� 1�

Stazo a_~ -2)k /Lak- Men- /0 z)

WILLIAM0A'& ASSOCIATESSaiC. - "z)s tenoL411n - 16 6.720

P.O. Box 48, Viola, Idaho 83872 (208) 883-0153 (208) 875-0147H4drogeology' * Mineral Resources Waste Management * Geological Engineering * Mine Hydrology

July 23, 1987Contract No. NRC-02-85-008Fin No. D-1020Communication No. 138

Mr. Jeff PohleDivision of Waste ManagementMail Stop 623-SSU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

Dear Jeff:

A copy of the review of each of the following documents is enclosed.

1. Massmann, Joel and Freeze, R. Allan, 1987, Groundwater Contaminationfrom Waste Management Sites: The Interaction Between Risk-BasedEngineering Design and Regulatory Policy, 1. Methodology, 2. Results.Water Resources Research, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 351-67.

2. Hofer, E. and Hoffman, F.O., 1987, Selected Examples of PracticalApproaches for the Assemssment of Model Reliability - ParameterUncertainty Analysis. OECD/NEA Workshop on Uncertainty Analysisfor Systems Performance Assessments, Seattle, Feb.

If you have any questions concerning these reviews, please call.

Sincerely,

Gerry . Winter

GVW:sl

enclosures

VYVI2~tec~rd He WM4 Proil-ctL._yDoc~,ce! No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

P D R/-LPDR~ - -' (

I. Y\

XE

_- -

Di s :' ni tmon: - -~~*yfi ~ 1~

.j ~ L ~ -Z ~ ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

8710230160 870723PDR WIIRES EECWILAD-1020 PDR 87476761WIM Project: W1I-10, 11, 16 Wri Record File:

PDR u/encl LPDR u/encl D I o ?7{Return to WM, 623-SS)

'17 /// �

WMGT DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET

FILE #:

DOCUMENT #:

DOCUMENT: Massmann. Joel and Freeze, R. Allan, 1987, GroundwaterContamination from Waste Management Sites: TheInteraction Between Risk-Based Engineering Design andRegulatory Policy, 1. Methodology, 2. Results.Water Resources Research4 vol. 23! no. 2, p. 351-67and p. 368-e0. N

REVIEWER: Williams & Associates, Inc.,

DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: July 9, 1987

ABSTRACT OF REVIEW: A~PPROVED BY: Ai~ ~A~CLtrrThese two papers develop and illustrate the formal use of risk-cost-benefit analysis in planning waste disposal facilities. Theobjective function consists of the sum of annual discountedbenefits less costs and risk5hs viewed from the waste managementfacility owner/operator point of view. The purpose of the papersis to show that the information required to do such a formalanalysis can be found without a great deal of difficulty. Theresults of varying different design parameters shows thedeveloper the effects of various tradeoffs which can be made.From the regulatory viewpoint, policy can be formulated by doingthe same manipulations while varying the costs and benefitsaccording to proposed policy. Data are used from an existinglandfill in Woodbine, New Jersey to illustrate the technique.For the example, policy should emphasize design standards overperformance standards and good design over monitoring.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT:

The principal thesis of these two papers is that anowner/operator of a waste management facility can and shouldmaximize the risk-cost-benefit function,

T

t:= 2 l/(1+i)t [B(t) - C(t) - R(t)3t =0

where: o is the objective function (dollars),t is time (years),T is the planning horizon (years),i is the discount rate (decimal fraction),

B(t) is the benefit realized in year t (dollars),C(t) is the cost of development or operation in

year t (dollars),R(t) is the risk in year t (dollars).

Time starts at the initiation of site exploration and design.Benefits accrue from sales of services. Costs are costs ofexploration and design, construction, or operation depending onthe year, t. The risk in year t is the product of theprobability of failure in year t and the cost incurred under sucha failure (perhaps adjusted upward if one wants to take a riskaverse stance). Failure is defined in this context ascontaminant reaching the compliance surface. The probability offailure is modeled in year t' after the commencement of operationas the cumulative joint, probability of breach of containment andsubsequent migration of contaminant to the compliance surface.The probability of breach is calculated using standardreliability theory. The probability of migration of contaminantto the compliance surface is based on a stochastic groundwatertravel time model.

These concepts are quite general. However, the papers use veryspecific assumptions in illustrating the technique. They assume,for example, that the waste is held in a number of independentcells each with two liners in parallel that fail at anexponential rate. The groundwater travel time model is a twodimensional finite element model with hydraulic conductivity asthe only stochastic coefficient. The correlation range is(perhaps) different in the two directions.

A sensitivity analysis on the various components (such asbenefits, cost of operation, or parameters of the distribution ofhydraulic conductivity) enables the owner/operator to see whichcomponents can be manipulated usefully to efficiently maximizethe objective function.

The case study shows step-by-step how figures are gathered andused in calculating benefits, cost, and risk.

SIGNIFICANCE TO NRC WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM:

These two papers argue that regulatory benefit-cost-risirh analysis.is difficult to perform because of the problems with quantifyingthe social costs of impairment or loss of human life. However,by looking at the owner/operator benefit-cost-risk analysis. theregulatory agency can anticipate what regulations (designcriteria. monitoring requirements, performance bonds, fines,etc.) would be most effective in insuring responsible wastemanagement facility construction and operation while enabling theowner/operator to make a profit. This assumes that the market isrational and that the owner/operator has an objective functionsuch as the one above in mind.

PROBLEMS. DEFICIENCIES OR LIMITATIONS OF REPORT:

1. The illustration used in this risk analysis is based onnumerous simplistic assumptions (e.g., independent failurecomponents, lognormal distribution of hydraulic conductivity,linear spatial correlation. plug flow, no dispersion) thathamper its credibility for providing accurate results. Itsstrongest points are the capability to conduct sensitivityanalyses and the presentation of an over-all philosophy ofquantifying risks in conjunction with benefits and costs.

2. The probability of failure in terms of a groundwatercontamination incident is based on two components of failure:1) breaching of the containment structure (F,) and 2)migration of the released contaminant~s) through thesubsurface hydrogeologic environment to a defined compliancesurface (F2 ). Failure is defined as "...the exceedance of amaximum permissible concentration for a particular chemicalspecies in a regulatory monitoring well located at acompliance point or on a compliance surface." The twocomponents (i.e.. events) of failure are assumed to beindependent, which means that the probability of theirintersection equals the product of the probabilities of theindividual events:

P(site failure) = P(FtnF2 ) = P(F 1 )P(F2 )

(compare to eq. 4 in paper)

This assumption of independence is reasonable only if thecontaminant plume travels as a "slug" whose concentrationexceeds the regulatory limit. If such is not the case (e.g.,leakage concentrations increase over time until a regulatory

4

limit is exceeded), then the probability of site failure mustbe expressed as a conditional probability:

P(site failure) = P(FtnF=) = P(F2 /F,)P(F,).

3. The influence of a monitoring system on the estimatedprobability of failure (p. 360-361) is an important concept,but the conclusion that the probability of failure can bereduced by improved monitoring seems unusual. Monitoring canreduce the uncertainty in detecting a contaminant plume. butsuch a reduction in uncertainty should not be associated witha reduction in the probability of failure (at least, not inthe context of the professional literature with which we areacquainted). Incorporating the reliability of the monitoringnetworks is perhaps better achieved by a conditionalprobability approach whereby the probability of detection(P(d)) is a measure of -the monitoring reliability. That is,

P(d) = P(B/A)

where: A = event that the contaminant plume reaches thecompliance surface

B = event that the monitoring system indicates thatthe contaminant plume reaches the compliancesurf ace.

Thus, the modified probability of site failure is:

P(site failure) = P(B/A)P(A)

where: P(A) = P(Fz/F 1 )P(Fi)

4. The concepts of spatial scale and spatial aver-aging forhydrogeologic properties is not addressed adequately by theauthors. The conversion of point-measured values to areavalues needed in a 2-D finite-element mesh (if such aconversion is meaningful at all) is accomplished via anoverly simplistic assumption of linear spatial correlation(p. 359-36(0).

WMGT DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET

FILE #:

DOCUMENT #:

DOCUMENT: Hofer, E. and Hoffman. F.O.. 1987, Selected Examplesof Practical Approaches for the Assessment of ModelReliability - Parameter Uncertainty Analysis.OECD/NEA Wor-kshop on Uncertainty Analysis for SystemsPerformance Assessments, Seattle, Feb.

REVIEWER: Williams & Associates. Inc. ! ------

DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: July 9. 1987

AFBSTRACT OF REVIEW: APPROVED BY: , Lu

This paper attempts to treat uncertainty in transfer models in ageneric sense. It is not directed necessarily at the transportof radionuclides in a groundwater flow system. Some of theprinciples presented are pertinent to groundwater modeling andsome are not pertinent.

According to the subject document the reliability of predictionsproduced by transfer models., or performance models, dependslargely upon the uncertainties associated with making thosepredictions. The document divides uncertainties into twocategories: Type 1 uncertainty, which is due to stochasticvariability, and Type 2 uncertainty, which is due to a lack ofknowledge about deterministic components of the physical systemunder study. The authors use the adjective stochastic to meanthat the value of a variable under consideration varies in timeor in space. The concept of lack of knowledge is assumed to besynonymous with lack of data. The use of probabilities andsubjective probabilities in uncertainty analysis is discussed,with maximum emphasis on analyzing the uncertainties in modelinput parameters. The authors focus on Type 2 uncertainty(professional judgment). The major steps of a parameteruncertainty analysis are listed and an example problem using asimple algebraic model is presented. ResLtlts from the exampleproblem, which compares several methods of parameter uncertaintyanalysis, indicate that numerical methods (which would include

simulation models) based upon random samples are prefer-red forType 2 uncertainty analyses of complex models.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT:

The reliability of predictions provided by environmental transfer(or performance) models is largely due to uncertainties in themodel analysis. The document divides uncertainties into fivedistinct categories: 1) uncertainty due to improper definitionand conceptualization of the problem or of the physical systemunder consideration, 2) uncertainty due to improper formulationof the mathematical model used in the conceptualization, 3)uncertainty involved in the formulation of the computationalmodel, 4) uncertainty inherent in the estimation of inputparameter values, and 5) calculation and documentation errors inthe production of the model results. When possible, modelpredictions should be checked against independent andappropriately derived sets of data. This procedure is known asmodel validation. In many environmental studies model validationmay be impossible or impractical. In these cases a parameteruncertainty analysis is recommended. The authors use the wordsuncertainty analysis in a manner that is synonymous with whathydrogeologists term sophisticated sensitivity analysis. Theirsensitivity analysis is sophisticated in that sophisticatedprofessional judgement is relied upon to introduce subjectiveprobability density functions for parameters into the sensitivityanalysis in the model. Any type of parameter uncertaintyanalysis should be complimented and supported by comparisons ofvarious models and their results, as well as quality assurance inthe computation and documentation procedures.

The paper explains that in any uncertainty analysis it isessential to distinguish between two fundamentally differenttypes of uncertainty. Type I uncertainty is due to stochastic,or probabilistic, type variability. If the property of interestshows stochastic variability within the system to be modeled, aninvestigator- is uncertain which value to use in the model. Type2 uncertainty is due to a lack of knowledge about thedeterministic components of the system under study. As notedabove the authors use the words lack of knowledge synonymouslywith lack of data. Here the property of interest is determinedwithin the system but because it is only vaguely or impreciselyknown it is uncertain which value to use in the model.

The probability distributions) that characterizes Type 1uncertainty is interpreted as the relative frequency distributionof values from a specified interval taken from a sample set thatis considered to be representative (by professional judgment).In this context probability is based upon a frequency of

occurrence analysis. Type 2 probability is interpreted as thedegree of belief (subjective probability) that a determined butvaguely or imprecisely known value is contained within a specificinterval. In this case the probability is based upon asubjective interpretation (professional judgment).

A deterministic transfer model will provide a single outputvalue. In many cases the deterministic model may be adequate. Aprobabilistic transfer model, on the other hand, will provide asa result a complimentary cumulative distribution function (CDF).This result is provided by expressing all assumed relevant Type Iuncertainties in the input parameters by probabilitydistributions. The remaining part of an uncertainty analysisthen is to incorporate the Type 2 uncertainty, i.e... thesubjective uncertainties. Type 2 uncertainties most often areassociated with the selection of input parameter values and withcertain aspects of model formulation (especially in developingconceptual models).

The major steps in assessing parameter uncertainties from asubjective viewpoint using professional judgement are portrayedas follows: Step 1, list all parameters that potentiallycontribute to uncertainty in the model predictions; Step 2, foreach parameter listed specify the maximum conceivable range ofthe typical values (professional judgment); Step 3, specify thedegree of belief (subjective probability) in percentages that theappropriate parameter value is not larger than specific valuesselected from the range established in Step 2 above; Step 4,account for correlation among model parameters by introducingsuitable restrictions, by stating appropriate conditional degreesof belief, or by estimating the correlation coefficients betweenparameters (professional judgment); Step 5, a subjectiveprobability density function (FDF) can now be set up for thecombined range of parameter values. This procedure issubsequently referred to as a joint PDF. This joint PDF then ispropagated through the model to generate a subjective probabilitydistribution of the predicted values. Step 6, quantitativestatements are derived about the effects of parameteruncertainties on the model predictions. (The parameters can beranked with respect to their contribution to the uncertainty inthe model predictions if such a ranking is so desired.) Step 7,present and interpret the results of the analysis.

Several procedures can be used to accomplish the last few stepsin the parameter uncertainty analysis. These procedures includethe following: 1) variance propagation, 2) moment matching, 3)distribution-free fractile estimates from a simple random sample,4) distribution-free statistical tolerance limits from a simplerandom sample, 5) fractile estimates from a simple random sample(using an assumption of normal distribution), 6) statisticaltolerance limits from a simple random sample (assuming a normal

4

or lognormal distribution), 7) distribution-free fractileestimates from a Latin hypercube sample, and 6) fractileestimates from a Latin hypercube sample (assuming normal orlognormal distribution). The simple random sample discussed inthe above methods typically is obtained via computationalprocedures such as Monte Carlo simulation.

A simple example problem is presented whereby a deterministicmodel of the following form is analyzed.

y = abc/d

Distributional forms are described for the input parameters abcd;correlation is incorporated between parameters b and c. Thestudy then progresses using a subjective probability approach andcompares the above procedures (i.e., the eight procedures givenabove).

Results from the example problem indicate that estimates of the95-percent fractile of the subjective probability distribution ofthe output y range from 20)0 to 2,0CC00 while the true 95-percentfractile is about 550. Results from the example problem indicatethat once subjective confidence limits have been established,results should provide one of three basic conclusions: 1) at ahigh subjective level of confidence the predicted value is incompliance with the limiting value (i.e., the regulatory value);2) at a high subjective level of confidence the value to bepredicted is not in compliance with the regulatory value; 3) thesubjective levels of confidence for violation of and forcompliance with the regulatory value have the same order ofmagnitude and thus additional studies are necessary to prove theknowledge base for critical parameters used in the model.Different quantitative uncertainty statements and differentparameter rankings should be expected when a transfer model isapplied to different physical systems, as well as when modelapplications are subject to different regulatory criteria.

The authors come to the following conclusions:

1) Two fundamentally different types of uncertainty alwaysshould be discriminated in an uncertainty analysis of a modelprediction. Type 1 uncertainty is due to stochasticvariability while Type 2 uncertainty is due to a lack ofknowledge (lack of data) about deterministic components.

2) Analyses of Type 2 uncertainties (professional subjectivejudgment) provide quantitative statements of the influence ofparameter uncertainties on the model predictions in the formof fractiles of the model predictions' subjective probabilitydistribution. The subjective probability distribution isderived from professional judgment.

_--/

5

3) Numerical methods based upon random samples are preferred forType 2 uncertainty analysis of complex transfer, orperformance, models.

4) Because the transfer model in most cases cannot be providedas an algebraic expression written in terms of the uncertainparameters, the variance propagation and moment matchingprocedures will not be applicable in their analytical form.

5) If the transfer model requires long computational time perrun the permissible sample size will be limited by CPU-time,and application of the numerical methods will be severelylimited. The sample size should be considered wheninterpreting the results of these numerical methods.

6) When the subjective levels of confidence for compliance withor for violation of a regulatory value are of the same orderof magnitude, the ranking of the uncertain parameters canprovide direction for future research efforts.

The authors do not explain the ranking procedures. Instead theyrefer to the IAEA working document on "Procedures for Assessingthe Reliability of Radionuclide Environmental Model TransferPredictions" which we do not have.

SIGNIFICANCE TO NRC WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM:

Parameter uncertainty analysis is an essential part ofgroundwater travel-time predictions from potential high-levelnuclear waste repository sites. The paper under review presentsa clear, concise overview of the categories of uncertaintyinvolved in transfer model predictions, as well as an overview ofprocedures used in parameter uncertainty analysis. Theuncertainty analysis focuses on Type 2 uncertainties, whichattempt to quantify the uncertainty in professional judgment thatis required to fill data gaps or to otherwise characterize data.The development of conceptual models and the implementation ofgroundwater flow models should be subjected to the types ofuncertainty analysis presented in this paper. Perhaps the bestcontribution from this paper toward the NRC Waste ManagementFrogram is in the area of quantifying subjective probabilities.i.e., the Type 2 uncertainties caused by lack of knowledge aboutthe deterministic components in the physical system.

6

PROBLEMS. DEFICIENCIES OR LIMITATIONS OF REPORT:

The parameter uncertainty analysis presented in the paper underreview is directed primarily toward Type 2 uncertainties whichinvolve using professional subjective judgment to accommodate alack of data. Three of the eight procedures described forimplementing parameter uncertainty analysis depend uponassumptions of normal or lognor-mal distributions of the inputparameters. Two of the procedures, variance propagation andmoment matching, are applicable only to fairly simple transfermodels that can be expressed algebraically. This leaves threeprocedures that have potentially wide application in reliabilityanalysis of performance model predictions. These threeprocedures are: 1) distribution-free fractile estimates from asimple random sample, 2) distribution-free statistical tolerancelimits from a simple random sample, and 3) distribution-freefractile estimates from a Latin hypercube sample. These threeprocedures are numerically intensive and the affordable samplesize will be limited by the CPU time required per model run.Consequently, the sampling errors in fractile estimates of thesubjective probability distribution of the model prediction are amatter of concern.

The paper provides a reasonable. but not comprehensive, overviewand discussion of parameter uncertainty analysis in assessing thereliability of environmental transfer, or performance, models.In the context of groundwater modeling, one major area in thereliability assessment has been omitted in this paper. That areais the development of conceptual models of the site and theconsequent development of mathematical conceptualizations. Thesefactors determine the validity of the population that the dataare supposed to represent. These areas are critical for modelprediction studies, especially those that deal with groundwatertransport and groundwater travel time. In addition, thediscussion of model parameters has not incorporated theuncertainty associated with the validity of the testingprocedures that provide the data base for populations orsubpopulations of parameter- values. The paper tacitly assumespoint source data values. Parameter values in reality areaffected by the selected scale of field testing or byinterpretative or derived procedures that are used to obtain suchparameter estimates. If the identification of populations ofdata are incorrect (conceptual model) or if data are assignedincorrectly to the wrong subpopulation and then analyzedaccording to the procedures presented in the paper the resultinguncertainty would not recognize the error. Similarly theselection of the wrong type of test would not be recognized as aninfluence on uncertainty. However, in all fairness to theauthors this type of uncertainty probably cannot be quantified

7

except by professional judgment. which the authors do attempt to

treat.

11_�, \__11,

Friday, July 17, 1987/Lewiston Tribune 7B

Water study coulddisqualify HanfordAssociated Press

WASHINGTON - Results of agroundwater study at the Han-ford nuclear reservation coulddisqualify the south-centralWashington site from the gov-ernment's search for a nationalhigh-level nuclear waste reposi-tory, a Department of Energyofficial told lawmakers Thurs-day.

Ben Rusche, director ofDOE's department of radioac-tive waste office, said findingsfrom the study could force thedepartment to remove Hanfordfrom the list of three finalistswithout proceeding with expen-sive exploratory shaft drilling atHanford.

The other two finalists are inTexas and Nevada.

The groundwater findingscould be available in six months,Rusche told the Senate Energyand Natural Resources Commit-tee.

"The first look may be able totell us what we need to know,"although it may take longer to

reach a conclusion, Rusche said.When DOE named its three

repository finalists 14 monthsago, it said the sites appearedsuitable but that detailed,lengthy research and explorato-ry shaft drilling would be re-quired-before the top site couldbe chosen in the early 1990s.

However, DOE agreed earlierthis year to conduct expandedgroundwater studies at Hanfordand last month said drillingthere would probably be delayeduntil 1989 to accommodate thosetests.

State Rep. Dick Nelson, D-Seattle, said state officialswanted the expanded studies be-cause of concerns that in a fewdecades groundwater at the re-pository's proposed depths couldmix with groundwater at higherelevations that reaches the Co-lumbia River and possibly con-taminate the river.

But DOE officials have saidgroundwater surrounding thedump flows away from the riverand does not reach the environ-ment for thousands of years.

( (

IDAHO Wdneeda*Ju=?6.197 3(

Congress asked to take over nuke dump selection ( IAssocated Press

SNOWBIRD, Utah - Members of theWestern Governors' Association say theDepartment of Energy has let politicalconsiderations override safety in itssearch for America's first permanentstorage site for highly radioactive waste.

The governors closed their anntualthree-day meeting here Tuesday by pass-ing a resolution calling on Congress totake over the site selection process.

Two member states, Nevada andWashington, have been named to the En-ergy Department's list of finalists to re-ceive the repository. The third site is in

Texas, which does not belong to theWGA.

The governors said the departmenthas ignored independent evaluations andthe advice of its own consultants in pick-ing the finalist states.

They also said the department haswithheld information from the states andblocked federal funding aimed at helpingstate governments make their own as-sessments of the potential sites.

"I believe the Department of Energy islying, just plain lying," said Oregon Gov.Neil Goldschmidt. "I think we've got tosend these guys back to the beginning."

The underground repository would be-come the sole storage site for the nation'shighly radioactive waste. A final site is tobe selected by the mid-1990s.

The governors vented their frustra-tions with the DOE and approved the res-olution during the final session of theconference.

They also officially turned overchairmanship of the 19-member associa-tion to Democratic Gov. Booth Gardnerof Washington, who succeeded Republi-can Gov. Norm Bangerter of Utah.

Gardner was elected on Monday andGov. George Deukmejian of California, a

Republican, was elected vice chairman.The governors said the DOE had failed

to prove that nuclear waste can be safelystored at the sites, and had not paidenough attention to difficulties in trans-porting the waste.

Goldschmidt said building the reposi-tory at the Hanford, Wash., site wouldcreate the risk of radioactive materialleaking into the Columbia River.

He said that of nine sites originallyconsidered by the Energy Department,Hanford has been rated as the least ac-ceptable in scientific evaluations, but be-came a finalist as a result of political

considerations.Furthermore, the governors were an-

gry that Energy Secretary John Herring-ton canceled plans to build a second re-pository in an eastern state.

"The decision should be made on thebasis of safety, not politics," said Gard-ner. "What I am most interested in iswhen they start over again, they do it onthe basis of scientific data."

The resolution was opposed by Bang-erter.

Utah had two possible sites on the En-ergy Department's original list, but bothwere eliminated.

.

C

C

Wednesday, July 15, 1987, Lewislon Tribune 39

Report shows some chemicalsthreaten water near HanfordAssocisted Press

SEATTLE - Hazardouschemical wastes that have beendumped at the Hanford nuclearreservation for three decadesthreaten groundwater and theColumbia River, a newspaperreported Tuesday.

The non-radioactive waste ishazardous industrial and clean-ing materials such as chromi-um, carbon tetrachloride,cyanide and chlorinated hydro-carbons, according to a new re-port.

The U.S. Department of En-ergy, in a press release on thefindings issued Monday, saidnone of the contaminants werenear drinking water systems,"and the contaminants do notconstitute a health hazard toemployees or the public."

But the Seattle Post-Intelli-

gencer reported in Tuesday'seditions that Hanford sourceswho asked not to be identifiedsay the materials eventuallywill flow directly into the Colum-bia River, which flows throughthe nuclear reservation in south-central Washington, and poten-tially threaten public health.

Another concern is that chem-icals in the groundwater make iteasier for radiaoctive waste toseep into the water system aswell, the newspaper said, againquoting an unnamed source.

The Energy Department hasdevised but not yet released anew plan to address the hazard-ous waste problem at Hanford.The plan, called the Hanford En-vironmental Management Pro-gram, was the result of a 1984court order subjecting the agen-cy to federal hazardous waste

laws. It will be started with- aninitial budget of $25 million.

Since the order was issued,however, the Energy Depart-ment has been at odds with thestate over full disclosure of theproblem. .

In February 1986 the state at-torney general's office and re-gional U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency officials Is-sued a joint administrative or-der noting deficiencies anddirecting compliance with haz-ardous waste regulations atHanford.

The new plan addressing the-hazardous waste problem is aneffort "to ensure compliancewith the letter and spirit of allapplicable state and federallaws," said Jerry White, EnergyDepartment waste managementprogram director.

Ii

.t

l 4B Lewison Tribunelbursday. July 16, 1987

ITribes, state officials rap Hanford dump siteAssocitd Pa

SEATTLE - Washingtonstate officials and representa-tives of several Indian tribeshave told a board of scientiststhat the Hanford nuclear reser-vation would be a poor place fora permanent high-level nuclearwaste repository.

Representatives from thestate and the Confederation ofUmatilla Tribes, the Yakima In-dian Nation and the Nez Percetribe expressed their concernabout the Hanford site at a Tues-day meeting of the NationalAcademy of Sciences' Board onRadioactive Waste Managementat Seattle.

The Washington. D.C.-basedboard is setting up an indepen-dent oversight panel to examinethe selection of Washington, Ne-vada and Texas as the finalistsites for the national reposi-

tory.Terry Husseman, director of

the state Office of NuclearWaste Management, and otherstate experts who testified be-fore the panel suggested that in-stead of spending more than SIbillion on studies of the Hanfordsite, a much smaler amountcould be spent on pursuing the"fatal flaws" at Hanford.

The state has challenged se-lection of Hanford, in south-cen-tral Washington, from the start.

Husseman also said hethought Congress was on its wayto stopping and restructuringthe nuclear waste dump pro-gram and that the board should"get involved in the processwhen it is straightened out.-

Tom Isaacs, deputy directorof repository programs for theU.S. Department of Energy,said, *;rtare not committed to

spending all of this money if afind the site isn't suitable Wehave a great deal of confidencethe site is suitable."

Issues raised by state expertsfocused on natural resources,geology, technology and sitecontamination.

Bill Brewer, geologist with thestate Department of Ecologysaid that unlike some federalstudies, his department's stud-ies show a "high degree of prob-ability" that there are activefaults in the Hanford area. Andwhile he is not worried aboutearthquake damage, he is wor-ried about groundwatermovement.

The board was told that muchwork needs to be done in explor-ing the site contamination issue,partly in light of recently re-leased government documentsshowing traces of radioactive io-dine IT in groundwater outsideHanford.

Friday, July 17, 1987/Lewiston Tribune 7B

Water study coulddisqualify HanfordAssociated Press

WASHINGTON - Results of agroundwater study at the Han-ford nuclear reservation coulddisqualify the south-centralWashington site from the gov-ernment's search for a nationalhigh-level nuclear waste reposi-tory, a Department of Energyofficial told lawmakers Thurs-day.

Ben Rusche, director ofDOE's department of radioac-tive waste office, said findingsfrom the study could force thedepartment to remove Hanfordfrom the list of three finalistswithout proceeding with expen-sive exploratory shaft drilling atHanford.

The other two finalists are inTexas and Nevada.

The groundwater findingscould be available in six months,Rusche told the Senate Energyand Natural Resources Commit-tee.

"The first look may be able totell us what we need to know,"although it may take longer to

reach a conclusion, Rusche said.When DOE named its three

repository finalists 14 monthsago, it said the sites appearedsuitable but that detailed,lengthy research and explorato-ry shaft drilling would be re-quired before the top site couldbe chosen in the early 1990s.

However, DOE agreed earlierthis year to conduct expandedgroundwater studies at Hanfordand last month said drillingthere would probably be delayeduntil 1989 to accommodate thosetests.

State Rep. Dick Nelson, D-Seattle, said state officialswanted the expanded studies be-cause of concerns that in a fewdecades groundwater at the re-pository's proposed depths couldmix with groundwater at higherelevations that reaches the Co-lumbia River and possibly con-taminate the river.

But DOE officials have saidgroundwater surrounding thedump flows away from the riverand does not reach the environ-ment for thousands of years.

Daily NowsldahonlonunIDAHO W~..edoyjuly 8. 1987 3

Congress asked to take over nuke dump selectionAssociated Press

SNOWBIRD, Utah - Members of theWestern Governors' Association say theDepartment of Energy has let politicalconsiderations override safety in itssearch for America's first permanentstorage site for highly radioactive waste.

The governors closed their annualthree-day meeting here Tuesday by pass-ing a resolution calling on Congress totake over the site selection process.

Two member states, Nevada andWashington, have been named to the En-ergy Department's list of finalists to re-ceive the repository. The third site is in

Texas, which does not belong to theWGA.

The governors said the departmenthas ignored independent evaluations andthe advice of its own consultants in pick-ing the finalist states.

They also said the department haswithheld information from the states andblocked federal funding aimed at helpingstate governments make their own as-sessments of the potential sites.

"I believe the Department of Energy islying, just plain lying," said Oregon Gov.Neil Goldschmidt. "I think we've got tosend these guys back to the beginning."

The underground repository would be-come the sole storage site for the nation'shighly radioactive waste. A final site is tobe selected by the mid-1990s.

The governors vented their frustra-tions with the DOE and approved the res-olution during the final session of theconference.

They also officially turned overchairmanship of the 19-member associa-tion to Democratic Gov. Booth Gardnerof Washington, who succeeded Republi-can Gov. Norm Bangerter of Utah.

Gardner was elected on Monday andGov. George Deukmejian of California, a

Republican, was elected vice chairman..The governors said the DOE had failed

to prove that nuclear waste can be safelystored at the sites, and had not laidenough attention to difficulties in trans-porting the waste.

Goldschmidt said building the reposi-tory at the Hanford, Wash., site wouldcreate the risk of radioactive materialleaking into the Columbia River.

He said that of nine sites originallyconsidered by the Energy Department,Hanford has been rated as the least ac-ceptable in scientific evaluations, but be-came a finalist as a result of political

considerations.Furthermore, the governors were an-

gry that Energy Secretary John Herring-ton canceled plans to build a second re-pository in an eastern state.

"The decision should be made on thebasis of safety, not politics," said Gard-ner. "What I am most interested in iswhen they start over again, they do it onthe basis of scientific data."

The resolution was opposed by Bang-erter.

Utah had two possible sites on the En-ergy Department's original list, but bothwere eliminated.

) )

Wednesday, July 15, 1987/Lewiston Tribune 3B ;.

Report shows some chemicalsthreaten water near HanfordAssociated Press

SEATTLE - Hazardouschemical wastes that have beendumped at the Hanford nuclearreservation for three decadesthreaten groundwater and theColumbia River, a newspaperreported Tuesday.

-The non-radioactive waste ishazardous industrial and clean-ing materials such as chromi-um, carbon tetrachloride,cyanide and chlorinated hydro-carbons, according to a new re-port.

The U.S. Department of En-ergy, in a press release on thefindings issued Monday, saidnone of the contaminants werenear drinking water systems,"and the contaminants do notconstitute a health hazard toemployees or the public."

But the Seattle Post-Intelli-

gencer reported in Tuesday'seditions that Hanford sourceswho asked not to be identifiedsay the materials eventuallywill flow directly into the Colum-bia River, which flows throughthe nuclear reservation in south-central Washington, and poten-tially threaten public health.

Another concern is that chem-icals in the groundwater make iteasier for radiaoctive waste toseep into the water system aswell, the newspaper said, againquoting an unnamed source.

The Energy Department hasdevised but not yet released anew plan to address the hiazard-ous waste problem at Hanford.The plan, called the Hanford En-vironmental Management Pro-gram, was the result of a 1984court order subjecting the agen-cy to federal hazardous waste

laws. It will be started with' aninitial budget of $25 million.

Since the order was issued,however, the Energy Depart-ment has been at odds with thestate over full disclosure of theproblem..

In February 1986 the state at-torney general's office and re-gional U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency officials is-sued a joint administrative or-der noting deficiencies anddirecting compliance with haz-ardous waste regulations atHanford.

The new plan addressing thehazardous waste problem is aneffort "to ensure compliancewith the letter and spirit of allapplicable state and federallaws," said Jerry White, EnergyDepartment waste managementprogram director.

4B Lewistn Tnbune/mursCay July 16,1987

Tribes, state officials rap Hanford dump siteAssociated Press tory. spending all of this money if we

SEATTLE - Washington. Terry Husseman, director of find the site isn't suitable. Westate officials and representa- the state Office of Nulear have a great deal of confidencetives of several Indian tribes Waste Management, and other thesite isesuitablee"have told a board of scientists state experts who testifyeA be- foused on natu l resources,that the Hanford nuclear reser- fore the panel suggested that in- olon nol adsitevation would be a poor place for stead of spending more than S geology, technology and sitea permanent high-level nuclear billion on studies of the Hanford contamination.waste repository. site, a much smaller amount stat Department of Eog

could be spent on pursuing the said that unlike some federalRepresentatives from the "fatal flaws" at Hanford.sadttunkeom eie2

state and the Confederation of studies, his department's stud-Umatilla Tribes, the Yakima In- The state has challenged se- ies show a "high degree of prob-dian Nation and the Nez Perce lection of Hanford, in souti-cen- ability" that there are activetribe expressed their concern tial Washington, from the start. faults in the Hanford area. Andabout the Hanford site at a Tues- Husseman als said he while he is not worried aboutday meeting of the National thoughtCongresswason its eay earthquake damage, he is wor-Academy of Sciences' Board on to stopping and restructuring oed about gro.ndwaterRadioactivc Waste Management the nuclear waste dump pro- movementbat Seattle. gram and that the board should The board was told that much

The Washingto , D.-ased "get involved in thre Process wr ed ob oei xlrT s Wseingu an idepen when it is straightened ( ing the site contamination issue,board is setting up an indepen- ~Partly in light of recently re-dent oversight panel to examine Tom Isaacs, deputy director leased government documentsthe selection of Washingtoi, Ne of repository programs for the showing traces of radioactive io-vada and Texas as the finalist U.S. Department of Energy, dine 129 in groundwater outsidesites for the national reposi- said, "We are not committed to Hanford.