ML20028H246

Minutes of 20th ACNW Meeting on 900524-25.Major Topics Discussed Include Ctr for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis Presentation,Final NRC Position on Erosion Protection Covers,Licensing Support Sys Status & Executive Session

ML20028H246
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/27/1990
From:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
References
NACNUCLE-0020, NACNUCLE-20, NUDOCS 9011190230
Download: ML20028H246 (33)

Text

'

OgNW-DMO n

Y Juns 27, 1990 h

..,1 TABLE or CollTE!1TS 20Til ACliW MEETIliG MAY 24-25, 1990 PAGES I.

Chairman's Report (Open) 1-2 II.

Center for lluclear Wasto Regulatory 2-8 Analyscs Prosentation on Program Architecture and Systematic Regulatory Analysis (Open)

III.

Final Staff Technical Position on the 8-12 Design of Erosion Protection Covers for

(

Stabilization of Uranium !!ill Tcilings Sites (open)

IV.

Status of the Licensing Support System 13-16 (Open)

V.

Executive Session (Open/ Closed)

A.

Reports, Letters and Memoranda 17 1.

Review of 11RC Staff Comments on Wor):ing Draf t 110. 2 of EPA's liigh-Level waste Disposal Standards 2.

Final Statf Technical Position 17 on the Design of Erosion Pro-l toction Covers for Stabilization of Uranium _ Mill Tailings Sites B.

ACliW Future Activities 17-18 1.

Futuro AC11W/ACRS Lotter on De-commissioning Responsibilities 2.

Annual Report on ACNW Activities 18 and Futuro Plans 3.

Human Intrusion and Carbon-14 18 Migration Issues 4.

Meeting with the Commissioners' 18 Technical Assistants 5.

Discussion on-the Use of the Term 18 "representativeness" 6.

Alternative Exploratory Shaft 19 Facility Construction Techniques 9011190230 900627 FULL Tamwwq %,,)

PDR ADVCM NACNUCL,E m

oopo PDC

)

7.

i( 5 i

.c

, '~..

h e,.

,,s.

.l

,1

[.j; 1

t Table ofLContents i

20th ACNW Meeting i

.May 24-25, 1990 i

7.

Proposed Rev. 1 to the Branch 19 l

Technical Position on Solidification 1

(.

of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes I

li 8.

Radioactive Waste Research Program

-19 i

l' 9.

DOE' Study Plans 19 l'O.

NESHAPS EPA Proposal 20 p

Ij C.

Puture Agenda 20 i

t t$

j l,

.t

?

-?

3.:-

5;

(

q p;,

e t

4b..'

f

2. : -

yq:

}

..f

+-

i

[

e-s y

I

'h i

b

-E

.i e

..(

j:.

l 1--

=

'I

?

l"

' h-h

,4<

'U,e, g e-,

h.

.,,.U.,'-.,_m.,,

t

..-g...e, 6

,b.,,...h.-.,,-,,,.

d...,...,,.. '. -

e,_...

I

. ~

.+.., :c v i g, t

wW x.. _ma - a r

.. t.;r na<:

n x=-

, -w' 5,1 m;r n y n/ttyw smp,w

.m at

.a

..g..

,4 -

e s

p m" gN, u.

2

, aw c a,

~w

-y a

.., +, -

n y

v a W W =g1-

> e As cQCM Xu.

p r

p%aw w.'g4r.. (

4 9>

q QV f..,

~,, -i - p-- -

e t

p wmq +

64 4 'A-A _; s yv-if '

\\l 1

e 4

Wg[JI h 1.k' p

~'tr.

w<t 4

e ~

f 4

,;g g 4,j c

i

'- - - ~

a, s

.. ~ ~

sw g

w

+

h h' j.;[ $

--I z

f I

pn. < %_ m3 !

'h-

__gn

m.

n

.~_

m a i. -

L.

u g' 4 u

g c

it t z

~

i

+ '

g~m, 4 f.; A,.

M:,

r

~

4..

w I d.ef yl{m 'c'7_c :'

i

+f G F _

i

'-A

%_t

+

L -

Q

\\

yn r.

t c

^#.

^t

~m r

c.o

%me

.t 4

p; y j.

__p.

-APPENDICES 1

.,m,.

+

fk

,if f n'*

e'

[ T

,' s f f _-, o e,t N i.

3

{. h,

'-k-

?'

b

)

a m

g 4 W N,,.

/4 n

uv, a

f.

i'Q~ yV wi

_.iIM e

(,-f

~ '

k ac MEETING l ATTENDEES 3

f:i K',,f@4 '

M

~

y y-Lv 7

t s

m... ;i q

M 4

k y.

l}

y' 6:J x

h.., _.y%.', " y(a_

m

.FUTU,fREcAGENDA,

~

hd H S l-.

t

%,..j. W.S' 4 9F g"M-n.

n ').

2 4 3,[

' ~

4-4 KIIP '

.t 1g.

..x wJ pm, - 1 msw, ig.

f m

wi ' i W

-m;;

+

.-1

. y:,"

'?1

A -

2 Ag Nf.,.._ i. k..,

~. KIII'.

-TDOCUMENTS1 RECEIVED 1 a

. r@

i m

s J,

n%'

,w mm

_1, rm n.

.r 4

s

..a

~~.

-.6

=,e..,

4 J a.

s

,y

.. j-- f f f f,,

5- -'

4 t

r N. ~J,~ m.

." s M % DOCUMENTS RECEIVED >FROM:PRLSENTERO' WT

~

N L

77 m

4 'g g

-ApocACtW STAFFJ a

iggh Y

=zug, o

r

?

..y

[v?k

+

-L

'g@ h I

)_

p

-.1 L

0 $m

..,[B'k MEETINGiNOTEB00ktCONTENTSc bb n./

• we

(

Wi c@ w

- t -s t

m M N 4 M.s;g, 1d u

'9.?, A ",t;.d w

_u.

• vi d't 4[

by 2Y' t

E Q})f i

m.

-T~

g;D jg!U

d y-y ?(

O l 'J f

3 i n n.. ~ %.

r x

9.y

> > +

F e

ik q?

u

.?,7:MV-ut'C 40 gj, - a M5 t

4-5 3r /

e

. M 4

y.

.,n a.>lz

1;;; w.,

a 7 -

+ -

u V r n+a; g y

d.J u m.;,

J'W

- > -.. Q i

, #g'. - f ',

7 r-s.

t 5

9' 4 ~ 6

- ", A.q o'P_

n j:

,st::g m 3 m..

N?_+

,i,

s' sa A- -n.

, c j,.M yv g

0 U

p e eb

• s

a + y 8

'1 5.-

k; n y

F. '_

J.

d6 1

e_

34-i

%.-_ t tlV " '.

,s..,.

q4 =3 D. ei. h. %_

,(

,{'s

. %w* g "C l'_

,r

,,z

• b, 3,

@m.y

s. -4;.-.,.-

-=)

y: W e

l;@. ; r S

i i

s, 7

4 U. m 9 t y

' '~

s g

dl l'. rh'3 4.i ) I g-*-

ll 3.

i 3

?L k'

4 y

'. u y a-t ' < '

3' 3

.E c.n'N W' 3

- ! E=

F'4 {

s. n J

q' C'b, y,

.g-5 QJ e

+1

>M i

)

-'tM

-'O..

@ Q's'~ * "aM 3'-

. - - -4, 1-e. -h Ej l ' Wi!"n

, c..r r -

-r

. yn t %i e y.

VL' t g 1

L.

's b

4:

ig;

- e -" (e

.4 s

c t

t jp m

-l p" q~ 3, a,q

,p i.

.)r e

, a e--

n~

.g p.

.3

1. :

_->bj i

t

- g i

L 1

1

,i

i

n n q r

g,

, a4 9, '

W_

m.. pc%, A. %p '

W

-sh t

'M b.

+

L u,

s t

< p a.

+

ui c,.

7'.

,.ytNcm M. 1, 1. >

'w r

5 1 -

y x

' 9' r,

-i-a#--

3fe- - >

Q..

f

,., wmi N.

-a[

', +

M w

1.W L F

g W ;.,4) [M,'.in d

ou y

7

- Q /}; Q L pr.. '_- whj 43 4 e'

e l l m.y:.

y* n'{ f f i'a, 3 eq S,; 4 y

• t.

1 -S t:

4

.nu

- )) J Y V,.t; Ei i 1

N

'a i[.

9

=g4 a'Lf 0 ('

%. N1 g

O' e

, e I LW

<.t.

, yu W

vl n A 4' 7.w:-

x

- t3 g

2 eg, na i

5 g,.,.yy@ 7 ).

• wq.; s \\ y

+

t W;

p %.

d_ n n-

/j-.

g;,g.

t y.f e

6,

,l+

A[

m 4r N_i&", 2@'

. i>.,

fu W

. Eg 5,

u(

i

~

,q-i c d.b 'q w

,x o

4' 4

-g -L,' 3 '.

%(

p%W t

i.l l D;-

a u :H

.nv

^ ?q, _)

~s f,9

^, '3('

?lr

.o

.11 3

^.. [..

p.; R i 4x_,,

$ !.. h

' j' git

<ET ' Mb i,

6 v

rg v m 9:$o..

6

+v a,.

yi q m.4.-4y-h>,:;;,.sw w

r

-u 4

e.-

r)a qh

'4 q

..:-)

j.f

.'1 l )

x

-'p.

r j' $ e.;

3

\\ [

"I-I f'

.r,

, 3Ii;.. <. N: '..

i

'r

' e'a s.9

. s f Mlf

.q t _

s

~,

a 3

[p "" 4 o

c

'a.,,,

.m s 4

4 Mi i-

• ..n l-Q i a

. Y _: {

,e m:.yt e

.. s nfr-i A

s 4 5, c I

I b

s ga

'r nh

~

N. f '

1Cx-y; j :

(

9 3

Lf 'y' t <'.J j 0

) ).. A c.

Mb, e.

2 o

w m

w.,

a j_>,ap

e. _ q gsn kY+

-t; i

1

.i

. '.k 4

!\\

i 4

s4 4

.- 1. _

'4 Ii

g>

f 3

q'~

' i 4N,

i u m.;w'.e. Jh - @w.th k -? m

' ' ~t 5

m s.

,o cy L3-p + g,4 zq iy_

,>, A. <J

.4

.s

1. -. m r-s.<u-4 ++

w+~o.+,5,, g i' ; 4. j 3

• g r y +-

y==j t 7 y,

(

n,i 4

N.s., s #

%e

=e.e~.:w.

+

4 h.

+ -

• r. ve t w v

Wwn e &

v w

y v.

-e r+

n-k m, e,

m J

., [, -

11 b, j 'f 3

Issued: June 27,1990 1

MINUTES OF THE 20TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE MAY 24-25, 1990 BETHESDA, MARYLAND The 20th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste was convened by Chairman Dade W.~ Moeller at 8:30 a.m.,

on Thursday, May 24, 1990, at 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland.

(Note:

For a list of attendees, see Appendix I.

ACNW members, Drs. William J.

Hinze and Dade W.

Moeller were present.

ACNW consultant, Mr. Eugene Voiland, was also present.)

The Chairman said that the agenda of the meeting had been published in the Federal Register.

He stated that the meeting was being held in conformance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws92-463 and 94-409, respectively.

He also noted that a transcript of some of the public portions of the meeting was being made, and would be available in the NRC Public Document Room at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

[ Note:

Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also available from the Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.,

1612 K Street, l:

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.)

1.

CHAIRMAN'S REPORT (Open) l (Note:. Mr. Raymond F.

Fraley was the Designated Federal Officer for this portion of the meeting.)

l Dr. Moeller-announced that Dr. Terry Lash had resigned as ' the' l<

Director of the Illinois Department of Nuclear-Safety, effective L

April 6, 1990-The new Director is Mr. Thomas Ortciger.

l Dr. Moeller announced that Mr. John Austin has been appointed as i

Acting Chief of the Regulatory Branch, Division of Low-Level Waste l

Management and Decommissioning.

He replaces Dr. Michael Bell who.

'has taken an assignment with the International Atomic ~ Energy Agency.

Dr. Moeller noted that NRC-plans to issue a " Draft Format. and Content Guide for the License Application for the High-Level Waste i'

Repository" for public comment; He recommended that the Committee follow the process and offer' comments, if deemed appropriate.

Dr. Moeller noted that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently issued the report, "Three Mile Island 2: Lessons Learned by the U.S.

Department of Energy",

DOE / TID-10276, March

1990, and

l

'20th ACNW Meeting 2

May 24-25, 1990 suggested that the Committee may want to discuss this at a future meeting.

II.

CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REG.llLATORY ANALYSES ERDIHTATION ON PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE AND SYSTEMbTIC REGULATORY ANAttSIS (open)

(Note:

Ms. Charlotte E. Abrams was the Designated Federal Officer for this portion of the meeting).

Mr. Robert Browning', Director, Division of High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, opened the presentation with some introductory remarks.

He was followed by Dr. Wesley Patrick, Technical Director of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), who presented the briefing on Program. Architecture and Systematic Regulatory Analysis.

Mr. John Latz, President of the CNWRA, was also in attendance.

In his-introductory remarks Mr. Browning explained how the CNWRA program fits into the NRC high-level waste (HLW) program.

Of the planned CNWRA e"penditures for FY 1990, approximately 25 percent will be spent un research and 75 percent on technical assistance to Mr. Browning

• 3 Division.

Planned expenditures for FY 1991 will increase by approximately

'1.5

million, but the percentage of 7

dollars for technical assistance will remain approximately the L

same.

The FY 1992 budget is not yet finalized.

Mr. Browning stated that ' plans are that the technical-assistance /research funding would remain at a ratio of approximately.3:1 depending on what the future needs will be.

L Principal technical assistance tasks in which the CNWRA will i

participate include:

L Prelicensing reviews and evaluations of DOE documents Quality assurance audits Performance assessments L*

Bases-for rulemakings, technical positions, and other regulatory products Technical assessment capabilities and methods development Regulatory and technical uncertainties identification The last three tasks are part of the Program Architecture and Systematic Regulatory Analysis.

Dr. Patrick presented the Program Architecture as the foundation upon which future technical assistance activities will be based.

Dr.-Patrick noted that a systems approach is important because the high-level waste repository licensing program is technically complex with many inter-related components such as at-reactor

storage, monitored retrievable

storage, geologic repository

o 20th ACNW Meeting 3

May 24-25, 1990 disposal, and the associated transportation system.

The program calls for a

formal administrative legal process with the participation of several funded parties. The process also involves other groups such as the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the MRS Commission, and the High-Level Waste Negotiator.

In addition, the program will be under intense public scrutiny and must maintain a schedule that calls for a three-year license review period.

For all these reasons there is a certain amount of programmatic risk p

to the NRC for things to occur that could slow down the process and prevent the three-year from being met.

Therefore, a systematic analysis of the program was undertaken.

The systems engineering approach being undertaken by the CNWRA has five features.

These are:

1)

The approach is mission oriented and focuses on the NWPAA.

2)

It is based on requirements stated in 10 CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR Part 191.

3)

It is proactive in that its intent is to identify areas where guidance to the DOE is needed as early in the prelicensing and licensing process as possibic.

4)

It provides a basis for the functional and organizational integration of the program.

5)

It is dynamic in that the systems approach is adaptable to changes that will occur in the program.

The CNWRA is focusing on 10 CFR Pa'rt 60 at this time.

Because 40 CFR Part 191 is undergoing change, the CNWRA has not done an analysis of those regulations.

Most of the uncertainties that the CNWRA has seen thus far in 40 CPR Part 191 appear to be technical uncertainties that deal with technical implementability.

Their role to-date has been to conduct an informal review of 40 CFR Part 191.

When that rule is reissued they anticipate that they will have an opportunity to formally comment.

At this time, the CNWRA l

staf f is looking at how the EPA standard is implemented and the use i

of expert judgment.

In addition, the CNWRA will have input into l

planned technical positions that pertain to the implementation of l

the epa standard.

The work on analysis of Part 191 is being conducted under the performance assessment program element directed by Dr. Budhi Sagar.

He.s being assisted by CNWRA staff from the different technical areas.

There are also plans for the CNWRA to examine the treatment of subsystem performance requirements of 10 CFR Part 60 in the context of the overall system performance requirements.

Di.

Patrick provided definitions of the terms:

program architecture, systematic regulatory analysis and program architecture support. system.

Program architecture is the system

4-20th ACNW Meeting 4

- May 24-25, 1990 description and f ramework f or organizing, guiding and implementing the overall URC HLW regulatory program.

The CNWRA's task is to provide the NRC with a framework for integration of the NRC program.

By conducting a systematic regulatory analysis (SRA), the CNWRA assessed the statutory and regulatory responsibilities of the NRC.

' Systematic regulatory analysis is defined as the process for analyzing the NRC statutory and regulatory responsibilities in a comprehensive, systematic, structured manner.

This is done by examining all the regulatory and statutory responsibilities such as those portaining to the repository, transportation, and MRS.

There are a set of formal technical operating, quality assurance, and administrative procedures to guide the analysis.

The first step in the SRA is the identification of the statutory and regulatory requirements.

This is followed by analysis to identify gaps, omissions, and insufficiencies with the current regulations.

1 The

CNWRA, at the direction of the Division of HLWM is concentrating at this time only on those responsibilities that pertain to the repository.

Ru]enakings, technical positions, and other guidance documents will be developed in order to reduce or resolve the uncertainties identified in the SRA. The activities directed toward definition of "substantially complete containment" are an exanple of one of the_ approaches to reducing an uncertainty.

Another example is the CNWRA's examination of the technical basis for the groundwater travel time requirement.

The final step in the SRA is the development of the strategies and methods that NRC will use to determine whether DOE complies with L

the regulations.

As part of the program architecture planning the CNWRA is also, along with NRC staf f, trying to determine what uncertainties should have priority.

This'is part of the uncertainty characterization phase of the SRA that is just beginning.

Criteria for prioritization involve risks to the licensing process or early identification of site deficiencies.

The CNWRA uses three categories of criteria which are:

1) radiological health and safety risk; 2) timeliness, such as time needed to conduct research; and 3) durability.

Durability is a concern because the NRC staff's positions are not law and may not be durable throughout the licensing process.

-Rulemakings may be more durable due to the greater degree of public scrutiny to which they are subjected.

~

4 20th ACNW Meeting 5

May 24-25, 1990 After the uncertainties are characterized and prioritized, there will be an uncertainty reduction phase.

The method of reduction will be a management decision.

Many of the items o' high priority, that were recognized by the CNWRA during the ido itification phase, corresponded with items that the NRC staff had previously found to be of concern.

The CNWRA identified some uncertainties in Subpart (e) of 10 CPR Part 60 that had not been previously identified by the staff.

In addition the CNWRA, in their examination of the SCP and SCA, has recognized that portions of the regulations are perhaps not clear to the DOE.

Mr. Browning noted that the CNWRA's work on this task has provided an independent check of the NRC staff's assessment of the uncertaintics in the regulations.

Although there was not a large degree of difforence between the concerns of the CNWRA and the NRC

staff, now uncertainties have been identified.

He cited the technical positions that the staff had generated prior to the SRA, using the proposed rulemaking on ahticipated and unanticipated processes and events as an examplc.

He also referred to SECY 285, which laid out the HLW strategy for technical positions and rulomakings.

That strategy was developed without benefit of the SRA.

It is currently being revised and Mr. Browning believes that the next version till reflect the CNWRA's efforts on the identification of uncertaintics.

This,,in turn, will result in I

what he hopes will be a better foundation for future rulemakings

= and technical positions.

Dr.

Patrick explained that the program framework, called the systematic regulatory analysis, includes the identification phase of-the program architecture.

The other two portions of the program l

architecture include program p]anning and execution.

Program-l planning includes evaluation of alternatives and prioritization.

l-In the execution phase are the development of_ analysis methods, compliance determination codes, and research.

Products of the SRA I

will also include an integrated basis for the review of site characterization documents in addition to development of compliance determination strategies.

A program architecture support system (PASS) has been created to l

assist the CNWRA in the systematic regulatory analysis.

This is a computer-based information analysis and management system that, in addition to providing computer-assisted development of the SRA, will provide information analysis, integration of program plans and archival information, a technical document index, and a link to the Licensing Support System (LSS) and NUDOCS/AD.

PASS will provide l

the status of uncertainties and listings and summaries of pertinent reference documents.

PASS is available now on a limited basis and l

by July 1,

1990, phase I of the program architecture will be available to the staff on the PASS.

o 20th ACNW Meeting 6

May 24-25, 1990 Mr. Philip Altomare, HLWM, explained that, during Phase I, the rule will be divided into sections called technical review components that will be used by the NRC staff to determine whether DOE has complied with the regulations.

Later, the system will also provide cne compliance determination methods that are being developed for comparison.

PASS will provide access to the regulatory text quickly.

Much of the compliance determination methods information will form the foundation for the license application review plan q

and assist in the development of the format and content guide.

Dr. Patrick noted an example of a technical uncertainty that was identified.

That uncertainty exists with regard to the assessment of the underground stability of the repository under seismic shaking conditions.

After the uncertainty was identified, the CNWRA examined what the regulations said about performance of the underground repository during the operational phase and found that there were no validated codes or analysis methods available for NRC to use to assess compliance.

The technical uncertainty is the basis for a research program at the CNWRA that will examine short-term risk and long-term post-closure performance with regard to seismic shaking of the underground repository.

Dr. Patrick'also noted that there is direct communication between researchers at the CNWRA and DOE research contractors.

Several interactions betwoon the two groups have taken place concentrating solely on technical matters.

Dr. Patrick also stated that the CNWRA now has access to site specific data from the DOE's Site Engineering Properties Data Base (SEPDB).

The CNWRA staff have had no problems with the use of that database.

The DOE is willing to provide tapes of data to the CNWRA as often as the CNWRA has the time and need to analyze those databases.

These databases are accessed through the NRC staff.

Accomplishments of the CNWRA thus far on the SRA are:

1)

Prioritization of the statutes and regulations focu;ing on those that are NRC's responsibility.

2)

Delineation of 86 regulatory topics and requirements from Part 60.

3)

. Determination that the program architecture process is useful to the regulatory program.

4)

Completion of an analysis of the regulatory and institutional uncertainties in Port 60.

Planned products of the SRA include technical positions, rulemakings, and regulatory guides.

There will also be license application and performance assessment review strategy documents and detailed technical review components and information requirements for a final license application format and content regulatory guide.

4 s

+

20th ACNW Meeting 7

May 24-25, 1990 l

After a recess, Dr. Patrick concentrated on the recently completed CHWRA report on the results of the regulatory and uncertainty analysis of Part 60.

The uncertainty report includes the identification of uncertaintics (regulatory and institutional) in Part 60, grouping and categorization of uncertainties for further analysis, correlations of uncertainties with proposed rulemakings and technical positions, and, finally, recommendations.

The CNWRA staff, along with members of the SwRI stf and CNWRA consultants worked together to identify the regulatory requirements.

NRC staff also participated in the analysis of some topics.

These persons were trained in regulations and technical operating procedure on how to develop a SRA.

Work was done in groups of three composed of a Icad person familiar with the topic, someone who knows the Icgal background of the regulations, and someone with technical c>:pertise on the topic.

The work of each group was subnitted to a formal review committee with expertise and experience similar to the work group.

After the regulatory requirements were identified, the group delineated the relationships between requirements into an " element

- of proof."

The uncertaintics were then identified and categorized as to whether they were regulatory or institutional.

Finally the group analyzed and developed the rationale for uncertainties in the context of the availabic documentation and excluded uncertainties as appropriate.

Technical uncertainties were excluded from this report.

A basic analysis for an uncertainty is conducted in three stages and includes identification, characterization, and reduction.

The three types of uncertaintics arc-regulatory, what must be done; institutional, who is responsible; and technical, how will compliance be demonstrated by DOE or determined by NRC.

Regulatory uncertaintics occur where requirements are unclear or do not contribute to the program.

An institutional uncertainty occurs where. it' is unclear what the

roles, missions,

actions, and schedules of agencies arc.

Uncertaintics have been placed into groups based on the topic or subject that is involved.

This provides a means to determine if one uncertainty reduction method could apply to more than one uncertainty.

Uncertaintics were then categorized to differentiate among subtypes to provide an early idea of.what uncertainty method would best apply.

At this point in the process, there was no set importance given to the uncertainty and no set need for reduction.

l l

t 20th ACNW Meeting 8

May 24-25, 1990 Uncertainties separated by category indicated that there were 43 uncertainties.

These fell into four categories:

need for definition,

omission, inconsistency, and question of agency jurisdiction.

The category with the greatest number of uncertainties-(24) is the need for definition of terms.

This could

' result in a difference of interpretations such as the depth of analysis needed.

The category of omission has the second largest number of uncertainties with 15.

Omissions include gaps in the regulations.

The categories of inconsistency and question of agency jurisdiction each had two uncertainties.

Inconsistancies are noted to occur between sections of Part 60 or between Part 60 and other portinent NRC regulations.

Differences in Part 60 and mining regulations are an example of where agency jurisdiction may be in question.

After completion of the uncertainties analysis, the CNWRA compared their results with scheduled plans of the HLWM Division as stated in SECY-88-285.

They found that five tentative rulemakings correlated with the identified uncertainties.

Fifteen tentative technical positions also correlaten with the uncertainties and thirteen uncertainties did not correlate with any rulemakings or technical positions proposed by the NRC staff.

Dr. Patrick added that, in the case of these last thirteen uncertainties, there may not be a need for a rulemaking or technical position.

The CNWRA plans to conduct a sufficiency analysis to determine that the regulation is compatible with the required functions of the repository.

They also plan to determine the need and importance

of reducing uncertainties. This ef fort will include prioritization of the uncertainties.

Finally, they plan to identify and implement uncertainty reduction methods.

Wherever an uncertainty correlates with a proposed rulemaking or technical position, they will evaluate whether the uncertainty will be appropriately reduced.

If the uncertainty does not correlate, they will evaluate whether any further action is needed and initiate regulatory action, if appropriate.

Regulatory action may take the form of an exchange, a 1ctter, a technical position or a rulemaking.

III. FINAL STAFF TECHNICAL POSITION ON THE DESIGN OF EROSICN PROTECTIO'J COVERS FOR STABILI2ATION OF URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SITES (Open)

(Note:

Mr. Howard J. Larson was the Designated Federal Officer for this portion of the meeting).

Mr.-Paul Lohaus, Branch Chief, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NMSS, made the introductory remarks, followed by the~ principal, speaker from his staff, Mr. Timothy Johnson.

Also present were the following NRC staff:

Dr. Myron Fliegel, NMSS, Mr.

J 20th ACNW Meeting 9

May 24-25, 1990 George Gnugnoli,

NMSS,

!!r.

Edward Hawkins, Region IV Uranium Recovery Field Office (URFO) and Mr. Raymond Gonzales, Region IV, URFO.

Mr. Lohaus reviewed the chronology of the Staff Technical Position (STP), noting its relationship to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A

" Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content."

As a result of the August, 1989, Federal Register Notice, fifteen public comments were received (including the October 18, 1989 ACNW letter).-

tir. Lohaus pointed out that Appendix E to the STP provides the staf f's analysis and response to the comments and that this was done in order that the staf f's rationale for handling each comment would be available.

Also noted was that page 13 of the STP provides a "roadmap" that permits the user to determine where various options are addressed as well as what the considerations and guidance are for dealing with them.

Mr. Lohaus explained how the STP fits into the overall regulatory ic i.e.,

reducing radon speci{s), focus, framework as well'as its pCi/M groundwater protection and.

releases from piles- (<20 tailings pile stability.

Designs are to be effective in providing s

a " reasonable assurance of control for 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable and in no case less than 200 years."

This guidance document, although narrowly focused, is a part of the overall systematic approach directed at the stabilization and long term control of tailings.

Mr. Lohaus stated that this STP "is breaking some new ground" by specifying designs that are to be effective for up to-1000 years without active maintenance.

In response to a question from'Dr. Hinze, Mr. Lohaus indicated i

that, although the staff is not currently working on another document in this specific area, it is - further reviewing the groundwat,er protection area.

Dr. Moeller questioned whether the 20 pCi/M s was a design guide or a performance standard.

Mr.

Lohaus noted that the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requires' performance monitoring to demonstrate that the design standard has been met.

He-also noted the results of recent DOE tests at the Durango site where a newly designed activated charcoal canister indicated fluxes in the 2

order of 4-6 pCi/M s over a 6"

tailings cover.

The EPA NESHAP monitoring requirements were believed to be a single demonstration, one time measurement over a year or a minimum of 100 measurements, following closure.

Dr. Moeller also asked for an estimate of the dose rates from an unprotected or improperly stabilized site.

[The data to specifically respond was not available at this meeting but the staff agreed to provide it subsequently.)

20th ACNW Meeting 10 May 24-25, 1990 Mr. Johnson discussed a typical tailings cover used by DOE at the Bowman Processing Site in Griffin, North Dakota.

He stressed that the STP addresses only the outcrmost layer.

Slide photographs of several actual sites were shown.

Descriptions and unique considerations with the several specific sites or the covers were noted.

Drs. Moeller and Ilinzo raised several questions regarding rock size, how the soil was held in place, how existing gullies were treated, when vegetation or rock or soil alone was utilized, and items portaining to tailings pile reshaping and movement.

The questions were answered by the staff, noting that each tailings stabilization situation is unique and must be handled on an individual basis.

A few relevant considerations were:

location, local economics (and occasionally political realities), past and projected weather conditions, proximity and nature of water bodies and past experiences at the site.

Mr. Johnson discussed erosion experiences and protection at some length, noting the design manuals and guidance developed for agricultural drainage systems by the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Agriculture and Forest Service.

Their practicos were for channels which the staff used by treating the soil covers as broad channels.

Several studios since 1980 have boon funded by DOE and performed by pacific Northwest Laberatory (PNL).

These studies have provided guidance on the design of slopes for 200 years and on rock L

vulnerability.

The DOE Title I experience for the 10 sites currently being stabilized was also incorporated as much as t

possible.

Dr. liinze questioned where in the STP the staff maximizes the consistency of approach to crosion stability on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Johnson stated that those words will not be directly l

found.

He did point out that some commenters believed that the l

staf f was trying to impose requirements, whereas what it was really l

trying to do is'to provide the best possible guidance and attempt.

L to assure consistency.

The NRC staff is flexible, however, and is willing to consider justifiable departures from the criteria.

In response to Dr. Ilinze's question as to when these tailings stabilization projects will be completed, it was noted that all work is expected to be finished by the 1994-1995 timeframe.

Although the STP.was specifically directed to mill tailings,- it would also be applied, as applicable, to LLW disposal site closure covers and covers-at other types of decommissioned facility sites.

The staff considers it to be a carefully prepared document with a potential for relatively broad scale application.

-.~.

20th ACNW Meeting 11 May 24-25, 1990 Dr. Hinze complimented the staff's system approach but suggested that, for emphasis, a statement highlighting the considerations that go into a reclamation and cover design, such as groundwater protection, geotechnical stability, and radon releases, be placed up front in an Executive Summary.

The staff concurred that this would be beneficial.

Dr. Hinze proposed, and the staff concurred, that similar emphasis should be placed on clearly stating that the STP was for guidance only and was not a requirement.

Dr. Moeller pointed out a potential dichotomy, to wit:

although indicating that the STP is only for guidance, on page E-6 only the Horton, NRC method is recommended.

Mr. Johnson stated that the Horton method was believed to be a

broad enough acceptable

position, being neither overly nor underly conservative.

Dr.

Moeller indicated several other places where particular methods were " recommended."

Mr. Fliegel explained the NRC philosophy in denoting different methods.

He pointed out that if an applicant used the " recommended" approach, then there would be no question as to its applicability to the problem.

Whereas, for some of the other methods listed, but not " recommended," more effort may be necessary to show specific applicability.

Further discussion ensued with the staff c>: plaining their be21ef that they have selected "a good middle of the road" philosophy.

Dr. Moeller asked about the difference between Title I and II sites' regulatory aspects.

Mr. Gnugnoli explained the evolution of rules since the 1978 UMTRCA passage noting that Title I sites were those not in operation or without a license in 1978.

For those

sites, EPA established the standards.

DOE had the responsibility to physically clean up those sites and NRC was to provide oversight.

For Title II sites (those in operation and which had licenses) EPA similarly provided the standards, the licensee performed the cleanup and NRC had licensing responsibility.

Dr. Hinze questioned the impact of flood flows vis-a-vis soil cover slope and rock size.

The staff pointed out that rock size and I

velocity are more dependent upon slope angle than discharge.

(

Analyses demonstrated that if one wanted the size of the rock to be kept down, the best way is to flatten the slope rather than reduce the magnitude of the flood or to use a lesser design flood.

The Standard Project Flood (SPF) and the flood of record were i

discussed. Dr. Hinze pointed out that each is used in the STP in different places and that perhaps this is inconsistent.

Mr.

l Johnson pointed out that a licensee cannot use less than the SPF l

or flood of record, whichever is greater.

He then ex;.lained that in some cases there may be an insufficient database to develop the historical flood of record.

After further interchange, it was agreed that the staff would clarify this potentially confusing point.

.o.

20th ACNW Meeting 12 May 24-25, 1990 Mr. Voiland.connented on the magnitude of the risks associated with the tailings, vi. ether covered or uncovered, and the need to put that risk into perspective.

Mr.

Gnugnoli reviewed EPA's Environmental Irpact Statement gnd presented a short discussion as to the evolution of the 20 pCi/M s 1cvel, explaining that the value 20 was arrived at "almost from a cost benefit analysis." The staff believed that the description of how the number was evolved was too lengthy and perhaps would over shadow the more important aspects of the STP.

It was believed that the range of 200-1000 years really addressed the dependability of construction rather than the risk of radiation from the tailings.

Mr. Lohaus further explained

'that not only is the underlying concept of the STP the control of radon releases but it is also to clininate the potential for windblown releases as well as possible misuses (e.g. the use of tailings at Grand Junction for construction purposes).

The statf agreed either to provide additional clarifying summary information or to provide references to assist in understanding risks.

It was also pointed out that the intention was to clearly state that the purpose of the STP was not to justify the radon standards nor was it to discuss cost factor considerations but rather to provide regulatory guidance on the limited subject of tailings

.crosion protection.

In response to a suggestion from Dr. Hinze, the staff agreed to consider a "roadmap" or flow chart that illustrates how the STP fits into the overall regulatory framework.

The oxemption criteria that would permit a licensee to have a 200 year crosion cover design was discussed.

The burden of proof is on;the licensee to demonstrate an inability to meet the 1000 year

-requirement.

The process is not a step function process; it is a gradual one.

For

example, perhaps the best that can be demonstrated is a 750 year maintenance free design.

While specific criteria were not developed due to the significant number of variables, the applicant firmly bears the burden of proof to provide "the best design reasonably achievable." Dr. Hinze opined that he believed that the staff had successfully bounded

" reasonably achievable" in the STP.

The. staf f plans to issue the STP and award a contract for

. additional soil cover flume studios, an area perceived as requiring improvement.

The~

database will continue to be expanded.

-Reiterated also'was the applicability of the STP to th0 closures at' low-level waste sites since they use the same technology, general design criteria and longevity standards (as well as employ an-earth mounded cover).

.m.__.

20th ACNW Meeting 13 May 24-25, 1990 IV.

STATUS OF THE LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM (Open)

(Note:

Ms. Charlotte E. Abrams was the Designated Federal Officer for this* portion of the meeting.)

Mr. Lloyd Donnolly, Licensing Support System Administrator, made the presentatier..

He was assisted by Mr. Francis " Chip" Camaron, Deputy Administrator.

Mr. Donnelly began with an explanation of what the LSS is and how it will be used.

The LSS is an electronic information management-system that will contain all documentary material pertinent to the licensing of the HLW site.

This includes all material generated by the NRC, DOE and its contractors, and other parties such as the State of Nevada.

The LSS will be used for document search for technical review in the pro-licensing and licensing phase - It is a way to facilitato discovery before the license application is submitted and it will be used during the licensing hearing to review evidence.

The system will have the capability of full text and image search.

It will be possible to down-load small amounts of data at local points of use, but there will also be the capability to down-load large documents at centralized locations.

The LSS was established due to the unique situation of sitirg a repository, other reasons were because the facility will be the first-of-a-kind, the associated adjudicatory process is limited to three years, the case is expected to be highly contested, and very largo quantities of technical information will be involved.

The LSS was set up through a negotiated rulemaking in which Mr.

Cameron took part. The negotiated rulemaking involved the NRC and other af fected parties establishing together what the proposed rule should be.

The negotiating committee developed a consensus on the proposed rule.

That rule was issued for public comment just as L.

other rulemakings.

l l

The LSS negot iated rulemaking requires the use of an automated document managcment system before and during the licensing hearing.

DOE.has the responsibility to design the system and develop it.

The rulemaking also established independent control over the LSS database through the LSS Administrator and established an advisory committee, composed of future users and called the LSS Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP).

The members of the LSSARP are the same as the members of the negotiated rulemaking committee and include representatives from DOE, other federal agencies, the public, State of Nevada, and representatives of the NRC.

In addition to the members of the negotiated rulemaking committee, the LSSARP includes persons who may have expertise in data management systems or the legal aspects of repository licensing.

4 20th ACliW Mocting 14 May 24-25, 1990 The LSSARP has met twice and will meet again in June.

They provide advice to the LSS Administrator.

There is no majority rule.

Decisions are based on a consensus of the committee members which means that a consensus occurs if there are no objections.

The !!RC Office of the LSS Administrator has a staff of eight.

Members of the staff have c>:pertise in system design, document management and processing and operational planning and procurement.

The LSS Administrator reports to the Commissioners.

The LSS Office provides support to the LSSARP in planning, coordination, and taking of minutes.

The LSS Administrator is responsible for ensuring that the requirements in the LSS rule are being followed and appropriate documents are put into the system in a timely manner.

The LSS office's budget comes from the waste fund through the liRC at this time, but it has been proposed that the DOE support the LSS Office in the future.

Preparation of documents for capture into the system is a

responsibility that is shared by 11RC and DOE.

DOE, along with the LSS office, will also be preparing facilities for the use of the LSS with the first of those planned for the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, llanagement of the system, such as operation, maintenance, and back-up systems, will be the responsibility of the LSS Administrator's Office.

That office will also have the responsibility for user support such. as training, hard copy distribution, and problem resolution. Upgrades to the system when they are needed, will be the joint responsibility of the D ; and LSS Office.

Mr. Donnelly stated that they have identified what they believe to be the most important challenges to his office.

User satisfaction is their primary concern.

They are also concerned about the integrity and protection of the database and the effort needed to ensure that all the right documents are put into the system at the right time.

They will be consulting with DOE on design and implementation so that the system is effective, but not duplicative.

They hope to design the system to avoid obsolescence, but they recognize that this will occur and are designing a system that can integrate a varloty of equipment.

In order to obtain the best quality of contract proposals, they have performance based procurement specifications to allow flexibility in design.

They do have some basic design requirements, but have tried to maintain some flexibility.

Also, in this regard, they have tried to be as knowledgeable of the technology as possible in order to evaluate what is the best design.

Dr. Hinze suggested another challenge is to have the ability to integrate the LSS with other major data systems.

y 20th ACNW Meeting 15 May 24-25,-1990 The need for a LSS was_ recognized by the NRC and DOE in the early 1980's, but due to funding DOE did not begin design and development of a system until 1987.

Clearance to proceed was obtained from OMB

'in 1988 and DOE had Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) begin preliminary design analyses.

They planned to have SAIC complete the LSS, but af ter the repository schedule was altered there was a decision to have cantractors bid on the design contract.

The system is estimated to cost approximately $200 million over the period 1987 to 1997.

The majority of this cost will be the labor to process documents to computer form.

A distributed system is planned with multiple nodes, each connected at locations around the U.S.

Each node will be a mini version of the entire system with the capability for electronic capture at the node, remote full text search, remote image retrieval for an optical disk, and remote downloading to laser printers.

There will probably be two types of work stations, with one for full text and another for image retrieval.

It is hoped that a contractor will be selected in 1991 and by 1992 they hope to have the first component of the system installed at the University of Nevada.

In 1993, they plan to begin capturing documents, beginning with those of higher priority.

Then, in 1993 and 1994, users will have access to the database.

This is all dependent upon the DOE implenentation of the program.

Dr. Hinze expressed concern over the lack of the availability of information to the technical staff prior to 1994.

He pointed out that information is needed now and existing DOE and NRC databases should be conpatibic with the LSS in order to expedite dccument capture when that phase begins.

Potential LSS users include all parties to the licensing process and interestod non-parties.

There is a provision in the rule for charges for renote access, but the NRC can waive those costs where access to the system ic perceived to be in the public interest.

Document' selection for capture will be based on a screening process.

The LSS Office will provide' guidance as to timing and what types of documents should be submitted to the system.

The LSSARP will recommend generic guidance.

The prioritization may match the outcome of DOE's prioritization for Study Plans.

The LSS Office is also examining the capture of data that are in non-document form.

They are working on establishing e contract with the CNWRA to assist in defining what types of technical data are present, what organizations will be producing that data, and how access will be provided.

,o 20th ACNW Mocting 16 May 24-25, 1990 To be submitted to the system, documents must be relevant to the repository or be regulatory guidelines.

Documents to be excluded will be text books, press clipping, administrative materials, and classified materials.

Based on an estimate from SAIC, DOE will have about 90 percent of the material for capture into the system.

The other 10 percent will come from NRC and other parties.

One challengo that the system faces is the wide range in the content and quality of material for capture into the system.

They expect materials in various forms such as microfilm and fiche, diskettes, and computer tapes, in addition to paper.

They will also have to deal with the problems associated with the capture of text, maps and diagrams, equations, and handwritten documents.

Mr. Donnelly defined the process for capture of documents to the Committoc.

The process will involve electronic capture, indexing,

storage, and retrieval,

browsc, and print capability at each workstation for text and at selected workstations for images.

The system will have a synonyn scarch capability.

This will enable users to locato additional documents and citations pertinent to the topic-of interest.

The NRC cetimated that the database size at the time of application would be approximately 20 million pages of text and images.

By providing header information, the scarch can be more rapid.

A decision has not been made as to whether abstracts for all documents or only selected documents will be included.

Headers will also include bibliographic fields for each document.

The document production schedule will be reviewed by the LSSARP and l.

approved by the Commission.

The production schedule will reflect the repository schedule and activitics, and will be aimed at

' meeting the technical needs of the staff and meeting legal requirements.

The loading schedule will involve four capture stations working two shif ts through 2000-2001.

It is expected that there will'be access to approximately.700 pages by late 1993.

This briefing was for information only.

No Committee action was taken.

o 20th ACNW Monting 17 May 24-25, 1990 V.

EXECUTIVE SPSSIoJJ (open/ Closed)

A. Ecports, Letters and Memoranda (open) 1.

Pcview of ?!RC Staff Comments on Workina Draft No.

2 of EPA'__s High-level Waste Disposal Standards (Letter to Chairman Carr dated Juno 1, 1990) i In response to a request f rom the NRC Chairman, the Committee reviewed and provided comments on SECY 90-102, " Comments on Working Draft No. 2 of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's High-Level Waste Disposal Standards" (ovo),

as well as provided additional comments on the relationships between the suggestions mado by the NRC staff and some of the specific recommendations made in the ACNW letter of May_1, 1990.

2.

Final Staff Technical Position on the ' Desian of Trosion Protection Covers for Stabilization of Uranium itill Tallinns Siten (Letter to Chairman 4

Carr dated llay 31, 1990)

The Committee provided comments on the modifications rado to the original draft Technical Position..The Committee concluded that the Technical Position, contrary to several public comments, is not too conservative and 'is in accordance with the NRC Uranium !!ill Tailings Management Position.

As a f ollow-up. to the Committoo's report, Mr.

Raymond F. Fralcy sont on May 30, 1990,. a memorandum to 11r.

Richard

Bangart, Director, NMSS/LLWM, addressing two cditorial comments that. were identified during the Committee's review of the final staff Technical' Position.

B._-

ACf!W Futurn Activities (open) 1.

Future ACNU/ACRS Letter on Decommissionina Pesponsibilities In response to a request from the NRC Chairman,.the Committee discussed the. scope and nature of a

_ proposed-joint ACNW/ACRS letter to the Commission on decommissioning responsibilities.

The purpose-of this le ter would be to' delineate the responsibilitics of the two Committees regarding various aspects of decommissioning.

i 20th ACNW Mocting 18 l

liay.2 4 -2 5, 1990 l

Dr. Moeller indicated that he thought decommission-ing (especially in the later stages) would logically fall within the responsibilities of the ACNW.

Mr.

i Raymond Fralcy agreed to-solicit the thoughts of the ACRS on this matter.

It was suggested that the I

subject be further discussed during the June ACNW j

meeting.

2.

Annual Report on AC!1W Activities and Future Plans The Committee agreed that an annual report j

summarizing past AC!lW contributions and future ACNW nissions and goals should be prepared.

Dr. Moeller.

1 requested that the AC!lW staff prepare a summary of AC11W's accomplishments along with a

package containing ACl:W Ictter reports and pertinent ACRS i

Ictter reports prepared in recent years on waste

.managenent.

f

-3.

Ho an Intrusion and Carbon-14 Micration Issuee 4

The Committee discussed the feasibility of having i

f a working group meetings on the 10 CFR Part.60 approach to human intrusion and the 40 CFR Part 191 j

release limits for carbon-14 at the proposed high-Icvc1 waste repository.

A possible working group 1

meeting in July was considered.

4.

Meetinn with the Cornissioners' Technical Assistants j

j Dr.

Moeller requested a.

meeting with the Commissioners' Technical Assistants during June to j

discuss items of mutual interest and concern.

j 5.

Discussion on the Use of the' Term "recresentative-ness" 4

The Committee agreed to indefinitely defer a

briefing.on the use of the term "representativeness" as it pertains to NRC staff's review of DOE's methodology for three-dimensional characterization

'j of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository site. The briefing will be scheduled after the NRC staff has issued-a position paper on this subject.

I d

1

.C

.c, 20th ACNW Mocting 19 May 24-25, 1990 6.

hiternative Exn1 oratory Shaf t Facility Construction Techninuen The Committee agreed to defer indefinitely a

briefing on alternative exploratory shaft facility construction techniques from both engineering and gooscience perspectivos.

The briefing will be scheduled af ter the NRC stef f has issued a position i

paper on this subject.

However' the Committee agreed to schedule: time during the next mcoting to see two films on tunnel boring machines and be briefed on excavation techniques for information only.

7.

Proposed Revision 1 to the Branch' Technical Position-on Solidification of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes The. Committee decided to review-this proposed revision af ter - it has boon published ~ for public conment.-

Dr.

Orth and Mr.

Voiland, will be authorized to assist the staff as independent' consultants prior to this time, if the NRC staff requests assistance.

Revision 2 (after public comments have been incorporated) will be submitted to the Committoo for review prior to its publication as a final Branch Technical Position.

8 ',

Radioactive waste Research Procram Based on guidance from Chairman Carr, the Committee

' deferred any review or action on the NRC research prograns related to high-level and low-level wastes.-

.This matter will be considered as an item to'be discussed during the next meeting of the ACNW with the Connissioners.

l 9.

DOE Studv' Plans Based on guidance from Chairman Carr, the Committee-agreed to limit its review of NRC evaluations of DOE

' Study Plans ~ for the Characterization of the Yucca Mountain site to study Plans of special significance.

The Committee also agreed to advise the Commission of any deficiencies noted in the j

process.

l I

'l

\\

L'

,,.i'.,

4 20th ACNW' Moe':ing 20 May 24-25, 1990 10.

NESHAPS EPA Proposal At his meeting with Dr. Moeller, the NRC Chairman indicated his concurrence with the proposed ACHW review of EPA's proposal for the National Emission Standards f or. Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESMAP).

The Committee will continue plans to review the EPA proposal.

C.

Future Amenda'(Open)

Appendix II summarizes the tentative agenda items that were proposed for future meetings of the Committee.

This list includes items proposed by the NRC staff as well as the ACNW members.

The 20th ACNW meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

on May 25, 1990.

O b

Fadtral R gistir / Vol. SS, No. 92 ( Frid:y.4daytti,sigeo r/sN:tices. ;,,; i.we ci

~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~

Wyrrning OccupationalHealth and Handling Faciliues: Safety Testing or '

Restonal Admini.tes l'

Safety Rules and Regulations for Certification of Certain Workplace effective upon pubhos Generalindustry, as required by Equipment and Materials (Dy letter following reason (s)-

, e-n A.

Wyoming Statute 19 7 section 27 dated April 13,1990 from Stephan R.

ne Standards were a tedin*r, # ' \\ w' P','e

. (s)(vill).

Foster Assistant Administrator, accordance with the p ural ~ U tste Standards for 29 CFR 1926.550; Wyoming Occupational Health and requirements of State law which.

anes and Derricks were adopted by Safety Division, to Byron R. Chadwick, included public comment. and further the Health and Safety Commission c[

OSHA Regional Administrator, the state public participation would be Wyoming on November 18,1968 of Wyoming advised thatit will not repeutious.%1s decision is effective (effective December 19,1988); State establish a laboratory accreditation May 11,1990. (Sec.18, Pub. t.91-498, se Standards for 29 CFR 1926.700-706:

program and will accept the federal Stat.1006 [29 U.S.C. 067]).

Concrete and Masonry Construction program as compliance with the state signed et Denver, coloredo this 19th day of Safety Standards were adopted by the rules) Access to Employee Exposu e Aprii sego.

and Medical Records: Asbestos, Byron R.Chadwick.

Health and Safety Commisalon of Tremolite, Anthophyllite and Actinotite jg,y,,,jg,j,j,,,,,,,, gjj, j

Wyoming on November 18,1988

@ b MM M MM NI e

m es S

s fo 29 part 9 6 5 p

an n

muse coot esm all substantially identical to the Federal Asbestos,Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Standards action, with the only Actinolite were adopted by the Health exceptions being paragraph numbering cnd Safety Commission of Wyoming on and minor wordage appropriate only to NUCL. EAR REQUt.ATORY April 14,1980 (effective June 7,1909);

the Wyoming statutes.

COMMISSION State Standsids for 29 CFR 1910.1047:

Occupational Exposure to Ethylene Decialon Adyteory Committee on Nudeer',E Oxide were adopted by the Health and he above State Standards have been, Waste;Geoetin0 %.c 'e..*

Bel:ty Commission of %yoming on reviewed and compared with the

%e Advis ry Committee on Nuclear November 18,1968 (effective December and OSHA relevant Federal Standards'te Standards Waste (ACNW) willhold its 20

• 19,1968); State Standards for 29 CFR has de: ermined that the Sta meeting on May 24 and 15,1990, room P-1910.120; Hazardous Waste Operations are at least as effective as the 110,7920 Norfolk Avenue,Bethesda, end Emergency Response were adopted comparable Federal Standards, as MD,8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. each day.

by the Health and Safety Commission of required by section18(c)(2)of the Act.

Portions of this meeting will be closed to Wyoming on August 30,1989 (effective OSHA has also determined that the discuss information the release of which M:rch 6,1990); State Standards 29 CFR differences between (Se State and 1910.272:Crain Handling Facilities were Federal Standards are minimal and that would represent a clearly unwarranted cdopted by the Health and Safety the Standards are thus substantially invasion of personal privacy 8 U.S.C.

Commission of Wyoming on September idenucal. OSHA therefore approves 552b(c)(6).

De purpose of the meeung willbe to 1988 (effective September 23,1988);

these standards. However, the right to review and discuss the following topics:

ste Standards for 29 CFR 1910.7 etc.;

reconsider this approvalis reserved A. Review and comment on the NRC ciety Testing or Certification of Certain should substantial objections be staffe draft Techalcal posluon on soll

_ Wcrkplace Equipment and Materials submitted to the Assistant Secretary, erosion and protection for uranium mill were adopted by the Health and Safety Commission of Wyoming on November location of Supplement for inspection tallings altes (Open).

18,1988 (ellective December 19.1988);

and Copying B. Briefing by the Center for Nuclear

' St:te Standards for 29 CFR part 1910. 20; A copy of.the Standards Supplements. Waste Regulatory Analyses on the Access to Employee Exposure and along with the approved Plan, may be Systematic Regulatory Analysis.

(Program Architecture) for the high. level

. Medical Records were adopted by the inspected and copied during normai radioactive wastetepoeltory (Open).

Health and Safety Commission of business hours at the following Wyoming on April 14.1989 (effective locations: Office of the regional C. Briefing on the status of activities june 7,1989); State Standards for Administrator, Room 1576 Federal associated with the licensing support 1910.1001:Asbestoa.Tremolite.

Office Building,1961 Stout Street, system (Open).

Anthophyllite, and Actinolite were Denver, Colorado 80294; the D. Appointment of New Membere--

the Committee will discuss cdopted by the Health and Safety Occupational Health and Safety qualifications of candidates proposed Commission of Wyoming on April 14, Department. Herschler Building, 2nd for appointment to the ACNW (Closed).

1989 (eflective lune 7,1989), State Floor East,122 West 25th Street, E. Committee Activities-%e Standards for 29 CFR 1910.177; Servicing Cheyeime, Wyoming 82002; and the Committee will discuss anucipated and Multi.plece and Single. piece Rim Office of State Programs, Room N-3700, Wheels were adopted by the Health and 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,

proposed Committee activilles, future meeting agenda, and organizational Safety Commission of Wyoming on Washington, DC 20210.

ropriate (Open).

matters, as apfor the conduct of and April 14.1989 (effective ]une 7,1989).

Public Participation procedures Adoption of all these Standards was

. pursuant 1o Wyoming Statute 1977 Under 29 CFR 1953.2(c) the Assistant participation in ACNW meetings were eretion 27-11-105.ne State standards Secretary may prescribe alternative published in the Federal Register on en Cranes and Derricks; Concrete and procedures, or show any other good June 6,1988 (53 FR 20099). In accordance Masonry Construction Safety Standards; cause consistent with applicable laws, with these procedures, oral or written Asbestos,Tremolite Anthophyllite,an6 to expedite the review process The statements may be presented by Actionolite in the Construction Industry: Assistant Secretary finds that good members of the public, recordings will' Occupational Exposure to Ethylene cause exists for not publishing the be permitted only during those portions i

Oxide; Hazardous Waste Operations supplements to the Wyoming State plan of the meeting when a transcript is being end Emergency Response: Grain as a proposed change and makes the kept, and questions may be asked only WLL TEXT ASCO SCAN

,e

.o.

1}812 Federal RegistGr / Vol. 55. No 92 / Friday, May 11, 1990 / Notices by members of the Committee. Its being performed by licensee personnel.

requirements for surveying. surveillance, consultants. and staff.The office of the Although no violations were identified and posting. As a result of those March ACRS is providing staff support for the during the inspection at the field site in 20 findings, the NRC issued a ACNW. persons desiring to meke oral Lacey Township, New Jersey, numerous Conf;rmatory Actionlatter(No.1-co.

statements should riotify the Executive violations were identified at the field 000) to the licensee on March 23,1990.

D: rector of the office of the ACRS as far site near East Vineland, New Jersey, which confirmed the lice.ssee's in advance as practical so that where radiography was being performe,. commitments to take certain actions to appropriate arrangements can be made on a gas pipeline temporarily located improve performance and control of to allow the necessary time during the above ground. ne specific violstions, meeting for such statements. Use of still, which were identified by two NRC radiography activities.%ose meon picture, and telesision cameras inspectors during their observabon of commitments locluded the retreining of hic exposares, involved the rHponsible todWaphm, during this meeting may be limited to twelve radiograhe individual performing selected portions of the meeting as the failures b t discussion of these violations (u we!! as determined by the ACNW Chairman.

the radiogrep y to the compsnfs pohcin on adhmace to i

Infortnation regarding the time to be set

1. Survey the radiographic exposure nquirements) with aD other j

aside for this purpose may be obtained device, as well as the associated guide radiographic personnel, and a vlait to all

{

by a prepaid telephone call to the tube, on at least one occasion, as weU as job sites to discuss them matters and to g

Executive Director of the office of the the failure to perform adequate surveys audit the radiographere at those altas to ACRS, Mr. Raymond F, Fraley on several other occasions in that those connnn adherence to regulatory.

(telephone 301/492-4516), prior to the surveys did not include the entire requirements. In addition, an meeung. In view of the possibility that circumference of the exposure device enforcement conference was mnductei the schedule for ACNW meetings may not the fulllength of the guide tube as with licensee management on Apcil 5, be adjusted by the Chairman as required by to CFR 34 43(b);

1990 to discuss the findings of that riccessary to facilitate the conduct of the

2. tock the exposure device after March 20,1990 inspection.

meeting. persons planning to attend Odiographic exposures on at least three Prior to these findings, the licensee should check with the ACRS Executive occolons, as required by to CFR Director or call the recording (301/492-34.22leh had been issued a $5,000 civD penalty, 4600) for the current schedule if such

3. Maintsin direct surveillance of the on July 15,1987. for the repetitive failure rescheduling would result in major high radiation area (created whenever to adequately post and malateln inconvenience, the source was exposed), as required by surveillance of high radiation areas, Dated. May 7' 1990.

10 CFR 34.41, on at least three occasions fy L

in that the individual turned his back for Adnsory Comm/nce Management Offiar.

a short period on each occasion and did Notwithstanding those previous not observe the area while walking findings, as weU as the actions talten by (FR Doc 9411047 Filed 5-1Mn 8.45 am) away after having " cranked out" the the NRC and the licensee subsequent to amo coes tsw. ewe source from the exposure device. During identification of those findings, the these three short periods, thne non, licensee has not been affective in

~

IDoc6et No. 30-20787 Uoonsa No. 29-radiation workers from the company initiating appropriate corrective actions 21452-01;I' A 90 0801 responsible for the pipeline were within to prevent a recurrence of such the posted radiation area and were violations, as evidenced by the recent Consondated NDE. Inc, Woodbridge, approximately 100 feet from the high violations identified at the field site near New Jersey; Order Suspending radiation area:

East Vineland. As a result, the N5tC, Operations and Modifying Uconse

4. Adequately post required signs Region L issued another Confirmatory g

showing the radiation area and high Action letter (1-00-010) to the licensee

/

radiation area, as required by 10 CFR on April 26,1990 to confirm the

[

Consolida ted NDE, Inc. (Licensee) is 20.203(b) and (c), in that there were no licensee's commitments to remove the the holder of Materials License No. 2%

signe posted on the side opposite the i

21452-01 issued by the Nuclear street along which the pfpeline was responsible individuals from

~

Regulatory Commission ( NRC, or being placed. At the time this was radipphy activitiu and to meet with "Consnission") which authorizes the observed, the placement of the the NRC on April 27.1990 to discuss licenses in part, to possess numerous collimator was such that the highest these findings, thelt causes, and the sealed rectioactive sources in various radiation levels were in the area where planned corrective actions. At the April l

radiography exposure devices used for the signs were not posted. specifically.

27 meeting, the licensee denied that the the perfonnance of industrial the aree perpendicular to the pipeline first two safety violations had occurred.

l I

radiography in accordance with the where the radiographic exposure was in addition, the licensee's President and conditions specified in the license.The being taken: and Radiation Safety Officer raised license was most recently renewed on 5, Survey the perimeter of the questions regarding the validity of the October 6,1983, and although scheduled restricted area to assure that the area third violation, involving the -

for expiration on Septembcr 30,1988, was appropriately established in surveillance requirement. Furthermore, has remained in effect pursuant to 10 accordance with Condition 17 of the the licensee's President and Radiation CFR 30.37(b) since the licenace has license.

Safety Of!1cer attributed the cause of '

submitted a timely application for renewel.

fff the other two vloietions to the licensee's failure to fully understand those specific During a previous NRC inspection of NRC requirements, even though similar the licensee at a neld site in Lacey On April 25,1990, an NRC inspection Township, New Jersey on March 20, violations were identified durtag the was conducted at a field site in Lacey 1990, the NRC had observed similar March inspection and the specific NRC Township and one near East Vineland, violations of regulatory and license requirements were discussed during the New Jersey, where radiography was requirements, including violations of April 5,1990 enforcement conference, l

l

.?

[b,un

,'o, UNITED STATES-

-[ '

. < ( i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.t k *d' Q, 8 t

ADVISORY COMM117Et ON NUCLE AR WASTE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 s,

s. -,

• ..,+

20th ACNW COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, May 24, 1990. Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Marv3and 1) 8:30 ~ 8:45 a.m.

Openino Remarks by ACNW Chairman (0 pen)

TAB 1--------,1.1) Conduct of Meeting (DWM/RKM) 1.2) Items of current interest (DWM/RKM) 9 2) 8:45 11:&5 a.m.

Briefine by the Center for Nuclear Maste Reculatory Analyses on Systematic Reculatory Analysis (Procram TAB 2--------

Architecture) 2.1) Purpose of project 2.2) Goals l

2.3) Schedules Mv. t y ~a a.m.

BREAK 10:

j 2.4) Findings / Conclusions c

2.5) Future Plans 3)-

11:45 A.M.

ADDointment of ACNW Merbers 3.1). Discuss the qualificationc'of Candidates proposed for ACNW Membership -(DWM/MFL) t

~ NOTE:

Portions of this session will.be closed as necessary to' discuss information the release of

~

p which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

fNO ACNW SESSIONS SCHEDULED FOR THE AFTERNOON 1 Friday, May 25, 1990. Room'P-110, 7920 Norfolk' Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland-f"'

4).

8:30 - 10 a.m.

Review and comment on the Technical f

Desian of erosion Drotection l

e vers for stabilization of uranium mill TAB 4-------

tallinas sites 4.1) Introduction and Background 4.2) Major-Highlights of Final Technical Position s R M t/ h

~

e Development Tra c8Cr M "

Innovative Approaches e

Developed l

l 1

e

-?.

,s i

20TH ACUW MEETING-2 March 24-25, 1990 Unusual Findings / Conclusions e

Arising From Studies and Technical Assistance contracts 4.3) Comparison W/ DOE-UMTRAP Practices 4.4) Principal Comments Resulting from August 11, 1989 FRN and their Disposition 4/5)-Exemptions: Tentative Criteria to be Utilized ~in Granting

'10:00 a.m.

BREAK

\\.

40 5) 10:25 - 11:45 a.m.

Briefine on the Status of Activities Associated with the Licensino SucDort System TAB 5-------

5.1) Update of Activities by the NRC LSS Staff 5.2) Schedules j

11:45 - 12:45 p.m.

LUNCH 1*. c 6 7 10' 6).

44+4 5 - 1++5 p. m.

Anticioated ACNW Activities (Open)

.6.1) The Committee will discuss TAB 6-------

anticipated and proposed Committee. activities--, future-meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate (DWM/RFE 1: 00 p.m.

q,oo 7) 1e46 - 3:30 p.m.

PreDaration of ACNW Reoorts to the NRC

.;o - F ; n- ( n

-(Open).

7.1) Discuss proposed ACNW reports to the NRC as considered appropriate 7.1-1) Erosion P"a*ection Covers for Ur till Tailings Sites

~.

1:55 St$t p.m.

ADJOURN

T

..t.

g.

y[' w-l e "c,1. l /

,e;...

1

.4 s

1

( y ip ;A q

s y

p-.. -

4 c

p?Pi

' APPENDIX.I ! MEETING ATTENDEES

(. e

.}

ti

R

-20TH'ACNW. MEETING-h

,t 9,. ' '

MAY'24-25, 1990' e

"7~ 'ACNW MEMBERS:

let Day.

2nd Day Dr.JWilliam:J. Hinto X-X-

f' j>

Dr. Dade:W.:Moeller.

X-X~

s tt iDr.nMartin J.

Steindler

. 0;p g a

ms

-- l' v.

.in c,;

i.t.F,

. CONSULTANTS.

Mr. Eugene-Voil'and..

X'-

X t

n 5

s a,s Y

. 1

\\

b 7

}.,.

4

O

.i 3

l{5 j' -

f(,.

.t l;

a, s

V, i

p h.-

'c 5

• ' (;

./

i

(

i UN

{!

.- f s

i:

' q s:

E::

-l 1

4 4-_'

ei m::.....

4' "h*

l..,

_j

- N4k jp y

i,-

e

-.j e

f di I

.Il 1

N, i

.i

-fy c

-l L

K

.n' f

-'s 1

.. _ _ _. = _. _

.- a

1. .5 Appendix I-2 20th ACNW Mocting NkC STAFF CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES (CNWRA)

Abraham A. Eiss John E. Latz Robert E. Browning R. Adler Phillip Altomare Wesley C.

Patrick Donald J.

Loosley Allen R. Whiting Maria E.

Lopez-Otin Stephen George F.

Birchard Janet Lambert James' Wolf Seth M.

Coplan U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Girgio N.

Gnugnoli Raymond O.

Gonzales Barbara Cerny Myron H.

Fliegel.

Timothy C. Johnson Mark F. Haisfield Edward F. Hawkins Paul H. Lohaus OTHER AGENCIES AND PUBLIC i

P.

M.

Krishna - Battelle d

Andy Muir - ICF-Tech.

'Stan Echols -' Bishop-Cook Purcell & Reynolds V.

Lewis Killpack, Jr. - Weston/UE&C Victoria Reich

- Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Elizabeth Karam - SAIC JamesLBer - Prather Seeger Doolittle Farmer A. Greenberg - RDA i

• # '. e.

e APPENDIX II.

FUTURE AGENDA June 28-29, 1990 (Tentative Agenda)

The Committee will be briefed by a BLIk V Report (Open) representative of the National Research Council on the BEIR V

Report,

" Health Effects of Exposure to Low-Levels of Ionizing Radiation".

The Committee will be briefed by Iodine-129 Source Tern (open) representatives of EPRI and NUMARC on a methodology for predicting the iodine-129 source term for low-1cvel radioactive waste sites.

Annual Report on ACNW Activities and Future Plans (Open)

The Committee will discuss an annual report that summarizes past ACNW accomplishments and future ACNW goals and priorities.

The Committee will Tunnel and Shaft Borina Techninues (open) see two films on boring machines and be briefed on excavation techniques.

The Committee will be Off-site Spent Fuel Storaa'g (Open) briefed and watch a video r>resentation on the of f-site spent fuel storage and transportation experience at the Morris, Illinois, facility.

The Committee will discuss Comnittee Activities (Open) anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.

. Working Group Meeting (Date.to be announced)

L Mictration of Carbon-14 (open)

The Working Group will be briefed on the potential problems that could arise at a high-level repository as a result of carbon-14 release and migration.

This' will include a discussion of EPA release limits for this radio-nuclide.

The Working Group will discuss how human Human Intrusion (Open) intrusion at a high-level waste repository will be dealt with under

?

10 CFR Part 60 considerations.

This will include discussion of the l

WIPP experience and will be designed to explore the range of current thinking from various groups in the U.S.

and other countries.

l i

e Appe;.lix II 2

20th ACNW Mocting July 30-31, 1990 (Tontative Agenda)

Pathfinder hipnic Power Plant Diprantlerent (Open)

The Committee will review the NRC staf f 's Saf ety Evaluation Report.

The final SER is expected to be issued by the end of June 1990.

ACNW comments are requested.

Etatus of P.Innglive Wor); (open)

The Committoo will be briefed by the NRC staff on the status of proactive work (technical positions and rules) in the Division of llLWM and on NRC programmatic response to changes in the DOE program.

(The revision of SECY 88-285 is expected to be released ir. Junc.)

Dr. Linda Lehman, Lehman and Associates, Tr.in_RcngrA (Open) will brief the Committee on her recent vjsits to the Soviet Union to review radioactive wasto management activitico.

The Committee plans to Quality Assermacnt Activities (Open) meet with HRC ctaff to roccivo an update on QA activities associated with the IILW repository.

The Committee will discuss ppnmittee Activition (open) anticipated and proposed Committee activitics, future meeting agenda, and organizational mattern, as appropriate.

August 29-31, 1990 (Tentative Agenda)

The Committoc will continue discussion on IPA Standards (Open)

EPA standards for high-Icvel radioactive waste disposal in a geologic repository (per memorandum from Galpin, EPA, to Moeller,

.TCNW).

Working draft #3 of the standard is expected to be issued prior to thic mooting.

The Committee will discuss Committee Activities (opon) anticipated and proposed Committoo activitics, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, ao appropriato.

.o o.o.

4 o

4 l

APPt.NDIX III.

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED A.

Documents Received from Presenters and ACNW Staff AGENDA DOCUMEllTI

^

ITEM NO.

2 1.

Viewgraphs of Planned CNWRA TY90 - 91 Expenditures, undated 2.

Program Architecture and the Systematic Regulatory Analysis by Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysos, May 24, 1990 [Viewgraphs) 4 3.

Pinal Staff Technical Position Design of Erosion Protection Covers for Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites, May 1990 [Viewgraphs) 5 4.

Licensing Support System, undated (Viewgraphs)

B.

Meetina Notebook Contents Listed by Tab Number T.AB f0NTENTS 1

1.

Introductory Statomont by ACNW Chairman for May 24-l 25, 1990 2

2.

Tentative Agenda i

3.

Tabic of Contents 4.

Status Report on the Conter for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysco (CNWRA)

Work on Program

)

Architecture l

S.

Memorandum for ACNW Members and Staff from Charlotte Abrams, dated March 10, 1990, rc Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) Report on Program 1

Architecture (CNWRA 90-003) j 6.

Memorandum for ACNW Members and ACNW Staff from Charlotto Abrams, dated April 3,1990, re Center for Nuc1 car Wasto Regulatory Analyses Briefing to the March 30, 1990, with attachments Commissioners 7.

Paper presented at the High Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 8-12,

1990, entitled Analysis and Evaluation of Reaulatory Uncertainties in 10 CPR 60 Subogrts B and I, by Weiner and Patrick 8.

Tabic of contents for CNWRA 90-003 Volumes 1 and 2 Identification and Evaluation of Regulatory and l

Institutional Uncertainties in 10 CFR Part 60 l

i

r (o ".o.

o 4

)

Appendix III 2

20th ACNW Meeting 4

9.

Table of Contents 10.

Status Report on Staff Technical Position on Design of Erosion Protection Covers for Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tallings Sites, undated 11.

ACNW Letter for Carr, dated October 18, 1989, re Draft Staff Technical Position on the Design of Erosion Protection Covers for Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (Attached is a copy of pagcc E-41 and E-4 2 of the Final Staff Technical Position presenting staff's response to this letter) 12.

Final Staff Technical Position, Design of Erosion Protection covers f or Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 1990 IS, Part IV, Uranium Hill Tallings Radiation Control Act of 1978, As Amended,P.L.95-604, 1978 14.

Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings, 40 CTR Part 192 15.

Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source l

Material Trom Orcs Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content, 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A

16.

Uranium Mill Tailings Management Position, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 10, 1989 5

17.

Tabic of Contents 18.

Status Report on the Licensing Support System, May i

25, 1990 19.

Memorandum for ACNW Members from Charlotte Abrams, dated May 16, 1990, re Licensing Support System i

Quarterly Report, with attachment 20.

Licensing Support System (LSS) Program, from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Five-Year Plan riscal Years 1990 - 1994 21.

SECY-89-027, Final Rulemaking on the Licensing i

support System for the High-Level Waste Licensing j

Prococding, January 30, 1989 6

22.

ACNW Four Month Schedule an.! Rapond - Updated on May 17, 1990 i

23.

Memorandum for Fraloy from James Blaha, dated May l

4, 1990, re Proposed Agenda Items for ACRS and the ACNW, with attachment j

1 J