ML19318A355
| ML19318A355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/10/1979 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318A356 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-1683, NUDOCS 8006190667 | |
| Download: ML19318A355 (18) | |
Text
.
\\ ' &' c
~ ~~ ^. ?
/k' )S. /6 Z3
/
1' 3
t.3 d '
d DATE ISSUED:
12/10/79 MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1979 j g MINUTES OF THE ACRS WASTE MANAGEMFNT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WASHINGTON, DC OCTOBER 31, 1979 The Waste Management Subcomittee of the ACRS met on October 31, 1979 at 1717 H St., N.W., Wa shin gton, DC."
The main purpose of the meeting was to acquire infor-mation on the objectives, goals and priorities of the NRC Waste Management and Fuel Cycle Research Programs for the annual ACRS report to the Congress.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1979; a subsequent notice, dated October 24, 1979, announced the meeting to be closed to the public. Copies of the notices, meeting attendees list, and meeting schedule are included as Attachments 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
No written state-ment was received from members of the public.
EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. S. Lawreski, Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m.,
introduced the ACRS members and consultants (Attachment 2) who were present, and indicated that Mr. R. Muller was the Designated Federal Employee for the meeting; Mr. P. Tam of the ACRS Staff was also present. He then urged all,peakers to pay particular attention to the goals, objectives, and priorities of tne research
~
program on waste management and fuel cycle. The meeting was to be closed to the public because budgetary matters of a preliminary nature were to be discussed.
For the same reason, no transcript was kept of the meeting.
8006190fg s
. Dr. Lawroski asked the Staff to address the research projects that have been initiated as a result of the recent problems with low-level waste (LLW) burial sites.
(The Staff has addressed this request during its discussion with the Subcommittee on LLW.
See later.)
Dr. Moeller commented that in-plant (power plant) waste handling jobs are routinely assigned to inexperienced personnel as entry-level positions.
Such assignment reflects the utilities' attitude toward waste management, and it is thus not surprising that problems occur frequently.
DISCUSSION WITH NRC STAFF (CLOSED) - 8:45-5:00 p.m.
High-level Waste Research and Technical Assistance (TA)
(Dr. M. Bell, Mr. F. Arsenault, Mr. M. Kearney)
Detailed accounts of the research and TA projects are contained in the handout mate rial (Attachments 5, 6 & 7 to these minutes), provided to the Subcommittee a few days before the meeting.
The focus of the high-level waste (HLW) management activity for the next two years is the development and promulgation of the Regulation,10 CFR 60,
" Disposal of HLW in geologic repositories." Upon its completion, the focus will be directed to the regulatory guides and positions needed to review a license application. Regulation 10 CFR 60 thus forms the basis for the identi-fication of research needs and priorities. To ensure that the waste management (WM) program is coordinated within the NRC, the Executive Director has established a Waste Management Review Group which coordinates the agency-wide WM contractural program. This group meets at least once a month and one of its functions is to review the statements of work for all intended work contracts.
4 t
1
i Research and TA needs can be derived from some 175 identified requirements in 10 CFR 60.
In each of the requirements, the Staff identifies what specifically has to be done, compares this need with what is available or would be available through ongoing work, and' may finally decide to have a contractor perform the task.
To help identify Ehe full extent of the technical support (not research) that the Staff needs for full development and implementation of the HLW Regulation, the NMSS Staff asks question as to the necessity, achievability, probability and alternatives of each requirement in the Regulation. Most of the TA needs are derived in this manner.
put into one of these three priorities:
Priority 1 - items which are necessary' for regulation' development, which require contractor activity and which must be started now if work is not already ongoing.
Waste form and cannister l
durability studies fall into this category.
Priority 2 - items which are not directly required for the Regulation but which may contribute to the preparation of technical directives and license review plans.
In general, items in this priority have to do with licensing, and in the absence of information temporary guidance is available and adequate.
Priority 3 - items that are definitely needed only for licensing.
Included in this are studies on site selection and characterizations, and repository design.
. A detailed description of the criteria for prioritization, and the research/TA projects may be found in Attachments 5, 6 and 7.
The Subcommittee asked to' what extent the Staff has conversed with DOE during its writing of 10 CFR 60i ; Dr. Bell indicated that during the process, the Staff has consulted with every DOE laboratory on the proposed requirements. Since some of the requirements in this Regulation are of the "Strawman" nature, the Staff has carefully indicated such by footnotes and other means. The present research and TA program will try to support many of these requirements; this is especially true with the "1000 years cannister" requirement.
Dr. Mark and Mr. Grendon remarked that the Staff should evaluate its proposed requirements as to whether they are necessary for safety, or are just desirable; the Staff should not give the impression that "the world will come to its end "if cannisters lasting at least 1000 years cannot be made. Dr. Lawroski further suggested that the Staff should be more careful in the wording of the requirerent since any effect caused by these "strawman" requi rements may linger on for a long time.
Dr. Orth stated he noted difference between NRC and DOE policies. The NRC approach (expressed by the Martin to Myers letter distributed to the Subcommittee during its September meeting) seems to require that waste form and cannister
~
together provide 100% of the isolation, while geology would provide a totally redundant 100% p'otection. The DOE seems to have adopted the systems approach, in which each barrier provides some percentage of protection such that all the barriers together would provide 100% protection.
He asked if there is indeed such divergence in' philosophy and if so, is the difference reflected in the NRC and DOE programs.
J
. Mr. White of the Staff said that there indeed is difference between the NRC and DOE philosphies.
DOE believes, according to Mr. White, that all the engineered features (waste form, cannister, overpack, repository design, etc.) should contribute to reducing release to acceptable levels at any tine.
NRC believes that the DOE philosophy is difficult to carry out, and consulted the Interagency Review Group when the NRC philosophy was being developed. This philosophy is described in the Martin letter and the Staff believes it is compatible with IRG recommendations. The essence of the philosophy is that the level of safety be consistent with level of hazard i.e. when the waste is newly placed in the repository there should b6 zero release but after 1000 years, when the hazard index has been reduced to lower than that of natural are, some release would be allowed.
The EPA is developing a HLW regulation which will be implemented by NRC. The Staff reported that drafts of this regulation sets limits for radioactive relea se.
i Dr. Moeller raised the issue on duplication of research projects by NRC and DOE. He asked if the Staff has been thinking about how to decide which projects should be done by which agency.
Mr. Arsenault replied that he was working on a document which would answer this question.
(The ACRS would get a copy of this document when it is finalized.) Dr. Bell added that most research projects
o require the contractor to do an initial literature search to assure no duplication.
Mr. H. Parker said that some parts of both DOE and NRC research programs are on basic science, and that the ACRS should recommend that research money should not be spent on duplicat.ing basic scientific work. To this comment, Mr. Martin replied that when he first became director of NMSS, he found that there was a
" sharp sense of compartmentalization"; there was an urge to develop NRC WM capability independent of D0E. Work duplication by the two agencies probably resulted from such attitude.
He has been trying to stop and 614minate such duplication and has only been partially successful.
Both DOE and NRC should try their best to understand what each is doing to avoid duplication of work.
Based on the fact that the DOE WM program has a much larger budget, many times larger than NRC's, DOE should be recognized as the " work-horse" of waste management. P
.. ult said that NRC should concentrate its efforts j
to develop data and methods for licensing application. For this purpose, the j
NRC can benefit much by closely monitoring and reviewing D3E's research, l
The Subcommittee discussed with Mr. Arsenault the HLW research program but it was not sure about his bases for the RES ranking of projects. Mr.
Arsenault said he would provide to the Subcommittee, in writing, an explanation of the priority system used.
(A memo from Arsenault to P. Tam was received on November 7,1979.
It is included in these minutes as Attachment 9).
The Sub-committee was aware that in the report to Congress, it will have to rank projects or groups of projects in one column-importance-instead of the seven coluans used by j
, RES. Mr. Arsenault pointed out that it is difficult to rank groups of projects for importance since in any given group, there are always some important and some much less important projects. Alternatively, it is similarly difficult to rank projects individually since there are so many of them. Dr. Moeller said that it is impractical for the Subcom-mittee to go into detailed review of each project, but should go as far as reviewing the priority assigned to each by the Staff, and agreeing or disagreeing with such assignment.
Dr. Steindler stated that funding of research should match priorities assigned to its projects. Mr. Grendon pointed out that (Attachment 5) there are items with assigned importance A but zero funding. Mr. Aicenauti replied that the funding levels as shown in Attachment 5 are outda.ed and would be updated eventually to reflect assigned ;irforities.
Mr. Grendon indicated there are a number of theoretical studies i, the research program, and said that such can never provide totally satisfying information. Experimental work should be done instead.
Dr. Philbrick questioned the wisdom of doing research on thermal effects on rock, citing the fact that some underground coal seam fires that have been going on for centuries appear to have no detrimental effects on neighboring rocks. It is difficult to see how HLW or spent fuel, which
impose a much icwer thermal loading on the host rock, and which are thousands of feet from the surface, can be any cause for concern.
Dr. Bell explained, upon Dr.1.awmski's request, the difference between TA and research.
(Note:
fo'r more information, see minutes of the September meeting). While there are dozens of research projects, there are only a few contractors pmviding technical assistance to NMSS. TA efforts are performed to answer some broad questions raised by the Staff, while research projects are performed to answer more well-defined questions.
Mr. Arsenault discussed the mechanisms used by NRC for contracting work.
Of the four mechanisms (00E labs, competitive, sole source, and unsolicited),
unsolicited proposals only comprise a small fraction of total awarded con-tracts. The RES Staff periodically sets up information meetings to stimulate generation of proposals that would closely match what the Staff needs. Most of the unsolicited proposals come from universities. If this avenue were closed, most universities could not compete with the national labs and other research establishments through the three other avenues. Some very useful wok is being done by universities now. Award of a contract is not based on lowest bid; there are abo,ut 10 to 20 selection criteria of which, cost is but one criterion. The Staff exercises great care in the procurement process because this process is closely scrutinized by a number of other organizations.
. i
)
Low Level Waste (LLW) Research and Technical Assistance
_(Mr. P Lohaus, Mr. E. Held, Mr. F. Arsenault)
The panel of speakers responded to the request made by Dr. Lawroski (see p. A of thes minutes) regarding measures the Staff has taken to expedite LLW licensing in light of the present.. problems. The panel indicatw that the current problems of LLW did not arise from lhck of technical knowledge, but from lack of enforce-ment of criteria and procedures in handling LLW.
The generators of LLW should be ultimately responsible for converting the waste to a suitable form for transportation and burial, Regarding enforcement, the Staff has intensified I&E efforts, even to the extent of inspecting ifcensees against their compliance with DOT regulations.
In terms of research, the Staff has initiated a joint project with NIH and DOE to examine incineration of organic LL wastes, and a BNL project to investigate specific waste form - container material inter-action.
The focus of the LLW activity for the next two years is twofold: Regulatory development and licensing. A LLW regulation (10 CFR 61) is under development, and draft of it will be issued in late 1979.
Subsequent to this, regulatory guides, which are being developed concurrently, will also be published.
NRC has responsibility for 1.icensing low level waste disposal operations in non-Agreement States and providing technical assistance to Agreement States in licensing matters.
A number of steps have been taken in the past two years to ensure that the WM program is coordinated. The Waste Management Review Group was discussed earlier in these minutes. Also, an agency-wide LLW program plan was issued for public comment in September 1977 (NUREG-0240). Currently, there are two major functional areas with competing priorities; licensing activities and development of LLW regulation.
Mr. Grendon said that since the Staff has been licensing LLW for years, it is difficult to see why 10 CFR 61 (on LLW) is to be published after 10 CFR 60 (HLW).
Dr. Steindler described the Staff's rate of pmgress as " discouraging and startling." Mr. Martin explained that the LLW regulation, to be published shortly, is in a more advanced form than the HLW counterpart, i.e., the former has less uncertainties.
The Staff said that the current problems at the LLW disposal sites are caused by lack of enforcement, not by lack of regulation. Tne proposed regulation, 10 CFR 61, would make it very explicit that it is the shipper's responsibility to make sure the waste is in a form suitable for transportation and burial.
Dr. Moeller disagreed and said that there have long been complaints on the lack of regulatory criteria over site preparation, site operation and decommissioning.
(Dr. Moeller submitted his remarks in writing on November 7,1979. See Attach-ment 10) He further stated that one of the most important measures that can be taken to solve LLW problems would be to develop waste volume mduction methods.
p O
8 The Staff believes that there is technology available to convert all forms of LLW to meet the criteria of "no free-standing liquids." The msearch on how to deal with the problems of " free-standing liquid" has top priority.
r, Dr. Moeller asked if N-plants or medical research establishments are more flagrant violators of LLW criteria.
The Staff said that the two are equally bad. Mr. Martin said that NRC and 00T have insufficient manpower to inspect the processing and transportation of LLW. Mr. Arsenault reiterated that it takes enforcement of criteria, not research, to solve the present pro blems.
The SuP.c.:.ittaa asked how the proposed 10 CFR 61 would be backfitted to present LLW disposal sites. Dr. Lohaus said that when the regulation becomes effective, it will be applied to the existing sites on a case-by-case basis and corrections in some existing practices will be required.
It may be necessary to go all the way to exhumation of the wastes to correct unacceptable practices, but as to exactly what measures will be required will be determined on a cost-benefit basis.
Uranium Mill Tailings Research and Technical Ass 1 stance (Mr. H. Miller)
Technical assistance projects are aimed directly at supporting licensing actions. This includes licensing of conventional mills and associated tailings piles, heap leach operations and in-situ extraction projects.
In addition to licensing, the Staff will be completing in this FY a pmgrammatic study, Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on Uranium milling.
In August of this year, I
. the Staff proposed regulations dealing with mill tailings disposal.
(Copies of this,10 CFR 40, were available to the Subcommittee in its September meeting).
This regulation, stated in the form of performance objectives, is based on best available technical information. However, to date no mill tailings piles have actually been stabilized and reclaimed in one manner called for in the regulation.
Research needs have been developed based on licensing experience, development The Staff would of the GEIS, and frequent discussions with the EPA and DOE.
continue to work with the DOE to assure that the DOE program is adequately Current research in NRC emphasizes control of release, while comprehensive.
NRC funding level for mill monitoring of release was emphasized in the past.
The Staff tailings is small compared to its HLW and LLW funding levels.
believes that at least an additional $1 million is needed both this and the next fiscal year; all projects are considered high priority.
2 The Subcommittee asked how the "2 pCi/ m /sec" release limit in 10 CFR 90 came about. Mr. Miller said that this rate of release from a pile will give release rates at disposal sites that will be within the reange of variability of natural flux rates.
It will result in radon levels to the interior of a house built next to a pile comparable to the EPA guidelines. Over zealous limits on release may be counter-productive since one may end up with impli-2 cation to clean up nature.
(2 pCi/m /sec is only slightly above average background level.)
In-house accomplishment include the recent completion of a code, MILDOS, which calculates individual and population doses. This code is being used in licensing work and calculations for the final GEIS.
m9+-
13 -
Dr. Lawreski' announced that the Subcommittee will continue its discussion on mill tailings in the next meeting, since this meeting had to be adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Next Meeting Date: December 19,1975-The Subcommittee will meet in closed session to r,
discuss with the NRC Staff, and representatives of the DOE, EPA and USGS on their respective radioactive waste management programs and proposed funding for FY 1981.
i
)
)
l 4
E i
y m
, u,.
l*.
List of Documents Received Before. During and After the Meeting (a copy of each is filed in the ACRS Office).
1.
Federal Register Announcement, October 16, 1979 Fsderal Register Announcement, October 24, 1979 2.
Meeting attendees list 3.
Meeting Schedule 4.
Viewgraphs used by M. Bell and M. Kearney HL Radioactive Waste' Management:
Identification of Technical Support Require-5.
ments and Summary of FY 80/81 Projects (Bell, Kearney)
Waste Management Decision Unit (F. Arsenault) 6.
7.
HLW Project Briefs (F. Arsenault)
Identification of Technical Support Requirements and f
LLW Management:
8.
Summary of FY 80/81 Projects (P. Lohaus)
Arsenault to Tam dated November 6,1979 9.
Memo:
- 10. Current Problems in the Disposal of LLW, November 3,1979 (D. Moeller)
- 11. Urantum Recovery Licensing Division of hbste Management (H. Miller)
- 12. Fuel Cycle Safety and Evironmental Effects Decision Unit (F. Arsenault)
~
e.e-.*
=
,m 4
r
r.
h
~^
J Federal Register / V:1. 44. Nr. 201 / Tu;:sd y. Octicer 18, 1979 / N tices 3968S i
a should be directed to: james M.
diska;"Retrievability" to indude social then destroyed by shredding. ADP j
Rosbrow. Executive Director. National security number:" Safeguards" to information is retained on disks for one i
Commission on Unemployment include magnetic tapes and disks and year, transferred to and retained on Compensation. Room 440.1815 Lynn ADP protection: and " Retention and magnetic tape for three years, then tape Street. Rosslyn. Va. 22209. (703) 235-disposal" to indude ADPinformation is erased.
rs2.
destruction schedule.The use of ADP.
g
- $;,;ed at Rosslyn. Virginia, this uth day of equipment will not increase the risk of Dated at Bethesda MD. this 3rd day of i
unauthorized accesa to the information.
Oceberm Mr. 29/9.
N the Nuclear Regulatory CommMm.
li D
j james ebw.
19 a ended,and c on i
heevtire Dimeror. Notional Commission on 552a. and 553 of title 5 of the United Ime V.Gossack, i
Unemployment Compensation.
States Code. as amended. notice is ExecutiveDirectorfor Operotions.
g i
M " " '"' * * " "I hereby given that adoption of the ps o.o em ru.4 to-a ra w mi 8'*""
following amendments to system of asusso cooe roso.es-as l'
records NRC-21is contemplated. All
=
interested persons who desire to submit l
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY wntten comments or suggestions for Advisory Committee on Reactor s
COMMISSION consideration in connec+ ion with the Safeguards, Subcommittee on Waste [/
Prtyscy Act of 1974; Systema of Proposed amendments should send them Management; Meeting Rec;rds, Minor Amendments to the Secetary of the Cosssion. U.S.
Nudear Regulatory Commission.
De ACRS Subcommittee on Waste AoExcy:U.S. Nudear Regulatory Washington DC 20555. Attention:
Management will hold an open meeting Commission.
Docketing and Services Branch by on October 31.1979 in Room 1016.1717 ACT1otc Notification of proposed minor November 15.1979. Copies of comments H St, N.W, Washington, D.t 20555.
i amendments to system of records.
on the proposed amendments may be In accordance with the procedures
)
enmined at the NRC Public Document outlined in the Federal Register on g[ ",po,'; ',
Room 1717 H Street. N.W. Washington.
October 1.1979 (44 FR 56408), oral or n ents 13 the system of records. NRC-21, which y r further infctmation concerning written statements may be presented by contains personal information about this n,otice contact 4 Melton. Erector, members of the public recordings will Evisma f Rules and Records. Office of be permitted only during thost 'rtions individuals and from which such Administration. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory of the meeting when a transcrigt.s being information can be retrieved by an Commission. Washington DC 20555.
kept, and questions may be asked only individualidentifier. Amendments Telephone:(310} 492-7211.
by members of the Subcommittee,its would be made to paragraphs entitled The paragraphs of NRC-21 entitled consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring I
- Storage". *Retrievability".
" Safeguards", and " Retention and
"['[aR e tion and
'8' to make oral statements should notify g
the Designated Federal Employee as far d2sposal. ne amendments are minor to disposal are amended to read as in advance as practicable so that reflect the use of automatic data gotja,,;
processing (ADP) equipment.
appropriate arrangements can be made COMMENT D ATE: Comments are due on NRC-21 to allow the necessary time during the or before November 15.1979.
meeting for such statements.
ma The agenda for subject meeting shall AcoREss: Secretary of the Commission.
Payroll Accounting Records-NRC.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, be as follows: Wednesday. October 31.
1979. 8:30 a.m. until the condusion of Washington, DC 20555. Attention:
Docketing & Service Branch.
business.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTt J.
macts awn enacmers FM Stem 4 The Subcommittee will hear
""'nm4 accessm4 maammS awo presentations by and hold discussions M. Felton. Director. Division of Rules and Records. Office of Administration.
with representadves of the NRC Staff on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, STORAGE:
the high-level waste. low-level waste.
Washington. DC 20555. Telephone: (301)
File folders, microfiche, magnetic and uranium mill tailings programs.
492-7211.
tapes, and disks.
Discussions will be held on the SUPPLEMENTAAv wuMmatsuPc in objectives and goals of these pro 5 rams, acmn accordance with the Privacy Act of1974 Accessed by name ad Mcic! cccdy and the priorities of the research and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has number
- technical assistance projects to meet published notices of those systems of these goals.
records maintained by the NRC whirb sartcuamos:
Further information regard % topics contain personalinformation about File folders, microfiche, tapes, and to be discussed, whether the meeting individuals and from which such disks, induding backup data, are has been cancelled or rescheduled, the information can be retrieved by an maintained in locked cabinets in Chairman's ruling on requests for the ind' tidualidentifier.The notices have secured locked rooms after workin8 opportunity to present oral statements beta published as documents subject to hours. Access to and use of these and the time a" tied therefor can be publication in the annual compilation of records are limited to those persons obtained by a' prepaid telephone call to Privacy Act documents.The whose official duties require such the Designated Federal EmEI Yee for amendments set forth below would access
- cinend certain paragraphs of System of this meeting. Mr. Ragnwald Muller Rec:rds NRC41. " Payroll Accounting AETENTtoM aND mSposaa.:
(telephone 202/634-1414), between 8:15 Rec rds-NRC" entitled " Storage" to File folders are retained for four years a.m. and 5:00 p.m EDT.
Include magnetic tapes and
.after trans**r or separation of employee.
l 1
I
Feder:I Register / V:1. 44. N:. 2tr[/ W:dmsday Oct:ber L4.1979 / N tfces 61273
=
l Subm!ssion of wetten Statementa: No later accordance with Exemption 9(B) to the designated Atomic Saf;ty cnd Ucensing j
than NIvember 5.1979 to Dr. Edward I.
Covernment in the Sunshine Act Board willissue a notice of hearing or Bentr. ]r. E.xecutive Director. Netional (55:b(c)(g)(B)).
an appropriate order.
t As required by to CFR I 2514. a Alcobri Fuels Commisaion. 2000 M St.
DatedDtM8.N petition for leave to interiene shall set N.W. Suite 3000 Washington, D.C. :oo3a (intenm Address).
John C. Hoyle. -
forthwith particularity the interest of Purpos2 sf Commission: The National Advisory Committee Meogement Oficen the petitioner in the proceeding and Alcoh:1 Fuels Commission was established pen. 3 :ssarudso m u e -1 how that interest may be affected by the sum cooe MW results of the proceeding.The petition T
por 4ts n As e an Ac of1978(PL should specifically explain the reasons 36 6991 to make a full and complete thv intervention should be permitted lav:stigation and study of the long. and
[Docht No. 50-309]
with particular reference to the short term potential for alcohol fuels from biomass (includtr:g municipal and Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.t following factors:(1) the nature of the industrial waste. sewage sludge and Proposed issuance of Amendment to petitioner's right under the Act to be
' oceanic and terrestnal crops) and ccal t Faci 11ty Operating Uoense made a party to the proceeding: (2) the.
contribute to meeting the nation s energy nature and extent of the petitioner's needs. Based on such study it shall
'Itie U.S. Nuclear Regulatory property, financial, or other interest in recommend those policies and their Commission (the Commission)is the proceeding: and (3) the possible cttendant costs and benefits most likely to considering issuance cf an amendment effect of anY order which maY e
- b
)
minimite our dependence on petroleum, to Facility Operating 1.icense No. DPR-entered in the proceeding on the j
Purpose of Hearing: Sohciting informauon on 38 issued to Maine Yankee Atomic petitioner's interest.The petition should current and emersing developments Power Company (the b.eensee). gor also identify the specific aspect (s) of the
)
relating to alcohol fuels in Kansas and operation of the Maine Yankee Atode subject matter of the proceeding as to surrounding areas.
Tentative Agenda:9 co a.m. November to-power Station (the facility). located in which petitioner wishes to intervene.
. Business Meetms-9.30 man. November to-1.incoln County, Maine. In accordance Any person who has filed a petition for Opening Hearing.
with the bcensee e applicttion for leave to intervene or who has been Dated: October 18.1979.
amendment dated September 18.1979, admitted as a party may amend the Edward J. Bentz Jr.
the amendment would revise the petition without requesting leave of the E.secutive Director.
. provisions tn the Technical Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the Specifications to permit the expansion first prehearing conference schedt ed in
~ p,o,.
- md swa an.=i of the facility's spent fuel storage the proceeding. but such an amenoed acts.o cooe emme
- capacity from 9531o 1545 spent fuel petition must satisfy the specificity assemblies through a modified spent requirements described above.
NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY fuel pin storage concept invohing the Not later than fifteen % rieys prior to M,
disassembly of spent fuel assembhes the first prehearing conference COMMISSION and reassembly into consolidated fuel scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner Advistry Committee on Reactor bundles designed to provide a more shall file a supplement to the jetition to Saf: guards; Subcommittee on Waste compect fuel pin array within the intervene which must includu a list of Management; Meeting existing spent fuel racks. Accordingly, the contentions which are sought to be The October 31.1979 meeting of the the amendment would not involve an litigated in the matter, and the bases for i
ACRS Subcommittee on Waste increase m storage locations.
each contamtion set forth with Management, announced October to.
Prior to issuance of the proposed reasonable specificity. Contentions shall 8
license amendment, the Commission be limited to matters within the scope of 1979 (44 FR 59685) will be closed to will have made the findings required by the amendment under consideration. A i
public attendance.
the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as petitioner who fails to file such a As noted in cited Federal Register I
n:tice, the Subcommittee will be amended (the Act), and the supplement which satisfies these cinsidenng portions of the budget and Commission's regulations.
requirements with respect to at least one f
program of the Office of Nuclear By November 7.3.1979, the licensee contention will not be permitted to Regulatory Research and of Divisions may file a request for a hearing with participate as a party, within that Office. Since the NRC budge respect to issuance of the, amendment to Dose pern.itted to intervene become proposals are now part of the the subject facility operating license and parties to the proceeding. subject to any President's budget-not yet submitted tr any person whose interest may be limitations in the order granting leave to Congress-pubhc disclosure of affected by this proceeding and who intervene, and have the opportunity to budgetary information is not permitte.1 wishes to participate as a party in the participate fully in the conduct of the
'i Sci OMB Circular No. A-10. The ACRA p oceeding must file a written petition hearing. includmg the opportunity to hswever,is required by Section 5 of the for leave to mtervene. Requests for a.
present evidence and cross-examine l
1978 NRC Authorization Act to review hearing and petitions for leave to witnesses.
the NRC research progrum and buhet intervene shall be filed in accordance A request for a hearing or a petition and report the results of its review to with the Commission's " Rules of forleave to intervene shall be filed with Congress. In order to perform this Practice for Domestic Ucensing the Secretary of the Commission. United restew, the ACRS must be able to Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. lf a States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, engnge in frank discussion with request for a hearing or petition for Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention:
members of the NRC staff. For the leave to intervene is filed by the above Docketing and Service Section, or may resson just stated, a discussion would date, the Commission or an Atomic be delivered to the Commission's Public rat be possible if held in pubhc sensw.
Safety and ucensing Board desi nated Document Room.1717 H Street. N.W.,
j F
l have determined. therefore, that it.
by the Commission or by the Chairman Washington.D.C by the above date.
n:cessary to close this meeting to ef the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Where petitions are filed during the last prevent frustration of thin napect of the Board Panel. will rule on the request ten (10) days of the notice period. it is ACRS' statutory responsilnhtics. in and/or petition and the Secretary or the requested that the petitioner or e.
g
,b-1WEam'{ 1 Attendees ACRS l
S. Lawreski, Subcommittee Chairman D. Moeller J. Ray J. C. Mark S. Cremer, Consultant R. F. Foster, Consultant A. Crendon. Co".sultant H. M. Parker, Consultant l
D. A. Orth Consultant M. Steindler, Consultant
}
S. S. Philbrick, Consultant J. H. Warren Consultant R. Muller, Designated Federal Employee P. Tam, ACRS Sta ff NRC Staff F. Forscher J. O. Bunting K. Steyer M. Bell D. R. Tabor M. Kearney R. R. Boyle F. Arsenault C. Nichols J. Surmeier L. Beratan C. Bishop J. L. Funches L. Santos G. Robbins D. Martin L. White D. Muller J. B. Martin P. Loysen M. R. Knapp D. Solberg K. S. Kim M. Au J. Malaro C. Borre11i P. Lohaus J. Curry T. Johnson
~
E. G. Tourigny DOE Staff
~
A. Perge C. Newton
. s. w -..:.
cc.
,3..
. us..ao.m
- w.
.......m ApavAw1 3
Revised 10-29-79 SCHEDULE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT GCTOBER 31. 1979 WASHINGTON, DC (The Subcommittee will meet in closed session for the entire day since budget matters will be discussed.)
APPROXIPATE TIME EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. S. Lawroski, Subcc::inittee Chairman 8:30 a.m. - 8:45 a.m.
DISCUSSION WITH NMSS AND RES A.
High-Level Waste Research and TA
- Introduction by D. Be.L(,
8:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
- Overview of NMSS Priorities (Kearney/ White) 9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
- Overview of RES Progran (Mr. Arsenault) 9:30 a.m. - 9:40 a.m.
- Questions and Answers with RES & NM5S Staff 9:40 a.m. - 10:50 a.m.
BREAK 10:50 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
- Continue Questions and Answers 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
LUNCH 12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
B.
Low-Level Waste Research and TA
- Introduction by Mr. Arsenault 1:30 p.m. - 1:40 p.m.
l
- Questions and Answers with'RES & NMSS Staff 1:40 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.
l C.
Uranium Mill Tailings Research and TA
- Introduction by Mr. Arsenault 2:10 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.
- Questions and Answers with RES & NMSS Staff 2:20 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.
D.
Fuel Cycle Research and TA
- Introduction by Mr. Arsenault 2:40 p.m. - 2:50 p.m..
l
- Questions and Answers with RES & NMSS Staff 2:50 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
BREAK 3:30 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 3:40 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
(Should the Subcommittee meet again in December for the RSR report? If so, would the Waste Management and Fuel Cycle Subcommittees meet separately or jointly?)