ML19296B619
| ML19296B619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/26/1979 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1675, NUDOCS 8002210141 | |
| Download: ML19296B619 (23) | |
Text
.
,,y ISSUE DATE: 10/26/79 MINUTES OF THE ACRS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WASHINGTON, DC h@- /6 ((
SEPTEMBER.'8 & 19,1979 The Waste Management Subcommittee of the ACRS met on September 18 & 19, 1979 at 1717 H St., NW, Wasington, DC. The main purpose of the meeting was to acquire information on the objectives, goals and priorities of the NRC Waste Management and Fuel Cycle Programs for the annual ACRS report to the Congress.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Ftderal Register on August 31, 1979. Copies of the notice, meeting attendees list, and meeting schedule are included as Attachments 1, 2, and 3, re'spectively. No written state-ments nor request for time to make oral comments were received from members of the public.
EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. S. Lawroski, Acting Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:37 a.m.,
introduced the ACRS members and consultants (Attachment 2) who were present, and indicated that Mr. R. Muller was +.he Designated Federal Employee for the meeting; Mr. P. Tam of the ACRS Staff was also present. He then urged all speakers to pay particular attention to the goals, objectives, and priorities of the research program on waste management, quoting from the NRC Appropria-tions Bill (Committee on Interior and Insciar Affairs, May 15,1979) the specific charge to the ACRS by the Congress regarding the writing of the annual research report:
" Prepare.ts report in accordance with a schedule that prmits it to be used by the Commission in preparation of the fisd year 1981 authorization request."
"Frepare a clear statement of research priorities including specification of projects the ACRS believes shculd be added to or dropped frcn the Commission's res: arch program."
" Include discussion of the specific manner in which the Com-mission's reactor safety research projects are expected to affect the Commission's reactor regulations."
The report, normally due at the end of a calendar year, may be due in February of 1980.
d 2 d [ [, U amo lH ra w
tolahn
a.
a,.,
.....o.,_
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 Several consultants commented on the interpretation of the June 11, 1979 letter from Martin of NRC to Meyers of DOE (copies of this letter were sent to the consultants on September 5,1979 by P. Tam). Mr. Grandon said that the letter did not call for a disparagement of the geological barrier, but called for an enhancement of the consideration for waste packaging and containment.
(A subsequent p_one call from Mr. R. Browning of NMSS indicated that Mr. Grendon's interpretation is what Mr. Martin intended in his letter.)
DISCUSSION WITH NRC STAFF Mr. W. Dircks, Director, NMSS The Division of Waste Management was only recently established. Prior to December,1978, waste management was under an assistant director. The emphasis now is to develop a strong in-house technical capability. Three priorities are set by NMSS to carry out the Waste Management Program:
1.
Development of regulations and accompanying guidance material.
2.
Sorting of research and technical as:istance efforts to identify gaps where more work is needed.
3.
Development of capability to process license applications.
A Waste Management Review Group, under the chairmanship of R. Browning, was formed to review all proposed NRC procurement and contractual actions in waste management. This is one way to enable the NRC to function as one agency.
When asked about the present staffing level of this new division, Mr. Browning said that there are currently about 70 professionals, out of which, there are six with geology background.
The NRC is heavily involved in meetings with other agencies and organizations in the waste management area, and did participate as observer in the Inter-agency Review Group (IRG). Thus, the NRC has a fairly good idea on what the EPA requirement would be. A draft EPA standard is expected to be out for agency review by the end of 1979. This standard will contain specific release limits with the probability of release attached.
In addition to the EPA standared, the President's eventual choice for a particular waste management option also will affect the procram and its rate of oroaress.
Waste Management 9/18519/79 Mr. R. Browning, Decuty Director, Division of Waste Management, NMSS There are three decision units in Mr. Browning's division: high-level waste, low-level waste, and mill tailings. These are in increasing order of state of development.
In mill tailings, a draf t regulation has been issued for public comment and the final version should be issued next April. For low-level waste, advance notice of proposed rulemaking will be issued later in this year; a " straw man" regulation will be developed (i.e., foundation of the criteria and requirement is based on best but still shaky informa-tion). For high-level waste, a draft rule will be published later in the year. The current absence of regulation has contributed to some of the problems at the low-level waste burial sites.
Mr. F. Arsenault, Director, Safeguards, Fuel Cycle and Environmental Research, RES Waste management research (RES) and regulation (NMSS) have recently estab-lished a long-term cooperative arrangement. The lack of rapport between these offices was mentioned in two previous ACRS reports. The Staff is working to establish the goals and priorities for its technical assistance and research programs. Mr. Arsenault hopes that by th. first quarter of FY 80, he would have the research prograni's general structure in conformance with the NMSS approach described earlier. The RES staff has begun to prioritize research projects. Projects of low priority will be terminated in an orderly fashion, while those of high priority'will see increased efforts.
Mr. Arsenault expects that by the end of the first quarter in FY 80, he would be in a position to establish a firm plan for the future.
Ms. P. Comella, Chief, Site Designation Standards Branch, OSD Ms. Comella's branch is responsible for the development of 10 CFR Part 60,
" Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories."
(Copies wer, available in the meeting.) The licensing procedures that Part 60 sets up will prescribe the data collection approach that will assure a progressive increase in knowledge at each repository site. The procedures
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 will also assure a selected site is among the best reasonably available from a slate of 3-5 condidates; this is a NEPA-sensitive approach.
The procedural requirements and the technical requirements (and accompanying er.vironmental impact statement) of Part 60 will be published in draft form in 1979 and 1980, respectively.
The requirement of site exploration and testing in-situ at the depth of the planned repository prior to application for construction authorization, is a revolutionary idea. All candidate sites have to be explored in the same way and the selection of one site from among others will be based on the environmental statement. The Staff may prepare procedures on how the final selection is made.
Part 60 sets up a four-step regulatory approach:
(1) Informal review by NRC Staff of the site characterization plan, (2) Site characterization and authorization of construction (multiple in-situ testing done as part of this stage), (3) Further review of application prior to receipt of waste and (4) Af ter 40-50 years, review application to close repository and possible license termination.
Dr. Philbrick asked when the ACRS would get in on the licensing process.
Mr. Bell said all along and in full capacity.
Dr. M. Bell, Chief, H-L Wastes Technical Development Branch, NMSS The top priority of the NMSS is to develop ragulations and criteria. " Straw man" criteria have been developed so as to focus in-house and outside atten-tion to identify research need. The Staff has adopted a conservative, step-wise appru.ch to the licensing of H-L waste repositories that were discussed by Ms. Comella. Current performance objective is a multi-barrier approach in which the waste form and the packaging are considered the primary barriers to release, while the repository facility and the surrounding geology, the redundant backup.
In addition, the H-L waste 0
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 facility is to be designed so thai; the waste can be retrieved throughout the operation of the repository, plus 50 years thereafter. The packaging will contain the waste for 1000 years, and may then leak at the rate of
-7
-5 10 to 10 of the nuclide inventory per year. Calculation shows that the hazard index of the waste then would be below that of natural U ore.
(Hazard index is defined as the ratio of the quantity of water required to dilute the waste from one metric ton of spent fuel to the maximum pemissible con-centration (10 CFR 20 numbers), to the quantity of water required to dilute an amount of ore to produce one metric ton of fuel.)
The criteria being developed would not be subject to real-time testing.
Therefore, the Staff needs to understand the failure mechanisms of waste forms, and to d.evelop suitable accelerated test methods. These two areas should see the major research and technical assistance efforts.
The draft site criteria require that the geologic, tectonic, hydrologic, and climatic, as well as human activities be investigated to at least a radius of 100 km from the site. Current Staff effort is focused on identifying appropriate exclusion distances, although 2 km is believed to be appropriate.
To reflect the increased emphasis on waste form, the Staff has contracted BNL to help develop waste form criteria. This technical assistance effort involves reviewing DOE's work on waste forms and test procedures in order to determine whether the Staff performance criteria can be met. The Staff e
does not intend to duplicate DOE's research work, but because of NRC's need to develop an independent understanding for the physical processes involved and the ranges of data, some NRC research work may :e similar to DOE efforts.
Furthemore, the Staff wishes to identify weak areas of DOE analytical methods, not likely to be investigated by 00E. The Waste Management Review Group, in addition to making sure that there is no significant duplication of research efforts in-house, also would review to what degree a proposed procurement action relates to any DOE or epa work.
w.........
x.
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 Mr. M. Cullingford, Probabilistic Analysis Staff, RES The Probabilistic Analysis Staff has been given the mission to identify important contributors to risk and associated uncertainties, and to assist in prioritizing research needs; the primary focus of attention is on waste isolation. The Inter-Office Waste Management Modeling Group (IWMG) is a forum consisting of personnel from NMSS, RES, NRR, and SD, which addresses how and if models can be used in licensing. Risk assessment does not currently focus upon engineerf.d structures.
One project is methodology development for risk assessment of radioactive waste isolation. The objective is to develop a method to examine the long-term risk from radioactive waste isolation in deep geolog'c fonna-tions. Among the products of this project will be a report on nuclide transport model, possible standard calculational and licensing tools and repository assessment procedures.
In addition, it will provide insights as to understanding of the mechanisms and geologic properties important to waste isolation, and guidance in priority of research projects. The Staff intends to, in the future, apply the risk methodology developed for waste isolation in bedded salt to domed salt, basalt, shale, clay, and other media.
Dr. Lawroski asked how much help in identifying research has PAS thus far been, Mr. Arsenault said that to date he has not received a great deal of guidance but does expect some during early 1980. Mr. Cullingford said that models developed by PAS are being exercised by the IWMG to develop in-house expertise and understanding of the use of models.
In addition, a preliminary report identifying research needs has been supplied to RES and NMSS.
Mr. J. Davis, Assistant Director for Fuel Cycle and Environmental Research, RES Mr. Davis described the research program on HL waste management. This pro-gram has been restructured in the last year to match the licensing plan and schedule. RES is currently consolidating individual projects into logical groups; some of the on-going work which does not fit into the program (i.e., of low priority) will be winnowed out. The objectives and needs of NMSS will determine' the focus of Research. The current budget has been increased, allowing for some new work.
Waste Management 9/18119/79 Mr. Davis then gave an overview of the HL waste research program. It is divided into five sub-programs, described as:
(1) Waste Package perfomance -- The objective is to provide technical infomation to confim and improve perfomance standards and criteria for wastes, matrices, canisters, multibarriers, and overpacks; to develop a basis for evaluating waste package designs which will contain the radioactive wastes for 1000 years or more. Projects are designed to assess the chemical, radiochemical and physical characteristics of waste foms, to identify pertinent environmental and kinetic parameters for durability of waste matrices, and to test the durability of canisters.
(2) Site Characteristics -- The objective is to provide technical bases for site suitability standards and cri-teria (viz., geology, hydrology, and natural resources),
and to support evaluation of sites in regions where the natural geologic media and processes will provide an effective secondary barrier to radionuclides when the waste packages ultimately faii. Projects are designed to identify and assess geochemical interactions between wastes and geologic media, to evaluate hydrological parameters, to predict long-tem migration of radio-nuclides in geologic media, to develop geologic criteria for site selection and to evaluate regulatory needs and methods for long-tem climatic impacts on repositories.
(3) Repository Performance Evaluation -- The objective is to improve criteria which will assure adequate margins of safety for the engineering design, construction, operation, and closure of repositories. Projects are designed to define rock characteristics, to improve technologies needed to test and confirm the safety and effectiveness of the repository, and to develop require-ments for occupational safety.
(4) Environmental Impact Assessment -- The objective is to provide guidance for site selection to comply with NEPA and NRC environmental impact assessment. Projects aim to develop requirements and test methods for conducting environmental studies and predicting environmental impacts.
(5) Monitoring Technology and Implication -- The objective is to determine what characteristics pertaining to the siting construction, operation or closure of a repository should be monitored.
Waste Management 9/18519/79 (6) Risk Assessment -- (As discussed earlier by Mr. Cullingford.)
The following points were brought out in the discussion:
"(NRC) has a relatively small (HL waste) program at the present time, but the main objective is really to compare alternative types of waste-developing technology.", said Mr. Davis.
Dr. K. t'.im of RES said that the NRC research program not only serves the confinnatory purpose, but also fills up certain holes left by DOE.
When asked about priorities of research projects, Mr. Arsenault said that prioritization is a multi-cimensional endeavor. No discussion of priorities took place in the meeting.
Dr. Lawroski stated that there seems to be too many pojects versus total research dollars.
NRC is pushing hard to work with DOE.
The research projects are oriented towards developing the information that is needed to establish criteria, standards, branch positions and guides, and to identify areas DOE should put more effort.
Dr.Fosterpointedoutthatthereisnoprojecythatstudies the phenomenon that would enable water to dissolve waste in a deep geologic site and carry it against gravity to the biosphere. He said that the Staff should include in its criteria specifications to the effect that this would not happen.
M r. R. D. Smith, Chief, LL Waste Licensina Branch, NMSS Mr. E. Held, Waste Management Research Branch, RES Unlike the HL Waste Program, the LL Waste Program has an ongoing licensing function. The Staff tries, despite the current trend of LLW burial site closure, to maintain ability to license furure proposed sites. The second function, of equal priority to licensing, is development of regulations, guides, and procedures.
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 Over the past two years, an informal inter-agency group (of NRC, epa, DOE, and NIH) was formed to allow exchange of information. Currently, there is need to turn these meetings into fomal conferences.
The approach to regulation is to prepare an overall set of performance requirements that must be met for the disposal of LL waste on land. A set of such draf t regulations is being written. Appended to these regulations would be a series of specific requirements that are pertinent to the several alternative disposal methods, namely, shallow-and intermediate-land burial, and the use of engineered structures and lined cavities. Meanwhile, Standards is developing regulatory guides and procedures to complement the regulations.
The Staff has identified a number of alternatives to the current practice of shallow-land' burial. These are improved shallow-land burial, intermediate-land burial, use of mined cavities, and ocean dumping. The Staff does not currently endorse any of these.
The question on the boundary between LL waste and " decontaminated" waste was raised. 'Mr. Smith said that high-volume low-level waste is a problem that does not have an answer yet. Regarding transuranic wastes, only Hanford still allows burial of materials containing more than 10 nanocuries per gram of TRU.
Many LL waste problems center around waste forms. The Staff is devoting much effort to evaluate past experience and to develop criteria for waste forms in the future. A topical report on this problem, NUREG/CR-0619 (BNL-50957) is due to be released shortly.
At Maxey Flats, one of the several LL waste burial sites, a lot of field studies are being conducted. Some of the knowledge gained from these~ studies pertains to the manner in which trenches (for burial) are constructed, filled with waste, and capped. However, there is currently no specific criteria for trench design and construction. The ideal burial site is one that can be operated with minimal maintenance and monitoring. Dr. Steindler cor:inented that it was not clear how knowledge gained can be used to identify standards and criteria.
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 Mi. Smith pointed out that a burial site is not " decommissioned", but is rather, " closed"; a burial site begins to work when it is " closed".
(A listing of the research and technical assistance projects is given in the handout but there was no discussion on individual projects.)
The Staff found that waste form is about the only thing over which it can exercise control. Several methods are available to convert liquid wastes to solid form, e.g., concrete, bitumen, urea formaldehyde, and Dow polymer.
None of these methods is perfect.
In fact, the use of urea formaldehyde, the favorite, has encountered difficulty in complete solidification.
In July,1978, NRC has asked DOE to prepare a contingency plan in the event that all present LL waste sites are closed down by the governors of the agreement states. This plan is being reviewed inside DOE.
Mr. H. Miller, Uranium Recovery Licensir.g Branch, NMSS There are 14 licensed mills in noragreement states, and 11 in agreement states.
Recently, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act was passed. This Act defines uranium mill tailings as a byproduct material (giving the NRC direct control over such), and it gives the government ownership of the tailings piles. Before passage of this Act, the NRC had but indirect control over these piles.
In August of this year, the Staff proposed re,gulations dealing with mill tailings disposal to conform to the requirements of the Act. The basis for the regulations are the conclusions of the recent generic environmental statement on uranium milling.
(These proposed regulations are 10 CFR 90 and 150. Copies were available in the meeting). Meanwhile, the Staff has been using a technical position published two years ago. This position outlines performance objectives for tailings managment.
It will be used until the proposed regulations and guides are finalized.
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 The regulations have these important requirements:
Sufficient cover be placed over an abandoned site such that 2
radon emission be reduced to about background level (2 picocuries/M ).
Isolation of the tailings from ground water by any number of means.
Prevention of wind blowing of tailings.
U r.c e charge of $250,000 to the Federal Treasury for long-terr arveillance by the government.
Past research efforts have been primarily on environmental monitoring. The Staff has now developed conceptual tailings disposal programs (Mr. Miller's handout describes some of these), and has identified a number of research areas relating to tailings stabilization and isolation..These include: radon attenuation properties of soil covers, impact of tailings on ground water, stability of cover materials, reduction of erosion, interim stabilization during operation, and better methods to leach out uranium and other radionuclides.
Ms. L. Santos, System Performance Branch, RES There are four research projects on mill tailings:
(1) Uranium Mill Tailings -- This contract with Argonne calls for measurement of effluent (radon) at tailings piles, evaluation of food ingestion pathways, demonstration of environmental monitoring methods, and dctermination of radon exhalation by various cover materials. About 6-31% of radon in the pile can be released. Historically, there has been very little concern over emanation of radon from tailing piles -- that is how the U.S. ended up with 22 sites that are such problems.
(Z) Characterization, Resuspension, and Transport of Radioactive Particles from Tailings Piles -- This contract with Battelle is for investigation of the nature, quantity, and environmental sig-nificance of particles originating from tailings piles. It was found that particles of about 7 um in size contain the highest radioictivity, and all particles aggregate to become larger particles as they dry up. NUREG/CR-0629 contains results of this project.
(Ms. Santos has sent a copy of this to the ACRS Office, as she ommitted in the meeting).
(3) Radon Exhalation from Uranium Mill Tailings Pile -- Radon is rapidly dispersed as it is exhaled from a pile (in a mine, it accumulates), making measurement of the exhalation rate extremely difficult. This ongoing project at Battelle has the objective of development of absolute methods for such measurement.
m
+
Waste Management 9/18&lg/79 (4) Asses" ; of Leachate Movement From Ponded Uranium Mill Tailings --
This ~rt is being done as a result of EPA requirements, and it is too early for results.
(The meeting was recessed at 8:30 p.m. to be reconvened on the next day.)
Dr. Lawroski called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m., September 19, 1979.
Mr. Arsenault, Director of SAFER, RES The safety research at NRC is dominated by reactor safety; hence the fuel cycle safety research is at a nominal level.
In the Division of SAFER (Safeguards, Fuel Cycle and Environmental Research), there are four de-cision units:
safeguards, waste management, reactor environmental, and fuel cycle.
Mr. Arsenault, upon Dr. Lawroski's request, explained the differences be-tween technical assistance (TA) and research. TA is sponsored and managed by any office other than by RES, whereas, research is only sponsored by RES.
TA consists generally of the use of outside contractor expertise to aid in the gathering of existing data, and the application of such data and existing methodologies to specific problems in the licensing process; research is the development of new data, new evaluative or new analytical methods. Further-more, TA is usually of short duration (months) compared to research (years).
Clearly, a number of projects would fall into an undefined area between research and TA.
Mr. T. Carter, Deputy Director, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS The Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety has three major responsibilities.
These are:
fuel cycle licensing, radioisotope licensing, and transportation certification. Mr. Carter then referred to the two tables in his handouts which summarize the 10 CFR parts that his division is involved in.
(No further dis-cussion on this). Altogether, there are about 8000 licensees performing acti-vities ranging from medical practice to military munitions testing.
Fuel Cycle Licensing -- Includes commercial fuel fabrication, enrichment, reprocessing, interim fuel storage (away from reactor) and on-site waste storage. There are four categories of research and TA each of these consists of a number of projects. These categories are:
environmental (40 CFR 190, Clean Air Act and ALARA), occupational ALARA, decommissioning of old sites, and alternative fuel cycle.
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 Radioisotooe Licensino -- Manufacture and use of radioisotopes in medicine, research, industry, and consumer products. There are also four categories of TA and research projects:
environmental (siting, ALARA and Clean Air Act), environmental impacts (of consumer products, e.g., smoke detectors), occupational safety and facility decommissioning.
Transoortation Certification -- Certification of packaging for radioactive materials. There is only one category of TA and research, and it is to increase protection of public health and safety.
Fuel Cycle does not regulate the mining of uranium; regulation starts at the uranium mill.
Mr. O. Bassett, Deputy Director, SAFER, RES (Before Mr. Bassett made his presentation, Mr. Arsenault said that he thought the focus of this meeting was on the regulatory programs froni which the research programs were derived. Dr. Lawroski said that the purpose of the meeting was stated in two letters, dated July 19 and August 14, from P. Tam of ACRS to the NMSS and RES division directors.)
Mr. Bassett's presentation was on fuel cycle research.
Mr. Arsenault said prioritization is a multi-dimensional er.d 2vor. Other than the reguia cry aspect, there is also the RES management aspect to prioritization. Projects cannot be immediately turned on or off as fast as the customer's priorities change.
Dr. Steindler stated that the HEPA Filter Test project may duplicate DOE work; Mr. P. Loysen of NMSS said there is no duplication.
Dr. Lawroski asked the Staff (Mr. Bassett) to provide a copy of the report on self-contained face masks to A. Grendon.
Several of the research projects listed in Mr. Bassett's handout will be terminated due to the budget cut of almost
$1 M.
Mr. Arsenault said that 'the NRC Staff has not been successful in persuading DOE to initiate research work, especially if DOE has not already identified the work as being of interest.
9
..a-Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. Lawroski asked each of the seven consultants present to submit additional comments (on the waste management and fuel cycle programs) in writing to P. Tam.
October 25, 1979 was chosen to be the date for another meeting.
(The meeting date was later changed to October 31,1979.) Mr. Arsenault said he should be able to present research priorities in the next meeting.
Mr. Arsenault stated that TA is very different from research: the former is very tightly controlled, in terms of products, by the licensing offices, whereas the latter would allow the contractor much more independence.
About 90% of the projects in research are requested by sponsors while a very small fraction is generated by proposals.
DOE PRESENTATION Mr. G. Beckett, WIPP Project Leader WIPP is a project that is furthest along towards actually isolating any waste.
(The Subcommittee already had a detailed technical briefing on WIPP in its April meeting.) Many of the current issues on WIPP are non-technical.
The prime mission cf WIPP is to provide for isolation of defense transuranic (TRU) waste, and for capability for HL waste experimentation in bedded salt.
Ir. early 1978, DOE recommended that it be expanded to. include a demonstration of perma-nent disposal of up to 1000 spent fuel elements. The U.S. Congress, through budgetary actions, cancelled this recommendation. WIPP will therefore con-tinue as an unlicensed defense facility. DOE plans to issue a PSAR on WIPP in late September, even though it is not to be licensed.
For 1980, Congress has only authorized funding for the first six months, so it can take another look at the project at half-year.
(Mr. Beckett's handout provides much more detail about WIPP than what he presented in the meeting.)
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 Mr. K. Klein Division of Waste Isolation, DOE Mr. Klein briefed the Subcommittee on developments since the April meeting.
More details on these developments can be found in the handout but the following important ones were discussed:
(1) Public Hearings on the Draft EIS -- This is the Generic Environ-mental Impact Statement on the management of commercially generated HL wastes.
It covers ten different alternative strategies for waste disposal and compares the environmental impacts of the different strategies. Hearings have been and are being held in a number of cities.
(2) Continued an'd Expanded Field Explorations for Sites -- Ten holes have been bored in several states outside of DOE res-ervations. Before any of these were bored, approval has had to be obtained from each of these states. Such approval may be viewed as preliminary approval to build repositories in these states.
(3) Earth Sciences Technical Plan -- The second draft is near compl etion. This plan maps out additional work DOE has to do to get to the point where DOE can confidently recommend specific sites as being technically qualified. Dr. Philbrick pointed out that a Stone & Webster proposal (esing nickel-iron alloy canisters packed in rock-forming nonerals inside a geologic medium high in iron) should not be ntglected by D0E.
In fact, Hanford has this kind of geology.
Dr. Parker asked if DOE would provide responst, in addition to the Myers letter (a copy of this letter, M ers of DOE to 3
Martin of NRC, was provided to the Subcommittes in the meeting),
to the NRC position on HL exprtssed in the Martin letter.
Mr. Klein said that DOE will pravide further formal comments, as well as comments on 10 CFR Part 60.
(4) Expanded Alternative Waste Form Research -- An independent generic assessment group has published a report in August comparing all the important waste forms.
("The Evaluation and Review of Alter-native Waste Forms for Immobilization of HL Radioactive Wastes,"
August 20, 1979).
(5) Test Facilities in Granite -- Construction of these is complete at the Neveda test site granite and Hanford basalt.
(6) Three draft EISs issued on away-from-reactor spent fuel storage.
(7) Started development of NEPA implementation plan.
(8)
Internally Approved DOE Public Information Plan -- The Interagency Review Group (IRG) pointed out the need of such.
(9) Continued public meeting and exchanges with the NRC.
a-
.v.
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. Lawroski asked the consultants for comments based on the past two days' presentations. These individual comments are summarized below:
Dr. Orth (1) Would like to see an attempt to relate all of the programs through some kind of ' critical path' analysis.
(2) The Staff has responded to past ACRS comments, and tends more to defining a program and getting a contractor to have the job done.
Dr. Steindler (1) Agrees with the NMSS priorities.
(2) The new organization and set of priorities in licensing do not come through to research; research projects seem to bear little correlation to the need of licensing.
(3) NRC-DOE cooperation is still not satisfactory. Maybe it is the Comnissioners' responsibility to push for such cooperation.
(4) Risk assessment effort seems too weak.
(5) NMSS should have capability to address the sociopolitical issues in waste management. These may be the final issues.
Mr. Grendon (1) The DOE-NRC exchange regarding waste packaging bothers Mr. Grendon, though he can see that it is EPA's delay in coming up with its criteria that caused the problem.
(2) The research program has complete coverage.
Dr. Foster (1) The HL waste area is weakest in that it lacks strong ties between research and licensing. Some long-term projects,
whose results are needed* today, will not yield any result until years later. By then an alternative solution may have been found.
(2) NRC may avoid doing some work that DOE does, and vice versa.
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 Dr. Parker (1)
In HL waste, the Staff is dealing with too many generic problems for too many sites, realizing that ultimately only one or two repositories will be built.
(2)
In HL waste licensing, there is overkill in some aspects, e.g., the requirement for three in-situ investigations on one site.
(3) The Staff should consider engineering bypass to scientific problems, e.g., if canisters are so designed that there would not be high temperature around them, then there will be no brine migration problem.
Dr. Philbrick (1) Pleased with the apparent increase in geologic and geotechnical capability in NRC.
(2) The Staff may consider using facilities at old mines (such as the 5TRIPA project) and acquiring information from the oil industry.
Mr. Cromer (1) The NRC has a responsibility to determine whether or not any nuclear operaticn is actually hazardous, e.g., the 2 microcuries/ square-meter radon emanation limit -- is it something the Staff likes to have, or is it a real problem for the public.
(2) Congress should provide NRC or DOE the right similar to an oil lease. This will enable the NRC or DOE to explore government lands, and automatically allow them to build facilities there.
Dr. Lawroski and Mr Ray made these comments,:
Mr. Ray (1) Training should be given to people outside of the Probabil-istic Analysis staff on risk assessment. This training may not equip them enough to actually do risk assessment but will instill in them an awareness of what risk assess-ment can do.
(2) Some research projects are exploring areas that other industry has been working on for years; there may be a wealth of information if properly tapped without "replowing the field".
(Dr. Philbrick also expressed this view before.)
Waste Management 9/18&l9/79 (3) There does not seem to be a sense of urgency in waste research.
Dr. Lawroski (1) The increased coordination among NRC is heartening, though there can be more improvements.
(2) NRC and DOE can work closer together.
(3)
In the next meeting, the Subcommittee will particularly want emphasis on goals and priorities of research, in relation ot user needs.
(4)
(On Mr. White's suggestion) Dr. Lawroski asked P. Tam to make arrangements for Dr. Philbrick for a site visit and meeting at Rifle, Colorada. The site contains a Bureau of Mines bore hole test facility.
The meeting was ad,iourned at 3:50 p.m.
NOTE: A complete transcript of the open portions of the meeting is on file at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H St., NW, Washington, DC, or can be obtained from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., 444 North Capitol St., NW, Washington, DC.
b
m.....w c: ~ :.: wr.ww. < a v w4..x..o
- - m w _._ n.
_ _ w,,,, w,..
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.171/ Friday. August 31, 1979 / Notices 51383 that the a 11 cation accurately descibes determinauens by the Dtnetce, N5F. on.
this meetbg. Mr. Ragnwald Muller all matert ter=s of the transaction to July 6.19?9.
(talephone 202/834-1414) between 8:15 be consummated pursuant to the Dated. August:8.19"a.
an and 500 ps EITr.
exemption.
)vyts F. Laplanta.
Dated: August:7.1s*9.
Signed at Wathingtm. D.C., this 27th day of Aceng Comminee Menegement C~,J.4s.
W C. %
August.19"9 FE DuM*3' FM M 6** mi Adv1sory Commit:ee Mancement C%cer Ian D. Lanoff.
8518'o aces m.ew p
,w AdmnustmtorforPension and We)lare
,g,,,enn, Berrfit Programs. LeborsMndagement sernces Ar.muustmtion U.S Deparcnent of NUCt. EAR REGUt.ATORY Labor.
COMMISSION Study of Nucisar Power Piant
[ " "' "'
Advisory Committee on Reactor Construction During Adjudication:
Safeguartis, Subcommittee on Waste Meetings Mana Meeng As previously announced (44 FR MATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION De ACRS Subcommittee on Wasta 48831), the next meethg of the Nuclear Management will hold an open meetbg Regula:ory Commission's advisory Advisory Committee for Ocean on September 18-19.1979 (rescheduled committee on nuclear power plant Eclencea; Subcommittse for Oversigtit from August 28-9,1979)in Room 1048.
construction during adjudication will be and Evaluation; Meeting 2717 H St NW, Washington. DC 31555.
held at 9 30 a.m. Fnday, August 31.1979.
In accordance with the Federal Notice of this meeting was published in Room 415. East West Towers. 4350 Advisory Committee Act, as amended.
August 23,1979.
East West Highway. Bethesda, Pub. L 92-483, the Na tional Science In accordance with the proceduns Maryland. After that meeting, the Foundt' ion announces the following outlined in the Federal Reg! ster on advisory committee's next meeting will October 4.1978 (43 FR 45928), oral or be on Friday, September 7,1979 at the meeting:
written statements may be presented by same time and place.
Name: Subcommittee for Oversisht and m mbe" P"
Evaluabon of the Adytsory Committee for Members of the public are inMted to Permitt y uring ns attend the group a meetings and there Ocean Sdences.
Date and time: September 19%t,19*9,900 of the meeting when a transcript is being will be a limited amount of time am. to Sfo p.m. each day.
kept, and questions may be asked only avallable du ng esd muUng for Place-Rooms 5t0 and 643. National Suence by members of the Subcommittee,its members of the public to make oral Foundanon.1am G S4 N.W. Washington.
consultants, and Staff. Persons desir6g statements to the study group. Written D C. No.
to make oral statements should notify e mments, addressed to the Secretary of Type of meet =s Cond.
the Designated Federal Employee u far the Commission, United States Nuclear Contact person: Dr. Dirk Frankenberg.
In advance as practicable so that Regulatory Commission, Washington.
Director. Division of Ocean Scences. Room appropriate arrangements can be made eco. National Scence Foundation.
DC. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Wa shi:tgton. D.C. 2055cL telephone (202) to allow the necessary time % de Service Branch, will be accepted for one meeting for such statements.
Purpon of Subcommittee To provide expert De agenda for subject meeting shal week after sach meeting.De Chairman 632-5913 assistance in carrytna out external be as follows:
of the study group is e= powered to oversight wtuch is concemed mth the Tuesday and Wednesday, September conduct the meeting in a manner that. in exammation of decisions made. procedures fg and 19,1979.
his judgment, will facilitate the group's
. nnd polic1es La elfect and focuns on 8:30 a.m. unul the conclusion of wwk. including. if necnsary, ccntmuing operatons and settivities. pnonties, business each day.
or rescheduling meetings to another day.
pregnm balance, and selecdon of awards.
De Subcommittee will hear A file of documents relevant to the
- 8" bt0 try Re presentations by and hold discussions group's work, including a complete P
R Room 643.
with representatives of the NRC Staff, transcript of each meeting, memoranda Reason for closing ne meeting mil deal the Department of Energy (DOE), and exchanged between group members.
with a review of s' ante and declinations in their consultants pertinent to the pubbe comments and other documents.
which the Committee will review materials following:
is available for inspection and copying containing the names of applicant (1) Goals of the NRC Waste at the Commission's Public Document insutuuons and pnncipalinvestigators and Management Program.
Room at 1717 H Street. NW.,
pnytleged infor=ation contained in (2) Priorities set to meet these goals.
Weshington. DC. 20555. The Secretary of infJ fe a (3) U"Cription, budget, and time the NRC maintains a mailing list for l
o pe r revie documentation pertaining to appbcanta.
ochedule for each project.
persons interested in receiving notices g
Any non exempt material that may be (4) Coordination of NRC and DOE of the group's meetings and actions.
discussed at this meeting (proposals that Waste Management Programs.
Anyoue'wishirig to be on that list should t
have been awardedl mil be inextricably In addition, the Subcomrnittee will write to: Secretary of the Commission.
intertwined with the discussion of exampt hear presentations by the NRC Staff on Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
materials and no further separation is its Fuel Cycle Program.
Washington. DC. 20555. Attention:
e practical.These matters are within Ftuther information regardmg topica Docketing and Service Branch.
(ck to be discussed, whether the meeting De study group will provide its final F
'xlm [ )[ 0]o g
has been cancelled or rescheduled, the report to the Commission by November c
Authority to cloac meeting Thfe Chairman s ruling on nquests fw the 1.1979. For further information on the detemrination was made by the Committee y
Management OfScer pursuant to provisiona opportunity to present oral statetcents stud group's mission, please call s,
of Section 10(d! of PL 92-+s3. Do and the time allotted therefore can be Step en S.Ostrach. Office of the Committee Manage:r.ent Ofneer was obtained by a prepaid telephone call to General Counsel Nuclear Regulatory delegated the authority to maka soch the Designated Federal Employee foe Commisalon. 202/634 -3224 N
- .....:..,.;..x.
2 +.: a.
.u...
..u
.s.: a
..~.c
.v
..... + a....-.
ATTENDANCE LIST ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, DC SEPTEMBER 18 & 19, 1979 ACRS NRC STAFF S. Lawroski, Acting Subcommittee Chainnan F. Arsenault J. Ray R. Browning R. Foster, ACRS Consultant T. Carter, Jr.
A. Grendon, ACRS Consultant J. Foulke D. Orth, ACRS Consultant C. Nilsen F. Parker, ACRS Consultant L. White S. Philbrick, ACRS Consultant S. Schrevrs M. Steindler, ACRS Consultant C. Bartlett S. Cromer, ACRS Consultant S. Caplan R. Muller, Designated Federal Employee G. Robbins P. Tam, ACRS Staff D. Fehringer M. Knapp R. Smith WESTINGHOUSE P. Lohaus M. Bell R. Chickering E. Hawkins E. Hemmerle L. Beratan C. Nichols J. D' Ambrosia ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY L. Lehman D. Rohrer J. Neiheisel J. Metzger A. Bassett M. Au LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORY P. Loysen D. Nussbamter J. Lambert L. Rouse R. C. Maninger R. Jones TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BABCOCK & WILCOX
- 0. Gray R. Borsum S. Gray PUBLIC D. Hoffman, Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
R. Creeger, Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
K. Layer, BBR J. Benefiel, BAH A. Dravo, U.S. Congress L. Turnbull, U.S. Congress J. Bridge, U.S. Congress i'
B. Feamster, BC D. Klayden G. Roles ATTACHMENT 2
..,.....,m...
WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEL MEETING
.~
SEPTEMBER 18-19, 1979 SCHEDULE (REVISEDSEPT. 14, 1979)
SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 APPROXIMATE TIME EXECUTIVE SSSSION 8:30 a.m. - 8:45 a.m.
DISCUSdION WITH NRC STAFF (RES and NMSS) REGARDING NRC WASTE Pd).NAGEMENT PROGRAM ON GOALS, PRIORITIES, PROJECTS AND BUDGETS:
A.
Introduction - W. J. Dircks, Director of NMSS 8:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
B.
Overview - R. Browning, Deputy Director of Division of Waste Management, NMSS 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a,.m.
- F. Arsenault, Director of Safeguards, Fuel Cycle and Environmental Research, RES
- BREAK *****
10:00 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.
C.
High-level Waste 10:15 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
- ti. Bell, J. Davis, P. Comella,
and M. Cullingford
- LUNCH *****
1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
D.
Low-level Waste 2:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
- R. D. Smi t h, E. Hel d
- ** ** B R EA K * ** *
- 3:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.
E.
Uranium mill tailings - H. Miller, L. Santos 3:45 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 5 :15 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.
SEPTEMBER 19, 1979 EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:30 a.m. - 8:45 a.m.
DISCUSSION WITH NRC STAFF (RES and NMSS) REGARDING FUEL CYCLE PROGRAM ON GOALS, PRIORITIES, PROJECTS, AND BUDGETS:
A.
Introduction - F. Arsenault 8:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
All.achme.nt 8
LIST OF HANDOUTS AND VIEWGRAPHS (A copy of each is filed in the ACRS Office) 1.
P. Tam,to Waste Management Subcomittee, " Status Raport: Waste Management" 2.
Meeting Schedule (Revised) 3.
R. Browning, Wastement Program -- Program Support Sumary for NMSS & RES 4.
P. Comella, Viewgraphs on her presentation, "10 CFR Part 60" 5.
Draft 10 CFR Part 60, " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories" 6.
M. Bell, Viewgrar is on "High-Level Waste Management Program" 7.
M. Cullingford, Viewgraphs on "Probabilistic Analysis Staff Fuel Cycle Section" 8.
J. Davis, Viewgraphs on "High-Level Waste Research Program" 9.
E. Held, R. D. Smith, Viewgraphs on " Low-Level Wastes Regulatory & Research Programs" 10.
H. Miller, Viewgraphs on " Uranium Mill and Tailings Licensing Program" 11.
H. Miller, " Uranium Recovery Branch Sumary of Confimatory Research Needs" 12.
H. Miller,10 CFR Part 40,150, " Uranium Mill Tailings Licensing" 13.
L. Santes Viewgraphs on " Uranium Milling Research" 14 T. Carter, Viewgraphs on " Fuel Cycle Technical Projects" 15.
S. Bassett, Viewgraphs and handout on " Fuel Cycle Licensing" 16.
E. Beckett, Viewgraphs on "The Waste Imlation Pilot Plant" 17.
K. Klein, Viewgraph's on "Natior.al Waste Terminal Storage Program" ATTACHMENT 4
., REVISED SEPT. 14, 1979 SEPTEMBER 19,1979 Cont'd APPROXIMATE TIME B.
NMSS Technical Assistance; fuel cycle regulatory process; various TA projects 9:00 a.m. - 11 :00 a.m.
- T. Carter
- * * *
- B R EA K * ** *
- 11 :00 a.m. - 11 :15 a.m.
DOE PRESENTATION: CHANGES IN DOE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SINCE THE APRIL, 1979 MEETING.
11:15 a.m. - 12:45 p.m.
- LUNCH *****
12:45 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 1:45 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
(Should the Subcomittee meet again in October)
.