ML20056E544

Summary of 48th Meeting of ACNW in Bethesda,Md to Discuss & Take Appropriate Actions on Items Listed in Encl Agenda

ML20056E544
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/17/1992
From:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
References
NACNUCLE-0063, NACNUCLE-63, NUDOCS 9308240241
Download: ML20056E544 (43)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:d e m -sos S PPF V&M3 MINUTES OF THE 48TH ACNW MEETING NOVEMBER 19-20, 1992 - TABLE OF CONTENTS - Pace I. Chairman's Report (open) 1 II. Meeting with the Director General of the 2 British Nuclear Forum (Open) III. Role and Perspective of a State Department. 5 of Health Regarding Siting an LLW Disposal Facility (Open) IV. Draft Staff Technical Position on Consideration 8 of Fault Displacement Hazards in Geologic Repository Design (Open) V. Enhanced Participatory Rulemeking Process 13 on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning, SECY-92-249 (Open) VI. Meeting with the Director, Office of Nuclear. 15 Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) (Open) VII. National Profile on Mixed Waste (Open) 18 r VIII. Chairman's Report on the Impact of 19 Long-Range Climate Change in the Area of the Southern Basin and Range Working Group Meeting (Open) IX. Executive Session (Open/ Closed) 24 A. Reports and Memorandum e Staff Technical Position on Consideration of Fault Disolacement Hazards in Geoloaic Repository Desian (Report to James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, dated November 24, 1992) e Sionificant Issues in the Hich-Level Waste Repository Procram (Report to Chairman Selin, dated December 1, n 1992) 71 r09 4 4nnon

m 3' 9308240241 921217 O

PDR ADVCM NACNUCLE 77-( PDR OO(o)

i B. Committee Discussion on the Use of a Collective Dose t ll* Concept in the Licensing of a High-Level Waste Repository (open) C. Systems Analysis Approach D. McVe to the Two White Flint North Building i E. Election of ACNW Officers (Closed) F. ACNW Future Activities G. Future Meeting Agenda - APPENDICES - I. Federal Register Notice II. Meeting Schedule and Outline t III. Meeting Attendees IV. Future Agenda and Working Group Activities V. List of Documents Provided to the Committee l i

i d~ 3f h h; U ui$ Issue : ece eBr 2, 2 l i i MINUTES OF THE 48TH MEETING OF THE l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE NOVEMBER 19-20, 1992 l BETHESDA, MARYLAND j i The 48th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste was j held Thursday and Friday, November 19-20, 1992, in the Conference l Room, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of this I meeting was to discuss and take appropriate actions on the items i listed in the attached agenda. l 1 A transcript of selected portions of the meeting was kept and is-available in the NRC Public Document Room at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. [ Copies of the transcript-I taken at this meeting may be purchased from Ann Riley & Associates, j Ltd., 1612 K Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006.] i I Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Committee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. and briefly reviewed the schedule for the meeting. He stated that the meeting was being conducted in conformance with the i Federal Advisory Committee Act. He stated that the Committee had received neither written comments nor requests from members of the public for time to make oral statements. However, he invited l members of the public, who were present and had. something to j l l contribute, to let the ACNW staff know so that time could be j l allocated for them to make oral statements. t l ACNW members, Drs. William J. Hinze, Paul W. Pomeroy, and Martin -J. l Steindler, were present. ACNW consultant Dr. David Okrent was also present. [For a list of attendees, see Appendix III.] I. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT (Open) [ Note: Mr. Richard K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.] Dr. Moeller identified a number of items that he believed to be of interest to the Committee, including: The NRC has amended its low-level radioactive waste (LLW)- e l regulations to allow generators to receive back LLW sent 1 off-site for volume reduction. The rule will take effect - on November 20, 1992, and applies to all NRC licensees, e The Illinois LLW Disposal Facility. Siting Commission voted unanimously to reject the proposed Martinsville LLW disposal site. The State of Illinois ' will need to i restart the selection process, which is expected to take as long as the original. Mr. Howard Larson observed that-the Commission's principal problem was with the zero .j j . - - - - - - - A

l 48th ACNW Meeting 2 November 19-20, 1992 1 release criteria imposed by the Illinois Department of \\ Nuclear Safety. j The NRC staff has notified the U.S. Department of Energy l e (DOE) that Site Characterization Analysis Objection No. 1 has been removed. i The NRC staff participated in a meeting of the Interagen-e cy Cross-cutting Mixed Waste and Materials Issues Working Group on October 1,1992. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the applicability of RCRA requirements to mixed wastes. Two reports have recently been issued that indicate that e there may be errors in the recently completed reassess-f ments of the doses to the survivors of the World War II bombings in Japan. If this is so, it could mean that the i health effects of ionizing radiation are less than now assumed. J The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) has responded to the suggestions made by the Committee regarding draft Regulatory Guide DG-8013, "ALARA Radiation Protection j Program for Effluents from Materials Facilities." The Committee recommendations were incorporated and improved i upon. Atomic Energy Limited of Canada invited members of the e NRC staff to visit the Whiteshell Laboratories as well as the Underground Research Laboratory on November 3-4, l 1992. Drs. Moeller and Steindler expressed interest in having an informal report from the NRC staff on the site visit. i II. MEETING WITH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE BRITISH NUCLEAR FORUM (open) i [ Note: Mr. Giorgio Gnugnoli was the Designated Federal Official f for this portion of the meeting.] Dr. Moeller introduced Dr. John Gittus, Director General of the British Nuclear Forum (BNF), and Ms. Jane Mullins, Public Relations Executive to the Director General. After describing their backgrounds, Dr. Moeller turned the floor over to Dr. Gittus. Dr. Gittus asked Ms. Mullins to make their initial presentation. j l Ms. Mullins underscored the educational goal of the BNF; i.e., to i educate the public to the positive aspects of nuclear power by l means of a well-informed debate. She indicated that the BNF also l ? l l 1

i l l 48th ACNW Meeting 3 November 19-20, 1992 1 assists the British nuclear power industry in finding business in the United Kingdom (UK) and abroad. Much of their information dispersal is directed to promulgating a positive economic message for the nuclear power sector. The BNF's audiences include the financial sector,

industry, the public (including school-aged I

children) and government officials. A multimedia approach is used including television, conferences, advertising campaigns and publications (including activate, which is directed to the school-aged children). Public debates at educational institutions are aggressively organized. The approach is not to hide possible l problems associated with nuclear power, but rather to show that t l these potential problems are well understood and under control. l l Members of the Committee expressed interest in obtaining copies of the publications mentioned by Ms. Fullins. Ms. Mullins indicated that she would place the Committee on their distribution list. She l also indicated that the BNF has prepared material that demonstrates the effectiveness of these advertising campaigns; she indicated l that she would send this material to the Committee. l t Dr. Gittus observed that the survey results depended heavily on how the survey questions were configured. Generally, when surveyed j about nuclear power, respondents were no more negative than they l would be toward most of the viable energy alternatives. More often t people were anti-power station rather than opposed to any one ( source of fuel. In response to the possibility of any local veto power, Dr. Gittus pointed out that the pertinent national minister had the final say i on siting, construction, etc. A discussion ensued about the prospects of nuclear power, especial-ly when so little education is provided to those students who will become lawmakers. Dr. Okrent had heard that, in the case of the United States, nuclear power may be doomed because so few lawyers were being adequately educated in the issues. He recommended that the education should not be limited to just school-aged children but should continue throughout the curriculum, including college. The participants discussed the UK's low-level waste sector. Dr. Gittus noted that the UK has adequate capacity at the Drigg waste repository site. He briefly described the disposal strategy (concrete-lined trenches with the waste compressed into large steel boxes). This site is projected to have adequate capacity until 2040. ] Dr. Steindler queried Dr. Gittus about the UK's decision to abandon all fast reactor programs. Dr. Gittus responded by describing the economic turn about with respect to recent discoveries of oil and gas reserves accompanied by a drop in the price of uranium. This j

1 i j 48th ACNW Meeting 4 November 19-20, 1992 s was coupled with a recession and devaluation of their currency. The decision was made not to continue investing in this effort. Mr. Gittus observed that nuclear power was the most inexpensive source of electricity. In fact, one utility, Scottish Nuclear, made a profit last year. Discussion moved on to deep geological disposal. Dr. Gittus reminded the audience that the UK's deep geological disposal program is not directed to HLW, but for the other radioactive wastes. The vitrified HLW does not present a disposal problem yet. Without the urgency, there is no active program for disposal of vitrified HLW. In the future, this waste may end up in a deep repository. For the present, it will be stored. He noted that a government-commissioned study concluded that repository disposal of low-and intermediate-level (ILW) waste was economically attrac-tive. Dr. Gittus observed that the government policy is not driven by the public's concern for nuclear power. There are higher priority items in the public's concern, such as employment, national health services, and environmental pollution. Dr. Gittus described many deliberate activities in several sectors of the British experience, which are directed to mitigating the still present effects of the Chernobyl accident. For

example, mandatory graze rotation schedules to reduce radioactive material intake by animals from areas which are still contaminated from the Chernobyl plume.

This has resulted in public concern over foreign nuclear activities, which is much greater than that for British facilities. de spoke of a Western Consortium established to help make nuclear power plants safer in the European countries and in the former eastern block; this includes supplying equipment components, as well as i technical advice. Dr. Gittus also described efforts in the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and Confederated Independent States (CIS) to make their power plants safer. The four major improvements were: 1. Increase the rate at which these units are to be shut down. 2. Provide additional sensors in the protection system (i.e., if the temperature of the water coming into the core is too high, the reactor will trip). 3. Sixty to eighty percent absorber rods bolted into the Core. 4. Compensate for the increased absorption by increasing the enrichment of the fuel, t l

I l 48th ACNW Meeting 5 November 19-20, 1992 i These improvements apparently have been nade. He observed that the FSU's power plants still have a ways to go in terms of building containment. l l Dr. Moeller described the background, history and activities of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. He focused on the ACNW's activities in the HLW area, such as the review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) HLW standards, the NRC's l HLW regulations, site characterization plans, performance assess- - l ment, and the systems analysis of the HLW program. He noted that l a copy of the bound annual compilation of the ACNW reports would be provided to Dr. Gittus by mail. l Dr. Moeller also described the Committee's' activities in the LLW arena. These included the standard review plan, NRC revision of 10 j CFR Part 61, and performance assessment. He also mentioned the mixed wastes problem and dual authority with the EPA, facility j decommissioning, and below regulatory concern. Dr. Gittus raised a final point on risk assessment. He pointed to the dichotomy between the design constraint of 10,000 years and the 1 body of information giving rise to risk factors (based on Japanese atomic bomb survivors). The fact that these two factors will be changing either with new information/ technology and with the i eventual death of the bomb survivors seems to weigh negatively on the successful progress of the deep repository design and construc-tion. Dr. Moeller acknowledged that the design would begin as a risk based approach, but would ultimately end up as a zero-or near zero-release approach. Dr. Moeller thanked the British visitors and recessed the meeting. III. ROLE AND PERSPECTIVE OF A STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGARDING SITING an LLW DISPOSAL FACILITY (Open) (Note: Mr. Howard J. Larson was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Dr. David Brown, Department of Health Services, State of Connecti-cut, was the principal speaker. He was accompanied by Dr. Ivan l White, consultant, and Mr. Joe Amarello, Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service (CHWMS). l Dr. Brown noted that public health departments do not address economic issues, only health impacts. Although nis department staff do not have specific expertise in the LLW area, they do have l 1 z.-.. -

l l l 48th ACNW Meeting 6 l November 19-20, 1992 experience with hazardous wastes by virtue of conducting evalua-tions for 19 Superfund sites in the State of Connecticut. Dr. Brown stated that their approach to the LLW disposal siting was l to identify the following key issues: Risk to population under normal or failure conditions 1. 2. Critical exposure pathway 3. Identification of the specific radioactive materials that constitute the principal health risk i 4. Evaluation of the effects of uncertainty on the analysis 1 Dr. Brown observed that State health departments are unlike Federal agencies in that they must protect the health and safety of the public even if there is only a suspicion of a problem. Experience has shown that such an attitude is necessary if credibility with the public is to be maintained. 1 Dr. Brown identified the steps his department follows in developing an analysis and discussed the three phases of a project such as the LLW disposal siting effort: 1. Identification of pathways and potential health outcomes 2. Determination of the availability of the data to assess the risks 3. Development of recommendations with respect to locations and other health factors As a result of their analyses in Connecticut, the studies concluded that the level of public safety provided as a result of the siting of the LLW disposal facility would be determined principally by the following factors: amount and type of radioactivity (the principal identified nuclides of concern being iodine-129 and carbon-14) ; the proximity to population centers; transportation factors and potential accidents; the performance of the containment system; and l the level of uncertainty in each factor, especially the inventory. (It was stated that about $1 million has been spent to date on the l facility siting effort.) l The driving factor seems to be the long-lived nuclides and those that were soluble in water, it being noted that approximately two-thirds of the drinking water in the State is obtained from wells. It was also determined that, in Connecticut, the depth to groundwa-ter was not an important variable, since the average depth to groundwater throughout the State is approximately 20 feet. Also l

48th ACNW Meeting 7 November 19-20, 1992 l t noted was that transportation accident statistics in the State are significantly different from the average in the United States due to the narrow, curving roads common to the New England area. Dr. Pomeroy asked how helpful the NRC had been. Dr. Brown stated that NRC has been very responsive and helpful to the Hazardous Waste Management Services, but there has been no communication (exchanges) between the Commission and Dr. Brown's Department of Health. Dr. Moeller questioned the analysis that indicated that the worst associated accident could yield a dose of 50 mrem. Mr. White noted that he believed that was the correct value, assuming a fire on a truck loaded with waste. Mr. Amarello discussed the evolution of the CHWMS and updated the Committee on its activities. He stated that the State stopped siting activities in May 1992, after there was a public protest over the selection process. CHWMS is now looking at temporary centralized storage. This time, in addition to technical consider-ations, the CHWMS will also consider benefits to the community, population density and growth, and the possibility of volunteered sites, in addition to the factors noted above. The cost estimate for a LLW disposal facility is estimated to be about $15-20 million. Public comments are being received on this latest plan, but currently, other than the U.S. Navy and the Electric Boat Company at Groton, all other waste generators in the State claim that they could store their wastes on-site for at least another two years. This leads to the conclusion that there is no need to develop a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility.

However, that decision will be reassessed in 1994.

It was noted that not only was the State Department of Health brought into the process late, but also the Governor has mandated that there be an integrated effort among all related State departments. In response to a question from Dr. Hinze, Mr. Amarello stated that there is still some question as to the applicability of the Part 61 provisions to above ground engineered storage. It was also questioned whether the results of this latest effort would prove different than the earlier studies. The State representatives indicated that they believed the public now had a much higher level of awareness of the overall siting process plus the fact that the i siting criteria were now perceived to be more responsive to the i interests of the public. ) In closing, Mr. Amarello promised to send to the Committee a copy of the latest draft siting plan (subsequently received and distributed).

I l i i i i 48th ACNW Meeting 8 I November 19-20, 1992 IV. DRAFT STAFF TECHNICAL POSITION ON CONSIDERATION OF FAULT l DISPLACEMENT HAZARDS IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY DESIGN (Open) [ Note: Mr. Giorgio N. Gnugnoli was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.] Introduction i i Dr. Paul Pomeroy opened the discussion by briefly summarizing the j draft Staff Technical Position (STP) on Consideration of Fault e Displacement Hazards in Geologic Repository Design. He indicated j that he expected the document to generate much public comment, given the reaction it received when previewed at an earlier ACNW meeting. He requested that the NRC staff emphasize any subtle i differences between the current STP and that which the staff i presented during the previous _ Committee meeting in December 1991. f Mr. Ronald Ballard, Chief of the-Geology and Engineering Branch, Division of High Level Waste Management (HLWM), NMSS, introduced j Dr. Keith McConnell, Section Leader, Geology / Geophysics Section, i HLWM, Mr. Michael Lee, Project Manager, NMSS, and Mr. James Wolf, Office of the General Counsel. Mr. Ballard indicated that the draft STP is narrow in focus, only considering fault displacement l hazards as they relate to location of safety related repository i facilities. Mr. Ballard summarized tectonics-related guidance documents that are being

planned, including, 1) methods to identify fault.

l displacement hazards, 2) analysis of fault displacement hazards, 3) i use of tectonics models, and 4) application of hazard results to l repository design. The first of these has been completed and was presented to the Committee in December 1991.- For the analysis methods technical position, the NRC staff developed an annotated j outline and plans to convene an expert panel within the next few months to review the staff's work thus far. However, under the current budget, this STP is not scheduled for completion until-the 1995-1996 time frame. He indicated that they were having difficul-ties convening the expert panel due to conflict of interest 3 problems, but they were-making progress. ] The third staff technical position on use of tectonic models'was presented to the Committee in 1989, after which it was placed on hold due to problems in 40 CFR Part 191 and NRC regulations' related to anticipated and unanticipated events. However,. tectonic models are being used in the Iterative Performance Assessment Phase II for scenario development, which is expected to be completed in early 1993. The STP will be closed out when problems with 40 CFR 191 are resolved. He indicated that the NRC staff will pick up on the last STP in the series, application of hazard results to repository design, as time and resources permit. He mentioned that the STPs

48th ACNW Meeting 9 November 19-20, 1992 i will be folded into the License Application Review Plan and the Standard Format and Content Guide as they are developed. t Mr. Ballard outlined the basis for the STP and reviewed the key [ points made to the Committee in December 1991, regarding the j staff's position on fault displacement in repository design..These points include. There is no requirement for a minimum setback distance from faults to a safety related structure; j DOE should proceed with caution in designing to accommo-date for fault displacement; j DOE must provide reasonable assurance that the design for e fault displacement meets the performance objectives; DOE should seek early resolution of f ault-related design e and performance issues. i Mr. Ballard indicated that the ACNW recommended, during the i December 1991 meeting, that the NRC staff should formalize its i position and undertake a rulemaking.

Finally, Mr.

Ballard concluded with a brief chronology of the development of the draft l STP, beginning with the ACNW letter to the Commission in January 1992, requesting a rulemaking, to the November 1992 ACNW briefing, and then he invited questions. i Key questions and comments raised by the ACNW members for Mr. i Ballard include-l timely e Dr. Pomeroy commended the NRC staff for ~ its development of the STP, but-expressed concern for the 1995-1996 time frame for the analysis STP, in that DOE is moving ahead with its hazards methodology and related 1 investigations. Mr. Ballard indicated that DOE is accelerating its surface investigations program as well as its Exploratory Studies Facility program, which will J tie up NRC resources. He suggested that staff would try 1 to accelerate the analysis STP, but could not promise I this was possible, given resource constraints. t Dr. Steindler asked for the staff's rationale not to conduct a rulemaking on this topic. Mr. Ballard re-l sponded that the Systematic Regulatory Analysis was underway, and will be the mechanism used to allocate resources for rulemakings. Dr. Steindler questioned the necessity for this STP, and asked the staff to try to give a scenario that could exemplify why the STP was important. Mr. Ballard indicated that the staff devel-i i 1 i r

48th ACNW Meeting 10 November 19-20, 1992 oped the STP in response to the ACNW's recommendation to formalize its position, but nothing is new in the position or different from 10 CFR Part 60. Dr. Keith McConnell added that the staff developed the STP also in response to external groups who wanted the NRC position on faults in the controlled area to be put forth in a technical position. Dr. Steindler expressed that he still did not understand why Dr. Pomeroy expected the STP to generate so much outside comment. Mr. Ballard offered that the relationship between this position and Appendix A of Part 100 is often questioned, and the STP helps to clarify this relationship. e Dr. Moeller commented that the STP appeared to be a change from the staff's earlier position that engineered features cannot be used to compensate for inadequate natural barriers or characteristics of a site. Mr. Ballard indicated that he did not consider this position to deviate from the staff's position, but there is a fine line between interpretations. Dr. Okrent asked why guidance was needed on procedures for analyzing a site. Mr. Ballard pointed out that a major reason for the guidance was to address the use of probabilistic or deterministic approaches to establish design bases in the area of seismicity and ground motion, the same issues being discussed relative to Appendix A Part 100. DOE has gone on record requesting guidance on NRC's position on the use of deterministic and probabil-istic methods. NRC Staff Presentation Dr. McConnell indicated that the NRC staff had two objectives in writing the STP:

1) to provide an acceptable approach for DOE to consider fault displacement hazards in repository design, which includes siting of facilities important to safety and waste isolation; and 2) to identify regulatory requirements that apply to the consideration of potentially adverse conditions, specifically, structural deformation, which fault displacement hazards are a part of.

He emphasized that the STP is narrow in focus and does not address fault displacements in the context of performance assess-ment. l Dr. McConnell then reviewed the two general positions outlined in the STP. The first position is that the presence of Type I faults inside the controlled area do not constitute a disqualifying l feature for a candidate site. He defined a Type I fault as a fault subject to displacement and located such that, and of sufficient length that, it might affect repository design or performance. He

~ 48th ACIN Meeting 11 November 19-20, 1992 explained the definition of " subject to displacement" as a fault that has had displacement during the Quaternary period. Subsidiary criteria also exist to determine susceptibility to displacement. The basis for this position is that there are no exclusionary criteria in Part 60 or supporting documents. He stated that the Commission has been clear that potentially adverse conditions can be mitigated or compensated for by a combination of other favorable conditions. Dr. Okrent asked Dr. McConnell whether the staff was concerned about ground motion from earthquakes occurring outside the controlled area. Dr. McConnell replied that fault displacement outside the controlled area is not a direct concern; but there is a concern about vibratory ground motion that could affect the site conditions such as the hydrologic or geologic regime. This, in turn, could affect the performance of a facility located at that site. The second position is that Type I faults should be avoided, where achievable, when locating critical facilities. Dr. McConnell noted that this was a subtle change from the staff's previous position. The basis for this position is that, given the uncertainty in characterizing fault displacement, i.e., age, number and amount of offset, it may be difficult for DOE to demonstrate with reasonable assurance that engineered solutions will compensate for the fault hazard. He iterated that there are no criteria, however, prohibit-ing DOE from electing to locate critical facilities on or in the vicinity of Type I faults. An additional part of this position is that, if DOE chooses to locate facilities important to safety and waste isolation near or on Type I faults, DOE should appreciate that the reliance on engineered features may be of limited value due to their inherent uncertainties, added to the uncertainties in characterizing faults. Further, DOE must demonstrate with reasonable assurance that the design criteria and performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 60 can be met. Comments from the ACNW Significant comments made by ACNW members include the following: Dr. Pomeroy cautioned that the staff gives the impression l in the STP that designing the repository to compensate for large scale displacement may present a formidable, if not impossible, engineering challenge. He also noted the l reference cited from 1959 was out of date. Dr. Pomeroy l suggested that the NRC staff provide more recent refer-

ences, and ensure that the STP does not imply that l

~ 48th ACNW Meeting 12 November 19-20, 1992 engineering for large-scale fault displacement is impossible. Dr. McConnell agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Lee clarified the staff position as being that, while they consider that such engineering solutions are possible, they recognize that they are subject to debate and controversial. These are issues or situations that it would be preferable to avoid in a licensing hearing. Dr. McConnell added that the staff's position is a common sense approach that is designed to avoid sources of uncertainty in the performance assessment by avoiding placement of waste canisters across a large fault zone. He implied that this is common sense regardless of the results of a quantitative performance assessment. Mr. Ballard indicated that DOE has already stated that it plans to have a set-back distance for canisters from identified faults within the repository. Dr. Steindler expressed concern that the staff was " requiring" DOE to avoid sources of uncertainty associat-ed with engineered solutions. He cautioned that uncer-tainty reduction, in itself, should not be and is not a regulatory requirement. Dr. Hinze commented that the STP is a very useful document because it is consistent with and sequential to the first STP on fault investigations. He asked why the document does not include Type II faults [ faults that should be investigated) in addition to Type I faults. Dr. McConnell responded that the premise is that Type II faults will be eliminated from concern, or placed into the Type I category. Dr. Hinze suggested that the staff make clear that Type II faults must be addressed and determined to be either Type I or Type III [not of regulatory concern]. Dr. Hinze asked how the NRC staff anticipates DOE using the STP to address the step observed in the bedrock running through the access area and surface facility along the east side of Yucca Mountain. Dr. McConnell responded that NRC staff hopes DOE would use the first STP on fault investigations to identify the significance of the step, and determine whether it is a Type I fault. i He indicated that the evidence to date is not clear whether the fault has had Quaternary movement, thus DOE may need to consider subsidiary criteria to determine if it is a Type I fault and its impact on design. Dr. Hinze asked if DOE and NRC would wait until the licensing l l l

48th ACNW Meeting 13 ~ November 19-20, 1992 hearing to consider this issue, and Dr. McConnell implied that he hoped this kind of exchange would har an sooner. e Dr. Moeller raised some editorial points, including changing the statement that, " DOE should seek early resolution with NRC staff," to " seek early responses," in that DOE and NRC cannot legally " resolve" anything prior to the license review. I Drs. Steindler and Pomeroy suggested adding a definition for " subject to displacement," as this appears in the definition of Type I faults. Further, Dr. Hinze suggest-ed expanding the glossary to include definitions for Type I, II, and III faults. l Dr. Pomeroy inquired about the schedule for issuing the l e l STP for public comment, and indicated that the ACNW would I like to review the document again after public comments had been received and incorporated. Mr. Ballard agreed and indicated that, hopefully, the document would be ready to be reviewed by the next quarter. Dr. Moeller thanked the NRC staff and brought this portion of the meeting to a close. V. ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RULEMAKING PROCESS ON RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING. SECY-92-249 (Open) [ Note: Mr. Howard J. Larson was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] j Mr. Francis (Chip) Cameron, Office of the General Counsel, was the principal presenter for this topic. Dr. Donald Cool, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), was available to discuss technical details, as needed. Mr. Cameron noted that he could discuss the enhanced participatory rulemaking process, but would have to return to the Committee in the future to discuss the particular

issues, as these were currently in the process of being formulated.

The objectives of the process are to establish consistency in approaching the issues, ensure that the latest relevant technolo-gies are considered and to promote wide acceptance for the eventual decommissioning limits. Unlike the usual rulemaking process, which is passive with one-way interchanges between the commenters and the staff, the proposed process would elicit early, active comment before the staff has issued a proposal to revise a rule. The principal enhancements currently proposed are: 1) moving the

l 48th ACNW Meeting 14 November 19-20, 1992 i comment period to an earlier time in the process, and 2) promoting active, face-to-face communications among interested parties. A series of two-day workshops, open to the public, are to be held in various cities across the United States. The first workshop is scheduled to be held _in Chicago in late January 1993, and the last workshop is tentatively scheduled for Washington, D.C. in May 1993. A balanced participation (States, Tribes, professional groups and l societies, government, citizens, etc.) is intended and through the 3 use of a facilitator, dialogue among the participants will be encouraged. The reason for conducting the workshop in different regional areas is to provide groups, not normally exposed to the i NRC and its processes, an opportunity to observe, listen, and participate. l There will not be an effort to develop a consensus. Rather, the i' facilitators and NRC staff will document the views and comments provided during each workshop. Transcripts will also be available. The issues paper is being reviewed and should be issued soon. Its j purposes are to provide uniformity in the discussions insofar as subjects covered, and to assure that the reasoning behind the j issues is presented. i Recognizing the pertinence of this process to the EPA, the Commission has invited the EPA to participate in each workshop. It is projected that the outcome of these workshops and the eventual publication of the final rule, will result in EPA agreeing that the l NRC regulations are sufficient for its licensees and that the-EPA l cleanup standards would focus only on Federal (non-NRC licensee) site cleanup. Dr. Steindler indicated that this process could possibly cause the NRC to enter into areas that would not be acceptable, such as the establishment of " acceptable public risk" and the issuance of " generally applicable standards." Mr. Cameron and Dr. Cool disagreed, noting their belief that the comments will also be of benefit to the EPA participants and that a joint NRC/ EPA working group is expected to evolve from this effort. Dr. Steindler also mentioned the earlier failure of the "Below Regulatory Concern" rulemaking effort, and noted that this new process will be watched with interest. Dr. Hinze asked about Agreement State participation. He was told that their importance to this issue is recognized, but that the j issue of regulatory compatibility is a different one that will not be handled in these workshops. It will be treated independently by the Commission. Further discussions ensued regarding State participation, lessons learned from the earlier BRC process, and the importance of the process vis-a-vis the issues. I

r l 1 ~ 48th ACNW Meeting 15 November 19-20, 1992 1 The bottom line, as stated by Mr. Cameron, is the belief that this attempt to establish a dialogue, in an organized way, with the issues clearly laid out, would provide valuable input to the NRC staff. Mr. Cameron informed the Committee that the final rule is expected to be proposed by the end of 1993 (generic environmental impact statement and supporting documents will be prepared after the conclusion of the workshops) with adoption of the final rule anticipated by the end of 1994. Dr. Moeller noted his participation last summer in the Wingspread conference, noting that application of several of those principles to this issue would indicate that the States are the key target, that perhaps EPA should be regarded as the messenger, and that, in any event, it is important to not set too high a goal as the final target. VI. MEETING WITH THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) (Open) [ Note: Mr. Howard J. Larson was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Mr. Robert M. Bernero, Director, NMSS, indicated his intention to discuss relevant provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (referred to as the Act), several of the considerations associated with the storage of spent fuel, and to provide an update to the ACNW on the current state of the Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility. Enercy Policy Act of 1992 The role of the NRC insofar as the provisions of the Energy Policy Act that establish the U.S. Enrichment Corporation were discussed. Mr. Bernero stated that the NRC is responsible for the certifica-tion of the safe operation of such facilities. However, he noted that a portion of the law needs clarification because, in one section, it states that the NRC is to assume this responsibility on July 1,1993, and in another section indicates that the NRC has two years from that date to achieve compliance with the Act. It was pointed out that, although the diffusion plants are not currently regulated by the NRC, it would appear that the present-day overall DOE operational philosophy (the rules under which these facilities operate) would not appear to be much different from that of the NRC. However, it is recognized that these plants are operated by contractors and their application / interpretation of DOE's opera-tional orders may vary.

t 48th ACNW Meeting 16 i November 19-20, 1992 I Mr. Bernero pointed out that the Act "almost" defines depleted uranium tailings as a waste. How this will eventually be resolved is unknown at this time. { Mr. Bernero discussed the provisions of the Act relating to high-l level radioactive waste. He noted that a different law requires the EPA to issue its HLW (40 CFR Part 191) regulations for the l Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, but the same EPA regulations for l Yucca Mountain are to be the subject of a National Academy of [ Sciences (NAS) study which is to be completed within a year. Another year is provided for EPA to evaluate and incorporate those results of the NAS study that it believes to be proper, and an additional year follows that for the NRC to bring its regulations into compliance with the revised EPA standards. After issuance of the NAS study, EPA will need to decide: 1. Whether a health-based standard based upon individual doses will provide adequate protection 2. Whether it is reasonable to assume that a system of post-closure oversight, based upon active institutional controls, can prevent an unreasonable risk of breaching the repository's barriers i 3. Whether it is possible to make scientifically supportable predictions of the probability that - the repository's geologic or engineered barriers will be breached as a ] result of human intrusion over a period of 10,000 years. l Mr. Bernero noted that, perhaps, this Act would induce the Commis-sion to be more coherent in its approach to human intrusion, specifically on how it handles human intrusion for uranium mill tailings, LLW and HLW. Dr. Okrent noted that there should be consideration given to providing overall consistency in the handling of all hazardous wastes. Mr. Bernero noted that there were major discussions on that topic underway at this time. Mr. Bernero pointed out that $40 million was designated in the Act for the cleanup of the West Chicago facility. The Act also requires the NRC policy statements related to BRC to be revoked. It is not certain what role the states will be permitted to have in this regard, and Mr. Bernero pointed out that only experience over time would provide an answer. Spent Fuel as Hich-Level Waste Mr. Bernero stated that the generation of spent fuel currently exceeds the storage capacity. He noted that there are two methods for licensing spent ~ fuel dry' storage facilities, i.e., either a ...l

48th ACNW Meeting 17 November 19-20, 1992 I direct license under Part 72, or the issuance of a general license i for the cask system. Dry cask storage at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant, concrete bunker storage at Oconee Nuclear Power Plant, and the dry spent fuel storage-graphite blocks at Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Power Plant, were l briefly discussed and the differences explained. Various current licensing activities were described, such as those at the Palisades i Nuclear Power Plant. Monitored Retrievable Storace Facility An up-to-date status of the DOE Phase I and II grant process was provided to the Committee. Phase II of the grant to the Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico has progressed the furthest. Mr. "ernero also noted that the Act provides a two-year extension to the term of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator. The current law indicates that the MRS site should be identified by December 1992 l and be operational by January 1998. These dates are not expected to be met. However, Mr. Bernero believes that the facility can be fairly simple (dry cask pad) and could be built in two years if a site is selected relatively soon and approved shortly thereafter. Dr. Steindler asked if the Act addressed the rights of Indian nations to proceed, should the State within which they are located disagree with having such a facility within its borders. Mr. Bernero replied that this issue is not addressed in the Act. i Dr. Moeller asked which Committee would be responsible for reviewing the enrichment facilities. Mr. Bernero stated that perhaps there was some misunderstanding between the roles of~the ACRS and ACNW in this regard, as well as other facilities. The Committee agreed to provide a letter clarifying their interest. In response to Dr. Moeller's question, Mr. Bernero indicated that, while the NRC was not involved with the sections in the Act related to either the HLW or the " uranium revitalization" provisions, NRC did provide input regarding the certification of the enrichment plants (as opposed to NRC having formal licensing responsibili-ties). l After Mr. Bernero's presentation, Mr. Elgie Holstein, from Nye County, Nevada, requested to address the Committee. After thanking the Committee for permitting him to speak and noting with pleasure their recent visit to Fevada (October 1992), he presented some of his concerns related to the provisions of the Act related to the proposed Yucca Mountain site. In summary, he stated his position l that the Act posed some real and significant questions of public po3 icy. I l

4 I 48th ACNW Meeting 18 November 19-20, 1992 h VII. NATIONAL PROFILE ON MIXED WASTE (Open) [ Note: Mr. Howard J. Larson was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] Mr. Michael Weber, NMSS, introduced Mr. Dominick Orlando, NMSS, i Ms. Susan Jones, EPA, and Mr. Gerald Kline, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Mr. Orlando stated that the purpose of this presentation was to provide background on the National Profile and to discuss its development and results. He stated that low-level mixed waste is defined by the NRC and EPA as waste that meets the definition in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act and contains waste that is either listed as hazardous waste in subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or causes the waste to exhibit any of the hazardous characteristics ident ified in subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. However, some States u, fine mixed waste differently. Thirteen States currently include PCBs in their definition of hazardous waste. Maryland includes radioactive material in their definition. During 1990, approximately 140,000 cu. ft. of mixed waste was gen-erated in the United States. Of that total, nuclear utilities generated approximated 10%. This represents approximately 9% of the total volume of LLW generated during that period. Liquid scintillation fluids made up approximately 100,000 cu. ft. of that total. Mr. Orlando noted that the mixed waste problem facing the Department of Energy is about twenty times larger than that faced by the private sector. The National Profile Study began in 1990. It was divided into three phases. At that time, the principal effort was the review and evaluation of the data from previous state and compact surveys. i In March 1991, Phase II commenced with the mailing of 1300 survey questionnaires. The response rate was approximately 77% Although the identity of the respondents are protected, the contractor believes that essentially all major generators were included in the results. Phase III consists of compiling the survey data and the publishing the profile results in a NUREG (to be available within the next few weeks). Mr. Orlando noted that the amount of mixed waste revealed in this survey was about twice what previous surveys indicated. It is believed that this is due to the publicity associated with this survey, the knowledge that the responses would be kept private, and the diligent follow-up of the contractor. Mr. Orlando presented various breakdowns of the generators, sources and types of mixed waste reported in the survey and responded to Committee questions as he proceeded through his presentation. He noted, in response to a question, that he does not have a sense as j

i l i l 48th ACNW Meeting 19 November 19-20, 1992 to how U.S. mixed waste volumes compare to those in other coun-tries. He stated that there were four companies presently offering services in this area: NSSI, DSSI, RAMP and Quadrex with SEG and Envirocare claiming that shortly they would have handling capacity. Dr. Steindler asked whether there had been difficulties with mixed waste transportation and was told that it never came up as a problem. Dr. Okrent asked if incineration was acceptable. Mr. Orlando indicated that the principal means of treatment for liquid scintillation fluids is incineration. Mr. Weber noted that, although he expects the generated volumes of mixed waste to be reduced in the future, the ratio to the total volume of LLW may not go down, since those volumes were also decreasing. He reaffirmed that a follow-up to the profile is not scheduled to be performed, but Drs. Hinze and Moeller suggested that the conduct of such a survey in another two years would seem to be beneficial. VIII. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON THE IMPACT OF LONG-RANGE CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE AREA OF THE SOUTHERN BASIN AND RANGE WORKING GROUP MEETING (Open) [ Note: Mr. Giorgio Gnugnoli was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meating.) Dr. Hinze, Working Group Chairman, briefed the Committee on the November 18, 1992 ACNW Working Group meeting on the Impact of Long-Range Climate Change in the Area of the Southern Basin & Range. Dr. Hinze began by characterizing the impact of climate change on the groundwater hydrology regime at Yucca Mountain, as a potential-ly disqualifying condition for the disposal of high-level radioac-tive waste (HLW). Speakers at the Working Group meeting focused on three mechanisms by which such impacts occur: 1. Infiltration / flux through the vadose (unsaturated) zone. 2. Rise in the groundwater table. 3. Shortening the flow path travel time by partial satura-tion of the fractures in the surrounding rock formations. He characterized the meeting participants as forming into three groups: 1. Paleoclimatologic/palcohydrologic investigators. 2. Those focusing on the role of paleoclimatic data and models.

~ 48th ACNW Meeting 20 November 19-20, 1992 3. Those dealing with global and regional climate models (GCMs and RCMs). Dr. Hinze indicated that the meeting was successful in that it educated the Committee in the areas of paleoclimatic techniques, results and future predictions of climate. However, he stressed that there is a great deal that is not known about the subject. He also noted that the meeting served to foster communication between the modelers and geologists in that the two groups were not as literate in each other's discipline as might be anticipated. Dr. Hinze reiterated the three basic issues on which the meeting focused: 1. The significance of potential climate change in the Southern Great Basin (SGB) with respect to the integrity of the proposed repository. Under this issue he noted: The groundwater table (GWT) has lowered in the past e 3 million years. The orographic effect (i.e., elevation and shadow effect from the rise of the Transverse Range). Increased precipitation during glaciation periods i e resulting from jet stream perturbation. An order of magnitude flux change through the vadose zone as a result of doubling of the precipi-tation; the GWT rose between 100-200 m. e The models adequately handled the temperature changes, but not the precipitation -- the relation-ship between precipitation and infiltration rate is not well known. e The term " climate surprises" characterizes the uncertainty of relationships in processes; e.g., a slight change in precipitation results in unfore-seen variation in the rate of flux. 2. The nature and quality of climate models used for predicting 10,000 years or more into the future. Extrapolation techniques are not supportable or useful. There are no useful analogues. e

!l-48th ACNW Meeting 21 November 19-20, 1992 1 The models are based on geophysical fluid dynamics, e with conservation of energy, momentum, etc. GCMs are refined by hindcasting (retrodicting). e e Due to the coarse resolution of GCMs (global re-sults), RCMs are needed to aid in predictions to the scale necessary for performance assessment at Yucca Mountain. 3. The availability of data and methods to validate models. Although a large amount of data exists, the data l are not all available. It is not apparent that there is an easy flow of interaction between the data gatherers and the modelers. Replication of modeling by varied methods is worth-while. Dr. Hinze observed that the relationship between the rate of infiltration and precipitation may also be sensitive to the duration of the precipitation. Dr. Hinze expressed concern over the uncertain and ambiguous status of the climate study plans; specifically where studies were underway without having approved study plans. Preparation of study plans prior to initiation of the studies allows a degree of integration. This integration process should be actively pursued at the design stage as well as at the implementation stage. Dr. Hinze summarized by noting the following: The ACNW should feel more comfortable that climate change ) does not appear to be a disqualification factor. e There is still 100 m. or more of buffer zone of unsatu-rated material between the GWT and the repository. e The climate prediction models still need additional development and refinement. The climate surprise and nonlinear interaction factors e (e.g., slight changes in precipitation with dispropor-tionate changes in infiltration rates) present serious challenges to having an adequate level of confidence in addressing the potential impacts of climate change.

i r 40th ACNW Meeting 22 j November 19-20, 1992 t t t There needs to be NRC access to a resource that maintains -j e cognizance of the overall subject with a capability to l investigate models in detail. In terms of future themes, Dr. Hinze cited the need for: e more testing and validation of RCMs maintaining an adequate level of paleohydrologic and paleoclimatologic data collection further investigation of the flux rate through the vadose zone. i Dr. Pomeroy indicated skepticism that the rate of research in climate change was sufficiently adequate - or could ever be so - to i address the needed concerns in any reasonable. time frame. He speculated that the resources being spent might be more beneficial-ly directed at other concerns. He also expressed concern that the nonlinearity interaction could not be more adequately addressed. The problem might very well be reduced to a struggle among expert panels. l Dr. Hinze agreed with Dr. Pomeroy's concerns. Dr. Hinze believes that there should be some bounding conditions, which could be used to determine' how much more research and development (R&D) Work i needs to be done on the subject. Dr. Steindler expressed reservations regarding the scope, extent and direction of the climate modeling effort: 1. He characterized this modeling as a very imprecise activity and questioned _the use of equilibrium thermodynamics in this effort. 2. The modeling effort has a very inadequate scientific basis in comparison to other natural process'modeling. l l 3. He questioned the relevance of the climate modeling effort to the regulatory criteria in 10 CFR Part 960. 4. The ' efforts should be directed toward identifying bounding conditions before trying to refine the nodels. 5. The larger time periods for climatological modeling do not provide clear enough application to the much shorter performance period for the repository. 6. He raised the issue that no mention was made about ozone depletion in the climate change context. i l ~ . - ~. .- w. -

i* 48th ACNW Meeting 23 i November 19-20, 1992 Dr. Hinze disagreed with Dr. Steindler's reservations relative to i an inadequate scientific basis, citing the advanced degree of knowledge in the geophysical fluid dynamics (GFD) modeling i techniques. He also cited the pollen data as a very convincing indicator. Dr. Hinze did find difficulty with the nonlinearity interaction, and he suggested that the NRC hydrology staff be asked to make a presentation on the status of these concerns. The Committee Members agreed on the need for a greater level of interaction and communication between the modelers and the i paleoclimate/ hydrology investigators. The lack of a mechanism in the study plans to bring about this integration was a concern. Dr. Moeller briefly reiterated the points made in the discussion, which could be transmitted to the NRC staff in a letter. Dr. Okrent cautioned the Committee regarding the recommendation that bounding conditions be adopted instead of pursuing a greater level of understanding of the system. Other cautions included: l The results of the climate modeling effort may already be e useful to licensing, if climate change is a lesser j urgency mechanism. e The nonlinearity interaction may not necessarily be negative; there could be some cancellation. Dr. Okrent recommended that there should be reasonable sensitivity studies done on the models. He also suggested further investiga-1 tion of the steep gradient issue raised by Dr. Czarnecki during the Working Group Meeting. Dr. Hinze mentioned a geophysics white paper being published by Chris Friedrick in the Journal of Hydrolociv; upon availability this should be provided to the Committee. Dr. Okrent also pointed out that the application of the climate models to Yucca Mountain was a mere add-on to what was a greater climate modeling R&D effort having nothing to do with the HLW repository issue. The Committee prepared a draft report on the impact of long-range climate change in the southern Great Basin. Discussions on this draft report will continue during the 49th ACNW meeting, December 17-18, 1992. l

I ? l 48th ACNW Meeting 24 November 19-20, 1992 l I IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION (Open/ Closed) l [ Note: Mr. Richard K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.] i A. Reports and Memorandum o Staff Technical Position on Consideration of Fault l Disolacement Hazards in Geoloaic Repository Desian (Report to James M.

Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, dated November 24, 1992) e Sianificant Issues in the Hich-Level Waste Repository Procram (Report to Chairman Selin, dated December 1,

1992) l e ACNW Meetina Dates for Calendar Year 1993 (Memorandum to Listed Addressees from Raymond F. Fraley, dated November j 27, 1992) } I B. Committee Discussion on the Use of a Collective Dose Concept in the Licensina of a Hich-Level Waste Repository (Open) l The Committee discussed the proposed National Council on-l l Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) guidelines j regarding the application of the collective dose concept in the arena of licensing an HLW repository. The Committee determined that its past recommendations were not inconsistent with the proposed NCRP guidelines. Dr. Moeller noted that the [ final NCRP report should be published within the next few l months. No action was taken by the Committee. C. Systems Analysis Acoroach (Open) i The Committee completed its deliberations on-a systems analysis approach to reviewing the overall high-level waste program. The approved report was sent to Chairman Selin on i December 1, 1992. I Move to the Two White Flint North Buildina (Open) D. I Messrs. Michael MacWilliams, ACNW Staff, and Mark Stella, ACRS l Fellow, briefed the Committee on the scheduled relocation to the Two White Flint North building, the planned conference room configuration, and possible options for an advanced information management system. The Committee appointed Dr. Pomeroy to act as the Committee's liaison with the ACNW staff on all issues pertaining to advanced information management. l 4 i

. ~ ~ 48th ACNW Meeting 25 l November 19-20, 1992 t E. Election of ACNW Officers (Closed) The Committee reelected Dr. Dade W. Moeller-and Dr. Martin J. Steindler to the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman, j respectively, for calendar year 1993. l F. ACNW Future Activities (Open) The Committee selected the ACNW meeting dates for calendar year 1993. The Committee agreed to hold two of these meetings away from Bethesda, Maryland. These meetings will be planned to provide members and staff an opportunity to tour radioac-tive waste management sites and to hold discussions, open to the public, on issues pertinent to local waste management activities. Candidate locations are the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Savannah River Laboratory, Fort St. j Vrain Nuclear Power Plant (Decommissioning), and the Whiteshell Laboratories (Atomic-Energy Limited of Canada) including the Canadian Underground Research Laboratory. The l I l ACNW staff was requested to investigate the merits of visiting these areas during 1993 and to be prepared to discuss this matter further during the December Committee meeting. ] The Committee agreed to schedule a working group meeting on i February 5,1993, to review three additional regulatory guides i being developed in support of the revisions to 10 CFR Part 20. Dr. Pomeroy suggested that priorities be _ established for planning future working group meetings. The Committee agreed to consider these suggestions during its December meeting. Dr. Moeller recommended that Dr. John Cooper, an HLW special-ist from the National Radiological Protection Board, be invited to brief the Committee on the United Kingdom's safety standards for an HLW repository. The members concurred. The ACNW staff was advised to invite representatives from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the National Academy of Sciences, as well as the NRC staff, to this briefing. Drs. Moeller and Steindler expressed interest in having an informal report from the NRC staff on their recent visit to the Whiteshell Laboratories and the Underground Research Laboratory in Canada. The Committee discussed the potential for jurisdictional overlap between ACRS and ACNW. It was agreed that a draft memorandum should be prepared that would further delineate the i subject areas that should be the responsibility of each Committee. Time should be scheduled during the 49th ACNW meeting to discuss this issue.

I 48th ACNW Meeting 26 November 19-20, 1992 G. Future Meetina Aaenda (Open) Appendix IV summarizes the proposed items endorsed by the Committee for the 49th ACNW Meeting, December 17-18, 1992, and future Working Group meetings. The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m., Friday, November 20, 1992. l l l l 1 j j

Appendix I ~ 48530 Federal Register / Vrl. 57. N. 207 / Mond:y, Octobcr 28, 1992 / N:tices c ll t ~ When logistically possible, time-depth pinnpeds between the U.S. and other meeting has been firmly scheduled. recorderscradio transmitters, and nations who have e.cceded to the cancelled. or rescheduled, or whether j satellite-linked electronics will be Antarctic Treaty and the Convention for changes have been made in the agenda j deployed on seals of various species to the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. for the November 1992 ACRS and j monitor their feeding and diving Accession to these treaties will ensure ACNW fun Committee meetings can be 1 behavior. Instruments will be fastened that specimens collected by foreign obtained by a prepaid telephone call to to the pelage on the backs of individuals scientists will have been collected in the Office of the Executive Director of using cyanoacrylic glue and/or quick. compliance with the provisions of these the Committees (te?ephone: (301) 497r setting epoxy, as has been successfully two conventions. 4000 (recording) or (301) 492c7288. Attn: Barbara jo White) between 7:30 a.m. used in previous seasons. Recorders will gj,, be retrieved from seats up to 90 days 4:15 pm. castern time, after initial deployment. Those packages Circumpolar pack ice areas and sites not recovered will be shed from the ashore. Antarctic Pemnsula region, seals' back s at their next molt. Shore. South Shetland Islands, vicinity: Sites of Safety Philamphy. Technology, and based studies and sursevs will Special Scientific Interest to be entered Criteria. October 28,1992. Bethesda, investigate the numbers behavior, and are Cape Shirreff and Byen Peninsula. MD.ne Subcommittee wdl review ~ activity patterns of Antarctic fur seals Livingston Island. Access will be bY revision 2 to NUREG/BR-0058 j and southern elephant seals.To ship, boat, or helicopter (overflight of Regulatory Analysis Guidelines, and facilitate the census work, temporary rookeries will be avoided). guidelines for prioritiration of generic safety issues. paint or bleach marks may be epplied to Dates seals hauled out in the survey area. Plant Opemtions. November 4,1992, Selected individuals may be' tagged to of/01/93-12/31/94. Bethesda, MD-Postponed to December assist identification and to monitor Thomas F. Fahan. - 9.1992. migrations. An unspecified number of fermit Office. Division ofP6lar Pwgrams Planning andPmcedures. November seabirds and seals may be incidentally [FR Doc. 92-25645 Filed 10-2S-02; a 45 aml 4.1992, Bethesda, MD (3 p.m440 p.m.). disturbed during research: efforts will be sum coos rss6M The Subcommittee wiB discuss made to avoid or minimize such proposed ACRS activities and related disturbance. matters. Qualifications of candidates Permission is requested to enter Cape NUCLEAR REGtJLATORf nominated for appointment to the ACRS Shirreff and Byers Peninsula on COMMISSION will also be discussed. Portions of this Livingston Island to study pinnipeds and meeting willbe closed to discuss seabirds. A comprehensrve census of Advisory Committee on Reactw information the release of which would Saf these populations was conducted during represent a clearly unwarranted Comm Nuclear W q the 1938/87 austral summer. and repeat invasion of personalprivacy. PrW W censuses are being planned for future AdrancedBoiling WaterReactors, seasons. In addition, studies of seabirds In order to provide advance November 18-19.1992. Bethesda, MD. and pinnipeds, as described above, may information regarding proposed pubhc The Subcommittee will continue its be undertaken at Cape Shirreff as part meetings of the ACRS Subcommittees review of the Final Safety Evaluation I of the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring and meetings of the ACRS full Report (FSER) foe the ABWR des gn. Program (CEMP). We wish to conduct Committee, of the ACNW. and the Advanced!'wim! Water-directed research and monitoring of fur ACNW Working Groups the following Reactors. December 8.1992. Bethesda. I seals and seabirds at Cape Shirreffin preliminary schedule is published to MD-Postponed to February 10,1993. accordance with CEMP reflect the current sltnation, taking into Joint ContmlandElectncolPower recommendationa.nere is a possibility account additional meetings that have Systems /Pmbobilistic Risk Assessment, of recently-established fur seal been scheduled and mQs that have December 8,1992. Bethesda, MD.The rookeries within the vicinity of the Byers,been postponed or canceDed since the Subcommittees will review the proposed Peninsula, and periodic censuses of the last list of proposed meetings was final amendment to the Station Blackout area would be desirable. At both sites. published September 23.1992 (57 FR Rule (to CPR SaE3) and the associated care would be taken to muumize 43987).Those meetings that am finly Regulatory Guide 1.9. revision 3.- disturbance to terrestrial habitats and scheduled have had, orwiB have, an regarding the reliability of diesel lifeforms. All activities to be conducted individual notice published in the generetors' would comply with the approved SSSI Federal Register approxunately 15 days management plans in force for each (or more) prior to the meeting.It is sch du!e or D t 9.29 expected that sessions of ACRS and area. To optimize the use of specimen ACNW full Committee meetings Plant Opemtions. December 9,1992, material previously collected from designated by an asterisk (*) willbe Bethesda, MD.The Subcommittee will Antatutic pinnipeds. permission is closed in whole or in part to the public. discuss proposed changes to the requested to allow exchange of The ACRS and ACNW full Conmittee Systematic Assessment of Licensee specmen material among researchers in meetings begin at 8:30 a.m. and ACRS Performance (SAlf) program included various nations. Specifically, we wish subcommittee, and ACNW Working in SECY-9?c290 as well as issues and tot (1) Import Antarctic pinniped - Group meetings usually begin at 8:30 concerns associated with the overall specunen materialinto the US and (2) a.m. The time when items listed on the SALP process. - export Antarctic pinniped specimen eBenda will be disecssed during ACRS Planning andPmcedures. December 9. material out of the U.S. to investig.stors and ACNW full Gmm ttee anectings. 1992. Bethesda, MD (3 ptmAi:30 p.m.). collaborating in other countries. and when ACpS Subcommittee and he Sobecmmittee will discuss. Authorization is requested to import and ACNWWorking Group meetings will. pmposed ACRS activities and related % ma. - start will be published prior to each < matters.Quahficationsof cendidates - export previously collected 2 - material from all six species of Antarctic meeting. Information as to whether a - nominated forappointment to the ACRS -

s - f * " -Federal. Register.f Vol 57TNoJ2071 Mondiyr October 20.:19921 Notices" 'i " 48531 will also be discussed. Portions t>f this 1 ~NeWYork Power Asth 6rity (NYpAf 9 - ' M. Furute A'CRS Activitiesi is'cu'ss D u .;.+: meeting will beclosedtotliscostic4 & iregardirig NYPA,siviews of risk-based " (topics proposed by the ACRS Pla'nning? -infottnation the<eleaseof which would. regulation and thevasdits of them *; ^ 4 ' and Procedures Subcommittee for ' " 'a represent a clearly unwarranted UM.b Fitzpatrick Individual Plant Examination consideration by the full 1 Committee.E ~ invasion of personal privacy.% %t s:'. f!PE) and its relationship to the NRC - N. Miscellaneous-Discuss' ControlandElectrico/PowerN <. Diagnostic Evaluation Team review of - miscellaneous matters related to the Systems. January 6.1993. Bethesda, MD. this plant. Representatives of the NRC conduct of Committee activities arid The Subcommittee will review the NRC : staff will participate, as appropriate. complete discussion of topics that were staffs proposed resolution of Generic 'F. Reactor Opemting Experience-not completed at previous sessions as issue 120. "Online Testability of.m -. Briefing by and discussion with time and availability ofinformation l Protection Systems.".. representatives of the NRC staff permit. Planning andPmcedures. lanuaxy G. regarding events at operbting nuclear 392ndACRSMeeting. December 10-1993. Bethesda, MD(3 p.m.-5:30 p.m.). power plants, including loss of high - ~ 12,1992.Bethesda.MD. Agenda to be The Subcommittee will discuss head safety injection pumps at the - announced. pmposed ACRS activities and related Shearon Harris nuclear plant, and an 393rd ACRSMeeting. January 7 J9. matters. Qualifications of candidates Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) 1993. Bethesda, MD. Agenda to be' nominated for appointment to the ACRS ! evaluation of an incident at the LaSalle announced. will also be discussed. Portions of this nuclear sfation. Report by the cognizant 39fth ACRSMeeting. Fsbruary11-13. meetmg wdl be closed to. discuss.... Suboommittee Chairman regarding a 1993. Bethesda, MD. Agenda' to be - information the release of which would.. recent incident at the Fukushima nuclear announced. ~ represent a clearlytmwarranted plant in Japan caring which reactor invasion of personalprivacy... condensate and feedwater pumps were ACNW Full Committee,and Working - AdvancedPressunzed Water Inadvertently tumed off. Gmup Meetlogs_ Reactors. February 10,3993. Det G8 ~ Representatives of the nuclear industry ACNIF WotAing Group on theImpact - MD.The Subcommittee will review the (licensees) will participate, as ofLong-Range Climate Change in the NRC staffs Draft Safety Ev'aluation. appropriate... - Area of theSouthem Basin andRange. Report (DSER) for certification of the. ABB CE Systems 80 + Design. 'G Risk-BasedRegulation-Review November 18.1992. Bethesda. MD.The j and report on the NRC staffs proposal Working Group will focus on the l ACRS Full Committee Meetings i on risk-based regulation. significance of climate change as it may 39tst ACRS Meeting;N6vember 5-7 Representatives of the NRC staff and impact the performance of the proposed Bethesda. MD. Items are tentatively' - the nuclear industry wd! participate, as Yucca Mountam repository over the scheduled. appropde'te, next 10.000 years. Specific topics mclude A. insightsfrom Common Mode ~ lL Prioritization of Generic Safety data identification. acquisition and railureErents-Briefing by and. . Issues-Review and comment on interpretation, which can be used to l discussion with mpresentatives of the-guidehnes proposed by the NRC staff for predict potential changes to natural. NCR staff regarding an analysis of ' ' prioritization of generic safety issues. conditions at the site. Quahty assurance selected common mode failure events. Representatives of the NRC staff and and use of data in developing and - l B. Analysis of the Huntanfactors . the. nuclear industry will padicipate, as validatmg computer models Ior Aspects of Opeinting Events-Briefing-appropriate. predicting global and regional climate, by and discussion with representatives L EnvironmentalQualification of as well as for characterizing the-of the NRC staff mgarding onsite - Safety-Gmde DigitalComputer - uncertainty in such predications will evaluation team work related to Pietection and ControlSystems-also be discussed. analyzing human factors aspects of. Discuss proposed ACRS mport on the 4Bth ACNWMeeting. November 19-selected operating events. nature of the NRC researr.h program to 20.1992. Bethesda, MD. Items are Representatives of the nuclearindustry qualify safety-grade digital computer tentatively scheduled. will participate, as appropriate. protection and control systems proposed A. Prepare a response to a C. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines-for use in nuclear power plants. supplemental request from Chairman Review and report on proposed revision Representatives of the NRC staff and Selin on a systems analysis approach 2 to NUREG/BR-0058. Regulatory the nuclear industry will participate as for reviewing the overall high-level l Analysis Guidelines for U.S. NRC appropriate. waste program. Representatives of the NRC staff and J. Activities ofACRSSubcommittees B. Discuss with a representative of the the nuclear industry will participate, as andMembers-Reports and discussion Connecticut Department of lienhh appropriate. regarding assigned Cubcommittee Services the role and perspectives of a s

• D. Meeting with the Director. NRC activities including a report of the ACRS State Department of liealth regardmg Office ofNuclecrMaterialSoferrand Planning and Procedures Subcommittee the siting of a low-level waste disposal Safeguards (MNSSJ-Meeting with

' regarding conduct of the Committee facility. - Director. NMSS. to discuss items of activities. C. Review a taff technical position on mutual interest. Including matters such

• K. Appointment ofNew Members-fault avoidance.

as the status of NRC and industry Discuss qualifications for nominees for D. licar a briefing on a national proposals for revised security

• vacancies during 1993 ar.d qualifications profile of mixed wastes.

requirements for nuclear power plants. of candidates nominated for E. liest a bdefmg on the current status of the high level waste storage appointment to the ACRS. status of enhanced participatory and disposal programs, and regulatory L.Reconcillotion ofACRS Comments rulemaking related to residual levels of changes as a result of the incident which andRecommendations-Discuss replies radionuclides acceptable following occurred at the GE Wilmington Facility.: from the NRC Executhe Director for decontamination of facilities. E. Rich-Based Regulation /fitzpatrick Operations regarding the NRC staff F. Consider potential impacts that - NuclearPlant IPS-Briefing by and. - ' reaction to ACRS comments and different waste foims could have on discussion with representatives of the b - recommendations. repository performanEc. l r

[ 48532 Federrl Register / Vol. 57. No. 207 / Monday October 26, 1992 / Notices ? I

• G. Meet with the Director General of [the Act) and the Commission's shad file a supplement to the petition to y

the British Nuclear Forum to discuss regulations. Intervene which must include a list of { items of mutualinterest. By November 25.1992, the licensee the contentions whic.h are sought to be 1

11. Discuss the use of the coDective may ble a request for a hearmg with litigated in the matter. Each contention 1

dose concept in high-level waste respect to issuance of the amenament to must consist of a specific statement of l repository licensing. the subject facility operating license and the issue oflaw or fact to be raised or I L Discuss administrative matters any person whose interest may be controverted. In addition. the petitioner l related to Committee activities and affected by this proceedmg and who shall provide a brief explanation of the i items that were not completed at Wi5he8 to Participate as a party in the bases of the contention and a concise I previous meetings as time and proceeding must file a written request statement of the alleged facts or expert j availability of information permit. for a hearing and a petition for leave to opinion which support the contention ACNW Working Group on intervene. Requests for a hearing and a and on which the petitioner intends to l' Performance Assessment. December IS. petition for leatre to intervene shall be rely in proving the contention at the i 1992. Bethesda, MD.The Working Group filed in accordance with the hearing.The petitioner must also will hear a briefing by DOE Commission's Rules of Practice for provide references to those specific h representatives regarding the status of Domestic Licensing Proceedmgs" in 10 sources and documents of which the the DOE's Total System performance CFR part2 Interested persons should. petitioneris aware and on which the Assessment. Also, this Group will consult a current copy of10 CFR 2.714 petitioner intends to rely to establish discuss the progress of phase 2 of the which is available at the Comm= ton's those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner IILW lterative Performance Assessment Public Document Room, the Gelman must provide sufficient information to effort by NRC. Building.2120 L Street. NW., show that a genuine dispute exists with 49th ACNWMeeting. December 17-Washington.DC 20555 and at the local the applicant on a materialIssue oflaw 18.1992. Bethesda, MD. Agenda to be public document room located at the . or fact. Contentions shall be limited to o nm_.a Athens Public Library. South Street.. -matters within the scope of the 50th ACNWMeeting. January 27-28 Athens. Alabama 35611.lf a request for amendment under consideratiom The 1993.Bethesda.MD. Agenda to be a hearing or petition forleave to.. . contention must be one which,if proven, announced. intervene is filed by the above date, the would entitle the petitioner to relief. A SIst ACNWMeeting. February 24-25 Commission or an Atomic Safety and petitioner who falls to file such a [ 1983.Bethesda. MD. Agenda to be Licensmg Board, des (gnated by the,. supplement which satisfies these i mm, m,.d. Commissnon or by the Chairman of the. requirements with respect to at least one

• Y S

contention willnot be permitted to i Dated: October 20. tm2. Panel, will rule on the request and/or. participate as a party. klm C Hoyle. petition;and the Secretary or the Advisory cbmmitteeManagement Officer. designated Atomic Safety and Licensing ^ ', [

• {bW p

ay j IFR Doc. 92-25852 F11ed S23-918A5 am) Board willissue a notice of hearing or limitations in the order granting leave to satmo coot nee en as an appropriate order. intervene, and have the opportunity to As required by to CPR 2.714. a - Paruci "te f4 MMM h P petition for leave to intervene shall set he y [ Docket No.h259.50-260 and 50-2961 forth with particularity the interest of e the petitioner in the proceeding and witnesses. Tennessee Valley Authortty; how that interest may be affected by the Consideration of issuance of results of the p M4.Thepetition A request for a hearms or a petition for leave to intervene must be Eded with Amendment to Facility Operating should specifically explain the reasons License and Opportunity for Hearing why intervention should be permitted the Secretary of the Commission.U.S. with particular reference to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory, following factors-(1) %e nature of the - Washingtm.DC20555 Attention: Commission (the Commission)is petitioner's right under the Act to be Docketing and Services Branch, or may c nsWering issuarace of an amendment made a party to the proceeding: (2) the - be delivered to the %=mheion's Public r to Facility Operatirs License Nos. DRIL nature and exterit to the petitioner's Document Room, the Gehnan Rail %

33. DRP42 and DRP48, issued to the property, financial, or other interest in

_2120 L Street. NW., Washington.DC Tennessee Valley Authority (the the proceeding; and (3) the possible 20555. by the above date.Where licensee) for operation of the Browns effect of any order which may be petitions are filed during the last ten (10) Ferry Nuclear Plant located in entered in theproceeding on the days of the notice period. it is w, /.M Limestone County, Alabama. petitioner's interest. The petition should that the petitioner promptly so infonn The proposed amendment would also identify the speciSc aspect (s) of the the %mmhaion by a toll-free telephone r revise Technical SpenScatims (TS) subject matter of the proceeding as to call to Western Union at 1-{a00) 325-Section 3.4/4.2 to reflect plant which petitionerwishes to intervene. 0000 (in Missouri HB00) 342-6700).The - mod fication for upgrading the Reactor Any person who has filed a petition for Western Union operator should be given and Refuel Zone Radiation Monitoring leswe tointervene or who has been Datagram identificatio a Number 3737 System.This system upgrade will admitted as a party may amend the and the following message addressed to include replacement of existing analo8 petition without requestingleave of the - Frederick ). Hebdon, petitioner's name monitors with digital equipment from Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the and telephone number; date petition the General Electric Nuc! car first pre. hearing amference scheduled was mailed; plant name; and pubhcation Measurement Analysis and Controlline in the proceeding, but soda as amended date and pagenumber of this Federal. of products. petition must satisfy the spectScity - Register notice. A copy of the petition . Before issuance of the proposed requirements described above? -- should also be sent to the OfBee of the i license amendment, the Commission Not later than fifteen 115) days prior to General Counsel U.S. Nuclear ' will have made findings required by the the first preheenmg conference- : -Se : - Regulatory r'.. 7_ Wankmgton. - ^ - Atomic Encryy Act of 1954, as amended scheduled in the proceedmg: a petitioner

• DC 2n555, and to General Counsel, w a

~ ~ - _ _ _ + _ _, _,, _

i Anoendix 11 ![anc oq'o UNITED STATES { g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n { ,E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS [ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o, %g ,o*g i I November 5,1992 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 48TH ACNW MEETING l NOVEMBER 19-20, 1992 l BETHESDA, MARYLAND 1 l Thursday. November 19, 1992. Room P-110. 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD J r 1) 8:30-8:45 a.m. Openina Remarks by ACNW Chairman (Open) t 1.1) Opening Statement (DWM/RKM) 1.2) Items of Current Interest (DWM/RKM) 2) 8:45-10:eha.m. Discussion with the Director General of the British Nuclear Forum (Open/ Closed) (MJS/GNG)(Portions of this session will be closed as necessary to discuss information ) 3provided in confidence by a foreign source.) l 05 10:00-10:15 a.m. BREAK +S s

3) 10:15-11:15 a.m.

Role and Persoective of a State Department of Health Recardina Sitina a LLW Disoosal Facility l (Open) (PWP/HJL) 3.1) Discussion with Dr. D. Brown, CT Department g; g ll;55 Svou-of Health Services l 3.2) General Discussion i 55F I:Do

4) 11:F6-12:2^ p.m.

NRC Staff Technical Position on Fault Avoidance (Open) (PWP/LGD) 4.1) Staff Presentation (K. McConnell and R. Ballard) 4.2) General Discussion 4.3) Elements of a Committeo Report i:co -2: 00 a2.30-tt9e p.m.

• • • LUNCH ***

1:eo oF / 5) Ltse-2:Ge p.m. Committee Discussion of the Use of the Collective Dose Concent in the Licensina of Hich-Level Waste Repository (Open) (DWM/GNG) o6-3:10

6) 2:00-3+44 p.m.

Workina Group Chairman's Reoort on the Novembe.r

18. 1992 ACNW Workina Group on the Incact of Lona-Rance Climate Chance in the Area of the Southern Basin and Rance (Open) (WJH/GNG) 3: 10 -3 :30 etse-4+46 p.m.

BREAK

. Tra-nscf dB2 PC O

1 j 48th ACNW Meeting, November 19-20, 1992 2 3: 30 6:50 7) 2?+5-6 MO p.m. PreDaration of ACNW ReDorts (Open) 7.1) Discuss proposed ACNW reports regarding items considered during this meeting and i previous meetings, including: { 4:45-5:00P* g, cat 7.1-1) Systems Analysis Approach'to Reviewing Overall High-Level Waste Frogram l (MJS/HJL) 7.1-2) Comments on Staff Technical Position on Fault Avoidance (PWP/lGD) 7.1-3) Comment on Long-Range Climate Change (WJH/GNG) 6700 p.m. RECESS Pridav. November 20, 1992. Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda. MD 10: 45 s 8) 8:30-9t+5 a.m. Status ReDort on " Enhanced Particioatorv Rulemakinc" (Open) (DWM/HJL) 8.1) Focus on residual levels of radionuclides acceptable following decontamination of facilities - F. X. Cameron, NRC Staff 8.2) Lessons learned from-earlier experience 8.3) General Discussion 10: 16 35 ~

9) 9t+5-11:GO a.m.

Discussion with Director. Office of NMSS, on Items of Current Interest (Open) (DWM/HJL) 9.1) Implications of the new energy legislation as it relates to high-level radioactive waste - R. Bernero a) Environmental Standards for Yucca Mountain b) Waste Negotiator c) Below Regulatory Concern d) Uranium Mill Tailing Cleanup e) Decommissioning Funding 9.2) Other Topics l g 3F So 11:00-11:15 a.m. BREAK 50 1100

10) 11: M-12. 00 p.m. ' National Profile on Mixed Waste (Open) (DWM/GNG) 10.1)

Information Briefing by NRC Staff on Mixed Waste Profile (N. Orlando and M. Weber) 10.2) General Discussion 1:0o 1:oo 12.00-L+49 p.m. LUNCH l

i 48th ACNW Meeting, November 19-20, 1992 3 l

11) 2:00-2:30 p.m.

Committee Activities / Future Acenda (Open/ Closed) (DWM/RKM) Discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, administra-tive and organizational matters, as appropriate I 11.1) Set December agenda 11.2) Review Working Group Schedule 11.3) Other Future Topics 11.4) Meeting Dates for 1993 l 3:4 0 p.m. - 11. 5 ) Nomination o# ACNW Officers for CY-93 (Closed) l (Portions of this session may be closed to discuss information the release of which would i I represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.) 2:20 2.45 p.m. BREAK 4-: 05' l

12) 2:45-6t90 p.m.

Preparation of ACNW Reoorts (Open) i Discuss propcsed ACNW Reports regarding items considered during this meeting and previous meetings, including: 12.1) Systems Analysis Approach to Reviewing the Overall High-Level Waste Program (MJS/HJL) 12.2) Comments on Staff Technical Position on Fault Avoidance (PWP/LGD) 12.3) Comments on the Potential Impacts from Long-Range Climate Change (WJH/GNG) 4+4s p.m. Adjourn j I i 1 [ i j l

4 f i APPENDIX III: MEETING ATTENDEES j 48TH ACNW MEETING NOVEMBER 19-20, 1992 ACNW MEMBERS ist Day 2nd Da.y Dr. William J. Minze X X Dr. Dade W. Moeller X X Dr. Paul W. Pomeroy X X Dr. Martin J. Steindler X X ACFM CONSULTANTS Dr. David Okrent X X 5 NRC STAFF Ron Ballard NMSS T. Chandrusekaral. NRR l A. Eiss NMSS J. S. Guo NRR Michael Lee NMSS C. Y. Li NRR J. Lyons NRR Steve McDuffie NMSS Tom Nicholson RES l R. Rothman NRR S. Salomon OSP David Terao NRR Ronald B. Uleck NMSS J. R. Wolf OGC J. Youngblood NMSS

l l i Appendix III 2 48th ACNW Meeting l l ATTENDEES FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND GENERAL PUBLIC l i i Joe Amarello Connecticut Hazardous Waste Mgt. Carl Anderson National Academy of Sciences Robert Batter DOE John Blair Fluor Daniel M&O David Brown State of Connecticut Tara Cameron EPA l Dan Dresser Weston l Dina ElBoghdady States News Service David Fenster CRWMS M&O Woodward-Clyde i Patrick Harris SERCH Licensing /Bechtel i Monique Helfrich Defense Nuclear Facility Cady Johnson NAS l Carl Johnson State of Nevada l Jedi Lieberman Ogden Environmental & Energy Systems l l Robert Luce NWTRB l William McCaughey Weston Michael Miklas CNWRA I Gene Roseboam USGS John Russell CNWRA Sharon Skuchko DOE Stephen Spector CNWRA Gerry Stirewalt CNWRA i Reginald Subia AGANA Services Robert Waxman DOE f Ivan White State of Connecticut (consultant) l Jim York Weston i

l 9 APPENDIX IV: FUTURE AGENDA ? I 49th ACNW Committee Meeting December 17-18, 1992 (Tentative Schedule) Site Characterization Analysis: Obiection 1 (Open) The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on the staff's recent decision relative to DOE's requested resolution of Site Character-ization Analysis Objection #1 (ESF Title I design control process). Geoloaical Cross-Section Balancina Activities (Open) The l Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on the results of l geological cross-section balancing activities. ~ Workina Group Chairman's Report on the Performance Assessment The Committee will be briefed by Workinq Group meetina (Open) the Working Group Chairman on a recent meet.ing on Performance Assessment in HLW. l DOE-Soonsored Technical Exchance on the Use of Expert Judament (open) The Committee will hear a report by an ACNW Fellow on the activities of the DOE-sponsored technical exchange on the use of expert judgment in licensing a high-level radioactive waste repository. 1 The Committee will discuss Comnittee Activities (open/ Closed) anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate. Also, the l members will discuss matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings. Working Group Meetings i Performance Assessment in Hich-Level Radioactive Waste, December 16, 1992, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Giorgio Gnugnoli) The Working Group will be briefed by DOE representatives on the status of the DOE's Total System Performance Assessment.

Also, j

this Working Group will discuss the progress of Phase 2 and i planning for future phases of the HLW Iterative Performance Assessment effort by NRC. Reculatory Guides for Imolementina Revisions to 10 CFR Part 20, February 5, 1993, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD, (Giorgio Gnugnoli) - The ACNW Working Group and the ACRS Subcommittee for Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems will jointly review the following proposed final regulatory guides for imple-l menting the revised 10 CFR Part 20: (1) DG-8006, " Control of Access to High and Very High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power l Plants," (2) DG-8009, " Interpretation of Bioassay Measurements," and (3) DG-8005, " Assessing External Radiation Doses from Airborne Radioactive Materials."

l ( i \\- Appendix IV 2 48th ACNW Meeting Syneraistic Data Needs for Resolvina Volcanic and Tectonic Concerns at Yucca Mountain, (Date to be determined), 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Howard Larson/Lynn Deering) The Working Group will attempt to determine what data are necessary to resolve and/or move toward closure in the subject areas. An area of focus will be how data should be integrated, including those related to heat flow, strain, geophysics, and seismic monitoring. Another area of concentration will be to determine how and by whom those data will be analyzed. l 9 I I 1 l 1 a i i

i APPENDIX V l LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE Meetina Handouts AGENDA DOCUMENTS i ITEM NO. i 1 Chairman's Report i 1. Items of Possible Interest to ACNW Members and Staff, dated November 14, 1992, by Dade W. Moeller 2 Discussion with the Director General of the British Nuclear Forum 2. Background on the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, dated November 17, 1992, by Dade W. Moeller 3 Rnle and Perspective of a State Denartment of Health Recardina Sitina a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility 3. Letter to Governor Lowell Weicker from Susan Addiss, 1 Commissioner, Department of Health

Services, dated September 17, 1992, regarding LLW Disposal Facility, with enclosures 4.

Performance Appraisal of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility at Candidate Sites in Ellington, South Windsor, and East Windsor, Connecticut, dated May 1992, Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service 4a. Letter for Susan S. Addiss, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Health, from Marvin Resnikoff, Radioactive Waste Management Associates, dated November 9,

1992, l

regarding LLW facility site l 4 NRC Staff Technical Position on Fault Avoidance I 5. Draft Staff Technical Position on Consideration of Fault i Displacement Hazards in Geologic Repository Design, dated November 19, 1992 [Viewgraphs) 5 Committee Discussion of the Use of the Collective Dose Conceot in the Licensina of Hich-Level Radioactive Waste Repositorv 6. Low Level Radioactive Waste Siting, Proceedings, October 9, 1992, Wolfe, Rosenberg & Associates

• /

Preparation of ACNW Reports l 7. Additional Handouts from October 26, 1992 Management l Meeting - DOE /ACNW 9 Discussion with Director. Office of NMSS. on Items of Current Interest 8. Letter for John W. Bartlett, OCRWM, from Robert M. Bernero, NMSS, dated November 18, 1992, regarding the HLW Repository Program, with enclosure 9. Status of Dry Spent Fuel Storage Under 10 CFR Part 72,

Appendix V 2 48th ACNW Meeting dated November 2,1992, by Robert Bernero, Director, NMSS [Viewgraphs) High-Level Radioactive Waste, Sec. 801. 10. Title VIII Nuclear Waste Disposal, undated 10 pational Profile on Mixed Waste 11. Results of the National Profile on Commercially Generated Low-Level Radioactive Mixed Waste, dated November 20, 1992 [Viewgraphs] 11 Committee Activities / Future Acenda 12. Memorandum for Richard Major from Dade Moeller, dated November 9,

1992, regarding a Visit from Dr.

Roger Clarke, Director, National Radiological Protection Board, with enclosure 13. Presentation on Advanced Information Management Systems, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, dated November 20, 1992 Meetina Notebook 1 Chairman's Report l 1. Introductory Statement by ACNW Chairman 2. Items of Interest 3. Introductory Statement by ACNW Chairman, dated November l l 20, 1992 2 Discussion with the Director General of the British Nuclear l Forum 4. Status Report 5. Brief description of the British Nuclear Forum 6. Memorandum for ACNW Members / Staff from Richard Major, dated November 5, 1992, regarding Visit by John Gittus, Director General, British Nuclear Forum, attachment l letter from J. Gittus to D. Moeller re Visit Plan, dated l October 27, 1992 i 7. Letter for Dade Moeller from Jane Mullins, dated August 20, 1992, regarding response letter from D. Gittus to D. Moeller plans to visit the UK in September 8. Letter for Jane Mullins from D. Moeller, dated September 1, 1992, regarding response to August 20, 1992 9. Letter for J. Gittus from D. Moeller, dated September 30, 1992, regarding response to confirm that ACNW Members will join you for supper on November 17, 1992 and information regarding Background Information 10. Letter for D. Moeller from J. Gittus, dated October 27,

1992, regarding Background Information

[ Prepared - for Internal Committee Use]

l l 1 i Appendix V 3 48th ACNW Meeting i 3 Role and Persuscrive of a State Department of Health Recardina Sitina a LLW Disposal Facility 11. Status Report 12. Northeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission, Annual Report 1991 4 NRC Rtaff Technical Position on Fault Avoidance 1 13. Status Report 14. Memorandum for Dade Moeller from Jcmes Taylor, dated i April 2, 1992, regarding ACNW Recommendations on NRC Staff Technical Position on "The Identification on Fault Displacement and Seismic Hazards at a Geologic Repository" l 15. Letter for Chairman Selin from Dade Moeller, dated January 24, 1992, regarding NRC Staff Technical Position on "The Identification of Fault Displacement and Seismic j Hazards at a Geologic Repository" 16. Memorandum for ACNW Members from Lynn Deering, dated September 3, 1992, regarding Staff Technical Position on Investigations to Identify Fault Displacement Hazards and Seismic Hazards at a Geologic Repository [with enclosures) I 5 Committec iscussion of the Use of the Collective Dose Concept in the Licensina of Hich-Level Waste Repository 17. Status Report 18. Memorandum for ACNW Members from Giorgio Gnugnoli, dated October 27, 1992 regarding Reconsideration of the Collective Dose Concept for Compliance-Limitations [with j enclosures) 19. Memorandum to Richard Major from Dade Moeller, dated l October 6, 1992, regarding NCRP Report on " Collective l Dose" [with enclosures) l 20. Letter for Robert Bernero from Dade Moeller, dated April 29, 1991, regarding Individual End Collective Dose Limits and Radionuclide Release Limits 21. Letter for A. C. Robison from Dade Moeller, dated October 26, 1992, regarding Follow-Up Items j l 6 Workina Group Chairman's ReDort on the November 18, 1992 ACNW Workina Group on the Impact of Lona-Rance Climate Chance in the Area of the Southern Basin and Rance 22. Status Repcrt 23. Reference List 7.1 Preparation of ACNW Reports: Systems Analysis ADoroach to Reviewina the Overall Hich-Level Waste Procram 24. Status Report 25. Letter for Chairman Selin from Dade Moeller, dated May 1, 1992, regarding Comprehensive Systems Analysis of the i l l

4 Appendix V 4 48th ACNW Meeting 1 c High-Level Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal Program 26. Memorandum for Dade Moeller from Samuel Chilk, dated May 5, 1992, regarding Staff Requirements [with enclosures] 27. Letter for Staff from M. Steindler, dated November 4,

1992, regarding Draft #6 of the Selin Communication

[ Internal ACNW Committee Use Only; Pre-Decisional Draf t) 28. U.S. Congress Conferee Report on proposed Energy Bill: " Title VIII, High-Level Radioactive Waste," pp. 378-383 L 2 Status Report on " Enhanced Participatory Rulemakinct" 29. Status Report 30. Memorandum for ACNW Members from H. J. Larson, dated July 24,

1992, regarding SECY-92-249 " Final Plan for the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking Process on the Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning" Dated July 16, 1992

[ Prepared for Internal Committee

Use, with enclosures]

31. Memorandum for Files from Richard Major, dated August 10,

1992, regarding July 28, 1992 Meeting Between Dr.

I Moeller, Chairman, ACNW, And Representatives of NUMARC l [ Prepared for Internal Committee Use Only] 32. Memorandum for James Taylor, W. Parler from Samuel Chilk, dated October 28, 1992, regarding SECY 92-249 - Final Plan for the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking Process on the Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning 33. Memorandum for James Taylor from Samuel Chilk, dated September 9,

1992, regarding Enhanced Participatory i

l Process l 9 Discussion with Director. Office of NMSS, on Items of Current Interest 34. Status Report 35. Memorandum for Chairman and Commissioners from Dennis l Rathbun, dated October 6, 1992, regarding Nuclear Titles of the Conference Version of H.R. 776, National Energy Policy Act [with enclosures] 36. Memorandum for Chairman and Commissioners from William Parler, dated October 26, 1992, regarding Energy Policy Act of 1992 [with enclosures] 10 National Profile on Mixed Waste 37. Status Report 38. Memorandum for ACNW Members from Howard Larson, dated October 6, 1992, regarding "Results of the National Profile on Radioactive Mixed Waste", SECY-92-305, September 1, 1992 [with enclosures] l l t.

Appendix V 5 48th ACNW Meeting l 11 Committee Activities /Puture Acenda 39. Anticipated ACNW Activities 40. December Meeting Agenda 41. Topics through March 1993 42. Other Topics to be Scheduled 43. Blaha List of Proposed ACNW Agenda Items 44. 1993 Meeting Calendar k n [ l F 1 ,-n-:,-- -.-g-- p r,---g-y- ~ ,-me-w}}