ML20028H253
| ML20028H253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/30/1990 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NACNUCLE-0022, NACNUCLE-22, NUDOCS 9011190246 | |
| Download: ML20028H253 (39) | |
Text
.
lf-hhhh s
F TABLE OF CONTENTS 22ND ACNW MEETING JULY 30-31, 1990 mm I.
Chairman's Report (open) 1-2 II.
Waste Management in the Soviet Union (open) 2-6 h
III. Proactive Work in the Division of High-Level 6-12 Waste Management (Open) o IV.
Uncertainties in Implementing EPA HLW Standards 12-17 (Open)
V.
Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement (Open) 17-20 VI.
Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant Dismantlement 20-25 (Open)'
VII. Executive Session (Open/ Closed) 25-26 A.
Reports, Letters and Memoranda 25 B.-
' Committee Activities (Closed) 26 C..
Future Agenda 26
=
~
-APPENDIX I:
Meeting Attendees APPENDIX II:
Future Agenda APPENDIX III:
Documents Received i
FULLTEXT ASCll SCAN Jgh"7eSie I/$20ikgE (f
h-0022 rl l
Issued:
August 30, 1990 MINUTES OF THE 22ND MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JULY 30-31, 1990 BETHESDA, MARYLAND The 22nd meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste was convened by Chairman Dade W. Moeller at 8:30 a.m.,
on Monday, July 30, 1990, at 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland.
[ Note:
For a list of attendees, see Appendix I.
ACNW members, Drs. William J. Hinze, Dade W. Moeller and Martin J. Steindler were present.
ACNW consultants, Mr.
Eugene Voiland and Dr.
David Okrent, were 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 j
available from the Ann Riley &' Associates, Ltd., 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20006.]
I.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT (Open)
[ Note:
Ms. Charlotte Abrams was the Designated Federal Officer
,for this portion of the meeting'.)
Dr. Moeller announced that Dr. Paul Pomeroy hus been appointed'as
~
a' member of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
Dr. Moeller announced that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has reorganized the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM).
This reorganization is designed to provide clear lines of responsibility, authority and accountability for the program and
.its. contractors.
Dr. Moeller reported that Dr. William D. Barnard has been appointed Executive Director of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB)._ Dr. Barnard has been serving in an acting capacity since April.
Dr. Moeller noted that the State.of Illinois may be at some risk of having.its agreement state status lifted, since it is promulgat-ing low-level waste (LLW) site regulations that are more stringent
...y.
i
-)
,8..
~ 4 -.
+
i l
4 e
22nd ACNW W eting 2
July 30-31, 1990 than NRC's.
NRC's rules in 10 CFR Part 61 restrict releases from LLW sites so that no member of the public receives a whole body dose greater than 25 m!111 rem per year.
Illinois is proposing a 1 millirem limit.
Discussions between Illinois and NRC are scheduled for August.
II.
WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOVIET UNION (Open)
[ Note: Ms. Charlotte Abrams was the Designated Federal Officer for this portion or the meeting.)
Ms.
Linda
- Lehman, Lehman and Associates, Inc.,
briefed the Committee on waste management and nuclear-related accidents in the Soviet Union.
Ms. Lehman has visited the Soviet Union four times during the past year.
One of these visits was with the people-to-people citizens ambassador program and was to discuss high-level nuclear waste issues and to visit Chernobyl.
On the other trips, she visited the Leningrad Nuclear Power Station, the Radon low-level radioactive wasts site, an away-from-reactor storage facility, and the offices of the World Organization of Nuclear Power Operators in Moscow.
Particular items that Ms.
Lehman discussed were:
types and locations of nuclear power plants, organization of the Soviet
-nuclear program, processing of reactor fuel and liquid high-level waste, temporary and permanent waste storage, reactor decommission-ing, types and locations of low-level waste sites, transportation of waste,,and nuclear accidents at Kushtym and Chernobyl..
Some points of discussion on each of these items are as follows:
Nuclear Power Plants There are approximately 90 nuclear power plants operating, under construction or being planned in the Soviet Union.
The types of Soviet reactors include VVR-440 and VVR-1000 which are similar to Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs); graphite-moderated reactors; fast-breeder reactors; Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs); a type of reactor used for regional heating; and at least two experimental fusion facilities.
Not all of these are in operation.
Some are under construction, reconstruction, or being planned; while others are closed.
The reactors that are under reconstruction were built in the 1960s and the early 1970s.
The Soviet Union has a new design for PWRs that will offer complete containment and will deliver coolant in case of a power loss.
Construction of this design will begin in 1994.
The Soviets are working on an advanced PWR design that is expected to be completed in 1992.
s 22nd ACNW Meeting 3
July 30-31, 1990 The Soviets are studying the possibility of siting reactors deep underground so that the whole facility could be entombed in place
=
after decommissioning.
Media being considered are salt, granite, and metamorphic rock of the Baltic Shield area.
(Dr. Steindler noted that this idea had been considered in this country in the 1950s, but was discarded due to cooling problems and the economics of the project at that time.)
Decommissionina The Soviets are engaged in their first decoraissioning effort and are decoraissioning f our units, two of which are in Armenia.
The decommissioning plans for the Armenian sites call for temporary storage for ten years near the sites.
The temporary facility will hold approximately 2,000 cubic meters of high-level waste.
The low-level waste will be shipped to a permanent disposal facility in Armenia.
The high-level waste will be processed and eventual-ly placed in a repository.
Soviet Low-Level Waste Procram J
There are 34 low-level sites in the Soviet Union.
Each republic is responsible for the waste generated within its borders.
Liquid and solid low-level wastes are stored on-site until it is treated.
Waste forms utilized are bitumen, concrete, and borosilicate glass.
There is vitrification processing on a small scale.
Volume reduction is by evaporation or reverse osmosis and compac-tion.
Most of the sites are designed similar to the Radon site located near Moscow.
The Radon site receives waste from approximately 2,000 facilities located in the Moscow region and eight adjacent territories.
The site has-research laboratories; incineration, bituminization, vitrification and compaction f acilities; f acilities for health and environmental monitoring; and special buildings for decontamination of transportation vehicles.
The Radon site was selected for its favorable geologic characteris-tics.
The site has a very thick clay layer. The clay forms a confining layer overlying a sand aquifer and causes the aquifer to be artesian.
For this reason the upward gradients at the site minimize the potential for the contaminants to move downward into the aquifer.
In addition, there are 200 monitoring wells on the site.
E
" = ' = =
-i.__-.ni-_
22nd ACNW Meeting 4
July 30-31, 1990 Wastes are solidified and placed in cement tanks or trenches 25 meters in length and 6 meters in width.
Each trench will hold about 600 cubic meters of waste.
Grout is placed around the waste packages to fill all voids.
When the trench is filled it is covered by layers of concrete topped by a half meter thick layer of asphalt.
Wastes are trar. sported to the Radon site in trucks.
The trucks did not appear to be shielded.
Higher activity wastes are stored temporarily at the Radon site for approximately 10 years.
This waste is of three types: naturally occurring radionuclides such as radium, uranium, and thorium; medical sources waste; and scientific and laboratory wastes.
Each type has a separate storage scheme.
There are two incinerators at the Radon site and they process approximately 60 kilograms per hour.
Ashes from the incinerators are mixed with cement and placed in containers.
This results in a volume reduction of 60 to 80 percent.
The. monitoring program at the Radon site is in two parts, an occupational and an environmental monitoring program. Air quality, worker oxposures, and water and sewage are monitored at the site.
The monitored area of the site is divided into three zones: the inner most
" zone of most stringent monitoring" includes the disposal and processing areas; the " buffer zone" extends ap-proximately 5 kilometers out from the site; and the " zone of people" is located f arther out from the site.
Farming and building is restricted within the buffer zone.
The " zone of people" can be utilized in any way, but in this zone things such as the air, water, rain, soil, vegetation, animals and milk are monitored.
Soviet Nuclear Procram The Soviet nuclear program organization is very complex.
The program is composed of nine ministries and five or six committees.
There appears to be very little communication among the mini-stries.
Following the Chernobyl accident, a new ministry was formed called the Institute of Nuclear Safety.
The main focus of the organiza-tion is to conduct remedial measures at Chernobyl.
Soviet Him.h-Level Waste Procram The Soviets reprocess spent fuel using a chlorinated cobalt dichloride extraction method.
Spent fuel is separated into four fractions (cesium, strontium, actinides and lathanides). They hope to separate neptunium and plutonium in the future.
9 6
- 22nd ACNW Meeting 5
July.30-31, 1990 The Soviets use reprocessed cesium in the sterilization and storage of foods and the strontium is used in navigation gauges and instru-ments.
The Soviets have three main methods for solidifying liquid waste.
They produce a phosphate borosilicate glass or a vitro melt from evaporated or non-evaporated waste passed through a ceramic melter.
Vitro similar rock is produced by passing evaporated wastes through an induction melter.
They also produce ceramic type blocks.
Spent fuel is stored at the reactor for up to ten years in pools, then it is transferred to temporary storage pools for 25 to 50 years.
Away-from-reactor storage is conducted in concrete buildings with
- storage halls that have metal floors.
The metal floor has hatch covers under which the fuel rods are stored.
The facility near the Leningrad Power Station has five pools, each 40 meters wide by 60 meters long and 11 meters deep.
The capacity of that facility is 15,000 fuel assemblies (rods).
An additional facility for 15,000 fuel rods will be ' completed in 1992.
Radiation levels at the facility are 50 to 100 microrems per hour; their dose limit is 250 microrems per hour.
There is currently no of ficial program to investigate permanent high-level waste storage sites.
Several institutes are looking at salt, granite, and clay as the main geologic media under considera-tion.- - Salt _ (domed and. bedded) around the Caspian Sea and the Cambrian clay formation near Leningrad appears to be the main area of interest.
Granite appears to be less favorable because of problems with circulating water.
The Soviets appear to follow IAEA siting criteria for selecting high-level waste sites and are avoiding seismic areas and unstable geologic formations.
1 l
Emphasis is also placed on transportation as they believe that the l
highest risks are in that area.
For that reason they are trying to locate the site in the western part of the Soviet Union where.
H I
most of the power plants are located.
The Soviets would like to locate the facility at a depth of 600 to 700 meters underground.
Soviet Nuclear Accidents Kushtym was a weapons production center in the central Ural Mountains.
Liquid reprocessing wastes were stored there in the l
1950s.
The site consisted of a concrete trench with 16 cm thick 1
4 22nd ACNW Meeting 6
i July 30-31, 1990 walls and a two and a half meters thick cover.
Each trench held 60 stainless steel tanks of nitrate-acetate liquid wastes, each with a volume of 250 cubic meters.
Each tank was individually cooled and constantly monitored.
Cesium had been removed from the wastes and strontium 90, plutonium and iodine remained.
One tank corroded and leaked into the cooling system.
The facility operators shut off the cooling water to stop further contamination and the waste temperature reached 500 degrees centigrade.
A thermo-chemical explosion sent the radioactive contents of the tanks into the atmosphere.
Two million curies were released.
Ten thousand people from 23 small villages were evacuated from a zone established by soil contamination limits of two curies of stron-tium-90 per square kilometer.
Nothing was done to decontaminate the site.
There is some monitoring of the population, but it appears to be limited.
As a result of the Chernobyl accident the Soviets have improved their emergency response procedures and have reduced the positive reaction coefficient for the reactor from 5.0 to.056.
They also lowered the " scram" time from 20 seconds to 2.5 seconds.
Remediation measures instituted at the site included the removal of 100,000 tons of topsoil and storage of that soil in pits lined with two meters of clay and topped with one meter of clay.
A foot thick wall, 30 meters deep, surrounds a 15,000 meter long cooling pond.
Dikes and dams have been constructed to prevent runoff to rivers and streams.
Calcium carbonate is used to precipitate radionuclides in lakes in the region. An air monitoring system has been established around the site.
This system is linked to a computer that the Soviets bought with the $5 million donated to them by various countries.
Contamination is widespread in the Chernobyl area due to the variable wind direction during and following the accident.
The entire surface water system is contaminated with higher concentra-tions in the bottom sediments.
This surface water system provides water to approximately 30 million people.
Storm or flood condi-tions could disturb the bottom sediments and increase the con-centrations of radionuclides in the water.
The Soviets propose to build a series of flood control dams in the area to prevent flooding and contamination from the sediments.
l l
(
III. PROACTIVE WORK IN THE DIVISION OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT j
(Open)
(Note: Ms. Charlotte Abrams was the Designated Federal Of ficer for this portion of the meeting.]
Mr.
Robert
- Browning, Director, Division of High-Level Waste Management (HLWM), was scheduled to brief the committee on SECY-
22nd ACNW Meeting 7
July 30-31, 1990 90-207, entitled, the "First Up'date of the Regulatory Strategy and Schedules for the High-Level Waste Repository Program," dated June 7, 1990.
Assisting him in the presentation were Mr. Joseph Bunting and Mr. Ronald Ballard.
Mr. Browning began his presentation with the explanation that his purpose was not to " Walk" the Committee through SECY-90-207 since the committee had read that report, but to explain to the Committee what the differences are between the proactive and reactive programs and to explain how products from SECY-90-207 will fit into the integrated program.
Prior to Mr. Browning's presentation, a discussion ensued on the relationship of the EPA standards to SECY-90-207, the subsystem performance criteria of 10 CFR Part 60, and the conformance of 10 CFR Part 60 to the EPA standards.
Questions from the Committee included:
What was NRC's regulatory approach at the time that NRC e
staff concurred with the now remanded EPA standard and how does that approach compare with the staff's current position?
e What was meant by the statement "the staff's judgment continues to he that the established regulatory framework for 10 CFR Part 60 is sound and adequate"?
Has the NRC staff performed a study that shows that the l
e one-part in ten to the fifth. annual release rate is com-patible with the EPA standards, and do they have to be i
compatible?
e Was there no strategy (that is, did no strategy exist) between the time 10 CFR Part 60 was issued and 19887 l
Mr. Browning stated that the staff sees no need, at this time, to eliminate the subsystem performance criteria.
In the earlier regulatory strategy, as defined in SECY-88-285, the approach was to-refine the regulations, not to completely change them..This approach is still being supported.
Rulemakings to clarify those criteria are proposed as part of the proactive program.
The subsystem. requirements are intended as adherence to the multi barrier concept that is in the current regulation.
Those require-ments arn generic and offer the applicant flexibility for a specific site to request that the Commission consider a way of reordering those requirements.
Mr. Browning noted that SECY-88-285 marks the first time there was a " coherent, logical, regulatory strategy." The timing of issuance of 10 CFR Part 60 was in N.spo7se to a specific request from DOE
\\
22nd ACIN Meeting 8
July 30-31, 1990 for the NRC to lay out the regulatory strategy for a high-level i
vaste repository.
The resultant rule was intended to be non-prescriptive and performance oriented.
The fundamental concept I
was to utilize multiple barriers in which the engineered and natural (geologic) aspects could be integrated.
Mr.
Bunting explained that the one part in 100,000 does not directly relate to the EPA standard, because that concept is dependent upon the size of the inventory.
He stated that, "There is no nexus between achieving one part in 300,000 and in having confidence of meeting the EPA standard for any particular radionuc-lide....".
The staf f believes that the subsystem requirements are necessary and they support the multi-barrier concept. They believe j
that the current wording could be improved and efforts to do that l
are ongoing.
Mr. Browning began his formal presentation with some historical l
. background.
The first regulatory strategy was issued as SECY 88-l 285 in October 1988.
The NRC staf f briefed the ACIN on this report j
j in January 1989.
The regulatory strategy wa: updated in SECY '
l 207, issued in June 1990.
Mr. Browning also noted that this l
occurred prior to the release of the National Academy of Sciences' report on the HLW program; although that report is based on a j
meeting that was held in the f all of 1988.
Many of the suggestions I
in the NAS report are already ongoing or are proposed as part of l
the regulatory strategy in SECY-88-285 and SECY-90-207.
Several. f actors influenced the need to change and reissue the l
strategy.
These are:
1.
Staff experience gained between the time of issuance of the two SECY papers, 2.
Changes in the DOE program and schedules, and 3.
The availability of the support of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA).
During the period between the issuance of SECY-88-285 and 90-207, l
the staff gained experience and knowledge from reviews of DOE submittals and attempts at implementing the strategies in SECY-88-285.
The proactive program grew in response to the identifica-I tion of needs to clarify Part 60 and due to shifts in the DOE I
program.
Because of DOE program changes and delays, the NRC staff budget could no longer be dependent on DOE submittals to be productive; therefore, the proactive program was expanded because a need was identified for the development of regulatory guidance and clarification of regulations.
Examples of this type of work given by Mr. Browning were: the recent report by the staff on I
development of a performance assessment capability and the ongoing
1 22nd ACNW Meeting 9
July 30-31, 1990 work to clarify the regulatory phrase, "substantially complete containment (SCC)."
Work by the CNWRA also identified the need to make changes in the strategy.
The Systematic Regulatory Analysis (SRA) by the CNWRA identified areas in the regulations where uncertainties exist and need to be addressed.
DOE's programmatic changes also warranted some change in the NRC strategy.
The change in the DOE's main focus to site suitability issues and surface based testing has resulted in some changes in NRC's program.
In addition, the delays in the DOE program have allowed the NRC more time to develop the proactive plan.
Mr. Browning explained what is meant by the terms " reactive" and "proactive."
The reactive portion of NRC's program is designed to respond to DOE submittals.
Examples of work in this area include reviews and comments on DOE documents, such as the Site Charac-terization Plan.
Reactive work is generally more site specific.
Proactive work in more generic in nature and involves the develop-ment of regulatory requirements, guidance and review guides.
.Through proactive products the staff is specifying language or guidance that should be " memorialized."
Rulemakings are being conducted to eliminate potential licensing issues before the licensing hearing.
Technical positions provide guidance to the DOE.
The license application format and content regulatory guide will provide the DOE with guidance on what to include and how to include it in the application they plan to submit to the NRC.
A license application review plan would provide guidance to the staff on how to review the license application.
Guidance provided in -technical positions could ultimately be incorporated in the license application-guides.
If a rulemaking l
-topic is eventually considered not worthy of a rulemaking effort, it also could provide information for input to the license application guides.
Mr.-Browning also discussed a recent DOE /NRC technical exchange in which the NRC proposed a new regulatory term, "significant fault."
Dr. Hinze, in comments on that technical exchange, stated that even if the concept of a technically significant fault was not adopted, he believed that the concept had led to an " extremely important" discussion between the DOE, NRC, and State of Nevada.
He further stated that although, ultimately, a product might not result from the discussions, something had'been accomplished with respect to the proposed repository at Yucca mountain.
Mr. Browning cited the recent DOE /NRC technical exchange on the staff's performance assessment exercise as another example of these types of fruitful discussions.
1 22nd ACNW Meeting 10 July 30-31, 1990 Mr. Browning noted the staff position 60-001 on clarification of the 300 to 1000 years period for "substantially complete contain-ment" of HLW.
Whereas, that position is considered a proactive product, it is also a reaction to questions from the DOE.
- Mr. Bunting discussed an example of proactive work on the topic of "substantially complete containment." He reviewed information that was given to the Committee during a briefing in January 1990 and then brought the Committee up-to-date on the status of the work thus far.
The staff developed a scoping paper on the topic based on Part 60 and information in NUREG-0804, the document that provides the rationale for 10 CFR Part 60.
The staff then began a technical feasibility assessment of the concepts in Part 60 to determine whether they were workable.
The staff contracted with the CNWRA to assess whether it was possible to develop and demonstrate a logic that will be acceptable to technical peers for evaluation of containment.
They also asked the CNWRA staff to determine if there were acceptable ways to deal with uncertainties in calculating the degree of containment achieved.
The results of this request were two reports published in March 1990 by the CNWRA and a peer. review workshop held in April 1990.
The peer review workshop was chaired by Dr. Spencer Bush.
The workshop committee j
has issued their report.
Mr. Bunting agreed to provide a copy of that report to the Committee.
J Although the CNWRA reports are very focused, they do not discuss the consequences of loss of containment and do not include-human intrusion.
The peer review group found no problems with the technical. concepts in the. reports, but they did find some failure modes that-had not been considered.
The review committee has requested-that the reports be rewritten to better reflect discus-sions at the peer review workshop.
The final reports are expected to.be provided to the staff in September 1990.
Mr.-Bunting stated-that, when a mutually acceptable date is determined, the NRC staff and CNWRA can arrange to brief the Committee on this work.
Mr. Bunting stated that there will be a third CNWRA report on whether the concept of SCC is feasible.
The report will address whether it is feasible to base the concept of SCC on a quantita-tive, probabilistic calculation.
It is also expected that the CNWRA will present possible policy options, such as changing the performance or design requirements or presenting the information as guidance only-in the licensing format and content guide.
The third report is'due in the fall 1990.
Dr. David Okrent expressed some concern arising from the reannt National Academy of Sciences report that states that the Un;ted writing detailed regulations before all the data States is "
are in."
Mr. Bunting stated that if the staf f waits until the data 1
i a
22nd.ACNW Meeting 11 July 30-31, 1990 are in, the alternative solution would invite criticism that the rules were being written to fit the site Mr. Bunting summarized by stating that the NRC staff is trying to separate containment from release.
Containment is either a "yes" or "no" situation.
If the answer is "no",
then release occurs; and j
if a release occurs, the immediate question is whether it is acceptable?
Mr.-Ballard explained what the NRC staff is doing in the area of performance assessment.
He explained that the staff has produced a performance assessment report that documents their efforts in developing an in-house capability on performance assessment in order to react, in a knowledgeable way, to what DOE may propose and to answer questions being asked about the EPA standards. He stated that it is the staff's function to develop the capability to independently. evaluate performance assessments, but it is DOE's responsibility to do those assessments and demonstrate that the EPA standards can be met.
Primary objectives of the performance assessment task are:
(
1.
To support the preparation of rulemakings and guidance l~
documents; 1
2.
To assist in reviewing DOE's site characterization ac-tivities; 3.
To develop methodologies for input into the license l
application review plan to expedite the three year review process; and 4.
To evaluate and develop model and code capabilities for I
analyses.
l Through the conduct of the staff's performance assessment work, that was done jointly between RES and HLWM, the staff has developed confidence that a performance assessment can be performed.
The l
resulting staff report was issued in March and was a three month eff ort on the part of five staf f members.
The report is heavy with caveats and uses limited scenarios.
Work was chiefly accomplished by non-scientists and engineers.
The next phase of the iterative performance assessment will involve l
a transfer of technologies from Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) i l
to the NRC and CNWRA staff.
The CNWRA will become actively I
involved in future phases and future performance assessment activities will involve HLW geoscientists and engineers.
22nd ACNW Meeting 12 July 30-31, 1990 The primary purpose of the iterative performance assessments is for the staff to gain expertise to assist in rulemaking activities on conforming Part 60 to the EPA standards and to demonstrate com-pliance with the EPA standards.
This schedule is being driven by the timing of the release of the revised EPA standards.
Af ter the release of the NRC staf f's comments on the EPA standards, the staff will schedule interactive meetings with the EPA and the staff will begin to work on the rulemaking necessary to conform Part 60 to the EPA standards.
This rulemaking is planned to adopt the tabular values provided in the EPA rule.
Mr. Ballard closed by stating that, in conducting the performance assessment, the staff had identified a number of technical issues that need to be addressed.
These issues include the application of probabilities to data and parameter uncertainties, nodel validation, scenario identification, and screening methodologies.
IV.
UNCERTAINTIES IN IMPLEMENTING EPA HLW STANDARDS (Open)
(Note:
Ms. Charlotte Abrams was the Designated Federal Of ficer for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. Daniel Fehringer, Division of High-Level Waste Management, briefed'the Committee on the NRC staff's approach for dealing with uncertainties in implementing the EPA HLW standards. The presenta-tion was opened with remarks by Dr. Steindler.
Dr. Steindler noted that the EPA standards, 40 CFR Part-191, that are currently being revised, contain a requirement for a probabil-istic analysis that is related to a prescriptive-level of releases for ~ specific nuclides.
Questions have been raised about the feasibility of implementing such a probabilistic analysis due to the uncertainties in the repository performance parameters.
In SECY-89-319, the NRC staff stated their views on implementation of the standards.
As a result of its review of that document, the Commission requested that the staff provide a summary of the current approach for dealing with uncertainties 1oplementing the EPA standards.
Points made by Dr.
Steindler on the staff's response to the Commission request are:
1.
The staff has stated that the EPA standards are workable when connected with the subsystem performance criteria in Part 60.
The connection is not evident and the workability of the standards in relation to the requirement for multiple barriers is unclear.
22nd ACNW Meeting 13 July 30-31, 1990 2.
.The draft staff report only addresses a portion of the Commission's request.
3.
The staff report concludes that, if the uncertainties are large, the Commission may have to conclude that the require-ments have not been met and the repository should not be constructed.
4.
The staff paper concludes that expert judgment will be necessary, but does not address how the staff will " select between two equally supported estimates."
Mr. Fehringer discussed the types of uncertainties in implementing the EPA HLW ' standards.
These include technical and regulatory uncertainties.
Technical uncertainties include uncertainty about data or information about the system as it exists during site preparation; uncertainty about the future state of the repository environment over 10,000 yearo; and uncertainties in the~ ability to predict how the system will perform.
Ways of reducing uncertainties include the site characterization effort that addresses all three types of uncertainty.
Quality-assurance was another approach cited by Mr. Fehringer for reducing uncertainties.
Quality assurance is considered a useful method of reducing data uncertainties. The use of analogues may provide some idea of how certain systems will perform over time.
Another way of reducing uncertainties, particularly model uncertainties, could be through validation and performance confirmation where an effort ismade;to prove or disprove theories about the system's perfor-mance.
Fault tree analyses can be used to-identify future states-that.could influence a repository.
Mr.
Fehringer stressed that the primary burden for reducing technical uncertainties lies with DOE. Although varioun techniques can be applied, _ there will continue to be large residual uncertain-
~
ties.due, in particular, to the need for predictions for 10,000 years 'into the future.
The staff suggests two approaches for a'ddressing the significance of those ~ uncertainties.
First, by
-conducting uncertainty and sensitivity analyses the staff hopes.to determine how important the different uncertainties are. This will be' based 1to some degree on an analysis of the. uncertainties in the input data.
The second approach is through the development of rulemakings, technical' positions, or regulatory guides to reduco or eliminate some causes of uncertainties and potentially constrain the number of scenarios needing evaluation.
Mr. Fehringer stated that the staff,:in this report, was making no commitments on which rulemak-
-ings_would be' pursued, and the intent of this report was only to l
22nd ACIN Meeting 14 July 30-31, 1990 discuss the potential for the elimination of uncertainties through proactive products.
Regulatory uncertainties were the second major type discussed by Mr. Fehringer.
This type of uncertainty exists when there are problems with the regulatory requirements. There are uncertainties that are implicit in the EPA standards of 1985.
The staff believes that it ir " inherent in potentially any regulatory cphere to have a qualitative test of compliance with a numerical standard." Parts of every analysis are not quantifiable and will always involve some judgment of which model is the correct one.
The staff believes that it is not always possible to quantify all aspects of a problem and this is one of the reasons that the EPA standards are workable.
The staff also believes that "the level of confidence in the application of the EPA standards differs from that which has been applied in the past to reactor licensing," because of the long period of time involved and the fact that "we are not dealing with the type of very catastrophic situations that can occur at a reactor."
Dr. Okrent stated that he did not see anything in the EPA standards that suggests that the level of confidence for a repository would be dif f erent from that of a nuclear plant.
Mr. Fehringer clarified his statements to say that the staff did not mean there was a dif-forence in the degree of confidence necessary in the two situa-tions, but because of the unquantifiable uncertainties and the l
longer time period, there will be a greater need for a " judgmental aspect" in decisions about a repository than there are in nuclear power plant licensing.
Mr. Fehringer stated that the staff's report does not discuss regulatory uncertainties in Part 60's requirements.
The staff limited the report to a discussion of the relationship between Part j
60 and-the EPA standards.
The staff believes that the multiple barrier concept is important to constructing a safe repository.
The EPA standard should be only one aspect of the safety decision and based, on the standard alone, it would be difficult to judge compliance.
"Without the multiple barrier concept of Part 60, we
-(the staff) questioned whether the EPA standards would be work-able."
Mr. Fehringer explained that by this statement the staff meant that without multiple barriers the uncertainties involved in the analysis of the performance of the repository might be so great that it would not be possible to determine whether the release limits of the EPA standards could be met.
The " multiple barrier system provides some degree of redundancy for some types of disruptive events and having that redundancy eases the need to predict precisely both probability and effect of those events on the system."
4
.4 22nd ACNW Meeting 15
. July-30-31, 1990 Dr. Okrent argued that, instead of having multiple components to assure that the EPA standards will be workable, why not have "a i
more reasonable EPA standard" that is less stringent.
Mr. Fehringer stated that in NUREG/CR-3235 prepared by the Sandia National Laboratories, repositories were hypothesized based on the current state. of knowledge and their performance was then evaluate-d.- The analysis of this task suggested that it was likely that the release limits could be act.
That report and other technical work, such as work on the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), lead the staf f to believe that a " safe" repository can be built.
He further stated that there have been no technically based arguments that the EPA standards are not achievable.
The staff paper also discusses the use of expert judgment as a major factor in evaluating compliance with the-EPA standards.
The staff's report discusses the difference between "subjectivist" and "frequentist" interpretations of probability.
The "frequentist" approach looks at the likelihood, based on the historical record, i
of an event and conctructs a model for occurrence.
The "subjec-tivist" approach depends on the degree of belief that an event will occur.
Dr. Hinze noted that in the use of expert judgment, there is always some degree of bias.
He questioned how the staff would resolve that problem.
Mr. Fehringer noted that the staff understands that experts will have different bases for making assessments and these bases will. have to be examined in order to make probability estimates.
Site characterization will provide information to minimize bias.
Dr. Moeller noted that an ACNW consultant had commented that
.l Individual experts with the same degree of knowledge and informa-tion can arrive at very different estimates of probabilistic
. hazard.
He asked how the stuff proposed to choose from a number of equally supported estimates.
Mr. Fehringer stated that he believes that it'would be unlikely that there would be a case where estimates would be equally persuasive.
He also suggested the possibility of using a weighted average.
A decision can be made on the basis of technical merit, but there is nothing in the licensing requirements and regulations to prevent the use of a weighted average.
Mr. Seth Coplan, HLWM, added that where opposing points of view occur after the -experts have agreed on the facts, it may be appropriate to accept the more conservative point of view.
22nd ACNW Meeting 16 July 30-31, 1990 Dr.
Hinze stated that through data collected during the site characterization process it will be possible to narrow the range of expert opinions.
However, there may continue to be outliers of opinion and the staff needs to consider how they will handle that situation.
Dr. Steindler discussed the staff's addressal of the Commission's request.
He acknowledged that the staff had provided a summary of what they believed to be the current approach for dealing with uncertainties and implementing the EPA standards, but he stated that the document provided by the staff may be inadequate.
Dr.
Okrent agreed that the document had not answered the Commission's questions and stated that he believed that the staff needed "to revisit the workability of the standards in light of the problems that they themselves are talking about regarding uncertainties."
Mr. Fehringer concluded his presentation with a summary of the staff's approach.
He stated that the staff's report was not meant as a critique of the EPA standards.
The staff intends to use the technical approach described in NUREG/CR-5256.
The author of that NUREG, Sandia National Laboratories, is no longer the NRC contrac-tor and work has now been transferred to the CNWRA.
The CNWRA is analyzing uncertaintics through Systematic Regulatory Analysis.
That work will provide the staf f with a check to ensure the staf f's focus'is, correct and nothing is missed.
In addition, the staf f and the CNWRA are initiating iterative performance assessments of the Yucca Mountain Sito to gain experience in that type of analysis and to identify areas where they need to develop methods for treating uncertainties.
The first of these performance-assessments is complete.
Dr. Steindler questioned what was meant by the staff's statement that.it is possible that " uncertainties of the projected perfor-mance. of the repository will be so large as to prevent the Commission from finding that the containment requirement has been met."
Mr. Fehringer stated that if, after site characterization, it is still not possible to predict how well the site will perform, then it will not be possible to make the demonstration of reasona-ble assurance or compliance with the standards and the license would have to be denied.
The staff believes that the DOE has the major responsibility for gathering the information that will reduce uncertainties.
Mr.
Browning suggested that the staff should revise the paper and add-some emphasis on the role DOE will play in reducing uncertainties and what the staff's' role is with respect to that.
I
--..L-
~
22nd ACNW Meeting 17 July 30-31, 1990 Dr. Steindler stated that he believed that it is the staff's responsibility to have a methodology available that responds to the Commission's question of how the EPA criteria will be handled.
Dr. Hinze suggested that, in the discussion of site exploration techniques, the report could be helped by assistance from the geosciences group within the staff.
The presentation was concluded with a commitment by the Committee to submit comments on the staff's report.
V.
BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN POLICY STATEMENT (Open)
(Note:
Mr. Howard J. Larson was the Designated Federal Officer for this portion of the meeting.)
Dr. Bill Morris, Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), was the principal presenter.
He was accompanied by Bill Lahs, RES.
Dr. Morris discussed the briefings NRC management had provided to a multiplicity of groups both prior to and after the release of the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policy statement. Additionally, several press conferences were held.
Mr. Robert M.
- Bernero, Director, NMSS, appeared on the NBC Today Show and Chairman Carr (accompanied by the Commissioners and a number of staff members) testified at the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment hearing on July 26, 1990.
. Future briefings are scheduled including public workshops in all five NRC regions.
These are scheduled during the months of August and September.
In response to Dr. Steindler's -question about the House. Subcommit-tee hearing, Dr. Morris noted that there was a whole span of concerns discussed,. including _ the rights of the states and the ability of 'the states to' impose more stringent waste disposal standards than were noted in the BRC policy statement.
Also discussed at that hearing were the differences between the views of the NRC and the EPA on BRC as well as whether ' the BEIR V findings were dealt with appropriately in the policy statement.
Dr. Morris stressed that the policy statement originated in Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive _ Waste Policy Act Amendments Act of-1985 (LLRWPAA) which required the Commission to act upon "below regulatory concern" quantities or concentrations.
Dr. Moeller asked what the response of the House Subcommittee was to this Congressional mandate and was told that the statement was
" essentially ignored."
I
o 22nd ACNW Meeting 18 July'30-31, 1990 Dr. Morris quoted the intent of the policy statement as being that "for certain uses of radioactive materials, the risks are so low that to require expenditure of resources to reduce them further or to impose regulatory controls is not necessary."
He also noted a few of the past exemptions, such as those for smoke detectors, the re-evaluation of previously released decommissioned sites and the disposal of wastes from patients receiving radiopharmaceuticals.
Dr. Morris unequivocally stated that the assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety remains the overriding ob;ective of the Commissim.
The BRC policy also allows the NRC, Agreement states and licensees to' focus on the reduction of the most significant risks.
Dr.
Morris noted that, with the Part 20 revisions due for issuance shortly, the issuance of the BRC policy statement in concert was important, since the former was reducing the annual radiation dose limit for the general public from 500 to 100 mrem.
He pointed out that the 100 ' mrem establishes an upper limit for the BRC policy statement.
It was believed that the primary use of the BRC statement would be to develop residual contamination levels for decommissioning and cleanup of contaminated sites.
It would also provide guidance in reviewing petitions for the distribution of consumer products containing small amounts of radioactive material.
The Commission has asked the staff to re-evaluate past exemption experience for consistency with the policy statement.
The NRC has received and is currently reviewing related petitions from Rockefeller Univer-sity and the University of Utah.
It is also anticipated that the recycle or-reuse of' contaminated equipment _and materials may'be petitioned in the future (similar to the program believed being reviewed in Sweden and looked at.by DOE some years ago).
Dr. Morris emphasized that this is a' policy statement and not a self-implementing rule that authorizes, by
- itself, any BRC activities.
He noted that the public will have the opportunity to comment on each BRC-related regulation and that BRC implementing licensing actions will be noted in the Federal Register when they deviate from existing provisions.
The perceived benefits from the policy were described. These were:
the timely and consistent cleanup of contaminated sites, the increased assurance of adequate funds for cleanup, waste management practices that would be commensurate with potential risks, and the establishment of a consistent level of consumer product safety (including a re-evaluation of existing exemptions).
_ -. _ ~
22nd ACNW Meeting 19 July 30-31, 1990 The evolution and establishment of the BRC dose criteria were discussed.
The impact of the various comments, including the ACNW's, was also discussed.
Dr. Morris pointed out that the Commission believes there could be a basis for granting an exemption that f alls outside the individual
. dose limit, provided that all the policy criteria are met and that the ALARA criterion had been met.
The BRC issues currently receiving primary attention were dis-cussed.
It was pointed out "that although the Commission felt this was a broadly applicable policy with a focus particularly on the forthcoming decommissioning or decontamination criteria,.most of the public and most people seem to be concerned about the issue of waste disposal."
Dr. Morris re-emphasized that nothing would happen until after a public discussion had taken place.
He also noted that, during the Congressional
- hearing, three states (Maine, Pennsylvania and Illinois) were represented.
Perinsylvania was perceived as having a law that would prohibit any low-level waste (LLW) being buried anywhere other than at a licensed LLW repository.
~The BRC policy was viewed as being consistent with the BEIR V
report.
It was believed that, while thera were philosophical differences with the EPA, there were no dif f trences between what the two agencies would do insofar as BRC is concerned.
If perchance' EPA issued more stringent criteria, the NRC would adhere to them.
Dr. Steindler questioned the implicat:,ans of EPA'a 4 mrem drinking water standard and the NRC's 10 mren individual dosa criteria.
Dr.
. Morris replied that.the numbers in the policy were "just numbers" and their applicability to the exemption requested would rule.
If 1
-drinking water was the critical factor, then the 4 mrem would apply.
If.the requested exemption resulted in-covering a-large number of people, 1 mrem would rule.
How to handle the inventory buildup at disposal sites over time will be dealt with by the modeling and pathway analyses, with appropriate built-in conser-vatisms.
While multiple exposures continue to be.of concern, it
-is-believed that it is possible to be more tractable when dealing with a specific set of. exemptions than on a case-by-case basis.
The broad and narrow spectrums of defining
" practice" were discussed, with the staff tending towards the broad definition as representing a properly conservative approach.
Dr. Steindler noted the decisions made by several states to attack and circumvent the BRC policy and queried what the Commission's response would be.
Dr. Morris pointed out that there is no overall
22nd ACNW Meeting 20 July 30-31, 1990 Commission commitment at this time but he anticipated that those issues would be addressed at either the first rulemaking or the first license specific exemption request.
It was believed to be primarily a legal and political matter as opposed to a technical one.
Dr. Steindler questioned whether, given the recent press reports that the industry dealing with LLW is not likely to take advantage of this policy, has it been an expensive and time consuming effort "done for no particularly good reason?"
Dr. Morris replied it was done because the NRC needed those criteria, particularly for establishing residual radioactivity levels for decommissioning.
Dr. Steindler also questioned whether irradiated gems fell under the BRC policy.
In response, Dr. Morris pointed out that the priorities given to his group were to first finish the BRC policy and then reassess the gemstone decision in light of it.
Such an assessment has yet to be done.
Dr.
Moeller queried whether the medical exemption would be reviewed, particular insofar as human excreta are concerned.
Dr.
Morris answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Voiland asked whether BRC would have any impact on the current Kerr-McGee West Chicago f acility controversy. Af ter an explanation of the controversy, and a short discussion, it was decided that the 1
policy would apply.
The briefing was for information only.
No Committee action was taken.
VI.
Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant Dismantlement (Open)
[ Note:
Mr. Howard J.
Larson was the Designated Federal Officer for this portion of the meeting.)
Mr. John Austin, NMSS, provided background and an introduction to the principal presenter, Mr. Dan Martin, NMSS, who was the project manager for this effort.
Also present was Mr. Tim Johnson, NMSS.
Dr. Moeller pointed out that although there was much that could be learned from this effort, the plant was-also unique in that it operated for only a short period of time at a low- (66 Mwe gross) electrical output.
Compared to the current generation of commer-cial nuclear power plants, the re=ultant radiation-induced con-tamination levels are significantly different.
He also noted that the five suggestions that had been made in the ACNW letter, dated October 18, 1989, on Pathfinder had been considered by the staff, w
22nd ACNW Meeting 21 July 30-31, 1990 Mr. Austin stated that Region IV had authorized the commencement of Pathfinder decommissioning activities in late June.
He noted that the plant had experienced approximately 80 effective full power days that resulted in little activation of plant components.
He pointed out that plant radiation levels were very low relative to the major modifications routinely undertaken currently at operating plants.
Also noted was that, since the site will be used as a fossil fuel peaking plant, the site was not going to be released for unrestricted use.
A Part 30 license would remain in effect due to minor turbine contamination.
The exposure scenario assumption used for release of the contain-ment building from control was 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> / year occupancy at <5
- R/ hour.
The staff believes that the radiological risks are not E
substantial and that the doses associated with this action are well within acceptable limits. There are no litigants currently nor are any_ anticipated.
Drs. Moeller and Hinze questioned the nature of former disputes and whether groundwater was one of the issues.
The concerns were related to transportation, where the wastes were to be shipped, and whether the waste would be shipped to local landfills.
Also of concern was the status of the general site cleanup.
Mr. Martin presented an outline of the subjects intended to be included in this briefing, noting that he would also address groundwater and waste surveys.
He noted that, after three years of operation, this one-of-a-kind nuclear plant experienced failed vanes in the steam separator.
At this point, in 1969, the utility, Northern States Power, decided to convert the plant to fossil fuel and by 1971 had shipped all nuclear fuel from the site.
Dr. Moeller and Mr. Voiland raised several questions about the level of contamination on the turbine and the need for radiation protection.
Mr. Martin replied that neither personnel monitoring nor access control are required for operating personnel, although there are a few spots where access is limited.
Those areas were deemed more of a maintenance " nuisance" than a hazard.
Dr. Steindler asked if there had been any movement of radioactivity over the years that this f acility operated as a non-nuclear peaking unit.
Mr. Martin noted that while liquid and gaseous effluent levels were originally monitored, with time the levels became so low that effluent monitoring was-terminated.
He also noted that there has not been any gross movement of radioactivity over the last several years.
He explained that although the turbine had been disassembled, decontaminated and reassembled, the effort was not 100% successful.
1
22nd ACNW Meeting 22 July 30-31, 1990 Dr.
Moeller queried the inconsistencies in the Environmental Assessment regardir.g distance to the nearest residence.
The staff explained that this disparity was due to information provided by the applicant vis-a-vis NRC staf f measurements.
The staff used the smallest'(most conservative) number.
The location of the plant (near Sioux Falls, South Dakota), the site and plant layout and the two buildings to be decontaminated in this decommissioning project, i.e. the fuel handling building (FHB) and the reactor building (RB) were described.
The major work dCtivity is the intact removal and disposal of the reactor pressure
=
vessel (RPV), which contains essentially all of the residual radioactive material (562/563 Ci).
The RPV is ~12 feet in diameter and weighs -250 tons.
Although the RPV was scheduled for removal this summer, this operation had to be postponed and now is due to be performed next summer, as this task will require good weather.
It was noted that the RPV was filled with grout which will remain through the burial of the vessel.
Asbestos removal work has begun.
Site security and access upgrading and ventilation improvement work also has commenced. The licencee recently amended its submittal to state that all asbestos will be handled as low-level radioactive waste.
Drs.
Steindler and Moeller asked about asbestos protocols and burial and were told both OSHA and radioactive contamination considerations will be followed.
In response to a question, it was noted by the staff that the burial of waste in a LLW disposal facility also meets the requirements for asbestos disposal.
Discussion ensued on asbestos hazards and the staff was requested (and agreed) to check with EPA as to the requirements for asbestos burial.
Also noted was that asbestos was to be removed prior to any other work being performed and that this was a " lesson learned" from experience at the recently decommissioned Shippingport Atomic Power Plant.
The fuel handling building will be decontaminated and returned to unrestricted use while the reactor building will be decontaminated to unrestricted levels, the above grade structure demolished and removed and the below grade floors collapsed, backfilled and covered with an engineered soil cover.
A final radiation survey will be performed.
Insofar as the existing fossil fuel plant, no action is required nor will any be taken.
Drs. Moeller and Steindler discussed the meaning of decontamination to " unrestricted" levels.
This was explained as meaning un-restricted access to the public would be permissible even though, in actuality, only operating personnel would be in these areas.
22nd ACNW Meeting 23 July 30-31, 1990 Dr. Steindler asked whether decontamination by non-physical means, such as chemical cleaning, would be used?
Mr. Martin pointed out that the applicant stated it would use only commercially available of f-the-grocery-store-shelf types of items. Discussion then ensued as to the retention and treatment programs planned for the handling and processing of the slightly contaminated water generated as a result of decontaminating operations.
Although the applicant has stated they do not expect to produce liquid wastes, they stated they will handle them properly if it proves necessary, by placing them in tonkage and bringing a processor on-site to solidify the liquids with an approved media.
Dr. Steindler concluded this line of discussion by noting that planning is necessary to be certain that adequate liquid waste control will be available.
Mr. Voiland questioned the type and location of the contamination and how it would be handled.
The use of flame or mechanical devices to cut piping and structural materials was discussed as were the associated hazards, monitoring, ventilation and airborne contamination control techniques.
Dr..Hinze questioned the NRC's role in the monitoring and final surveys.
Region.IV will develop the inspection plan, which will be based on existing inspection plans.
Mr. Austin noted that the staff is "trying to develop an explicit inspection plan for decommissioning activities of this nature."
It was noted that these plans will not be completed for this decommissioning.
Dr. Hinze questioned the adequacy of plans for training all the necessary personnel-utility, decommissioning contractor, NRC headquarters and Region IV.
Mr. Mart'in discussed NRC/ Licensee interactions since June 1988 and eleborated on some of the major changes, viz: the treatment of all asbestos from radcon areas as LLW; the removal of only a section of the containment dome for the RPV removal, and the pre-installa-tion'of approximately half of the RPV shielding on the rail car.
The-reasons for these changes were discussed.
Mr. Martin presented the staff's conclusions in the environmental assessment noting specifically that impacts are considered slight, the collective occupational dose is anticipated to be < 56 person-rem and that general site decontamination and unrestricted use of the FHB and RB are Dpl authorized by this action.
He pointed out that the demolition of the RB can only take place after specific NRC approval.
.4 22nd ACIN Meeting 24 July 30-31, 1990 l
Dr.
Steindler questioned this logic and was told that since the building would be buried it was necessary to ascertain that it met the required standards of cleanliness before being buried and the j
subsequent granting of free access.
Further discussions followed as to surface decontamination standards.
It was reaffirmed that the above grade portion of the RB would be removed as waste, as it is' anticipated that it will not be radiocctive and therefore can be treated as metal scrap.
The final survey will be conducted by the licenseo, reported to the NRC and verified by either the NRC or its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU).
Dr. Steindler requested information about the proposed contractors and their qualifications.
Mr. Martin ~ indicated that the two contractors on-board now, Black and Veatch and TLG Inc., were both well qualified and had prior related experience.
Dr. Steindler pointed'out that, since the radioactive levels were so low (except for the RPV), the effort was "largely a nuisance operation in terms of maintaining awareness and strict discipline for contamina-tion control."
He believed that this type of "no-problem" environment could well lead to trouble. Mr. Martin replied the NRC was cognizant of this potential but believed the implementation i
plan was acceptable.
Although the licensees plans were generally accepted as proposed, some areas of difficulty were noted.
These were mainly the adherence to 10 CFR Part 20 requirements and the maintenance of an ability to determine compliance with - these requirements.
The principal problem not addressed was meeting Part 20 MPC limits at the restricted area boundary, since in the licensee's application such a -boundary was not even defined.
By working with the applicant a boundary was defined.
The NRC also imposed require-ments for a process control plan for_ liquid waste stabilization and for. the performance of surveys ~ on clean wastes.
Mr. Voiland questioned the use of the building ventilation systems and was told that the air cleaning equipment in the RB and FHB exhaust systems would be new.
Dr. Moeller cautioned about the forthcoming revisions to Part 20 and also noted that future monitoring equipment will have improved sensitivity.
After a 15-minute break the meeting resumed, with Dr. Moeller readdressing the issue of groundwater protection. Mr. Martin noted
-that plant drinking water is provided by a deep-on-site well and J
that local drinking water is usually obtained from groundwater.
He also noted that, although Sioux Falls uses groundwater as'its drinking water source, "there is very little hydrological = com-
a 22nd ACIN Meeting 25 July 30-31, 1990 munication with the site."
Dr. Steindler asked why the Safety l
Evaluation Report (SER) and Environmental Assessment (EA) are i
"substantially silent" on 11guld waste handling.
It was explained that the licensee's Decontamination Plan provided a discussion on water contamination, calculating that if all the surface activity i
in all the concrete in the buried RB were mobilized in the void space, assuming 100% Co-60, the resulting concentration would be l
It was also calculated that it would I
take ~78 years for infiltration to fill up the buried containment structure.
Dr. Hinze asked several questions related to groundwater, viz:
the basis for the 2.2 inches /yr infiltration rate and whether the buried concrete containment building walls could still be water-tight after the above ground building destruction.
To this latter questions the staff stated they had not considered this potential l
compromise of integrity.
Dr. Hinze then asked for further elaboration of the applicant's groundwater monitoring program.
Mr. Martin discussed these plans and reiterated the staf f satisf action with the applicant's calcula-tions for groundwater concentrations, l
l In conclusion, Drs. Hinze and Mo 11er expressed the belief that I
groundwater baseline levels an'
- enitoring were important and should be given proper attention VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION (Open/ Closed)
A.
Reoorts. Letters and Memoranda (Open) 1.
NRC Staff's Acoroach for Dealina with Uncertainties in l
Implementina the EPA HLW Standard (Memorandum was sent I
to Mr. Robert M. Bernero on August 3, 1990.)
l The Committee provided comments on why they believe that the staff's approach is not adequate.
The Committee concluded that the draft paper should be modified by the staff to include a
coherent strategy outline that explicitly addresses the implementation of the EPA L
I Standards and consideration of the associated uncertain-ties.
l 2.
Decommissionina of the Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant l
-(Letter was sent to Chairman Carr on August 3, 1990.)
(
With due consideration to the advice provided in their letter, the Committee concurred with the NRC staff that I
... ~ -. _. -
ee -
--t 22nd ACNW Meeting 26 July 30-31, 1990 this phase of the decommissioning of the Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant can be conducted without undue risk to the public health and safety..
B.
Committee Activities (Closed)
The Committee examined the relative merits of increasing the number of members on the Committee from four to five.
The Committee discussed staff support for ACNW activities.
A draft joint ACRS/ACNW letter to Chairman Carr, commenting on the effectiveness and efficiency of continuing.a central-ized-(combined) support staf f for ACNW and ACRS, was prepared for approval and signature by the ACRS/AcrtW Chairmen.
The current combined staff was endorsed.
C.
Future Acenda (Open)
Appendix II summarizes the tentative agenda items that were proposed, for future meetingo of the Committee.
This list'
' includes ~ items proposed.by the NRC staff as well as ACNW members.
i The 22nd ACNW meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m..-on July 31, 1990.
= _.
n.
o.
l APPENDIX Is MEETING ATTENDEES i
22ND ACNW MEETING JULY 30-31, 1990 ACNW MEMBERS ist Day 2nd Day Dr.. William J. Hinze X
X i
X Dr. Dade W. Moeller X
X Dr. Martin J. Steindler X
t CONSULTANTS Mr. Eugene Voiland X
X V
Dr. David Okrent X
X P
t.
+
e 4
(::
e s
I -- *'
w
.-/-.w..
T
~'
g Appendix I 2
22nd ACNW Meeting r
CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE
[
NRC STAFF REGUIATORY ANALYSES (CNWRA)
L Abraham A. Eiss Joseph O. Bunting G. Stirewalt Richard Weller Ruth Weiner C.
Interrante R. Adler Robert Johnson Pat LaPlante I
Lee R. Abramson
{2.
B. Joe Youngblood Philip S. Justus Melvin Silberberg U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Peter W. McLaughlin Susan G.
Bilhorn Edward Regnier i
Clark W. Prichard Raymond H. Wallace, Jr.
James R. Wolf-Jane Sticky John S. Trapp Andrew Wallo Timothy S. Margulies John D. Randall Seth M. Coplan George Pangburn Elise A. Heumann Timothy C. Johnson Daniel E. Martin John H. Austin Helen N. Pastis Margaret V. Federline OTHER AGENCIES AND PUBLIC Lynne Fairobent NUMARC Homi Minwalla Weston/ Licensing Victor Montenyohl Weston/WBEC Gene Roseboom U. S. Geological Survey /Dir. Office a-Linda Lehman Stata of Nevada Robert H. Neill New Mexico EEG C. Brinkman ABB Ellen Z. Coombs SAIC Stan Echols Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds Dermot Winters DNF Safety Board Gudorm Scott Self (reporter)
Brent Sadauskas SERCH Licensing /Bechtel Tim Sawyer Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds-t Ray Daniels SAIC Alan Nelson NUMARC Paul Krishna Battelle - Washington Office Thomas Xabele TASC Paula Austin SAIC k
Andy Muir ICF Technologies Priscilla Bunton EPA
-- -ii -
ium---
a H
e APPENDIX II.
TUTURE AGENDA August 29-31, 1990 The Technical Position on Waste Forms (Revision 1)
(Open)
Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on modifications to the Technical Position on LLW Stabilization / Waste Forms.
)
The Committee will review the ef fect of National i
HESHAPS (Open)
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESMAPS) on radioactive waste management and disposal.
The Committee will be Seismic Hazards and Tectonics (Open) briefed on NRC staf f's overall approach to seismic hazards and tectonics at the proposed HLW geologic repository.
The Radioactive Waste Renositorv Licensina Synoosium (open)
Committee will prepare for taking part in the Radioactive Waste
~
Repository Licensing Symposium on September 17-18, 1990 in Washington, D.C.
The symposium is being sponsored by the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, National Academy of Sciences.
The i
ACNW plans to invite an NAS Board representative to its August i
meeting to present a summary of their synposium.
The Committee will be briefed on'the i
TOE Study Plans - (Open) l current review procedures being developed (revised) by the NRC staff for their review of DOE study plans associated with the site l
characterization for the proposed HLW repository.
Proposed Reculatorv Guide on the Format and Content for HLW j
The Committee will be Repository License Aeolications (Open) briefed by the NRC staff on the Regulatory Guide on the format and content for HLW repository license applications.
The Committee will review this guide prior to the public comment period.
The Committee will be NRC's Radioactive Waste Research (Open) briefed by representatives of NRC's Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee on NRC's radioactive waste research program.
l The Committee will continue discussion on EPA Standards (Open) the EPA standards for high-level radioactive waste disposal in a geologic repository.
Working draft #3 of the standard is expected to be issued prior to this meeting. (Tentative)
The Committee will discuss Committee Activities (Open) anticipated and proposed Committee activities, four month meeting
- plan, future meeting
- agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
l I
Appendix II 2
l 22nd ACNW Meeting September 19-20, 1990 (Tentative Agenda)
The Committee is Meetino with the commissioner (Open) tentatively scheduled to acet with the Commissioners to discuss items of mutual interest (e.g.,
EPA Standards, Uncertainties, etc.).
Probabilistic Characterization of Yucca Mountain MLW Site (0pon)
The Commi. tee will be briefed by representatives of EPRI on a probabilistic characterization of the proposed Yucca Mountain HLW site.
The report is expected to be completed in September 1990.
The Committee will discuss Committee Activit'Jts (open) anticipated and troposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organicational matters, as appropriate.
Tentative Working Group Meetings (Dates to be determined)
An ACNW Working Group will be Miaration of carbon-14 (Open) briefed on the potential problems that could arise at a high-level repository as a result of carbon-14 release and migre. tion. A report to the full Committee will follow.
This will include a discussion of EPA release limits for this radionuclide.
An ACNW Working Group will examine how Human Intrusion (Open) human intrusion at a high-level waste repository will be dealt with under 10 CFR Part 60 considerations and guidance from 40 CFR 191 Appendix B.
This will include discussion of the WIPP experience and will be designed to explore the range of current thinking from Various groups.
A report to the full committee will follow.
An ACNW Working Group will have DOE /USGS White Paner (Open) discussions with the NRC staf f on the review of and comments on the DOE /USGP white paper on integration of the geophysical aspects of the repository SCP.
This report is important as it relates to a major central theme of the SCA comments on integration.
An ACNW Working Group will examine Decommissionina (open) decommissioning other than 10 CFR Part 50 licensed plants.
?l
- I i
APPENDIX III.
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED A.
Documents Received from Presenters and ACNW Staff i
AGENDA DOCUMENTS ITEM NO.
3 1.
High-Level Waste Repository Proactive Program, dated j
July 30, 1990, by R. Browning, J.
Bunting, and R.
Ballard (viewgraphs) l 2.
Memorandum to Charlotte Abrams from M.
Steindler, dated July 12,
3 Uncertainties in Implementing the EPA HLW Standards, dated July 30,
- 1990, by Daniel J.
Fehringer (viewgraphs) 5 4.
Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement, dated July 30, 1990, by Bill Morris (viewgraphs) 7 5.
Pathfinder Briefing for ACNW, dated July 31, 1990 1
(viewgraphs) i B.
Meetina Notebook Contents Listed by Tab Number TAB CONTENTS 1
1.
Introductory Statement by ACNW Chairman for July 30-31, 1990 2.
Items of Current Interest, July 30-31, 1990 2
3.
Tentative Agenda, undated 4.
Status Report on Briefing and Discussion by Ms.
Lehman on Nuclear Waste Activities in the Soviet-Union, July 30, 1990 5.
Briefina for National Academy of Sciences Nuclear Waste Manacement and Nuclear Related Accidents in the Soviet Union by Linda L.
- Lehman, L.
Lehman &
Associates, December 1, 1989 3
6.
Tentative Agenda, undated 7.
Status Report on Briefing on Planned Activities in the-Division of High-Level Waste Management, July 30, 1990 l
8.
Memorandum for ACNW Members from Charlotte Abrams, First Update dated June 25, 1990, re SECY-90-207 of the Regulatory Strategy and Schedules for the High-Level Waste Repository Program, with attachment (OUO)
_ y
.o
- ' s i
e Appendix III 2
22nd ACNW Meeting 9.
SECY-88-285, Regulatory Strategy and Schedules for i
the High-Level Waste Repository Program, dated 1
October 5, 1988 1
4 10.
Tentative Agenda, undated 11.
Status Report on Briefing by HLW Staff to Describe Plans for Dealing with Uncertainties in Implementing the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Probabilistic High-Level Radioactive Waste Standards, July 30, 1990 12.
Memorandum for ACNW Members and Consultants from Howard Larson, dated June 22,
- 1990, re Staff's Approach for Dealing with Uncertainties in Implementing the EPA Standards, with attachment
[OUO) 13.
NUREG/CR-5256 (SANDBB-3020),
Comoonents of an Overall Perf ormance Assessment Methodoloav by Davis et al, February 1990 5
14.
Status Report on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy Statement on Below Regulatory Concern, July 30, 1990 15.
Below Regulatory Concern; NRC Policy Statement, l
effective date July 3, 1990 16.
Nuclear Waste News, Vol.10, No. 26, June 28,1990, Pages 251-253 3
17.
D. W. Moeller to L. W. Zech, Jr. dated August 9, 1988 b.
D.
W.
Moeller to
-L.
W.
- Zech, Jr.
dated September 15,.1988 D. W. Moeller to L. W. Zech, Jr. dated December c.
30, 1989 d.
D. W. Moeller to L. W. Zech, Jr. dated May 3, 1989 D. W. Moeller to X. M. Carr dated January 30, e.
1990 7
18.
Status Report on Final Decommissioning at the Pathfinder Generating Plant, July 30, 1990 19.
Safety Evaluation Report on Proposed Final Decommissionina of the Fuel Handlina Buildina and Reactor Buildina at the Pathfinder Generatina Plant, License Number 22-08799-02,. Docket Number 30-05004, Northern States Power Company, June 1990 20.
Environmental Assessment of Proposed Final Decommissionina of the Fuel Handlina Buildina and
/
Reactor Buildina at the Pathfinder Generatina Plant, Northern States Power Company, June 1990 i
o o.
Appendix III 3
22nd ACNW Meeting i
21.
ACNW Letter to K. M. Carr on Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant Dismantlement, dated October 18, 1989 8
22.
Future Committee Meeting Agenda, undated 23.
MemoranCam for Raymond Fraley from James Blaha, dated Ju;y 3,1990, re Proposed Agenda Items for the ACRS and the ACNW, with attachment 24.
Draf t ACNW Letter for K. M.
Carr, dated July 19, 1990, re Increasing the Number of Members on the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste from Four to Five [000) j 25.
Draft ACNW Letter for K. M.
Carr, dated July 19, 1990, re Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Support Staff (Joint) [0U0) 26.
Draf t ACNW Letter fur K.
M.
Carr, dated July 19, 1990, re Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Support i
Staff (Separate) [000) b I
l
~ ~ ~ ' ' ~
~
%.* r t
Fedatal R2 slater / Vol 55, No.141 / Monday. July 21,1990/ N:ticee 39024 Deted at Rockyh. Maryland this 16th day located at gt30 L Street. NW,.
net ! orth in 10 CFR part $1. Ba sed on this Washington. DC.
ananment, the statt concludes that of IWy, Weo.
A request for a hearing or petition for there are no significant todiologic.al or For the helear Reguistory Commlulort leave to intervene may be fued within 30 non tediotopcalimpacto enociated days after fublication of this notlee in with the proposed action and willnot Iw'.hciect Directorose,4. Dwision ofthe redera Regleter Any request for Director change any condulons reached by the ca',=#to/#fanr'=-
2 312"""'""'*
heman Peuuonf W a a i m - ne a=
shallbe served by the requestor ce P,
(FR Doc.Ot*ND Ned 7 04em B 43 eml peutioner upon the applicant, the Office a
environmentalimpact statament need of the General Counnet U.S.Nue.laar e tales eIsment,the Regulatory Comuninton, Washington, swmo cuos em obe o th e ito Commiselon concludes that the DC 20$56; the Secretary, U.B. Nealear proposed action will not have signibcant Regulatory ra==taakom and the
(
eflect on the quality of the human bacutive Secestary, U.S. Department o!
State. Washington. DC Nao.
environment.
Tor further detalle with respect to this Applicauon for Ucense To Dport Inits trelew of the appliceGon fer a action, see the request lot amendment Nuclear Motorial license to export the special noeleet dated March 13.1990, which to evallable Purount 1010 CPR 110.70(b)"Public material noticed herein, the Comenloolon for pubhcinspectlon at the notice of recclpt of an application",
does not evaluate the health, safety or Commission's Public Document Room, pleape take riotice that the Nuclear environmental effects la the recipient the Gelman Building. 2120 L Street, NW.,
Retrulatory Commiselon het rece!ved the nation of the material to be exported.
Washington, DC,20$$5, and at the following opphcation for en export ne information concernIng thfe Covernment Publications Section, State license. A ecpy of the a plicationis on applicauon foDown, ubrary of Pennsylvania. Walnut Street file in the Nuclear R atory NRC F.xport Ocean AppBoatloo and Commonwealth Avenue, Box itm, Commission's Public ocument Room h
}larrisburg. Pennsylvania 17t01 a
wa Ne~
.. ~.
w.m
,s_
=
14.oa 15 0 Fetreason et target h4ati ter toedoel Careds Trenernmeser, hc.,1/e61so, 7tto/e6.
m 3W Ervthod LPowm meiopes weaanta Deted thw tith day ofluty woo, et the Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant with these procedures, oeal or written statements may be presented by B. Briefed on the first update of the members of the public, recordings witt Rockville, Maryland.
(Open).
yor the Nuclear Reguletary Comminston.
reFulatory otrategy and schedules for be permitted only during those portions of the meeting when a transcript is being R,>ooldD.lleuber, the High tsvel Weste Repository kept, and questions may be asked only Acting AssissamtDirectorforInternational Program (Open)-
Securtsy, Exports cred Afoterials So/cty, C. Briefed on the current NRC staff by members of the Committee,its internalmnalhoproms. Office of approach for dealing with ancertainties comenitents, and staff, he offlee of the Covernmentolond1%blicAffolts.
in implementing the EPA High tsvel ACRS is 9= staff espport for the ACNW, Persons desiring to make oral (FR Doc. 30-17135 Filed 7-2490. t 45 mm)
Waste Standards (Open).
D. Review a branch technical position statemente should notify the Executive which deale with the cementation of Director of the offlee of the ACRS se far low level endioactive wutee (weste in advance se practicalao that priate arrangements can be made Mu New n1he mluton*e Below ePp{ow the necenary time during the
- ***' ""U"8 e
to a Regulatory Concern policy statement meeting for such statements. Use of still.
ne Advisory Committee on Nuclear (Opent motion bcture, and talevlanon cameras i
l Wute(ACNW)willhold its 22nd F. B ged n o during t o meeting may be Ilmited to ent meeting onluly 30 and 3L 1990. Room P-selected portions of the meeting as 110,y920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda.
G'Digag4 "'pam PmP"'d determined by the ACNW Chairman.
MD,8.30 a.m. until 5 p.m. each day.
g
- 'PPP *
- Information regarding the time to be set d
Portions of this inesting will be closed to %,g aside for thle purpose may be obtained discuss inwrual pwoonnel practicas and H.no Coenmittee will discun by a prepaid telephone call to the informouon the release of which wouldanticipated and propowd Committee ExecuuveDirectorof theofBoeof the represent a clearly unwarranted activities, future inoeting agenda, and ACRS,Mr.Raymond F.Fraley invasion of pweenal privacy 5 U.S C.
oraanizationel matters, as appropriate (telephone set /492-4516), prior to the 6Mblc)l6k (Open/ Closed).
meeting.in view of the possibility that De Purpose of the sneelingwiH be to Procedures for the condect of and the odiodele for ACNW meetings may 2
review and diamas the following topics:
participationin ACNW meeting,were be adjusted by theGiantman as A. Review the stafre safety evolustion published in the Federal Register on report and decommtasloning plane for June IL teos (53 FR 30099). In accordance necessary to facIIItate the conduct 1
I I
L
\\
o *
- Feder:1 Register / Vol. 65, No.141 / Monday, ju)y 23, 1990 / N:tices
. i.s M gr e
f sneettng, persons plar ning to attend aa and 4:15 p.m. Persons planning to Atlanta: Region II Mr. I Phlup '
- N should check with the ACRS Executive attend this meeting are urged to contact U.S Nuclear Regulatory e'-
O1
~
Director or call the record (301/492-the above named individue.1 one or two W1 Marietta Street, Suhe amt y
.T 4e00) for the cunent ac,hed e if such da)e before the scheduled meetmp to be Atlanta, C*orgia. 80328, reachedulms would result in major advised of any changes in achedule, etc.,
(404) 331 4503
.. n -.
incanvenience.
which may have occurred Chicago RegionIB-Mr Norelius U.S. Nuclear *[
-r Dated July its 1990 Dated July 1a.1990 Commission,199 Roose D(
John C Hol a, Gary R. Quittedrolber, l
Adneory Committee hfanagernent Utw Chief Nuclear Reacwre Branch Glen Ellyn,llitnois,90187; (706) 790 4 500 p1t Doc co-17D43 Tded 7.RHK18 45 aml
[FR Doc at%1713? Fded ?-20 4Q e 45 aml Arhngton Region IV Mr. g,k,,
esa.ase coes new.e masa coot now U.S. Nuclear Regulatory e'r 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Gutte geog 2 -
Advloory Committee on Reactor.
Selow Regulatory Conoom Pol 6ey; Arungton, Texas,78011; telephee Safeguartis Subcommittee on Human Public lAeetings (e17) 800-8100 u
Oahland: Region V-Mr.Rdsh,%s,eeggq 4'
' 2,, _
"U Actwcy: U.S. Nucleat Regulatory Scarano, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Deeds S.
- Mc The bubcommittee on llumen I actors Commisston.
will hold a meetmg on luly 31, two, Actiow. Notice of public meetings.
Comrnission.1450 Marts taas.9dte)q*d T'W.
Room P 422,7920 Norfolk Avenue, 210, %,alnut Creek, Cahicenda. DIM 8(,
'"N Bethesda, MD-sussesARY: ne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory telephone (415) 943-4700 arsoggedesine lop % ti The entire meeting wtil be open to Commission (NRC) will hold a senes of survussast?Any sepossaAfi3[t"#
N pubhc attendance.
five pubbe meetings at locations across 3,1990, the NRC pubhahed i
ne agende for the subject meetm8 the country on its Below Regulatory statement on Below shall be as fouows: Tuesday July 31.
Concem Policy Statement that was (BRC)(55 FR 27 1990-4.30 a.m. untu the conclusion of pubbshed on luly 8,1990,in the Federal establishes the beslot business-Register (55 FR 27522-37). The meetings regulations and licena
%e Subcommittee will disn::,e the will enable NRC staff members to would exempt very low reports on procedural violations discuss the policy with attendees, hear radioactive material from '
Chernobyl Spin off), and organiantional statements from the pubbc, and answer controle where the
- acton, questions about the pobey. NRC determines that such controls Oral statements may be presented b) licensees. Agreement State beensees, necessary to protect public t
members of the ubhc with the govemment officials, and an interested safety.
m en c am M c urag i Pracuces for wbch hairma w tten sta e n 11be suend-be granted include the r
cecepted and made evallable to the r
stri Committee. Recordings will be permitted Meeting locations and Dates
{lysse snly during those portions of the Chicago, Illinois. August 28,1990,1 g 2n.,
radioactivity;(2) the I
meeting open to the {ubbc, and lloliday Inn-O' Hare Airport,644(
consumer products con '
questions may be as ed only by North River Road. Roseniont, Illmi is.
amounts of radioactive
~-
members of the Subcommittee,its King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (near disposal of va low levelfe consultants, and staff. Persons desiring Philadelphia), September 18,1990. 9 waste at other thaitli 13 make oral statements should notify a.m.. Sheraton Vaucy Fo7elphir Area noted equipment sha '
e
'ites:
d (4) the tecychng the ACKS staff member named below as Convention Center, Phila conta far in advance se is practicable so that Room. North Culph Road and ! trst ne policy statement ade Avenue, King of Prussia, consistent risk framework st
- E [
l ort on of t e Pennsylvania.
exemption decletons, oneusseen'a M4 the i P
meeting. the Subcommittee, along with Atlanta. Georgia. Se tember 20,1990.1 ade9uste and conalstant
- M any of its consultants who mey be p.m., Westin Pea tree Plaza flotel.
rotection of the public ta thof jiv present, may exchange prehminar)
Peachtree Battle /Dunwoody Roont fadioactive materials, and feas00s Of6, d,M_
i ta.
rgio
$h oon der ng ea n e of the Arhnston, Texas (near Datas-Fod practices under NRC's i f P "M.-
ie ubcommittee will then hear Worth). September 25.1990,1 p.m..
De NRC willhold e sortesif h,k a ;
presentations by and hold discussions Arhngt n Convention Center 1200 pubhc meetings on the BRC
- a.,
with representatives of the NRC staff.
Stadium Drive F.ast. Arhngton. Texas' locations near its Regional
- y-their consultants, and other interested Oakland. California, September 27,1990, around the country. Representatives ;g. e persons regarding this review.
9 a.m.,llohday Inn-Oakland Atrport, from the NRC Regional and Further information regard.ng topics 500 liegenberger Road. Oahland, lleadquartere Offices will attend the.
of to be discussed, the schedulinhether the CaMomia-meetinFs to discuss the pohey, hist S
sessions open to the pubhc, w meeting has been cancelled or con runtuta twPonsAAtto48 Cosef ACT'.
statements, and answer Queetlo%ggng.
reacheduled, the Chairman's ruhng on The appropriate NRC Regional Office These meetings are latendedjo.gyg,.,
for each of the following meetings:
generally increase public --- -
g requests for the opportunity to present of the development of the pokey.ite.
therefore can be obtained by a prepaid Miller. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory components, and the methods by %hich.
([
oral statements and the time allotted King of Prussia. Region 1-Ms Marie T.
telephone call to the cognizant ACRS Commission. 475 Allendale Road.
the NRC wiu implement the poh@.NRC e
licensees. Agreement State hasasses. 9 y staff member, Mr.lierman Alderman King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.1M06, govemment officials, and allintemeted (telephone 301/492-7750) betw een 7.30 telephone (215) 337-5000
\\
o *.
9 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 22ND ACNW MEETING JULY 30-31, 1990 4
Menday. July 30. 1990. Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda.
M_aryland 1) 8:30 - 8:45 a.n.
'Doenina Remarks by ACNW Chairman 1.1) Conduct of Meeting (DWM/RKM) 1.2) Items of Current Interest (DWM/RKM)
C 2) 6:45 - FOt3 5 a. c. ! Briefina by L. Lehman on Radioactive lWasteManacementActivitiesinthe U.S.S.R.
(DWM/CEA) 2.1) Information briefing by L. Lehman on recent trips to the Soviet Union and observations on rarioactive waste management
- 2.1) General Discussion i
. cc. s. :5 %
- bett 5
- BREAK ***
uS
?: i> ".. i 3) 10:30 - 12:00 NO7H' Status of Proactive Work in the Division of Hich-Level Waste Manacement (DWM/CEA) l 3.1) Briefing on the First Update of the Regulatory Strategy and Schedules I
for the High-Level Waste Repository Program (SECY-90-207) - R. Browning, DDHLWM t
l i 3.2) General Discussion l
3.3) Conclusion f
- e
- D 12: 00 - 1: &O
- LUNCH ***
- D oe t
4) 1 : &O - 3 : @6 p. m.
NRC Staff's Aceroach for Dealina with Uncertainties in ImD1ementina the EPA HT.W Standards (MJS/CEA) 4.1) Description of Staff's plans for dealing with uncertainties in
)
implementing EPA's probabilistic RLW standards 4.2) Technical uncertainty 4.3) Regulatory uncertainty 1
4.4) Expert judgment 4.5) Conclusions l
OT m
3:00 - 3:15 p.m.
- BREAK ***
TranCM;eCM poik on FEC q C
y s
C t'
, 3*
s' 22ND ACUW MEETING 2
/
5) 3:15 - 4:15 p.m.
Briefine on the Commission's Poliev Statement on Below Reculatory concerns (DWM/HJL)
! 5.1) The Committee will be briefed on the Commission's recently released policy statement on the exemption of very low level radioactive materi-als, wastes and practices
! 5.2) General Discussion 6) 4 : 15 - 5 : 1-5 p. m.
Preoaration of ActTW Reoorts 6.1) Preparation of ACNW Reports as appropriate 6.1-1) Strategies and Schedules for the High Level Waste Repository 6.1-2) Uncertainties for Imple-nenting EPA's HLW Standards ca 5:1E RECESS Tuesday, July 31. 1990, Roon P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda.
Maryland II: OC
/
7) 8:30 - SE:SO-NOON Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant 5
Dismantlement (DWM/HJL) 7.1) Facility Status and Overview of Decommissioning Plan 7.2) NRC/ Licensee Interactions since July 1989 licensee submission of r
l Decommissioning Plan, Environmental Report and Safety Analysis Report and Safety Analysis Report september 1989 ACNW meeting-on proposed dismantlement 7.3) Review of Conclusions on the l
l Staff's Safety Evaluation Report.
and Environmental Assessment 10:2a6 t0: 4 5 n.rn 11 : FO - 1 1 : 1,c.t fr..
- BREAK ***
7.3) General Discussion 7.4) Conclusion 10 ts T
12:&C - 1:&O p.m.
- LUNCH ***
I k
'o ; se
'a
+
s' 22ND ACNW MEETING 3
5440 - 2:30 p.m.
Anticicated ACNW Activities (open/ Closed) 1 t)
(DWM/RDi) 8.1) The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meting agenda, and organization matters as appropriate including:
8.1-1) Changes to ACNW By-laws:
- length of tern
- reappointment process
- size of Committee 8.1-2) Sharing in joint ACNW/ACRS staff (Note: Portions of this session will be closed to discuss internal personnel practices and information the release of which would represent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.)
4;"-
4:l*
Pt90 - ? 45 p.m.
- BREAK ***
9;.
h['45-5:00p.m.
Precaration of ACNW ReDorts 9.1) Preparation and completion of ACNW reports as appropriate 9.1-1) Pathfinder Decommissioning 9.1-2) Strategies and Schedule for the High Level Waste Repository 9.1-3) Uncertainties in EPA HLW Standards 9.1-4) ACNW Organizational matters 5:00 p.m.
ADJOURN
.x e
.