ML20062E388

Forwards List of Requests Made at 19th ACNW Meeting on 900426-27

ML20062E388
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/22/1990
From:	Frayley R NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
NACNUCLE, NUDOCS 9011200236
Download: ML20062E388 (7)

Text

W y

s, p

,p '

o' ",%

.y

/

UNITED'8TATES )

&sp

,. L /( )

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

~

!-\\ 'y, t ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

.d; k k'!p #',f WASHINGTON, D.C. NOI6 '--

s,,.s,

May 22, 1990_

MEMORANDUM FOR:-

James M. Taylor-'

Ex cutive Dir (fo Operations yKgid T7 7 tale FROM:

ExecQtive Director, ACNW

SUBJECT:

19TH ACNW-MEETING FOLLOW-UP ITEMS Based on discussions regarding methods for improved implementation and follow-up of ' ACNW recommendations, a summary of Actions, Agreements, Assignments, and Requests made during each ACNW necting will be sent to your office following each meeting.

Attached is a list of the requests madefat-the 19th ACNW aceting, April 20-27, 1990.

Those items in the list " Actions, Agreement's,- ' Assignments,, and Requests" that do not deal with requests made of.the NRC Staff ort E

that are not pertinent to. NRC Staf f ' activities have not been-included in this follow-up list.

Attachment:

As stated-cc.

H. L. Thompson-EDO J. L.

Blaha, EDO S.

J.

Chilk,. SECY E. J. Jordan, AEOD R. M. Bernero, NMSS T. E. Murley, NRR E.

S.

Beckjord, RES A. L. Eiss, NMSS H. Pastis, NRR M. E. Lopez-Otin, OCM/TR M.

V. Federline, OCM/KC J. Kotra, OCM/JC R. MacDougall, OCM/FR S. Bilhorn, OCM/KR L

M. Weber,LOCM/KC-

?

h.

- ". J b -

5 t (

- o.

9011200236 900522 e-

.s i

PDR ADVCM NACNUCLE?,

P NU,,

s

,-u o

C q

O

{..

ACTIONS,' AGREEMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND. REQUESTS

)

19TH ACNW MEETING April 26-27,:1990 l

)

)

REPORTS, LETTERS-AND MEMORANDA

)

1.

Criticue of the Environmental Protection ~Aaenev's StapAm Mg:

for DisDosal of Hich-Level Wastes- (See Attachment 1)E w

The Committee provided comments on the standards with emphasis on (a) the need-for the use of-a' hierarchical' structure in the'-

[

organization of the standards, (b) structuring-the standards l

as to apply to the disposal facility: as ~.a' system, u (c) _the-

~ i limitations: on the application: of PRA-methodology," and (d) t j

the desirability, of clearly 1 separating out the L impacts : and 4 l

assessments-of _ human intrusion, thus permitting-this contributor to risk to'be directly-addressed.

2.

Procram Plan for the Advisory' Committee on Nuclear Waste (See Attachment'2)

The Committee provided,its program plan : for-the activities -

J that the Committee expects to engage.in during the'next four

~

J months..

j j

3.

Waste Confidence Decision Review (See Attachment 3)

The Committee endorsed the.findinasLof the Waste' Confidence-Review Group.

The Committee sugge'sted that: consideration'be

'l given to adding a brief discussion to theistatement-of the.

findings of the Review, Group which _would describe the criteria ~

o that would be used to prompt a reevaluation, of: the current findings sooner than the scheduled ten year-review. cycle.

)

ACTIONS, AGREEMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS AND REQUESTS 4.

Status Reoort on Characterization of ' the' Yucca Quaternary Recional Hydroloav Study Plan-The Committee was briefed.by the.NRC staff on the status of the NRC ' staff's review-of the': DOE. Study Planfor 'the Characterization of. the Yucca' Mountain LQuaternary Regional Hydrology.

Dr. Moeller stated that the Committee will review proposed:NRC staff comments to DOE.on this-Study-Plan when-i they are available.

This briefing was for information.only -

Vhe Committee requested that: it a be kept informed : of. any; revisions to this. Study Plan.

Dr. Moeller also requested that the Committee be placed 'on the DOE ' distribution' list for future LStudy Plans and - related correspondence.

,.,.o.,-4 p----

...-. _ - ~ _ - - -. -

m.,-.

'ji' cil 1

(

G

.o r

19th ACNW Meeting 3

j April 26-27, 1990 l

i f

5.

Waste Confidence Review-if The Committee was briefedf:by sombers of the NRC Waste '

1 Confidence Review Grouplon'the Grsup's finalLreport and.the>

disposition of the i public commen'.:s.

The ACNW. report on the' j

final waste.confidenceJdecision review:was sent to Chairman.

Carr on-May_1,-1990.

(See -' Item 13)1 6.

ACNW Critiaue of EPA's Proposed Revisions in the Environmental-Radiation Protection Standards-for the Manaaement'and Dianomal of Seent Nuclear Fuel. Nich-Level and Transuranic Radioactive-d Wastes-The Committee -c'ontinued their review of the EPA HLW Standards..

The ACNW report on the EPA Standards for ' disposal of, high-

]

level wastes was:sent to Chairman Carr on-May_-1, 1990.

(See Item 1)

L 7.

Four Month Procram Plan for ACNWL The Committee discussed' anticipated ACNWq activitiest during i

the four-month period.of May

August 1990..ALreport of that activities-that the Committee expects to' engage in during the-next four - months ' was sent to Chairman. Carr on May.1,.1990.

i j

(See Item'2).

j 8.

ACNW Future Activities l

a.

Center for Nuclear Waste R'eaulatorv= Analyses'(CNWRA)-

t Dr. Hinze. recommended that the Committee ' ' review the l

portion of CNWRA' resources that isLdevoted:to technical, assistance ~as contrasted to researchL Dr. Hinseialso

.1 recommended-that the Committee 1should beibriefed on'the-recently completed: -CNWRA ~ reports-onT ~the-program.

6 architecture.to review a high-level waste' repository.,

I 1

b.

Human Intrusion and> Carbon-14 Tasuasi i

i

~Dr.LHinze recommended that the-Committee have'a briefingL on the 40 CFR Part 191 approach to human! intrusion (and c

fconcerns: with EPA. release flimits for carbon-141at the o

proposed,high-level waste repository.

v

.]

S f

r t,

j 8

.I' a

...i.-

U-

f r

>g g-

=

'M c

8

{

'j. -

19th~ACNW Meeting

'4' April'26-27, 1990-c.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste comenets-Dr. Steindler recommended-that~the Committee be-briefed periodically. :on the site selection'. activities. of L: the -

state compacts _..

d.

EPRI Study on Probabilistic Risk Assamanent for" tha -

'ProDosed Yucca Mountain =Hich-Laval Wasta Renository Dr.

Hinze ' recommended n that the Committee have: EPRI representatives provide'a briefing on:the; status of the-EPRI work on the application of(PRA to the proposed Yucca-Mountain repository 'after tho' report.~ on this work is issued. The report is expected to-be-issuedLin September and:a briefing will:beLscheduled shortlyfthereafter.

e.

Status of Rulemakinc Activitiest 1

Dr. -Moeller expressed'

'e r e s t i n 1 t h e : s t'a t u s L o f NRC j

rulemaking activities,e at: - as the: rulemaking D on : the accident dose rate'for a.high-level waste repository.

f.

Discussion-of'the Use'of the Term "renresentativeness" l

'Dr. Hinze' recommended that the Committee.asettwith the d

NRC' staff to discuss the use : of ;.the term -. " represent-ativeness" as it pertains to NRC: staff's review of DOE's' j

methodology for three-dimensional characterization of the proposed Yucca MountainsrepositoryLsite.'

jl FUTURE ACTIVITIES i

Appendix A summarizes the tentative agenda itens' that were proposed' for future meetings of the Committee.. This ' list. includes.itensi proposed by the.NRC. staff as well~as;the ACNW members.

-i 1

5 p.

1

y w

<~

w~

44

=

[t 19th ACNW Meeting 5

i April 26-27, 1990-APPENDIX A.

FUTURE AGENDA' l -

May 24-25,,1990 (Tentative Agenda)-

Technical Position'en Soi) Erosion. (Open)

-_ The Committee will review and comment on the final Technical' Position on the Design of Erosion' Protection ~ Covers '. for: - Stabilizationc of Uranium Mill.

Tailings sites.

The<NRC-staff expects to complete the development a

of this Technical: Position by the and of'May 1990.

j!

Senter for Nuclear Waste Reculatory Analyses- (0 pen)

The.

Committee will be briefed on.the systematic-regulatory analysis (Program Architecture) for the'high-13esl waste repository.

n Licensino Suenort System (open)

The Committee:.will be briefed-by the NRC staff on the status of the Licensing Support.Systen in 1

light of DOE schedule changes.

Connittee Activities (open)

The committee' will discuss d

anticipated and proposed committee activities, future neeting 1

agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.

June 28-29, 1990

-(Tentative Agenda) d

=

i Definition of the-Term "Recresentativeness" (open)

The Committee will be briefed on the definition of "representativeness

.1 j

a as it pertains ' to NRC staff's review of. DOE's methodology for l

three-dimensional characterization of the proposed Yucca Mountain i

repository site.

i Alternative Exeloratory Shaft Facility construction Technianam (open)

The committee will be briefed on-alternative exploratory shaft. facility construction techniques'from'both engineering.and geoscience_ perspectives.

-c,

Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant Diamantlement'

(' pen)-

O The Committee will review: the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report.

1 The final SER is expected to be issued by.the1end" of May 1990.

ACNW comments are requested.

1 Low-Level Waste Research Procram Plan Undate (Open)-

The"

=

Committee:will be briefed on the draft updated LLW Research Program Plan.

A copy of the draft updated plan is:to~be provided to the q

Committee in May-1990.

J f

I

x i

f

.n 19tt ACNW Meet'.1g 6

April ?6-27. 1990

$_tatus of Proactive Work (0 pen)

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

DEIR V Reoort (open)

The Committee will be briefed by a representative of the National Research Council on the BEIR V

Report,

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

Iodine-129 source Term (open)

The Committee vill be briefed by representatives of EPRI and NUMARC on a methodology for predicting the iodine-129 source term for low-level radioactive waste sites.

NRC corrents on EPA Standards (0 pen)

The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on the comments on proposed EPA standards for the geologic disposal of high-Idvel rad;,oactive waste.

Connittee Activities (open)

The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organtzational matters, as appropriate.

Working Group Meeting (Date to be announced)

Micration of carbon-14 (open)

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

This will include a discussion of concerns with EPA release limits for carbon-14.

Huran Intrusien (open)

The Working Group will be briefed on the 40 CTR Part 191 approach to human intrusion at a high-level waste repository.

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

and other l

countries.

July 30-31, 1990 (Tentative Agenda)

Technical Position on Stabilitation/ Waste Forms (Open)

The Committee wil) be briefed by the NRC staff and will prepare t

comments on modifications to the Technical position on LLW Stabilization / Waste Forms.

NRC Research Procram (0 pen)'

The Committee will discuss' with representatives of NRC's Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee, 1

the NRC research program on tne management and disposal of radioactive wastes.

l

' 19th ACNW Meeting 7

+

April 26-27, 1990 l

Hich-Level Waste Research Procrran Plan Undata (Open)

The Committee will be briefed on the draf t updated MLW Research Program Plan.

A copy of the draf t updated plan is scheduled to be provided-to the Committee in June 1990.

Irio Revert (open)

Dr. Linda Lehman, Lehman and Associates, will brief the Committee on her recent visits to the soviet Union to review radioactive waste management activities.

ouality Assessnent Activities (open)

The Committee plans to meet with NRC staff to receive an update on QA activities associated with the HLW repository.

Cormittee Activities (open)

The Comn ;. tee will discuss anticipated and proposed committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational natters, as appropriate.

August 29-31, 1990 (Tentative Agenda)

Rulemakina on LLW Shiement Manifest Evstem (open)

Tha Committee will review.nd comment on the proposed rulemaking on the LLW Shipment Manifest system.

Accident Dese criteria (open)

The committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on the status of the proposed rulemaking on postulated accident dose criteria for the ilLW reposttory l

operations.

EPA Standards (open)

The Committee will continue discussion on EPA standards for high-level radioactive waste dis in a geologic repository (per memorandum from F. Galpin, posal EPA, to D.

5 Moeller, ACNW).

Working draft #3 of the standard is scheduled to i

be issued prior to this meeting.

Committee Activities (open')

The Committee will discuss anticipated and 'proposed Committee activities, - future meeting agenda, and organ:,tational matters, as appropriate.

l l

l b

l

[

\\

UNITED STATES I

7.

i '! i I ~j NUCLEAR REGULATdRY COMMISSIEN 1

(

l,: /

anvsomy couuitTat ow swei. tan waste g

g,;

wAsMewavow. s.c. seus l

L l

May 1, 1990 I

l l

t

]

l l

1 i

The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dear Chairman Carra l

SUBJECT:

CRITIQUE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S 4

STANDARDS FOR DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVE1 WASTES In response to your request during our meeting on February 21,.

1990, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste offers the following comments on the problems we see with the EPA standards-(Ref.1) for the disposal of high-level wastes. These consents are an outgrowth of our ongoing review of these standards,. including a full-day session on this matter during our 18th meeting, March 22-23, 1990,-

1 and additional discussions during our 19th meeting, April 26-27, 3

1990.

organizations whose representatives took part in the dis-cussions during our 18th meeting included the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the staff of the Board on Radioactive Waste' Management of the National Academy of Sciences, the Environmental Evaluation Group of ~ the State of New Mexico, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility i

Saf ety of the U.S. Department of Energy, and the General Accounting office.

Members of the NRC staff also attended these-meetings.

Key technical problems with the EPA standsrds include the following:

1.

All such standards should be organized in a hierarchical structure with the higher levels expressing the objectives in a

qualitative sense and the lower levels stating the objectives quantitatively.

of utmost importance is that the several levels be consistent and that lower levels not be more stringent or conservative than the higher levels, so that they become gg facto new standards.

This is not the case with the EPA standards.

1

& /M)f r p,",//)(//h *? -

n vp

[

\\E --

a

j i

The Henorable Kenneth M. carr 2

May 1,1990 2.

Although lower level standards can - be stated. probabilis-

)

tically, they should be expressed in terms of annual risk limits from a disposal facility in an undisturbed and a l

disturbed state.

The critical population group being-considered should be clearly defined.

This approach is in accord with recommendations of organizations such as the International commission on Radiological Protection and the United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board.

l 3.

The standards should apply to the disposal facility as a system.

Subsystem standards, if expressed, should be given only as

guidance, with qualifytng statements. clearly.

specifying that they are not to be applied in a, regulatory i

sense.

4.

Evaluations of the anticipated performance of the proposed Waste Isolation Pilot. Plant indicate that, for the disturbed i

state, human intrusion is the: dominant contributor.to risk.

Early indications suggested that performance analyses for the i

proposed Yucca Mountain repository may also show -human intrusion to be important.

This appears to be a direct result i

of how the. standards for evaluating such ; intrusions are interpreted, compounded by the overly conservative require-l ments of the standards.

To ameliorate this issue, we suggest that the standards be rewritten.to separate the evaluatient

+

of anticipated performance into three: parn:

(a) the i

undisturbed repository; (b) the disturbed repository, i

exclusive of human intrusion; and (c) the repository as it might be af fected by human intrusion.

This would clearly-separate out the problem of human intrusion and permit.it to be addressed directly.

In this regard, we join with the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility safety, U.S. Department of Energy, in recommending that EPA's standards be reworded to permit " considerations such as expectations for future borehole sealing at least as good as the current state-of-4 the-art."

We also believe that more realistic assessments should be made of the potential impacts of, human intrusions and that greater credit should be allocated to the ability of future generations to be aware of the presence of a geologic repoc itory through identifying markers and associated records.

5.

Experience has shown:that probabilistic risk analyses cannot be used reliably to determine the compliance: of a single nuclear power plant with a set of standards.

A high-level waste repository, which must function for--10,000 years, is l

still more dif ficult to assess quantitatively. '

The EPA standards should clearly specify that. risk ' assessments are but one' of se"eral inputs into the evaluation of. a given high-level wastelepository site and/or facility. Such assessments should not be the only factor in evaluating compliance of'such a facility with the EPA standards.-

h

.a

.. I

.u...

~-._.;.

n I

.The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr 3

May 1, 1990 2n sursary, our key recommendations are:

1.

The existing EPA standards need ' to be revised; now is the time to accomplish this-task; i

)

2.

The standards should be revised to define what 'is considered to be an acceptable risk from a-high-level i

vaste repository; 3.

The standards should specify that a

probabilistic approach is acceptable so long as it is but. one of' j

several factors to -be used in:

determining the acceptability of'a specific site; and l

l 4.

The standards should be revised to include separate considerations for evaluating the: impacts of human intrusion.

We stand ready to join-you and-the NRC staff in working with' EPA to help develop an acceptable set of. standards for.a high-level radioactive vaste repository.

We believe.this is the best course i

of action at the present time.

If, however, after a reasonable'

)

period of time these efforts do not appear to-be accomplishing our 1

mutual goals, we believe other approaches should be considered.

1 One would be for you, as Chairman of the NRC (perhaps joining with 1

the Secretary of DOE) to approach the-EPA Administrator > with a I

suggestjen that an appropriate organization be selected to review the standards and make recommendations for change. Suggestions for i

two such organizations are the National Academy of Sciences _ and the' l

Council on Environmental-Quality.

t We hope that these coraents are helpful.

We.will be pleased to i

discuss these matters with you.at your convenience.

Sincerely, l

l Dade W. Moeller Chsirman

'Ae f erence s :

L.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, _" Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management 'and ' Disposal of Spent l

Nuclear Fuel, High-1,evel and Transuranic Radicactive Wastes,"

(40 CFR Part 191), Working Draf t 2, dated January 31, 1990 f

J

..n

~. -

---4

r

[

The Honotsble Kenneth M. Carr 4

May 1, 1990 9

2.

Letter dat*d April 17, 1990 from F. L. Galpin, Environmental Protection 49ency to Dade W. Moeller 3.

Letter dated December 11, 1989 from John F. Ahearne, Advisory committee on Nuclear Facility Safety,

DOE, to James D.

Watkins, secretary of Energy, DOE 4.

sandia National Laboratories,. SAND 89-2027,

" Performance Assessment Methodology Demonstration Methodology Development for Evaluating compliance With EPA 40 CFR 191, Subpart 8, for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant," Printed December 1989 5.

International commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 46,

" Radiation Protection Principles for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste," published for the International commission on Radiological Protection by Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, July 1985 6.

National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB-GS 1,

" Radio-logical Protection objectives for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Wastes," published in Oxfordshire, England, 1983 4

4 4

1 u

(

' Attachment 2 J ",..., %

f.

'.i NUCLEAR REGULATdRY COMMISSIEN UNIT 80 STATES '

g,

. )

ADVI6omv coMulfftt oW WWCLEAR w&STt

)

yf t

waswiwetow. o.c. ama May 1, 1990 l

1 l

l The Honorable Kenneth-M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Chairman Carrt AUBJECT:

PROGRAM PIAN FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE j

1 This is our second response to your memorandum of November 6,;1989, f

in which you requested that the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACW) provide a program plan at four-month intervals..'This plan covers the period May-August 1990.' -We hope you will find this a convenient source for anticipating our upcoming. activities and for providing feedback on issues on.which the Commission wishes us to focus our efforts,

,j l

I In preparing this program plan, we have considered the list of apecif:.c technical issues of particular interest to the Commission, the ED0's list of proposed agenda items for the ACRS and the ACNW,.

the NRC's Five-Year Plan, and items of particular interest and/or i

concern to the Committee.

The priorities proposed are based on information provided by representatives of MMss, NRR, RES, and the, EDO office, as well as our own interpretation of the subject in 2

relation to our activities as n' Committee and our input into the regulatory process.

This program plan is based on the current best! estimates of' work ll output by the DOE, EPA, NRC staff,- and their consultants and contractors, as well as our own estimates of how to deal with these issues offectively.

In addition to 'the full Committee meetings

noted, Working Group meetings.will be held as necessary to f acilitate full Comaittee review and action; There any be-some I

revisions to this plan associated with the completion of NRC staff, applicant, and/or contractor studies and reviews as well as other schedule-problems beyond our. control.

9 i

f} /A & w J\\ O A y 9

\\

TV'V' sqr W g i TW

' l/>

417

-gg

-g-y.

O g

-.w--

9. Esgw wow-,<W,

-,y,-.-,-.h

,,.yg,,,

.+,

-,ggy,,y 9-4

,y.

99,

,g,y,y.,-

g-w.

d.

y,gy,y-w-g,.

,9i,e-

_ = -..

1 J

de Honorable )enneth M. Carr 2

May 1,1990

]

l Tull Comittee meeting dates for this period are ' tentatively scheduled as follows:

20th Meeting May 23-25, 1990 21st Meeting June 28-29, 1990 1

22nd Meeting July 30-31, 1990 23rd Meeting August 29-31, 1990 The comittee anticipates considering the topics listed belo';

+

during this four-month period.

May 23-25, 1990

]

e Review and comment on the NRC staff's draft Technical Position on soil erosion and protection for uranium mill

{

tailings sites.

(High prior;,ty) 1 Briefing by the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulator-/

e Analyses on the Systematic Regulatory Analysis (Program Architecture) for the hi'gh-level radioactive waste repository.

(Medium priority)

I Briefing on the EPA's low-level radioactive waste e

standards.

(Medium priority)

Briefing on alternative exploratory shaft facility e

construction techniques from both engineering and geoscience perspectives.

(High priority) e Invite a representative from the EPA 'to continue the dialogue on the EPA's high-level radioactive waste standards.

(High priority)

June 28-29, 1990 Discuss the definition of "representativeness" as it pertains to the NRC staff's review of DOE's methodology for three-dimensional characterization of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository site.

(High priority)

Review and comment-on the NRC staff's safety evaluation report on the Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant dismantlement plan.

(High priority)

Review and comment on the NRC staff's draft Technical e

Position on seismic hazards.

(High priority)

Review and comment on NRC's Low-Level Radioactive Waste

.)

e Research Program Plan.

(High priority) l t-

,i i

p.

+

l The Henorable Kenneth M. Carr 3

May.1, 1990 -

Eriefing for information on the status of proactive work-j

~

e in the Division of High-Level Waste Management (technical positions and rules).

This will inclu(e the impact of changes in the DOE program and schedule on NRC's high-i level waste program.

(Medium priority)-

1 i

Briefing by a representative of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ioniting-Radiations, Board on_

L Radiation Effects Research, Commission on Life Sciences, l

National Research Council on the BEIR V report, "Realth Ef f ects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionising Radiation."

l (Medium priority) j Briefing by EPRI/NUMARC on a methodology for-predicting e

the lodine-129 source term for low-level radioactive j

waste sites.

(Medium priority)

Juiv 30-31, 1990

[

)

e Review and comment on NRC's High-Level Waste Research Program Plan.

This may include

a. briefing by a

i representative of NRC's Nuclear. Safety Research Review 4

committee on the NRC's radioactive. waste research program.

(High priority)

Briefing by Dr. L. Lehman of Lehman & Associates, Inc.,

e on her recent trips to review radioactive waste management activities in the U.S.S.R.

(Low priority)

Briefing on quality assurance activities associated with e

the high-level radioactive waste repository.

(Medium priority) o Review and comment on the NRC staff's; draf t Technical Position on stabilization / waste form for low-level radioactive waste.

(High priority).'

Briefing on the status of activities associated with the o

Licensing Support system.

(Medium priority) j Unscheduled (Will be considered as documents and time become

(

available)

,e Review and comment on low-level radioactive waste' shipment manifest system.

(High priority) 7 Preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the e

EDO and the ACNW to establish procedures for and descrime the roles of tho' parties in interactions of the ACNW Yith the NRC staff on topics related to nuclear waste.

(Righ i

. priority) 1 L

l s

.i i

T.he Honorable Kenneth M. Carr 4

May.1, - 1990.

I i

l o

i 4

Briefing and/or trip to a proposed low-level radioactive e

waste disposal site and meeting with appropriate, state and/or local officials.

(Low priority) l Briefing on the potential problems that could.arise at i

e a high-level radioactive waste repository as a result of l

nigration of carbon-14.

This will include a discussion i

1 of what fundamental assumptions are made in evaluating the hazard from this radionuclide.

-(High priority)

Briefing to explore the subject-~of human intrusion at 4

e a high-level radioactive waste repository.

This will be designed to explore the range of current thinking from various groups in the United States and other countries.

(nich priority)

Plans to review various aspects of - on-site dry ' cask. storage activities have been deleted per the April 18, 1990 menerandum from.

1 S. Chilk, Secretary, to C. Michelson, ACRS, and D. Moeller, ACNW.-

This list represents cur best estimate of the topics : to be considered through August 1990.

If you or your fellow' Consis-sieners have additional items to suggest-or proposed changes in priorities, please let us know.-

Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller-Chairman i

cc:

Coraissioner. Roberts Commissioner Rogers Coraissioner-Curtiss coraissioner Remick Samuel J. Chilk, SECY James M. Taylor, EDO Robert M. Bernero, NMSS E

. j.

i h

l

}

-. --,. :. a....-. : u La.....

attachasst 3

/

't.

CN;TED STATES

)

( )*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

I aovisomy coumitres ow wuctaan wasta i <J

.i s, $. /.,f /

wasmwovow. o.c. sums 1

p.,

s...../

i May 1, 1990-l i

I i

The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman I

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington, D.C.

20555

SUBJECT:

WASTE CONTIDE!1CE DECISION REVIEW During its 19th meeting, April 26-27,'1990, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste met with members of the NRC staff to review the results of the Waste Confidence Review Group's reexamination of.

the commission's Waste Confidence Findings.

on the basis of these discussions and our. review of;the supporting-4 documents we endorse.the' findings of the Review G1oup.

We also suggest that consideration be given to adding to the statement a brief discussion of the criteria that would be used to prompt a re-evaluation of the current findings. sooner than the scheduled ten-year review cycle.

Sincerely,-

Dade W. Moeller i

Chairman Re f ereqq.g:

l Draft Final Waste Confidence. Decision' Review and Conforming Amendment to 10 CFR Part 51, With Public Comments,' April 12, 1990 (Predecisional) i W W ^n A n

?

• f' Y $F({I9'C+{' /

l-l p

w

-. w w + - e e - t-ee--

• .,wwe e,e*

• .e--

,e-

<..,.,.,e-e w

5,-r.

...-.r-4e r-re,*

-.e--

t-*

e -

-