Current through Register 1531, September 27, 2024
(1)
General. 310 CMR
43.61 provides guidance on the application of particular conditions as part of
the preparation of the Candidate Site Information Report.
(2)
Modeling Capability-
310 CMR
43.10.
(a) The depth to bedrock and the types of
soils at the surface and in the subsurface should be determined according to
accepted methods and principles. Hydrogeologic units should be delineated and
the direction and rate of groundwater movement should be estimated on the basis
of field data and quantitative models. Hydraulic conductivities should be
estimated on the basis of lithologic classifications and direct measurement.
Other characteristics, such as ground water discharge points, water table
fluctuation, moisture potential, moisture content, hydraulic conductivity,
porosity, geometry, boundary conditions and the physical and chemical
properties of the water should be evaluated on the basis of field surveys or
available data. The evaluation should also consider the results of
hydrogeologic modeling. In evaluating this criterion the following factors
should, at a minimum, be reviewed:
1. The
presence and extent of permeable and impermeable anomalies, variability and
complexity in the stratigraphic relationships and lithology of the site,
including, but not limited to, significantly fractured bedrock, faults, or
sand/gravel lenses/layers or buried river channels, which would complicate
monitoring.
2. The extent to which
the lateral flow of groundwater can be confidently predicted to flow to a
defined discharge point rather than to multiple surface water bodies or down
through bedrock;
3. The ability of
the site to be adequately described with a reasonable number of monitoring
points;
4. The presence or absence
of upgradient, potentially leachable radioactive material.
(b) The feasibility of monitoring for the
release of radionuclides via groundwater pathways should be analyzed. In
evaluating the feasibility of monitoring the Board should consider, at a
minimum, the amenability of the site to modeling by available and applicable
computer codes including, without limitation, the ability to reproduce natural
and steady state conditions in response to precipitation and pumping
stresses.
(3)
Existing Public Water Systems-
310 CMR
43.20(1)(b) and (2)(a)
. A conceptual Zone II of all existing public systems within
15,000 feet upgradient of the site, which do not have Department approved Zone
IIs, should be calculated in accordance with Department approved
procedures.
(4)
Potential Productive Aquifer-
310 CMR
43.20(1)(c)
.
Except as otherwise provided in regulations or written policy adopted by the
Department subsequent to the effective date of
310 CMR 43.00, the following
evaluation should be conducted to determine if a site is a potential productive
aquifer (PPA):
(a) All of the following
documents shall be reviewed:
1. Department
Aquifer Information Overlays
2.
USES Hydrologic Atlases-HA
3. USES
Surficial Geologic Maps-GQ
4. USES
Bedrock Geologic Maps-GQ
5. The
Massachusetts 2°
6. The Bedrock
Geologic Map of Massachusetts (Ean Zen)
7. Hydrogeologic or geophysical reports
addressing local subsurface conditions and or hydrogeology located within the
Department's files.
(b)
In the event of discrepancies between the data in 310 CMR 43.61(4)(a)1. through
6. and 43.61(4)(a)7. the Department may review the data and make a
determination on whether the site overlies a PPA.
(c) Where the site overlies a PPA the Board
may proceed to determine if the PPA is qualified for development. In conducting
the land use sanitary survey portion of the qualified for development
evaluation the site boundary shall be considered the potential wellhead in
demonstrating whether existing or historical land uses preclude the use of the
aquifer as a public water system. The survey should include the presence or
absence of the uses set forth at
310 CMR 22.21(2)(a)
and (b), sewer lines and underground or above
ground storage tanks. Where the majority of a high or medium yield aquifer is
located in a municipality with a population density equal to or greater than
4,400 person per square mile (based on the most recent U.S. Census) the Board
may presume the aquifer is not qualified for development. The Board may also
install a well and conduct a pump test to confirm that the aquifer is actually
capable of a high or medium yield .
(d) In the event that the source is qualified
for development, the Board may proceed to determine if the site is located
outside of the Zone II or Zone III, as applicable. Sites located within either
the Zone II or Zone III of public water supplies that have either received
Department approval as a new source or have submitted the appropriate
documentation to the Department for a new source approval in accordance with
Department guidelines shall be excluded. In the event that the Board desires to
install a well to determine the Zone II or Zone III of a future water supply
system it should do so in accordance with established Department
procedures.
(5)
Existing and Potential Private Drinking Water Sources-
310 CMR
43.20(1)(d) and
(e).
(a) An inventory of existing and potential
ground water users should be conducted within a minimum 11/2 miles of the
waste management area. The inventory should be based on either existing
documentation or field surveys or both and should provide information on all of
the following: the location, type and amounts of use; the hydrogeologic unit
used, typical well construction details and the identity of downgradient users
within 1000 feet of the site.
(b)
The Zone of Contribution (ZOC) should be calculated for the existing private
wells within a minimum of 500 feet from of the site which are hydraulically
connected to hydrogeologic units under the site except where substantial
evidence demonstrates that a smaller radius will adequately protect the users.
Zone of Contributions are not required to be calculated for private wells
beyond 1000 feet from the site except where substantial evidence exists to
indicate that a well beyond that point would be adversely affected by a release
from the site.
(c) The Zone of
Contribution should be calculated by determining the land area which is
necessary to receive precipitation in sufficient quantity to meet the
reasonsable gallon per day yield of the well.
(6)
Water Table Depth and
Relation to Bedrock-
310 CMR
43.21(1)(g),(h) and
43.21(2)(b).
(a) All significant hydrogeologic units
underlying the proposed waste management area should be identified to a depth
of 90 feet. The depth to the water table should be estimated by the
installation of at least two monitoring wells at appropriate locations (on or
off site) which shall be monitored through as many months of seasonal water
table fluctuation as feasible consistent with the time limit established by
M.G.L. c. 111H,§ 20(c) in order for the Board to issue the draft candidate
site identification report. Data available from existing regional water table
information may also be used.
(b)
The depth to bedrock should be determined according to accepted standards,
protocols, and principles. Hydraulic conductivities shall be estimated on the
basis of lithologic classifications, transmissivity correlations and direct
measurement.
(7)
Horizontal Gradient-
310 CMR
43.20(1)(c)
.
The number of wells to be installed to determine horizonal hydraulic gradient
should be based on an evaluation of the complexity of the site, provided that a
minimum of one upgradient and two downgradient wells should be used to
determine the gradient.
(8)
Groundwater Travel Time-
310 CMR
43.20(3)(d)
.
In assessing a site's capability to retard migration of contaminants, the
travel time of groundwater should be compared to groundwater travel of less
than 100 years along a 100-ft flow path from a point of potential release to
the edge of the waste management area. The potential adverse effect relative to
the projected travel time should be estimated consistent with the likely source
term of the waste.
(9)
Surface Water Impact Evaluations. In assessing the
surface water regime of a site the following parameters should, at a minimum,
be preliminarily characterized on a site specific basis and within five miles
of the site: the hydrologic system; past, present and projected surface water
usage; flood studies; drought studies; precipitation and infiltration; runoff;
discharge; channel characteristics; flow velocity; erosion; and sedimentation.
In addition, if a sufficient number of site specific samples are obtained or
adequate regional data are available, then chemical and physical properties of
the waters should be evaluated.
(10)
100 and 500 Year Flood
Plains-
310 CMR
43.21(1)(c) and
(2)(a). When NFIP profile data
is unavailable, the extent of this zone should be calculated by methods
described in
310 CMR
10.57(2)(a)3. adjusting, as
necessary, for the appropriately designed storm event.
(11)
Runoff Retention-
310 CMR
43.21(1)(f)
.
In assessing the sites the following factors should, at a minimum, b e
investigated:
(a) The presence and extent of
poor runoff characteristics such as depressions, swampy areas, ponded water, or
evidence of frequent flooding; and
(b) The extent to which engineered structures
are required to protect from ponding or flooding.
(12)
Dams-
310 CMR
43.21(1)(h)
-
Sites downstream from dams which were not excluded in the previous report shall
be evaluated for potential risk of inundation based upon the probable maximum
flood as defined in
302 CMR
10.06. The area subject to inundation should
be based on published analysis from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Dam
Safety Division of the Department of Environmental Management. When such
analyses are not available, they should be carried out by generally accepted
engineering methods.
(13)
Surface Water Discharges-
310 CMR
43.21(1)(a)
.
Sites with surface water features sustained by groundwater discharges such as
perennial and ephemeral streams, springs, seeps, swamps, marshes, and bogs
within the potential waste management area should be delineated and screened
out.
(14)
Distances
from Significant Surface Waters-
310 CMR
43.21(3)(b).
Class A, Class SA and Outstanding Resource Waters as defined and delineated in
314 CMR
4.04 and vernal pool habitats certified by
the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife on or near sites should be delineated.
The decision on the location and extent of a tributary should be made by
reference to the most recent edition of maps generated by the Massachusetts
geographic information service based on the United States Geological Survey
1:25,000 scale quadrangle maps unless more accurate maps are adopted by the
Department pursuant to notice and public hearing as provided in M.G.L. c.
30A.
(15)
Tectonic
Processes-
310 CMR 43.22(1)(a) and
(2)
. In assessing the geologic
regime of a site the following parameters should be investigated on a site
specific and regional basis: geomorphology, stratigraphy, lithology, structure,
tectonics, seismology and geologic hazards. Geologic hazards include, without
limitation, landslides, collapse, liquefaction, significant alteration by
surficial processes in last 500-1000 years and other unstable elements in
near-surface stratigraphic units and soils.
(16)
Slope-
310 CMR
43.23(1)(b)
.
The slope should be estimated on the basis of USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles using
a scale of 1:24,000 with a contour interval of either ten feet or 20
feet.
(17)
Surface
Geologic Process-
310 CMR
43.23(1)(a)
.
Areas mapped on the USGS maps of Landslides and Related features should be
delineated and screened out. The estimation of past rates of occurrence of
geologic processes and events may be carried out primarily on the basis of
general regional understanding of the evolution of the geologic environment
over the past thousand years, in combination with limited site or
locality-specific field data for confirmation of important uncertainties.
Issues that may require more extensive field investigation may be deferred to
the site characterization phase.
(18)
Seismic Impact Zone-
310 CMR
43.23(3)(c)
.
(a) Seismic impact zones should be delineated
based on a review of the most recent and relevant seismic acceleration maps
maintained by Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey and other
reasonably available public or private seismic impact investigations that are
considered reliable and relevant conducted on locations in Massachusetts or
other areas in the Northeast region including, without limitation, sites
analysis conducted in relation to the siting of nuclear power plants or
radioactive waste storage or disposal facilities. Geotechnical stability may be
determined by the use of computer models to approximate the dynamic vertical
and horizontal forces caused by bedrock acceleration taking into account local
soil conditions. In considering estimating seismic impacts beyond 250 years the
Board should consider the source term of the disposed waste and the time period
during which its potential release would likely result in dose exposures in
excess of DPH performance objectives.
(b) Where sufficient information is available
to project the suitable technology which may be located at a site , a
preliminary performance assessment of the facility's ability to meet the
performance standard of this criterion should be conducted. The performance
standard is met if, based on reasonable but conservative assumptions of the
estimated useful life of the engineered structures, systems and components
important to the safety of suitable facilities and foundation engineering, said
engineered barriers are projected to be capable of complying with the standards
for earthquake resistance set forth in the State Building Code at 780 CMR
1113.0,et seq. In projecting the potential seismic impact the
preliminary assessment may consider the applicable NEHRP Recommended Provisions
for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings.
(19)
Contaminant
Migration-
310 CMR
43.23(2)(a)
.
In evaluating the ability of a site to retard contaminant migration the extent
of unconsolidated stratigraphic units that have a high clay or silt content
should be determined through published sources, regional boring logs and site
specific field investigations.
(20)
Liquefaction Resistance and Soil Stability-
310 CMR 43.23(3)(b)(1)
and (2)
. In evaluating the
ability of the site to resist liquefaction and provide suitable soil for
engineered barriers, site soil samples may be correlated to standards provided
in the State Building Code at 780 CMR 1113.0,et seq. Available
testing may be conducted in accordance with the guidance documents on
geotechnical investigation referred to at
310
CMR 43.42(1) if appropriate
site specific data is available.
(21)
Erosion-
310 CMR
43.23(3)(j)
.
General assessment of the erosional process should be accomplished by reviewing
published soil maps, evaluating topography, assessing regional geomorphology,
evaluating meteorological conditions and assessing local slope
conditions.
(22)
Dissolution-
310 CMR
43.23(3)
. In
evaluating sites, the existence and extent of significant past or present
subsurface dissolution areas including, but not limited to, sinkholes, caverns,
or underground streams should be investigated.
(23)
Demographic Effect on Site
Performance-
310 CMR
43.24(a)
. In
evaluating the potential for current or changing residential, commercial or
industrial patterns in the area that affect a site's performance the following
parameters should, at a minimum, be evaluated and considered: current land use,
land use and subdivision plans, zoning restrictions, utility land uses,
proximity to industrially developed areas and recreational areas that are
reasonably likely to experience future growth, agricultural areas and the
documented existence of mineral resources at the site. The survey should be
conducted within a minimum five mile radius of the site. Estimates on future
impacts should be based on time periods coinciding with the expected first year
of operating life of the facility through the operation lifetime of the
facility.
(24)
Proximity to Population Centers-
310 CMR
43.24(2)(b).
Population size and boundary locations of population places should be defined
in accordance with the U.S. Census Bureau published definitions .
(25)
Proximity to Residences and
Sensitive Population Locations- 310 C MR 43.24(b) and (c). The
survey should be conducted within a minimum of a one mile radius of the
site.
(26)
Site Size
and Facility Compatibility-
310 CMR
43.25
.
(a) The candidate sites should be drawn and
labelled so as to delineate between the waste management area and that portion
of the site to be designated as a buffer zone. There is considerable
flexibility in how such a site may be subdivided into distinct zones and
utilized, and this process can affect the suitability of the site. For the
purpose of characterization the site should include the estimated waste
management area and the buffer zone. The designations chosen during this phase
of site identification should not be regarded as final or irrevocable, but
should be intended to make best use of a site in terms of satisfying the siting
requirements.
(b) In assessing the
compatibility of the site with suitable facilities the following parameters
should, at a minimum, be based upon:
1. SCS
soil classification maps,
2.
surficial and bedrock geology maps and topographic maps
3. presence of a well defined (granular)
surface layer,
4. the degree of the
slope,
5. allowable bearing
pressure of foundation soils and clearly defined surface drainage; and, if
available, from on-site wells,
6.
soil thickness, and water table depth.
(27)
Meteorology-
310 CMR
43.27. In evaluating the
frequency, probability and potential consequences for severe weather conditions
affecting the site's performance, existing historical records should be
reviewed and an on-site environmental monitoring program may be established to
obtain preliminary data. The parameters to be analyzed should, at a minimum,
include temperature, severe weather incidents such as heavy snowfalls,
hurricanes and tornadoes and the annual amount of precipitation. Additional
parameters which may be required to establish the site's water budget, facility
design loads and airborne release of contaminants may be deferred to the
Detailed Site Characterization stage pursuant to
310
CMR 43.71.
(28)
Transportation-
310 CMR 43.28
.
(a) Existing and projected
access routes from sites to the point of exit off existing interstate or
limited access highways or rail lines should be identified, described and
evaluated with respect to:
1. Total travel
distance from the site to the point of exit from the highwayand/or commercial
railway station/siding.
2. The
current volume to capacity [V/C] ratio of the access routes(s) and whether the
additional projected traffic from the construction or operation of the facility
would cause the V/C ratio to exceed 1.0.
3. The current structural status of the
access route(s) relative to applicable state and federal transportation laws
and regulation governing the transportation of low-level radioactive
waste;
4. The need for and the
level of effort required to bring the access route into compliance with said
law or regulations;
5. The average
number of dwellings and public places per mile determined by dividing the total
number of occupied permanent residential dwellings and public places on the
primary access route by the total distance in route miles from the projected
facility entrance to the access point of the interstate or limited access
highway or commercial railway station/siding.
6. The yearly average number of serious
traffic accidents on the access route(s) in comparison to the statewide yearly
average as determined by records maintained by state and local public
safety/highway departments.
7. The
average number of intersections per mile maintained by local or state highway
departments and railroad crossings per mile determined by dividing the total
number of said intersection on the primary access route from the projected
facility entrance to the access point of the interstate or limited access
highway or commercial railway station/siding.
(b) In addition to the field measurement
described at 310 CMR 43.61(28)(a), the Board may assess the level of
transportation risk on the basis of the relevant data contained in the NRC
guidance document,The Final Environmental Statement on the
Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes,
NUREG-0170 or subsequent updated transportation risk analysis .
(29)
Inconsistent Land
Uses-
310 CMR 43.29(1)(a) and
(b).
(a) In assessing the potential adverse effect
of inconsistent land uses, the following land uses in existence or having
received a permit to construct in effect within six miles of the site from the
governing state or federal agency should, at a minimum, be evaluated:
1.
Airports. Sites
and/or waste management areas within one mile from an airport runway should be
delineated and may be screened out considering the size of the aircraft
accommodated, frequency of use and flight paths.
2.
Operations storing large
quantities of flammable liquids. Sites within one half mile from
any single aboveground storage tank regularly used for the storage of flammable
liquids and having a capacity of at least 500,000 gallons, or from any
aboveground storage tank or vessel for liquefied natural gas (LNG) or liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) and having a capacity of at least 25,000 gallons should be
delineated and may be screened out;
(b) Measurements of gamma rays emitted by
radionuclides in the surface and subsurface soil should be conducted in situ or
in the laboratory by generally accepted techniques in assessing the potential
of the site to interfere with monitoring.
(30)
Protected Lands and
Environments-
310 CMR
43.31
.
(a) Protected resources, lands and species
located within a one mile radius of the site should be described and evaluated
to determine the nature, extent and likelihood of potential adverse effects
from facility construction, operation and maintenance.
(b) All applicable state and federal statutes
and regulations that govern the protected resources, lands and species should
be reviewed to determine the likelihood that the construction, operation and
maintenance of a facility can proceed in light of restrictions or permit
requirements contained in said laws or regulations, including, but not limited
to, those statutes and regulations listed in Appendix A of
310 CMR 43.00. In evaluating
potential adverse effect the following factors may be relevant:
1. The type and size of the facility as it
relates to disruption and/or permanent or temporary alteration of the original
conditions of the area that contains the protected resource, lands or species
from construction and operation;
2.
The abundance and characteristics of potentially affected species, lands and
resources;
3. The importance of the
protected species, land or resources relative to its commercial or recreational
value, including but not limited to, its status as threatened or
endangered;
4. The importance of
the protected resource, land or species to other protected resources, lands or
species;
5. The importance of the
protected resource, land or species to the structure and functioning of the
ecological system;
6. The
importance of the protected resource, land or species as a biological indicator
of radiological and non-radiological constituents in the environment;
7. Seasonal and migratory patterns of species
within the area; and
8. Existing
natural and human induced effects such as farming, logging or recreational
uses.
