations and of the decision processes involved therein shall be contained in the environmental assessment for the site in the manner specified in this subpart. The evidence required to support such evaluations and siting decisions is specified in § 960.3-14-2.

§ 960.3-2-2-1 Evaluation of all potentially acceptable sites.

First, in considering sites for nomination, each of the potentially acceptable sites shall be evaluated on the basis of the disqualifying conditions specified

in the technical guidelines of subparts C and D, in accordance with the application requirements set forth in appendix III of this part. This evaluation shall support a finding by the DOE that such sites is not disqualified.

§ 960.3-2-2-2 Selection of sites within geohydrologic settings.

Second, the siting provision requiring diversity of geohydrologic settings, as specified in §960.3-1-1, shall be applied to group all potentially acceptable sites according to their geohydrologic settings. Third, for those geohydrologic settings that contain more than one potentially acceptable site, the preferred site shall be selected on the basis of a comparative evaluation of all potentially acceptable sites in that setting. This evaluation shall consider the distinguishing characteristics displayed by the potentially acceptable sites within the setting and the related guidelines from subparts C and D. That is, the appropriate guidelines shall be selected primarily on the basis of the kinds of evidence among sites for which distinguishing characteristics can be identified. Such comparative evaluation shall be made on the basis of the qualifying conditions for those guidelines, considering, on balance, the favorable conditions and potentially adverse conditions identified at each site. Due consideration shall also be given to the siting provisions specifying the basis for site evaluations in $960.3-1-5, to the extent practicable, and diversity of rock types in §960.3-12, if the circumstances so apply. If less than five geohydrologic settings are available for consideration, the above process shall be used to select two or more preferred sites from those settings that contain more than one potentially acceptable site, as required to obtain the number of sites to be nominated as suitable for characterization. For purposes of the second and subsequent repositories, due consideration shall also be given to the siting provision for regionality as specified in § 960.3-1-3. Fourth, each preferred site within a geohydrologic setting shall be evaluated as to whether such site is suitable for the development of a repository under the qualifying condition of each guideline specified in subparts

C and D that does not require site characterization as a prerequisite for the application of such guideline. The guidelines considered appropriate to this evaluation have been selected on the basis of their exclusion under the definition of site characterization as specified in §960.2. Although the final application of these guidelines, in accordance with the provisions set forth in appendix III of this part, does not require geologic data from site-characterization activities, such application will require additional data beyond those specified in appendix IV of this part, which will be obtained concurrently with site characterization. Such guidelines include those specified in § 960.4-2-8-2 (Site Ownership and Control) of subpart C; §§ 960.5-1(a)(1) and 960.5-1(a)(2) of subpart D (preclosure system guidelines for radiological safety and environmental quality, socioeconomics, and transportation); and §§ 960.5-2-1 through 960.5-2-7 of subpart D (Population Density and Distribution, Site Ownership and Control, Meteorology, Offsite Installations and Operations, Environmental Quality, Socioeconomic Impacts, and Transportation). This evaluation shall consider on balance those favorable conditions and potentially adverse conditions identified as such at a preferred site in relation to the qualifying condition of each such guideline. For each such guideline, this evaluation shall focus on the suitability of the site for the development of a repository by considering the activities from the start of site characterization through decommissioning and shall support a finding by the DOE in accordance with the application requirements set forth in appendix III of this part. Fifth, each preferred site within a geohydrologic setting shall be evaluated as to whether such site is suitable for site characterization under the qualifying conditions of those guidelines specified in subparts C and D that require characterization (i.e., subsurface geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical data gathering). Such guidelines include those specified in §960.4-1(a) (postclosure system guideline); §§ 960.4-2-1 through 960.4-2-8-1 of subpart C (Geohydrology, Geochemistry, Rock Characteristics,

197-031 D-01-19