[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 178 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47737-47741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22840]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Use of the 10 CFR Part 960 Siting Guidelines in Evaluating the 
Suitability of the Yucca Mountain Site

AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca 
Mountain. Site Characterization Project.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), today gives notice of the 
rationale for its recent announcement that it will use the General 
Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for the Nuclear Waste 
Repositories (Guidelines) in 10 CFR Part 960, as they are currently 
written, in its evaluation of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain 
site in Nevada for development as a repository. As announced, the use 
of the Guidelines in this evaluation will be consistent with the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), including the 
programmatic changes and reconfiguration provided for in the 1987 
amendments to the NWPA, the presentation of this information is in 
response to a commitment made by the DOE to stakeholders at the public 
meetings held to discuss the DOE's proposed process for evaluating the 
suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. DOE has concluded that the 
existing Guidelines should not be amended at this time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jane R. Summerson, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca 
Mountain Site Characterization Office, P.O. Box 98608, Las Vegas, NV 
89193-8608.

I. Background

IA. Development of the Guidelines

    As originally enacted in 1982, section 112 of the NWPA provided 
that a screening process would be used to identify multiple sites in 
different geologic media as suitable for extensive site 
characterization to determine their suitability as repository sites. 
Upon completion of site characterization, the characterized sites would 
be compared and a single site would be chosen for recommendation to the 
President for development as a repository.
    On February 13, 1983, to implement section 112, the DOE published 
the proposed ``General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for 
the Nuclear Waste Repositories,'' for review and comment (48 FR 5670). 
The Guidelines were subsequently finalized following consideration of 
comments from the public and the consultation process with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) required by the NWPA. See 10 CFR Part 960. 
The final concurrence of the NRC was provided on July 10, 1984 (49 FR 
28130). On December 6, 1984, the DOE promulgated the final version of 
the Guidelines (49 FR 47714).
    In its preliminary decision on the Guidelines, the NRC conditioned 
its concurrence on DOE adopting a number of conditions closely linking 
the Guidelines to NRC regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 60 (49 FR 
9650). In its final concurrence, the NRC noted that DOE had revised the 
Guidelines to meet its conditions. In response to comments requesting 
closer alignment of the guidelines to Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and NRC requirements, DOE stated that,

    In the event of a conflict between the Guidelines and either 10 
CFR Part 60 (NRC regulations) or 40 CFR Part 191 [the EPA 
regulations], these NRC and EPA regulations will supersede the 
siting guidelines and constitute the operative requirement in any 
application of the guidelines. (49 FR 47721).

IB. Previous Applications of the DOE Guidelines

    Consistent with section 112(b) of the NWPA, the Guidelines were 
used by the DOE in the process of nominating five sites as suitable for 
characterization and the recommendation to the President of three of 
the nominated sites for characterization as candidate sites for the 
first repository. Each site nomination was accompanied by an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) that 

[[Page 47738]]
included an evaluation of the suitability of that particular site under 
the Guidelines, based on the information available at that time. Each 
EA also contained a separate comparative evaluation of the subject site 
with the other nominated sites. On May 27, 1986, the President approved 
each of the sites recommended for characterization, including the Yucca 
Mountain site.
    The 1987 amendments to the NWPA eliminated the requirement to 
consider multiple geologic repository sites and instead provided that 
site characterization studies would proceed at only the Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada site to determine whether it is suitable for development as a 
geologic repository.
    In accordance with section 113(b) of the NWPA, the DOE prepared a 
Site Characterization Plan (SCP) (DOE/RW-0199, 1988), which, among 
other things, described how the DOE proposed to apply the Guidelines 
that fall within the scope of the planned site characterization 
program. Those provisions in the Guidelines that concern environmental 
quality, socioeconomic impacts, and transportation, and that generally 
require non-geologic data gathering, were not addressed in the SCP. In 
December 1988, the DOE submitted the SCP for the Yucca Mountain site to 
the NRC and to the State of Nevada for their review and comment. The 
siting provisions of the Guidelines set forth in 10 CFR Part 960 were 
identified in the SCP as the primary criteria required by section 
113(b) of the NWPA to be used to determine the suitability of the Yucca 
Mountain site for development as a repository.
    The DOE's position regarding the applicability of certain 
provisions in the Guidelines under the 1987 amendments to the NWPA was 
also presented in the SCP. The DOE stated that the provision in the 
Guidelines for comparative evaluations of performance was no longer 
applicable. The DOE also stated that the provision for comparative 
evaluation of costs relative to other siting options in 10 CFR 960.5-
1(a)(3) was no longer applicable. In the SCP, the DOE identified the 
conditions in the Guidelines for which specific findings would be made 
in evaluating whether or not the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for 
development as a repository.
    As discussed in the SCP, the implementation provisions in Subpart B 
of the Guidelines provide that the qualifying conditions of the pre- 
and postclosure system guidelines, and the qualifying and disqualifying 
conditions of the pre- and postclosure technical guidelines, be 
evaluated and that specific findings be made for each condition at 
principal decision points specified in Appendix III to 10 CFR Part 960. 
Before a DOE decision is made that the site is suitable and can be 
recommended for development as a repository, the evidence has to 
support findings by the DOE that none of the disqualifying conditions 
are present, that all qualifying conditions are met, and that these 
conclusions are not likely to change.

II. Consultation on the Application of the Guidelines

    Although the SCP for the Yucca Mountain site describes how the DOE 
would apply the Guidelines during site characterization in evaluating 
the suitability of the site in light of the 1987 amendments to the 
NWPA, a number of entities continued to indicate that they remained 
unclear as to the DOE's future application of the Guidelines. Because 
of this continuing indication of confusion with regard to the 
application of the Guidelines and because Section 112(a) of the NWPA 
and the Guidelines themselves contemplate that the DOE may revise the 
Guidelines from time to time, the DOE instituted an ongoing dialogue 
with external parties on the Guidelines.
    In October 1993, the DOE briefed the Affected Units of Government, 
comprised of representatives of the affected counties and the State of 
Nevada, on its plans for activities related to site suitability 
evaluation. These plans included activities intended to implement the 
DOE's commitment to conduct interim evaluations of the suitability of 
the Yucca Mountain site during the course of site characterization. 
Prior to beginning such evaluations, the DOE elected to conduct another 
review of its Guidelines and solicited public input regarding options 
for the use of the Guidelines in these evaluations. Five options were 
identified for discussion:
     Continue to use the existing Guidelines without revision.
     Issue a Federal Register notice providing the DOE's 
proposed implementation of the Guidelines consistent with current 
legislative direction to characterize a single site.
     Amend the existing Guidelines.
     Develop new site-specific Guidelines.
     Adopt the NRC's siting criteria from 10 CFR Part 60, 
Subpart E.
    These discussions regarding the Guidelines continued in a number of 
meetings with affected Units of Government held in December 1993, and 
in February and March 1994. A number of comments related to options for 
the use of the Guidelines were received by the DOE, either in these 
meetings or in written comments on the DOE's proposed plans for site 
suitability activities. The State of Nevada and other Affected Units of 
Government noted that because the development of the Guidelines 
received broad public exposure through publication in the Federal 
Register, the DOE's current review of the Guidelines also should 
receive broad public exposure. In response to these comments, on April 
25, 1994, the DOE published a Notice of Inquiry (59 FR 19680) eliciting 
views of the public on, among other things, the appropriate role of the 
Guidelines in the evaluation of site suitability. The DOE then 
conducted a public workshop on May 21, 1994, in Las Vegas, Nevada, to 
discuss the Guidelines and other issues related to the process for the 
evaluation of site suitability. The DOE also provided the opportunity 
for the public to submit written comments. The comment period ended on 
June 24, 1994.
    No clearly preferred option was identified through the public 
comment process. Indeed, each option had its detractors and supporters. 
This lack of consensus is generally consistent with the results of 
previous public interactions.
    Following the public meeting and the close of the public comment 
period, and after consideration of the comments received, the DOE 
published a second Notice on August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39766) announcing, 
among other things, that it would continue to use the Guidelines in 10 
CFR Part 960 as currently written, subject to the programmatic 
reconfiguration directed by the 1987 amendments to the NWPA.
    At public meetings held with stakeholders on August 27, 1994, in 
Las Vegas, and on August 30, 1994, in Washington, D.C., questions were 
raised about the rationale for the announcement regarding the use of 
the Guidelines in 10 CFR Part 960. At these meetings, the DOE committed 
to providing background information related to this decision to the 
program stakeholders.

III. Issues Raised During Consultation and DOE's Response

    The issues raised during recent consultation on the use and role of 
the siting provision in 10 CFR Part 960 in the evaluation of site 
suitability fall into the following general categories:
     The Role of Stakeholders, the Public and DOE in Evaluating 
the Use of the Guidelines.
     Consistency with the Current Legislative Framework. 

[[Page 47739]]

     Consistency with NRC Criteria in 10 CFR Part 60.
     Development of Site-Specific Criteria.
    The following provides a discussion of the issues raised and 
background information regarding the rationale for the DOE's 
announcement (59 FR 39766) regarding the continued application of the 
Guidelines, as currently written, to the evaluation of the suitability 
of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.

IIIA. Comments Regarding the Role of Stakeholders, the Public and DOE 
in Evaluating the Use of the Guidelines

    Nye County, in their correspondence dated May 17, 1994, stated that 
``OCRWM must determine for itself whether or not it can most 
efficiently continue to conduct the program under the present 
Guidelines'' and, further, the decision to issue a Federal Register 
Notice on the use of 10 CFR Part 960 ``* * *must be DOE's decision in 
the first instance.'' The County stated:

    While we certainly agree that it is appropriate and useful to 
seek input from the stakeholders while DOE reevaluates its siting 
Guidelines, we believe that it is not incumbent upon oversight 
organizations to recommend, in the first instance, how to change or 
interpret the law or Guidelines in order to facilitate DOE's ability 
to carry out its own program. If, for example, it is determined that 
formalized interpretations of portions of the Guidelines are needed, 
then OCRWM should suggest and circulate such interpretations. 
Oversight organizations, such as Nye County can then comment or make 
positive suggestions for change.

    Nye County added that it ``strongly believes that justification has 
yet to be made for making wholesale substantive Guideline revisions.''
    Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects Nevada (Nevada Agency), in 
their correspondence dated June 22, 1994, stated that ``since the 
Guidelines provide the standard for DOE's final determination of the 
suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for development of a repository, 
and are the basis for any preliminary suitability findings, DOE should 
commit itself, in the Guidelines, to a process for both public 
involvement and peer review to enhance confidence in its suitability 
evaluations.'' Specifically, the Nevada Agency maintained that the 
Guidelines should be revised to incorporate requirements for a 
``specific process of public involvement in the DOE's use of the 
Guidelines for making a Yucca Mountain site suitability determination, 
whether preliminary or final.''
    The Nevada Agency stressed that ``if DOE proposes revision of the 
Guidelines, to remain consistent with Section 112(a), it should 
formally consult with the agencies named, including the Governor of 
Nevada, before issuance of revised Guidelines, and this consultation 
should be carried out separately from the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA) process to which it has committed.'' The Nevada Agency continued 
that section 112(a) of the NWPA provides that the Secretary may revise 
the Guidelines ``consistent with the provisions of this subsection.'' 
The Nevada Agency maintained that this subsection requires, in addition 
to concurrence of the NRC, that DOE consult with the Council on 
Environmental Quality, the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Director of the Geological Survey, and 
interested Governors prior to issuance of Guidelines.'' The Nevada 
Agency added that ``it would be useful for DOE to issue an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking, prior to issuing a proposed rule, in 
which it develops and analyzes options for revisions to the Guidelines 
and then requests comment on these options, as well as suggestions of 
other options to be considered in revision of the Guidelines.''
    DOE shares the view of the Nevada Agency that should the 
Department, at some future date, opt to amend its Guidelines, it should 
issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking before it begins the 
formalized rulemaking process as specified in the Administrative 
Procedure Act. Extensive consultation with Federal, state, and local 
entities, as well as with other interested parties should occur, and 
DOE would obtain NRC concurrence for any guideline revision.

IIIB. Consistency With the Current Legislative Framework
    The Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) June 24, 1994 response to the 
DOE Notice of Inquiry, recommended that DOE establish appropriate 
Guidelines by rulemaking to provide ``clear, unambiguous regulations 
pertinent only to site suitability and ensure that DOE's regulations 
are conformed to the NWPA, as amended, the Energy Policy Act, and are 
consistent with the agency's [DOE] intended actions.'' They argued that 
if DOE fails to conform 10 CFR Part 960 with the current statutory 
framework, ``the program will likely be subject to unnecessary 
litigation, additional costs, and further delays that would be more 
costly to the program than any delay that may be associated with such a 
rulemaking.'' The NEI added that ``however, in revising Part 960, DOE 
should not eliminate those Guidelines appropriate for evaluating, on a 
comparative basis, multiple sites. Such Guidelines may be useful in the 
future should, for example, the Yucca Mountain site prove 
unsatisfactory.''
    A number of comments received during the August, 1994 public 
meetings questioned the continued application of all or parts of the 
Guidelines given the provisions of the 1987 amendments to the NWPA and 
the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Some comments were based on the 
assumption that the Guidelines are intended to be used only in 
comparing sites and, therefore, are no longer a meaningful basis for 
the evaluation of a single site. Other comments, while acknowledging 
the applicability of certain provisions of the Guidelines to the 
evaluation of a single site, questioned the continued existence of 
those provisions that call for comparative evaluations and recommended 
that the Guidelines should be revised to make clear which provisions 
applied to the evaluation of Yucca Mountain.
    The DOE believes that use of 10 CFR Part 960 in these were 
comparative and so not relevant to single site without comparison the 
SCP demonstrates that the Guidelines can be applied in evaluating the 
suitability of a single site. The DOE has decided that for now no 
amendments are needed to establish the role of the Guidelines in the 
determination of suitability for the Yucca Mountain site.
    DOE notes that under section 801 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
the EPA is required to promulgate new standards for a repository at the 
Yucca Mountain site. Because the Guidelines refer explicitly to 40 CFR 
Part 191, the DOE has proceeded to conduct its site characterization 
program in accordance with 40 CFR Part 191. The DOE will re-evaluate 
its plans and consider the need for any changes in the Guidelines once 
the new EPA standard has been promulgated.

IIIC. Consistency With NRC Criteria in 10 CFR Part 60

    The NEI, in their letter dated October 3, 1994, maintained that 
rulemaking would afford the opportunity to conform DOE's 10 CFR Part 
960 with the NRC's 10 CFR Part 60. They argued that such an action:

would eliminate duplication of, and reduce the possibility for, 
confusion over appropriate requirements set forth in each 
regulation. For example, rather than the enumeration and evaluation 
of ``Potentially Adverse Conditions'' in Subpart C. of the 
Guidelines, it may be advisable to simply reference 10 CFR 60.122(c) 
and the Potentially Adverse Conditions listed and 

[[Page 47740]]
considered there. This will both avoid unnecessary duplication and 
reduce the possibility for confusion over appropriate requirements.

    NEI added that, regardless of whether or not DOE conforms its 
regulations to NRC's regulations, they suggest that the NRC

be involved as an extension of the concurrent process defined in 
Section 112(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and that the 
process for applying applicable Guidelines in evaluating site 
suitability for Yucca Mountain could then be memorialized in a 
Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies. Involvement of 
the regulator will assure that there are no additional 
misunderstandings between DOE and the NRC as to the nature and 
application of the site suitability evaluation process.

    Nye County (letter dated May 17, 1994) argued against adopting as 
DOE's siting Guidelines, in substance if not in language, the siting 
criteria of Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 60. The County stated that:

this option masks the real fundamental distinction between site 
suitability and licensability. The DOE siting guidelines must 
constitute real true measure of site suitability, as contrasted with 
examples of licensing emphasis on design conditions, operation of 
the engineered barrier system, and operating procedures. The 
Guidelines must reflect the geologic capability of the site itself 
to isolate waste, without the imposition by the licensing agency of 
any external requirements. Finally, Nye County believes that 
adopting NRC's Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 60 would mask the 
fundamental distinctions between site suitability and licensability.

    Opposing views were expressed in the August, 1994 public meetings 
regarding the need to incorporate the applicable provisions of the NRC 
technical criteria (10 CFR Part 60, Subpart E) into the Guidelines. In 
one view, the Guidelines should be revised to incorporate the 
applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 to the maximum extent possible, 
to avoid duplication and to reduce the possibility for confusion over 
appropriate requirements. The other view is that the Guidelines should 
not be amended to adopt the NRC criteria from 10 CFR Part 60 because 
this would mask the distinction between site suitability and licensing, 
with the suitability decision focusing on the geologic capability of 
the site to isolate waste.
    The DOE believes that it is not necessary to abandon its Guidelines 
and adopt the NRC siting criteria found in 10 CFR Part 60, Subpart E. 
The DOE Guidelines are expressly derived from and tied to the NRC 
siting criteria (49 FR 47714) and, as noted in 10 CFR 960.1, are 
intended to complement the NRC and EPA regulations. The NRC concurred 
in the Guidelines as required by section 112(a) of the NWPA, after an 
extensive review, with opportunity for public comment (49 FR 28130). 
One of the NRC's criteria for concurrence was that the siting 
provisions of the Guidelines must not be inconsistent with 10 CFR Part 
60. Based on the direction provided in section 112(a) regarding the 
purpose and content of the Guidelines, and the NRC's concurrence on 
these Guidelines, the DOE does not believe that it is necessary to 
amend 10 CFR Part 960.

IIID. Development of Site-Specific Criteria

    Nye County (letter dated May 17, 1994) expressed opposition to 
developing site-specific Guidelines ``as such Guidelines will destroy 
even a facade of scientific integrity for the Yucca Mountain project.'' 
In addressing amendment of the Guidelines, the County stated that they:

recognize that much knowledge has been gained about disposing of 
radioactive waste since the Guidelines were first written 10 years 
ago . . .; the Guidelines themselves contemplate periodic revisions, 
as is evidenced by the provisions of 10 CFR 960.1. Nye County does 
not believe that Guidelines should not under any circumstances be 
amended. At the same time, Nye County believes strongly that no 
justification has been made for any wholesale substantive revisions 
of the Guidelines.

[adopting site-specific Guidelines] would clearly constitute what 
many in Nevada have always feared the most, that is, writing the 
rules to fit the site rather than characterizing the site to 
determine whether or not it meets the Guidelines. Furthermore, it is 
a virtual certainty that the nation will eventually need a second 
repository. Any DOE Guidelines, therefore, must be applicable to 
other sites, in other locations, in other geologic media.

    Eureka County, in its correspondence dated March 14, 1994, 
expressed similar views. The County commented that ``revision of the 
Guidelines in a manner that is perceived by the public to be changing 
the rules to fit the site would be detrimental to the image of the 
department, and could adversely affect the department's attempts to 
build trust and confidence.'' Eureka County continued that ``to write 
site specific Guidelines for Yucca Mountain would further detract from, 
if not totally destroy, the public's confidence in the scientific 
objectivity of the Yucca Mountain characterization program. In 
addition, new Guidelines would have to be developed when a second 
repository search begins.''
    Site-specific Guidelines were opposed by many at the August, 1994 
public meetings. Comments parallel those made by Nye and Eureka County 
that (1) such a change could be viewed as changing the rules to fit the 
site and, (2) general Guidelines may still be needed for siting other 
repositories should the Yucca Mountain site be found to be unsuitable 
or should a second repository be needed.
    The DOE agrees with these observations. Under section 161(b) of the 
NWPA, the DOE has an obligation to report to the President and Congress 
on the need for a second repository. Under section 113(c) of the NWPA, 
if the Yucca Mountain site is determined to unsuitable, the DOE is 
obligated to report to Congress on recommended actions to assure safe, 
permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. If a 
second repository is required or the Yucca Mountain site is found to be 
unsuitable, it will be necessary to have general Guidelines in place to 
support the required DOE actions.
IV. DOE Position and Basis for DOE Position

    DOE will use the Guidelines as they are currently written in its 
evaluation of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for 
development as a repository. The DOE believes it is not necessary to 
abandon the Guidelines and adopt the NRC siting criteria in 10 CFR Part 
60. DOE further believes it is not necessary to amend the Guidelines to 
remove those provisions that deal with the comparison of multiple 
sites.
    The DOE believes that amending the Guidelines, either to remove 
those portions that are primarily used for comparative purposes or to 
develop Guidelines specifically tailored to the evaluation of the 
suitability of the Yucca Mountain site, is not required at this time. 
Because DOE need apply only the relevant provisions, the DOE further 
believes that it is useful to have in place general Guidelines for the 
comparison of multiple sites in the event the Yucca Mountain site is 
determined to be unsuitable for development as a repository, or in the 
event that a site must be selected for a second repository. Although 
the Guidelines may have to be amended at some future date to be 
consistent with any future changes to EPA or NRC requirements, for now, 
no amendments are needed in order to provide clarification as to the 
appropriate role of the existing Guidelines in the evaluation of a 
single site.
    The DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to abandon its 
Guidelines and adopt NRC siting criteria found in 10 CFR Part 60, 
Subpart E. This is because, as noted in Section II.A above, the DOE 
Guidelines are expressly derived from 

[[Page 47741]]
and tied to the NRC siting criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 60. In 
addition, should any differences between the 10 CFR Part 960 and 10 CFR 
Part 60 be identified, 10 CFR Part 60 would prevail in the licensing 
process.
    The Implementation Guidelines of 10 CFR Part 960, Subpart B, 
establish procedures for applying the postclosure and preclosure 
provisions of the Guidelines in Subparts C and D for the evaluation of 
multiple sites in different geohydrologic settings in different kinds 
of host rock. Although prior to 1987, the DOE used these provisions of 
the Guidelines to assess individual sites as part of the site screening 
process, the 1987 amendments to the NWPA eliminated the need to 
consider alternative sites. Therefore, much of Subpart B is no longer 
applicable to the characterization of a single site. In addition, the 
various stages of site selection, except for site recommendation for 
repository development, were completed before passage of the 1987 
amendments to the NWPA and the provisions of the Guidelines relating to 
these stages are no longer applicable to the evaluation of one site. 
Also, references to comparative site evaluations and associated 
performance levels are no longer applicable because, the 1987 
amendments to the NWPA eliminated the need for any such comparative 
studies. These provisions will not be applied by DOE in evaluating the 
suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository.
    The portion of Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 960 that remains applicable 
to the evaluation of a single site and the relevant postclosure and 
preclosure guideline provisions in Subparts C and D, respectively, 
provide the basis for evaluating the suitability of the Yucca Mountain 
site. In addition, for the purpose of recommending Yucca Mountain for 
development as a repository, Subpart B provides that the DOE will 
supply evidence that the repository is likely to comply with applicable 
EPA and NRC requirements.
    As discussed in Section II.B., the DOE provided clarification in 
the SCP regarding the Guideline conditions for which specific findings 
would be made in evaluating whether or not the Yucca Mountain site is 
suitable for development as a repository. Before a DOE decision is made 
that the site is suitable and can be recommended for development as a 
repository, the evidence must support findings by the DOE that none of 
the disqualifying conditions are likely to be present, that all 
qualifying conditions are likely to be met, and that conclusions 
regarding such findings are unlikely to change.
    DOE recognizes that the licensing process provides additional 
motivations for conducting activities that go beyond site suitability 
concerns. Even if there is high confidence that additional information 
will not change conclusions about site suitability, the DOE may 
determine that it is prudent to continue activities to address residual 
uncertainties, to build confidence in models, to confirm performance 
estimates, or to provide additional assurance to review boards or other 
parties in the siting and licensing process.
    While no provision is made in the Guidelines for specific findings 
on either the favorable conditions or potentially adverse conditions, 
if these conditions exist under an evaluated technical or system 
qualifying condition, DOE will explicitly consider them when making 
findings on that technical or system qualifying condition, along with 
other important factors. The DOE notes, however, that as part of its 
separate and parallel effort to address NRC regulatory issues under 10 
CFR Part 60, the DOE will ensure that site characterization studies are 
conducted to provide the information needed to specifically address the 
NRC potentially adverse and favorable conditions found in 10 CFR Part 
60, Subpart E.
    In summary, because Congress directed that only the Yucca Mountain 
site should be characterized to determine whether it is suitable for 
development as a geologic repository, none of the comparative portions 
of the Guidelines are currently applicable. The DOE will make specific 
findings regarding the applicable qualifying and disqualifying 
conditions identified in the postclosure and preclosure provisions in 
10 CFR Part 960 Subparts C and D respectively, in making its decision 
whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for development as a 
repository. If favorable or potentially adverse conditions are found to 
exist under an evaluated technical or system qualifying condition, DOE 
will explicitly consider them when making findings on that qualifying 
condition, along with other important factors.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 5, 1995.
Daniel A. Dreyfus,
Director.
[FR Doc. 95-22840 Filed 9-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P