Mr. YATES. Right. Dr. PECK. And we have a program of roughly $20 million this year to carry out geologic and hydrologic studies, and we expect that to expand considerably over the next several years. Mr. YATES. Well, will the waste leak in that site? Dr. DEVINE. Well, if it's successfully characterized the constructed, it won't leak for 10,000 years, at least to an adequate degree to cause harm to the environment surrounding the site. Dr. PECK. One of the charms of this site is that the proposed repository is above the water table. So it's not flooded by water all the time. It's an area with very low rainfall. Mr. YATES. But what happens to the water table? Doesn't the area need water? Dr. DEVINE. Well, it's a desert, or close to a desert. Mr. YATES. Then there's no water, is there? Dr. DEVINE. Well, there's a water table there, but it's 1,000 feet under the site. Mr. YATES. Oh. And what is above the water table? Rocks? Dr. DEVINE. Yes. Volcanic rock. Mr. YATES. Volcanic rock. Dr. DEVINE. And ash deposits. Mr. YATES. This high-level nuclear waste will not leak through volcanic rock? Dr. DEVINE. It's estimated that the time of travel of radionuclides from the site will be very long, because there's very little water seeping through the rocks. Furthermore, there are a lot of zeolites in the rocks, and they absorb the radionuclides. So this site has a lot going for it. Mr. YATES. And how much can you deposit there? Dr. DEVINE. Ah. That question has not been answered fully yet, because there are some uncertainties concerning the specific characterization of the horizon that will be used for the deposit. Some of that information will not be available until after the construction of an exploratory shaft to analyze that. The intention is for it to hold up to 70,000 tons. Mr. YATES. To hold 70,000 tons? Dr. DEVINE. Yes. Mr. YATES. What is there now, that has to be disposed? Dr. DEVINE. That's a hard question to answer specifically, because of the form that it's stored in. In civilian nuclear power plants, the waste is largely fuel rodsspent fuel rods. Those are very easy to quantify. There is also the intention to put some military wastes in this facility, and that shows up in a variety of forms. Some have been encased in glass and some are even in liquid form and will have to be processed. So the exact amount currently available is hard to guess, but it's somewhere in the order of about half the capacity of the plant. Mr. YATES. What's the level and duration of funding that you expect from DOE to carry on with that? Dr. PECK. About $20 million this year and we estimate about $30 million next year, and perhaps $40 million the following year. Dr. DEVINE. It's dependent upon the requirements that are laid on to do with the money, Mr. Chairman. The level for which we're currently being funded is adequate to do what we're allowed to do under the current schedule. With the opening of an exploratory shaft, then the level of effort would increase dramatically. And that would be a large, $10 million increase. Mr. YATES. Any earthquake faults in the repository? Dr. DEVINE. Yes. There are some faults. In fact, that's one of the areas of concern for us to provide to DOE: an analysis of the seismic potential of those faults. That's an element in the design of the depository. It's largely known for the depository while it's still an active facility for 50 or 100 years. The facilities that handle the radioactive waste would have to be designed to withstand the earthquake. Post-closure, the concern would be if the earthquake faults would provide a more rapid access for the water that does pass through the depository to reach the surrounding environment. So yes, it's a major element of the investigation. NUCLEAR WASTE HYDROLOGY Mr. FREDERICK. Mr. Chairman, just a status comment, if you would. If you recall, we were talking before about the potential for three sites to be tested. Congress has made the decision since last year, I believe, in legislation, to focus first on the Nevada test site, the Yucca Mountain site, to test it to failure, essentially, or to success- Dr. DEVINE. To successful completion. Mr. FREDERICK. We'll only spend money on testing this one site. So that's the reason for the concentration. My sense is, Jim, that DOE is willing to give us enough money to do what we need to do. Mr. YATES. When do you think the site will be complete? Excuse me, when do you think your assessment of the site will be complete? Dr. DEVINE. The schedule that's set by DOE, because of other factors in the geology and hydrology involved, would have the characterization completed by approximately 1993, with construction and actual reception of radioactive waste by 2003. Mr. YATES. I seem to remember that the French were simply putting it into concrete enclosures. Do you remember that? Dr. DEVINE. Yes, the Europeans have a variety of techniques. Some are looking for deep geologic disposal, as we are. The West Germans are looking in salt, though. The Swedes are looking in granite. The French are looking in a central mass if in granite and that sort of thing. England was going to look into the gneisses and granites of the Highlands of Scotland. Mr. YATES. What about low level waste disposal? Dr. PECK. Well, we continue to have a program in our Water Resources Division on low level waste. We've worked at all the major repositories, including the former repository in Illinois. I'll get Mr. Cohen to come up. We've done some very detailed studies, particularly on the one Illinois, in order to monitor the effectiveness of those repositorie and come up with guidelines about how better repositories can sited and constructed in the future. In order to gain that information, we for example tunneled-p tunnels under the repositories-and monitored the flow of radion clides. Mr. YATES. Has that program been effected? Dr. PECK. No, that program-I think the low level waste pro gram has not been cut. The directly funded high-level waste program has been cut. Mr. YATES. Dr. Devine's program has been cut? But the high level waste program has not been cut. Dr. PECK. They're directly funded. The radioactive waste program is directly funded to the Geolog cal Survey. It's partly devoted to high level waste, and this was cu in a major way several years ago. Congress restored a little bit. The amount that was restored is in effect cut from the current year's budget request. But there's something like $2 million or $2.5 million devoted to low-level waste studies, and that will be continuing this year. Mr. YATES. Several years ago, we were asking about threats t water tables from low-level waste sites. Is that still a threat? Mr. COHEN. I can recall your question. My response was that in all of the areas that we have studied, we have noticed some leakage. The fluids will migrate in response to gravity. At that time again, in response to a dialogue between you and me, Mr. Chair man, I indicated that the leakage that we'd detected had been very slight in terms of the distance that it's moved. But in fact it does move. That's the underlying reason for concern, and the underlying reason for continued study. We try to understand possible rates and possible directions of movement, and try to minimize them. Mr. YATES. Well, are there any areas where this is a threat to any water supply for a community? Mr. COHEN. I'm unaware of any direct threats to water supplies at the present time. Mr. YATES. Typically it moves a few tens of feet? Mr. COHEN. What we've observed has been on the order of tens or hundreds, with regard to the low-level radioisotopes. Now, we've found other ones that have migrated much further In part, it's gratuitous that the low-level wastes have not migrated further, and in part it's because generally the siting has been done more carefully and more rigorously, generally. One would expect less rate of migration in the area of low-level waste. Mr. YATES. Well, now, your chart shows contamination. [Laughter.] [The information follows:] |