ML20031B141
| ML20031B141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/27/1981 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| RULE-PR-60 ACRS-1868, NUDOCS 8109300285 | |
| Download: ML20031B141 (25) | |
Text
_
PDA' Qsp/
'p g(:
--~n-w.
/) Cre.s
/2 (olf.
n-l D d.a m J L....../
CERTIFIED OATE:
7/24/81 WZ y \\\\?tf t to MINUTES OF THE ACRS JOINT MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES M
p ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 3., cp YA g c
igg,i JUNE 22 AND 23,1981 WASHINGTON, D.C.
~
't i
/
1 The ACRS Subcommittees on Waste Management and Reactor Radiological Effects held a meeting on June 22 and 23,1981 in Room 1046, 1717 H St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the proposed rule on Technical Criteria for Disposal of High-Level Radio-active Wastes in Geological Repositories (10 CFR Part 60) and the NRC Safety Research Program Budget for FY 1983 related to waste management and reactor radiological effects. Approximately half of the meeting was open to the public. The reason for having closed sessions was to allow the ACRS Subcommittee to engage in frank discussions with members of the NRC Staff concerning particular budget numbers.
Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on Friday, June 5,1981. A copy of this notice is included as Attachment A.
A list of attendees for this meeting is included as Attachment B, the schedule for the meeting is included as Attach-ment C, and a list of reference material is included as Attachment D.
A complete set of handouts has been included in the ACRS files. There were no written or oral statements from the public. The Designated Federal Employee for the meeting was Mr. John C. McKinley.
p m F '* F " g a bl JL W LJ L
/
B109300295 810727' PDR ACRS 1868 PDR
8 l
e Opening Statement by Subcomittee Chairman D. Moeller opened the meeting and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the proposed rule on Technical Criteria for Disposal of High-level Radioactive Wastes in Geological Repositories (10 CFR 60), the draft guidance on Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR 191),
and the NRC research program on waste management and reactor radiological effects. The Subcommittee would hear from NRC, DOE, and EPA on the above subjects and would then prepare comments to be presented to the full ACRS during subsequent meetings. Also, based on the meeting, appropriate draft chapters of the ACRS report to the Commissioners on the NRC Safety Research Program Budget for FY 1983 would be prepared.
NRC Staff Presentation on 10 CFR Part 60 P. Come11a and M. Bell of the NRC Staff presented the proposed rule on Technical Criteria for disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geo -
logical Repositories (10 CFR 60).
It was approved by the Commissioners for publication as a proposed rule on June 16, 1981 and it is a companion to the final rule on Licensing Procedures for Geological Repositories (10 CFR 60) published in February 1981. Copies of the approved version l
of the proposed rule on 10 CFR 60 were. passed out during the meeting.
P. Come11a indicated that the overall performance goal for a geological waste repository is the EPA standard to be issued as 40 CFR 191. The 3rimary purpose of the NRC rule is to address the licensability of a I
geological waste repository. She stated that the NRC rule should include 1
Ut -
the provisions to independently assess DOE's choice for a site, to
. assess the un*certainities included in DOE's choice, to develop con-fidence in DOE's choice, to assure that NRC's apprcval of a given DOE choice would stand-up in a hearing process, and to develop public confidence in the NRC decision making process.
R. Foster stated his concern that the NRC rule did not include a risk basis for the individual perfomance criteria or any other basis which could be reviewed.
J. Ebersole noted that a risk basis is not cur-rently used in licensing nuclear power plants and wondered why such a basis should be used for this particular rule.
M. Bell stated that rigorous risk based standards do not currentl.' exist.
F. Parker questioned the specificity of the proposed rule and asked why the radionuclide release limits were not put in a regulatory guide rather than in a rule.
P., Comella responded that the reason for the specificity was to address the licensability concern of the NRL.
M. Bell stated that the proposed rule was sent out for a 120 day public comment period and that ACRS comments or questions on the rule would be welcome. He indicated that the rule was. based on a multiple barrier approach with requirements on both the engineered system and on the geologic i
setting. The long tenn performance objectives of the rule are to meet the EPA release standards, to require that the engineered package contain the waste for at least 1,000 years with a maximum annual release rate of 10-5 of the package inventory at 1,000 years, to require that the geological setting have at least a 1,000 year groundwater travel time to the nearest " accessible environment" and that it has been stable since the start of the Quaternary Period (i.e., 2,000,000 years ago), and to design the repository such that the waste could be retrieved starting at any time up to 50 years after emplacement is complete.
j
r e
! M. ' Bell indicated that the major areas in which the Commission is seeking public comments are:
i Performance Standards (DOE would like a single overall standard as opposed,to the multiple standards of the NRC rul e).
Reasonable assurance (absolute assurance for a repository i
is not possible so the NRC has tried to define reasonable assurance for licensing purposes).
ALARA for Engineered System (NRC has dropped the ALARA statement from the engineered system standard to eliminate l
some controversy in the licensing process).
~
Future Human Activities (NRC is interested in public per-l l
ception of how best to prevent repository intrusion for periods of thousands of years).
J. Donoghue questioned whether the current draft EPA guidance, which includes an ALARA statement, would conflict with the proposed NRC l
rule which has removed the ALARA statement.
M. Bell indicated that j
the draft EPA guidance is still being discussed between NRC and EPA l
such that any conflicts shot 1d be worked out before the NRC rLle l
and the EPA guidance are finalized.
l Mr. Griesmeyer asked if the 10-5 annual release rate limit applied to all radionuclides regardless of hazard.
M. Bell responded that it applied only to the radionuclides which constitLte at least one-tenth of one percent of the total radionuclide inventory. For those radionuclides, the 10-5 annual release rate limit applies without regard to the hazard posed. The reason for this requirement is that the NRC does not want to rely on geochemistry and release pathway analysis once a radionuclide has been released from tnr enaineered system.
L-I
.o.
- k. Fcster asked if maintaining retricvability cculd compromise the iso-lation capability of the repository design.
M. Bell answered that the retrievability feature is a design feature which should not compromise the isolation of the waste. Furthermore, the NRC hopes that at the end of the repository loading, the design will have been verified satis-factorily to the NRC such that decommissioning can be approved. This would allow DOE to permanently seal the repository rather than waiting for 50 more years, which the design provides for.
F. Parker asked if retrievability is the only option if things do not go as planned.
M. Bell indicated that retrievability is not the only option since, _ es Dr. Parker pointed out, the retrieval of leaking waste containers might be much worse than leaving them in the repository and taking some other action.
G.
Thompson commented that the requirement for stability of the geo-logic setting since'.the beginning of the Quaternary period could elimi-nate all sites.
M. Bell indicated that the NRC's definition of stability is not necessarily the same as a geologist's definition.
F. Parker then asked that the NRC apply standard definitions of terms in their rules.
DOE Presentation on Waste Management C. Heath of DOE introduced the subject of DOE efforts in the area of radioactive waste management.
M. Frei of DOE described the site se-1ection and evaluation effort current 1'y underway for a geological i
repository. The National Waste Terminal Storage (NWTS) program was de-scribed and the schedules presented.
In 1983 and 1984, exploratory shafts l
l will be started at Hanford (Basalt), at Nevada (Tuff), and at a salt site.
A test and evaluation facility is scheduled to be constructed by 1990 and 1
it will be used to study engineered features such as backfill, retrievability, i
etc.-
9
r M. Steindler asked about the DOE study of the subseabed portion of the NWTS program.
C. Heath commented that the DOE plan is to use gelogical disposal for radioactive waste, but they do not want to abandon all other options. The subseabed concept still has some technical merits and therefore it is being kept alive.
J. Martin of the NRC Staff commented that the test and evaluation faci-lity is a very large and expensive program which could delay the site investigation and tne license application date for a geological repository.
He indicated that the test and evaluation facility is a useful. effort but that it contributes very little toward determining site suitability and it should be kept in its proper perspective.
C. Newton and C. Heath of DOE discussed some of the major comments which DOE has regarding f.he proposed NRC rule (10 CFR 50). The particular comments were:
Component Per7onnance versus System Performance. DOE would prefer a system performance objective which would give more flexibility in design details. They suggest that specific numerical values for component performance be part of the regulatory guides.
Waste Package. DOE questions the need for waste package ari-teria that require all radionuclides be contained for the first 1,000 years. Such a requirement may be impractical with respect to demonstrating compliance and it raises questions about the cost / benefit analyses of the waste package design (i.e., is it really necessary to spend
$30,000 for each container when a much cheaper container can do almost as well).
n
J
-7 Borehole Sealing. The proposed requirement for borehold sealing is unrelated to the overall radionuclide release requirement and-it is much easier to achieve in high permeability rocks.
Retrievability. This requirement makes the backfill concept questionable and the 50 year requirement does not seem to have a good basis.
Release Rate. The requirement does not have a clear boundary definition, the conditions for release are unspecified, and the allowable credit for geological attenuation 12 not addres-sed.
Overall, DOE is not opposed to tre philosophical basis of 10 CFR 60 (i.e.,
defense in depth) b,ut they do oppose the specificity of the rule. They believe the numerical criterie would be more appropriate in a regulatory guide.
EPA Fresentation on Disposal of High-Level Waste G. Burley of EPA introduced the subject of EPA efforts in the area of high level radioactive waste disposal. He indicated that the EPA draft of 40 CFR 191, " Environmental Standards and Radiation Protection Guidance for Hanagement and Disposal of High Level Waste", is not even a proposal as yet.
It will be reviewed interna 11'y by the EPA Science Advisory' Board, as well as externally before being issued for public canment. Because of some of the changes made by the Reagan administration, a significant delay in publishing the EPA guidance document for public canment has resul ted.
~
8-D. Egan of EPA discussed the draft version of 40 CFR 191.
It has seven general principles to be used by ali egencies for disposal of high level radioactive wastes. Those principles are:
1.
Dispose of Wastes Promptly (i.e., do not plan to store the waste indefinitely).
2.
Keep Releases as Small as Reasonably Achievable.
3.
Use Several Different, Effective Barriers.
4.
Do Not Rely on Active Institutional Controls for More than 100 Years.
5.
Identify the Disposal Site with Permanent Markers and Records.
6.
Avoid Sites wnich have Resources or Potential Resources.
7.
Design to Allow Future Recovery.
The draft EPA guidance extends 40 CFR 190 exposure limits to include waste management operations and it sets limits on projected releases from waste disposal sites for a period of 10,000 years.
The EPA definition of " accessible environment" includes the atmosphere, land surface, surface waters, and underground waters that are more than one mile in any direction from the waste site.
The performance requirements for waste disposal were based on risk studies. These studies resulted in the decision to select the level of risk at 1,000 premature deaths over 10,000 years for 100,000 metric tons of heavy metal.
M. Steindler questioned how this level of risk was se-1ected since it is much, much lower than normal levels of risk from human activity.
D. Egan responded that EPA chose this level based on achievability since there is no lower level of risk which is agreed upon.
4
D. Egan then presented the EPA comments on the proposed NRC rule (10 CFR 60.) EPA believes that the NRC has taken an appropriate ap-proach to implementing EPA Standards and Guidance (40 CFR 191). EPA would like to see the NRC place increased emphasis on protection by geologic site characteristics such as setting limits on geochemistry similar to the currently proposed groundwater limits.
NRC Presentation on Waste Management Research F. Arsenault of the NRC Staff introduced the subject of the NRC waste management research program by discussing the background and history that established the program. He discussed the various perspec~tives of EPA, DOE, and NRC, and how these perspectives have influenced the programs at each of the agencies. He noted that the ilRC research program primarily addresses the licensability issues of waste management while the EPA and DOE programs do nott.
K. Kim of the NRC Staff discussed the budget figures and the individual projects being handled by the NRC research program.
M. Bell of the NRC Staff briefly discussed the technical assistance projects being funded by the NRC.
Subcomittee Discussion on Waste Management Topics D. Moeller then led a general discussion of what was presented and asked for coments from the Consultants, Fel' lows, and Staff. He r6 quested that Griesmeyer, Donoghue, and McKone meet with J. Martin and others of the NRC Staff to discuss and develop detailed comments on the proposed rule (10 CFR 60). He also requested that three hours be set aside for a Full Committee discussion of 10 CFR 60 in September for purposes of writing a a
r.
~
c,
- Committee letter on the subject. Also, he requested that the Waste Management Subcommittee plan to meet again in August with the NRC Staff for a final discussion of 10 CFR 60 before the September Full Committee meeting.
NRC Presentation on Research Related to Fuel Cycle Facility Safety D. Solberg of the NRC Staff presented the rescarch activities related to fuel cycle facility safety. He indicated that work started in 1979 to develop an Accident Analysis Handbook on fuel cycle facility accidents such as fires, explosions, etc. New codes are being developed ~ to assist the NRC review and evaluation of accident consequences and these codes will be used in the preparation of the Handbook.
M. Steindler asked if there had been any progress reports issued in the open literature such that the technical community was aware of the re-search work done since 1979 on the Accident Analysis Handbook.
D. Solberg indicated that no such reports had been issued.
M. Steindler indicated that this appears to be a common situation in regard to some NRC research work. Because the NRC work is not made known to the rest of the technical community, peer review or at least peer comment is not possible and the possibility of duplication of research or overlap is not highlighted.
NRC Presentation on Research Related to Effluent Control, Chemical Systems, and Decommissioning K. Steyer of the NRC Staff presented the research activities related to effluent control, chemical systems, and decommissioning. One of the I
l L
major programs relates to source term measurements at operating plants to establish actual ligef d and gaseous releases.
K. Steyar indicated that based on these studies, so far, in-plant sampling techniques and sample analysis are adequate for the monitoring being performed.
D.
Moeller disagreed with this finding based on the numerous LERs associ-iated with sampling and monitoring system failures.
K. Steyer briefly discussed several research projects related to advanced radwaste systems, hydrogen control, water chemistry, decommissioning, decontamination, etc.
NRC Presentation on Research Related to Occupational Protection S. McGuire of the NRC Staff presented the research activities related to occupational protection. He indicated that most of the NRC research effort is intended.to support the preparation of standards. One example is the work on testing survey instrument performance. This research will help NRC develop standards for licensee testing of survey instruments.
In response to a question from M. Steindler, S. McGuire stated that the NRC has fyl requirements for licensee testing of survey instruments at present.
S. McGuire discussed several other research projects such as the neutron dosimetry study, air sampling evaluation, bioassay performance testing, and dosimetry performance testing. He also ihdicated that the NRC pro-vides research money for support of the NCRP.
The main thrust of the occupational protection research effort is the work on ALARA.
NRC Presentation on Research Related to Emergency Planning M. Jamgochian of the NRC Staff presented the research activities related to emergency planning.
He indicated that emergency planning is being
handled by the human factors group and 18E, and that the research is closely coordinated with FEMA.
Also, several other NRC offices have emergency planning related research projects. One of the projects being undertaken is the development of an Emergency Dose Assessment Handbook which will be made available to the general public.
It will be written such that the lay person can use it as well as the NRC.
NRC Presentation on Research Related to Earth Sciences R. Kornasiewicz of the NRC Staff discussed the rasearch activities re-
. lated to earth sciences. He indicated that the research is divided into a geology >.nd seismology program and a meteorology and hydrology program.
He briefly discussed some of the research programs.
G. Thompson commented that the work 07 geology and seismology looked good and that it had an, appropriate level of funding.
D. Moeller commented that IAEA recently issued a document on the hydrology aspect of siting and that since the NRC has no research in that area, it may make it diffi -
cult to offer substantive comments on the IAEA work.
NRC Presentation on Research Related to Siting and Environmental Impacts E. Conti of the NRC Staff presented the research activities related to siting and environmental impacts. He discussed some of the research pro-1 jects and commented that the siting research is being done to support the proposed NRC rule on siting.
P NRC Presentation on Research Related to Health Effects J.
Foulke of the NRC Staff presented the research activities related to She discussed the individual projects which were primarily health effects.
aimed at assessing the use of dosimeters (i.e., their accuracy) and the L.
. various health effects of different types of radiation (neutron vs. gamma, etc.) as well as the combination of exposures (toxic chemicals plus radi-ation, internal plus external, etc.).
J. Foulke commented that the research was primarily based on user need and therefore did not have an overall goal.
Subconmittee Discussion on Research Topics D. Moelle~r then led a general discussion of the waste management research program. The subcommittee members questioned the NRC Staff representatives present and discussed comments on the research program. The 5-year, OEN 770 s/
gg research program on waste container material evaluation was briefly discussed.
F. Arsenault pointed out that the waste management research budget has grown tremendously in the last few years, but the NRC Staf f to support the research has not grown. Furthermore, the recent reorganization of the research staff has tended to reduce the level of organization in what was an already somewhat disorganized effort.
Future Activities D. Moeller prepared a new draft for some sections of the ACRS report to the Commissioners on the FY 1983 research badget. The final report will be dis-cussed during the July 1981 ACRS Committee meeting.
D. Moeller confirmed his request that an August 1981 subcommittee meeting on waste management be scheduled to further discuss the proposed rule in 10 CFR 60 and to discuss the proposed rule in 10 CFR 61 on low-level waste disposal. Also, the subject of high-level waste disposal will be scheduled for the September 1981 ACRS Committee meeting and preparation of an ACRS letter will be discussed at that time.
d-
+:,
!l f.
', f
/
,34,
For additional details, a complete transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 or from Alderson Reporters, 300 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C.
(202) 554-2345.
6 i
I I
- ---- - - i voi. m. No.105 / Friday. June 5.1981 / Notje,,
cucable. these closed sessions will i
held so as 12 minimize inc:nvetince to members of the public in attendance.
De agenda for subject meeting shall be as foDown-Monday and Tuesday, Jane 22 and 23 1981. 8-30 a m. until the conclusion of business each day.
During the infualportion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along with any ofits consultants who may be present. wi!! exchange preliminary views regardmg matters to be considered during the balance of the meeting.
The Subcommittee wiU then hear presentations by and hold discussioaa with representadves of the NRC Staff, their consultants, and other interested persons.
dvtsory Committee on Reactor Further information about topics to be Safeguards. Jofr.1 Subcommittee tm discussed whether the meeting has Waste Management and Reactor been canc,eUed orrescheduled the Chairman's ruling on requesta for the Radiologreat Effects; Weeung opportunity to present oral statementa
%e ACRS Joint Subcommittee on and the time aUotted therefor can be Waste Management and Reactor obtained by a prepaid telephone call to-Radiological Effects will hold a meeting the cognizant employ ee. Mr. Carry on June 22 and 23.19el. Ln Room 1046. Young itclephone 202/634-1414) 1717 H Street. N.W Weshington. DC.
between 8.15 a.rt and 5.00 p.m I'DT.
The Subcommittee wlU review and He Designated Federal Employee for discuss the proposed ru!e on Technical Criteria for Disposal of Egh. Level this meeting is Mr. John C. McKinley, Radioactive Wastes in Geological l have determined, in accordance with Repositories (10 CR Pert 60) and the Subsecuan10(d)of the Federal NRC Safety Research Program Budget Advisory Committee act, that it ::.sy be for fiscal year 1983 related to waste necessary to close portions of this meeting to public attendance to protect management and teactor radiological 1978 NRC Authorization Act to review effects.
In accordance with the procedures the NRC Research Program and Budget out]ined it the Federal Register on and to report the results of the review to October 7.1980. (45 FR 66535). oral orCong*ess.%e authority for such closure la Exemption 9(B) to the Sunshine Act. 5 written statements may be presented by U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B).
me:nbers of the pubbe, tecordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting when a transcriptis being kept and quesuons may be asked ody by members of the Subcommittee.its consulta nia, and Staff. Persons desiring to make oral statementa should notify the Designated Federal Employee as far in advance as practicabic so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow the necessary time during the meeting for auch statements.
He ma)ority of the meeting will be open to public attendance. The Subcommittee will be considering some predects:onalbud etinformation S
associared with the NRC Safety Research Program Badget for flaca! year a
1983 In order to perform this resiew. the ACRS e ust be able to engage In frank discussion with members of the NRC Staff. %erefore it may be necessary to close portions of this meeting Act Exemption 9(B)). To the ex(Sunshine tent ATTAUlIAEN T l
1
June ~22 and 23, 1981
~
~
~
~
~
~~ ~ ~
.i MEETING DATE*
$UBCo m !TTEE MEETING: WASTE MANAGEMENT AND REACTOR U DIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 1,0 CAT 10N: ROOM 1046,1717 H St.,NW,Washinaton, D.C.
~
kTTA4 h1ENT d ATTENDANCE LIST 6 TRI N T
~
I. Pit AF F J L I Al l u,'i,,,
f.
Mox E W FC
-,n.R.'D. 4 E;NL m
'Tkom s P -
L o n cr o U.'S. %. o9 CS M
Lu l A
Mnn A Aito llo f%;. %.'tn,r s ?
s.
.i J
'71.S'T)av.s "B b L a
3,$. 6clu>edim 3k'L i
s.
s.
CARL h/EU TO f/
Do 2 1.
CollW HEATH l
s__ no 5
.No s byrir r FPfl
' s.
N((
~ D-C%n. \\\\ <. -
r o-
}I P br> > -
A/Pb io.
d 65A
- C-l1.
%<~
T. / i C fl""
- i NA.c Cr...n c.;.
e ?n...,.,,,
Ip.
4 ^: <
f;.% - p 4 //w,..
.,3.
,!cAO 6
/77 sand A>Cc te.
u.
'1,l'e 1e //
~ #8C-(u r w A 2 kv~
- pu/en is.
/V li \\/
'77 N: B OS6[
n.
is.
_ 6. A. Grecug_
CE* mat-. drom c[o.
i n.
J. T G !R Y E \\'f2 S
/VR C,
T F 6elrr Jd/alk /Ch/W.1~
to.
i ri.
% ere cc>re
@ntws/wws 1% t/TJ/. - b' O N t
\\ ??.
el.
O.u e an d h itN l0Nr
\\n.
4 PARA?
ra.
K. s Kan AIR C - R ES es
,m
-,hh,00!TT[k, MEET!FG: WASTE MNAGEMENT AND REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
~
0* TION. WOOM 1046, 1717 H.St.,NW.Washinator., D.C.
J I
a ATTENDANCE LIST REASE T P J t4 T AttILIAllOh r, AV,d f
-.)
,- - - A sc-,i,.
M <>, i..
U R,
n.. m, l
L.--
N RC-RES E' (C 7 a r 4 (v ci, i
, b y a_l' O. b w t v M Rc - RE5 3
7pq
( m_. - 2.-
n-c. m ec.
1 v
s
.r 2g,
(*),. s ',,' 'f "'
[ s'.! f. / '. e' E *
- L f
l'oils
- l-l
'g,
//r.x/
3 P'
I T
.,,; c s
i-:
01,c%nt
' Ca lim,1c n!
WR c - Le3 i,
G-
=
!0.
{: 1.
1_
~
t,t.
13.
ifd ~
s b.
17.
18.
19.
[
20.
21.
??,
23, l
4 74.
6"
'~"""""^~~'^N
.p
~
O X;YlSORY COM.'ilTTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETING
}
'ASTE MANAGEMENT A D REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
)
JUNE 22 AND 22, WASHINGTON, D.C. '
P @P U.t W iSc ATTENDEES PLEASE $1C'? BELC '
==
~
AFFILIATIO';
N A'tE BADCE NO.
- L M M_L6%_
__s _Altij f h_d-ts /t~r.
s
-m 2, K M dl'I-
_$4edI _
$ O." W b J
~
s jl%a.t:shc P
% &/2+5'
=.,
R
' l- -'
W k-(f -K_-0/Yo k Coy. s vt-TAW w-
-q
.k
- ESLh $$$5
_ =,
,. _ _ =
i..2-01.1.3_ 0.
trih__et-tat!7
-- D l h _. _ A,.. L T. A L g _ _
k s,_(;>.I.V o
!.,__Ps N L.-.
L 1 b_ b, _ W IQ3.:-..e V__
~
g_
.-e IL "Ih G ~ h.s Qssin L.n /J L __
i b._ Rgm i 6 o <*'l, %4 t n %
4 A bac#.
L g _ ow 1 6. A __
_ _ _ - -- -.7,fl Mr4
,qN-m
), /=_ - O / M i fa n
(
0JJ
\\L.!"eus.,, J3ujgd_ :_J;j.5r.QL,hlQ Ih h]b
=-
1.T_ rd.L 2_ 8 O TCM _--
- ~ _ _ =,
L%gM.
2<a. f_b 5 r) / 'l 'S'_ __
h
' l4___ _
i IL6 W
i k,
V n
=
r.
4
.h 7 M
'%5
.h,
,_k id d.
.=m a-::
Lt-
~ _W a.3._W_,_1 %_O g L.1_t.h _v4a__. _ _.
~/ Y(
- - _.,.-._.,4._._. - _ -
lt.
t
.._. y
-a LLi W
\\
I.
bb
--e.- _., __
_x
-~ m m m L,k(. _ m._ _t
-.m.m.m t%%
jf,u=.s-, - -
.n yly m m.a.
- m. $
il j[sf
~ ~ ~~ --- = -..n =
wu
[
MEETING ROOM: ar-
. _, -- 2 XVISORY COM.ITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETINC CH WASTE MANAGEMENT AND REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS JUNE 22 AND 22, WASHINGTON, D.C. '
j' w
p"" *L \\k~(,
iv w ATTENDEES PLEASE SIC': B E LC'a'
.P U.RT AFTILI ATIO?;
W :E BADCE NO.
t % % d b._r i-(=om lcn_d nza
.1_, % Odli_
A E Mr l MC1 L.d A. '7knrsv.n l Dv 7l l
A h M_u_ut f R q o_as-l i..
_s
_m n
(
1 a
1 W
- 1._-
It 3
+-
_=
a 1w 1
I
_ --e n r-
,e-
_w
=
J
, w.. _
, L. ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,
=
E l3 fi_
- w, 4
l/
_Q p
1 4
15
' U ~~e
- -wr===nzessm.amonawaruv.-%.e
.:ssummer===:_-s=-----
. - -M L1- _ ___'._ _i_ _ d _- _ _ _. _ _
- _... -, _ g.
,.n 4
a r
i13
_ _s
.-- u-__
.. -. e,.
i
- - ~
=-a
. ~~~~~ <~
=n -a - -- u-m
- - m
~ --
? y\\'h====c 21.wc.r wr miratesw.s:arews:_ussas:'
.= - mrt::armareas=
- w n n:c:-:sr c er 4
~
+ - ~ -
?
k.
--~ ~ ~.__m.__y
-n g,
i l
l
MEETING DATE
~
NAME BADGE NO.
NRC ORGANIZATION
[Y_&g >
h, j $~
El' A 4LF 3 4 2 7. G..
Q&w v s > unc en
- A% w %-M ne h o~ao Dac
- i. N.M NRC A /49 2 a
Rer
>% MA sacsomo uRc A3aN GUch\\
W
- b D ad
(-oio'E "JEc /Per d casme s-m i e ee/as
' v'A f a.e, h i
i.
l Ip P
. i 0
r-r
. i~,.,.-
I O
_ l,@M N b
-M p..
MEETING DATE Nt.,ME BADGE NO.
NRC ORGANIZATION
> /P E ded A n 4 <~~
hers /FL
_)
k GAN>1r!/
f4 - 0 4 P '7 ark /DSZ
[ L.
M / /tr 8-c t/6 P uaa/,h!J E AbD L3Gl[,
l
-14D W RE'S k'.6.SYe4ek 4 -i YC2 R G_C
. FDFisLox A-0329 NM53 ISFechem McGaan P,-o v9 t RfS i77lvlos s. skem.:
h - ta w Br3/Mr troc. F Gw,
/>.o2 m XES
/A Gmello.
A-orpd pE;r
- P. R. l?ns
/? - ip o,
Res
- 3. 6 %
& -i! 4 G o g e-b F. _ Mges A - a rc te s (JuJa'/%d>d Jr-ll7f fpc 4g!k r16%' '
~*
b-Osx &
2ES 9
9
-w e
MeF y
s
+ we*e
~
=
=.
e v
m
6Tsus e,m rt nEETING: 3)AST /h AN AC@
'r i k % 7c4 M b E rr$ dr5
,'LDCATION:_IdASN/NCT'ItM D.C, [/a /0 @a) 1717 li OT* s N'W
- ATTENDU/CE LIST i
TP1 h3
~-
'M J
u t gsum.
- 1.. C hen le
%Iki pgyy7tgj9_q
~l L&M4G)
S& t > E%
ggfnjpgS s s,. ; s,,
> ra u.s j W A! btce y,r>c / p f.c
- s. LD. F. G.a/w,1/ /
/t g e /037
~
.l
. _ _6.
F (i t-h3.WJIu s
Nrou B.6naw l
e f7 m o v 1/o n Als i r w! c y jun e / n c3
[10.?{
& bn lf/
_ A'R( /PE S R Arb F. 0S k 5.
At(Lb / sten & LL t '
11.
ar.
?
C,. -.112y. f
!a3.
E C'r- - L '
~
i se.
k<>.v:P, 35.
C',~'. A
( y; i
I6. V.cg e nd;2&w.
l is.
17._ _'3. I. t.s e < '.s. e
--l.,
A
= __
- 33. +. Wdi[
l
- 30. swKs l-It. t e e_
g p
f4 G '/4rw(/d pp,
._u. e gg T
=
y'.a-kTTBff MENT C-PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR JUNE 22 AND 23,1981 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS i
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Monday June 22, 1981 8:30 a.m.
Opening Statement, Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Subcommittee Chairman 8:45 a.m.
NRC Staff Presentation on Draft 1> CFR 60 Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste in Geological Repositories:
Technical Criteria, with emphasis on related research needs, J. Martin, M. Bell, et. al. (NRC Staffi BREAK 10:00 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
DOE Presentation, Coments on Draft 10 CFR 60 and Comments on Waste Management Research, C. Newton, M. Fret et. al. (DOE) 11:15 a.m.
EPA Presentation on Draft 40 CFR 191, Environmer.tal Standards and Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes, including related research needs, G. Burley, D. Egan, et. a. (EPA)
LUNCH 12:15 p.m.
. 1:15 p.m.
NRC Staff Presentation on Waste Management Research F. Arsenault, P. Come11a, K. Kim, et.al. (NRC Staff) 3:30 p.m.
NRC Staff Presentation on NMSS Technical Assistance Programs 4:15 p.m.
Subcommittee Discussion and Preparation of Written Report 5 30 p.m.
ADJOURN I
-v.
-r e.
. 2.-
Tuesday June 23,,1981 8:30 a.m.
Opening State:r.ent Dr. Dade W. Moeller Subcommittee Chaiman 8:45 a.m.
NRC ' Staff Presentation on Research Activitdes relative to the following Subelements:
5.d.
Fuel Cycle Facility Safety (D.Solberg) 5.e.
Effluent Control and Chem. Sys.
(K.Steyer) 5.f.
Decommissioning (K.Steyer) 10:00 a.m.
+++++
BREAK 10:15 a.m.
NRC Staff Presentation Continued 6.c.
Occupational Protection (C. McGuire) 6.d.
Emergency Preparedness (M.Jamgochian) 8.a.
Earth Sciences (B. Kornasiewicz) 12:30 p.m.
LUNCH 1:30 p.m.
NRC Staff Presentation Continued 8.b.
Siting (E. Conti) 6.c.
Health Effects (J. Foulke) 8.d.
Environmental Impacts (E. Conti) 2:30 p.m.
Subcommittee Discussion and Preparation of Written l
Report l
BREAK 3:30 p.m.
[
3:45 p.m.
Subcommittee Discussion (continued) 5:00 p.m.
ADJOURN i
I
~-
1,,.
ir
-(
e t TT ACK MENT D REFGRENCE MhWIbL I.
SEC-Y-Bl-2(67 A W2,
Dnq ID CFR W 2.
Dinch te Chk m datad Stagfel, noe &
3, Idack to cKAk. m Jdbl 6 /t/8I, l&J4x to sEtY-61-267 4.
M'6ao (kib t4 T%M GRU M ddr) 5/29/gl Dkch % %,
Mancr dM sinfe;, Q 40 CM19I 5.
e 6
& N & Gddu%e saw amMd, Ff M63{ elf 85 N$
- q. notes -o&99; A mso, en @ stL W,mmsN I
)
to NutE5 o~7sl, 96q1981, h<cs %d b W,FYise2 W g l. NOR EG- 074D, %d MBI, l<mg farp %cl %
i
.