ML20148H087
| ML20148H087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/08/1987 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2521, NUDOCS 8801270122 | |
| Download: ML20148H087 (54) | |
Text
4 x
\\
CeRS-M al
[}2 llDJlS$
DGT}7 p
i'i 4
i CERTIFIED COPY Q:7 Mn.i{ rgl: g, j]
j DATE ISSUED: October 8,1987
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE MEETING 0F THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
AUGUST 17-19, 1987
Purpose:
The Waste Management Subcommittee (WMSC) met Monday through Wednesday, August 17-19, 1987, to review the following topics-(A) HLW and LLW Research:
(1) Program Plans for FY 88-92 (RES Staff presented only those for FY 88-89)
(2) The WMSC's visit te the University of Arizona (and its unsaturated zone test site) to review the NRC-sponsored HLW research programs in progress there:
(a) Rock Mass Sealing and Borehole and Shaft Sealing (b) Flow and transport through Saturated and Fractured Rock j
(c) Unsaturated Flow and Transport through Rock Related to HLW Repositories (3) Solidification of Low-Level Decontamination Wastes (Resins)
(B) High-level Waste (1) Division of High-Level Waste Management (DHLWM) FY 88-92 Program Plans (2) Waste Management Subcommittee's visit to the Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations (NNWSI) Project office, and various facil-ities and locations at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), viz., Yucca Mountain, Climax, G-tunnel and a drill yard (3) NRC Staff Comments on DOE Mission Plan Amendments (which was cancelled by the Staff prior to the meeting) p Overview f the DHLWM Staff's Quarterly Progress Report to the i Ds '
I' ' '
8801270122 871008' DESIGNATED ORIGIIAL 3
D/ W L O y y 2521 PDR Jertified By
~
Minutes / Waste Management 2
August 17-19, 1987 Commissioners (5) QA Audit Report on Las Alamos National Laboratory's HLW Repos-itory Program (6)StatusofSCPRaviewPlan (7) Overview of Ccurt decision on EPA Standard-for HLW geologic repository (8) Report on recent NRC Staff / Contractor Meeting on Pre-Emplacement Groundwater Travel Time (C) Low-level Waste:
(1) Overview of Program Plans, Division of low-Level Waste Manage-ment and Decomissioning (DLLWMD)
(2) Current Status of States and Compacts for the Disposal of LLW (3) Alternative Disposal of LLW (4) Status of Mixed LLW Program The various topics were reviewed in the order shown on the Presentation Schedule (Attachment A), except for changes indicated thereon. A copy of the Federal Register Notice announcing this meeting is attached (Attachment B).
ACRS Action Recuired:
As a product of this Subcomittee meeting, a draft report on the Radioactive Waste Management Research Program was prepared for ft.ll ACRS consideration during its 329th meeting, September 10-12, 1987. The research programs which were addressed in this draft report are:
(1) The University of Arizona's research on borehole and shaft seals.
(2) The BNL programs on the solidification of decontamination wastes (resins)
(3) THe INEL programs also on the solidific' tion of decontamination wastes (resins) l Attendees 1 August 17 August 18 August 19 ACRS Members:
5 4
4 l
Minutos/ Waste Managerrent 3
August 17-19, 1987 D. W. Moeller x
x x
C. Mark x
x x
F. Remick x
P. Shewmon x
x x
M. Steindler x
x x
ACRS Consultants:
4 4
3 K. Krauskopf x
x x
D. Orth x
x x
F. Parker x
x M. Trifunac x
x x
ACRS Staff / Fellows:
2 2
2
- 0. Merrill x
.x x
J. Parry x
x x
NRC Staff & Presenters 6
17 7
Others (including 9
7 6
NRC Contractors Totals 26 34 22 August 17 (Non-ACRS)
August 18 (Non-ACRS)
NRC Staff - 6 NRC Staff - 17 RES - 5 NMSS/HLWM - 16 F. Costanzi J. Linehan W. Ott W. Walker R. Grill J. Youngblood 1
J. Philip R. Ballard P. Reed R. Browning K. McConnell NMSS - 1 C. Abrams J. Kennedy K. McConnell J. Bradbury P. Bembia Presenters - 5 K. Stabelein R. Johnson J. Adams, BNL T. Verma R. Kempf, BNL J. Pohle P. Soo, BNL F. Ross C. Mcisaac, INEL S. Coplan J. Mandler, INEL F. Ross S. Coplan Others - 4 RES --I P. Reed
l Minutes / Waste Management 4
August 17-19, 1987 Others - 7 August 19 - (Non-ACRS)
NRC Staff - 7 NMSS/LLWM - 5 J. Greeves J. Surmeier P. Lohaus M. Tokar M. Dunkelman RES - 1 R. Kornasiewicz GPA - 1 S. Droggitis Others - 6 Attachment C consists of the Attendance Sheets for the 3 meeting days. A list of documents provided during the meeting is also attached (Attachment D).
I.
Introductory Remarks -- D. Moeller Dr. Moeller stated that the purpose of this meeting was to review several topics in the high-level waste and low-level waste programs, and the associ-ated research, including program plans for FY 1988 through FY 1991.
He discussed the Comissioners' request for increasing the role and functions of the Waste Management Subcommittee (WMSC) in order to meet the ever-increasing need for providing them with advice on both the LLW and the HLW programs.
He made reference to his memorandum to Owen Merrill, ACRS Senior Staff Engineer (Document No. 1) wherein he noted a range of documents and other i
items that the ACRS WMSC may want to review and draft coments on. Two of the most important of these items are the Issues Heirachy and Issue-Resolution Strategy, described in the DOE Mission Plan Amendment as being developed for the civilian HLW repository program. Other topics he mentioned
Minutes / Waste Management 5
l August 17-19, 1987
\\
l l
were a DOE Transportation Business Plan, a DOE Transportation Institutional l
Plan, dry storage, the Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility, spent l
fuel shipping casks, and the use of coprar-based waste package containers for a HLW repository.
Dr. Paul Shewmon commented that the Swedes are doing very well with copper waste packaging.
Dr. Moeller then expressed his observations on several other topics, a)
The quality and technical substance of reports, and abstracts of re-ports, provided for review in preparation for this meeting, b)
The apparent contradiction between some of these reports and information learred on the WMSC's recent field trip to Arizona and Nevada.
c)
The mixed low-level waste subject, particularly regarding those wastes which are below regulatory concern, and the proposed joint EPA /NRC regulations.
II. Office of Research (RES) Program Plans for HLW and LLW Research for FY88
- FY89) -- Dr. F. Costanzi (See Documents 2 and 3)
Dr. Costanzi gave an overview of RES' research program plans for both HLW and LLW, stressing the scope of the programs and what they consider as the safety issues that they will be addressino in FY1988 and FY1989.
He stated that both the HLW and LLW Programs are subdivided into three projects:
(1) Materials and Engineering (2) Hydrology and Geochemistry j
(3) Compliance Assessment and Modeling i
There is also one additional project under HLW, that of Technical Assistance, which encompasses Support of Rulemaking.
Minutes / Waste Management 6
August 17-19, 1987 1
He stated that the safety issues they are focusing on are waste package materials, failure mechanisms, bore hole and shaft seals, and source terms.
In response to a guestion by Dr. Shewmon as to what Dr. Costanzi meant by a "catastrophic failure" of the waste package, the latter replied that in the scale we are talking about failure over a decade or two would be considered catastrophic.
Dr. Steindler questioned Dr. Costanzi as to the difference between NRC's research program and DOE's in the area of bore hole and shaft seals.
After much discussion, Dr. Costanzi indicated that there are two principal distinctions:
(1) DOE has a much larger program to design and build seals that work, whereas NRC's program is much smaller and is directed toward ensuring that DOE is never close to a narrowly-limited boundary beyond which a seal would fail.
(2) NRC will do selective testing, whereas DOE will be testing the full range of materials and sizes of plugs and seals in order to design and construct seals that will be acceptable to NRC for the purpose of making an independent evaluation of DOE's proposed plugs and seals as part of the licensing process.
Dr. Steindler further asked:
(1) Why the NRC cannot accept DOE data without doing similar research, and (2) Why not say that NRC's research is designad to involve and train enough people to independently assess DOE's work?
Dr. Costanzi indicated that this would, in effect, require getting DOE to proceed down a different path than they are presently following.
Dr. Remick observed that the request for proposal (RFP) for the F.F.R.D.C.
discourages the publication of results, whereas the publication of results would provide a source of peer review - a desirable feature of publishing.
Dr. Remick commented on the QA issue, indicating that it should be adequate in both the DOE and NRC research programs in order to defend against adver-sarial challenges.
Dr. Steindler said that the NRC Staff said that the NRC
Minutes / Waste Management 7
August 17-19, 1987 does not have enough funds for an adequate QA program, and that DOE's QA program is NRC-driven.
Dr. Costanzi indicated that the two major aims of NRC research are:
1.
To maintain expertise, i.e., keep the NRC "smart."
2.
To assure that the DOE is doing the right research.
Dr. Costanzi indicated that seismo-tectonics research will begin perhaps in FY 1989, stating that D^E is already doing a lot of work in this area.
R. Browning said that DHLWM had reviewed and comented on NUREG-1245, Vol. I.
Radioactive Waste Management Research Program Plan for High-Level Waste --
1989. He saw no need for concurrence, and said that the NRC's on-site representatives may not have seen it.
Dr. Trifunac asked what percent of the research work is actually published and therefore peer-reviewed, which was answered that they did not know.
Dr. Moeller noted (i.e., made note of) the sumary of the problem areas in research:
1.
Setting of priorities for research 2.
Research goals 3.
QA for NRC research -- to say they lack funds for QA is not acceptable 4.
Peer review of NRC work l
5.
Adequate internal review of RES HLW research plan, and involvement of NRC's on-site representatives 6.
List (as an example) some of the questions the Subcomittee had regard-ing the University of Arizona's work 7.
The Subcomittee has met to discuss these items (6. above) with the NRC RES Staff and additional meetings are planned 8.
Are the University of Arizona's projects sole source or grants, and why?
9.
Projects were poorly planned 10.
Peer review -- when and how?
Minutes / Waste Management 8
August 17-19, 1987 Dr. Parker stated that, in the long run, the engineered barriers may be the most important safety feature; the NRC research should therefore concentrate on them vs. natural barriers.
Dr.Costanzi said, regarding compliance assessment and modeling, that they are taking advantage of the shaft drilling in Canada to validate the modeling program for hydrologic systems.
Regarding LLW research, Dr. Costanzi discussed material presented in the handout.
In answer to the question:
Since decontamination wastes have already been buried, why wasn't the research done earlier?, he stated that they are doing it now.
He added that later changes have occurred in sites due to biological activity. When asked what changes might take place with time, he said that they are looking at this at INEL now, which could lead to long-term performance predictors.
In answer to Dr. Parker's question as to how well do they need to character-ize the hydrology for the unsaturated zone, Dr. Costanzi answered that saturated data may be adequate -- that it makes little difference (10% to 50%).
Dr. Costanzi concluded with review of individual LLW research projects (Document 3).
III. Discussion of WMSC's Visit to University of Arizona and its Unsaturated Zone Field Test Site Near Superior, Arizona -- D. W. Moeller, WMSC Chairman (See Documents Numbers 4 and 4.1 through 4.9)
Dr. Moeller gave a sumary of the Subcomittee's visit to the University of Arizona at Tucson and the unsaturated zone test site near Superior, Arizona, referring primarily to '"s revised Sumary Report of this trip (Documents 4 and 4.1).
The other documents cited above contain details of the trip report. Of special importance are the ACRS consultants' letters (Document 4.2); it should be noted, however, that Dr. M. Trifunac's letter deals only with the Seismo-Tectonic aspects of the Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada.
Minutes / Waste Management 9
August 17-19, 1987 The highlights of this discussion follow.
First, Dr. F. Costanzi of RES responded to Dr. Moeller's written report by stating:
1.
The NRC Staff prepares research project summaries as an information source for specific audiences, a common approach.
2.
Regarding the NRC On-site Representatives not being familiar with the research work at the University of Arizona, he did not know if the representatives receive copies of RES reports.
3.
It is true that the borehole sealing research is exploratory, and is integrated with shaft sealing.
Within the current funding, related geochemistry research cannot be covered; it will be done at ORNL or at LBL.
4.
Laboratory work and field experiments at the University of Arizona are integrated.
Dr. Steindler asked two questions regarding peer review:
(1) Did the Univer-sity of Arizona project undergo peer review prior to the project starting?
He commented that they don't even know the pH of the groundwater versus that of the water being used in the tests.
(2) Are there peer reviews of the University of Arizona work? Where are their reports? There are no such reviews and there has been no review for the past 2f years, although every li years they have a review of their unsaturated work.
Dr. Parker stated that rainwater is "felt" at a depth of 5000 feet within 2 month after falling, and that its presence also changes certain factors.
Dr. Krauskopf questioned the purpose of some of the research projects at the University of Arizona, on the grounds that they seemed to be excellent science applied to narrowly defined artificial problems but had little apparent relevance to the real world. As an example, he cited Dr. Shlomo Neuman's study of ground water movement in fractured low-permeability rock, in which the mathematics was impressive but applications on a useful scale seemed questionable.
(In later correspondence, however, Dr. Neuman explained
Minutes / Waste Management 10 August 17-19, 1987 his method of handling data from his field experiments, and made it clear that for his work this criticism is probably not justified.)
The NRC Staff responded that they have a separate contract with.In Situ, Inc.
to evaluate the V of Arizona models, which is integrated with Dr. Neuman's work.
Dr. Parker said that regional hydrology is far more important than local hydrology. He said that the near-field is very difficult tc assess and recommended that RES/U of Arizona should put more emphasis on regional or far-field hydrology.
Dr. Orth indicated that industrial consultants could be helpful -- people doing high pressure underground injection and sealing boreholes and shafts.
Slides of the welded tuff field site (the Apache Leap Site) near Superior, Arizona, were shown and Dr. Moeller provided commentary on them.
IV.
Solidification of Decontamination Wastes The presentations under this heading were arranged and presented as outlined in the Presentation Schedule, viz.,
IV.1 Introduction IV.2 Objectives IV.3 Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) programs IV.4 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) programs, Part I - Studies of Waste Forms, Leaching and Effects of Chelating Agents Part II - Preliminary Results IV.1 Introduction -- W. Ott, RES (Document No. 5)
Dr. Ott indicated that the wastes to be discussed are Class C wastes from the decontamination of nuclear power plants. The investigation is complicated j
by:
Minutes / Waste Management 11 August 17-19, 1987 1.
The diversity of radionuclides present 2.
Chemical processes used to remove radionuclides 3.
Solidificationprocesses(concrete,bitumenandvinylester styrene -- VES)
As pertaining to user need, Dr. Ott stated, firstly, that a 1984 User Need Memorandum from NMSS to Research (RES) requested "... evaluations of waste forms and packages to ensure that waste form reviews can be perfonned to address the stability requirements of 10 CFR 61 and to assess (a) the source terms, and (b) the effects of chelating agents on migration of radionuclides.
Secondly, he said that NMSS currently has 22 topical reports under review with no final results.
Sufficient questions were raised that a Technical Assistant (TA) contract was placed with BNL to look at process control plans of 4 vendors, and the correlation of cure tines and conditions with per-formance.
And thirdly, he said that a draft Regulatory Guide on the stability of low-level waste forms will provide specific guidance and criteria which will be supported by the data from this research program.
Dr. Ott then described their research program, including the three projects that would be discussed today -- the solidification of decontamination wastes and the assessment of the performance of the solidified waste forms. The discussion of these three projects follows below-l Before proceeding with the report on the three projects, the following observations and coments were made by the Subcomittee.
Dr. Moeller made j
note of Dr. Ott's coments that:
1.
A new User Need Memorandum from NMSS to RES is soon to be sent.
2.
The research they are doing is to confirm the claims of the vendors regarding their solidification processes.
3.
Work being done at BNL is on simulated wastes; that being done at INEL is on real wastes.
l Minutes / Waste Management 12 August 17-19, 1987 4
The vendors for decontamiriation solutions are separate from those offering solidification processes, so all combinations must be evaluated.
IV.2 Objectives -- P. Reed, RES (Document No. 6) l P. Reed discussed:
1.
Decontamination processes -- Citrox, Con-Decon, Dow NS-1, LOMI 2.
Solidification methods - cement, bitumen and VES j
3.
Regtlatory concerns -- radionuclides, chelating agents, structural i
stability of solidified waste form i
4.
Uses of results -- A list of 12 uses is given in Document 6.
S.
Research objectives:
(a) Study waste forms generated during decontamination operations.
(b)
Determine leach parameters from solidified LLW for radio-nuclides and chelating agents.
(c) Study effects of chelating agents on leaching parameters and solidification.
(d) Perform studies on waste generated and solidified at nuclear power plants and under laboratory conditions.
6.
Introductory Overview of presentations to be made by BNL and INEL:
(a) Decontamination Impacts on Solidification and Waste Disposal (BNL - FIN No. A3246),
(b) Properties of Decontanination Wastes (BNL - FIN No. A3253).
(c) Characterization of Decontamination Wastes (INEL - FIN No.
A6359).
Observations and coments noted by Dr. Moeller, based upon Dr. Reed's presen-tation, that:
1.
The decontamination solution is cleaned up by using a resin; the water is returned to the reactor cooling system. This method is used in BWR cooling system and for the bottom portion of steam generator in a PWR, The resins are then solidified.
I
[
Minutes / Waste Management 13 August 17-19, 1987 j
2.
The RES staff does not get ta see the reports that contain details on the solidification process, because the processes are vendor propri-etary.
3.
The most popular of the four decontamination processes is the LOMI -- Low 0xidation Metallic Ion Exchange Process.
4.
Cement is the most widely used solidification agent in the U.S., whereas bitumen is used more commonly in Europe.
5.
The Subcommittee needs to know more about the biological uptake of radionuclides that have been chelated, which are believed to be less than for those that have not been chelated.
6.
Studies are showing that there are transuranics in the decontamination solution, 241Pu being one example.
Since resins are flamable, these wastes should probably be considered mixed wastes.
P. Reed reiterated some of the preceding introductory information with some variation. He discussed.
l 1.
Decontamination processes l
IV.3 BNL's Program: (a) Properties of Solidified Decontamination Wastes and (b) Decontamination Impacts on Solidification and Waste Disposal --
R. Kempf, BNL (Document No. 7)
Dr. Xempf described the tasks being performed under the two decontamination waste research programs at BNL, first giving a brief overview of the focus for each program and an outline for tasks in each program.
1.
Properties of Solidified Decontamination Wastes (FIN No. A-3253)
Program Focus:
Chemical characteristics of decontamination wastesandtheirbehavior("Properties"Program)
[
Minutes / Waste Management 14 August 17-19, 1937 Tasks: Completed Work Significant Results Continuing Efforts / Future Work 2.
Decontamination Impacts on Solidification and Waste Disposal (FIN No. A-3246)
Program Focus:
Physical and bulk mechanical performance of decon-tamination waste forms and in-plant processing of wastes ("Impacts" Program)
Tasks: Completed Work Significant Results Continuing Efforts / Future Work The most important observations and comments made by the Subcomittee follow:
1.
Ine wastes being studied are synthetic, solidified in the laboratory.
2.
Slides were shown of solidified waste samples after they were imersed in demineralized water for various periods of time. The results of these data are to be used by NMSS to decide whether to approve the given
]
waste solidification process.
Because the samples are synthetic they are not representative of actual samples.
j 3.
Dr. Steindler said that the resins may (via ion exchange) affect the behavior of the cement. Since, in these tests, the resins were not "loaded" the tests may not be valid.
4.
Dr. Parker said that the European performance of bitumen as a solidifi-cation agent is good, and that the regulatory pressure there is equal to that in the U.S.
~
5.
BNL is also testing the effects of solidified wastes on various contain-er materials, including high-density polyethylene plastic.
Minutes / Waste Management 15 August 17-19, 1987 IV.4 Characterization of Low-Level Radioactive Decontamination Waste, Part I, Studies of Waste Foms, Leaching and Effects of Chelating -
J. W. Mandler, INEL (Document No. 8)
Part II, Preliminary Results - C. V. McIsaac, INEL (Document No.
9)
Part I: Studies of 'Jaste Forms, Leaching and Effects of Chelating Agents Mr. Mandler presented the Obiectives of Current Studies, which are to:
1.
Study waste foms generated during decontamination operations.
2.
Measure leach parameters for selected nuclides.
3.
Study effect of chelating agents on leach parameters.
4.
Use ANS 16.1 leaching method.
He then discussed: (1) the four decontamination processes and methods in use today, (2) resin waste solidification, (3) sample collection, (4) problems observed during the solidification process, and (5) sample integrity.
The problems observed during the solidification process are:
1.
Boric acid wastes - Entire batch of drums did not set up.
2.
Sulfate wastes -- One of three samples crumbled during shipment.
3.
Process A (all processes were unidentified as they are vendor proprietary)
(a)
First attempt at sampling was unsuccessful.
(b) Mixture set up too soon.
4.
Process B (a)
First liner was very liquidy.
5.
Process C (a)Mixturesetuptoosoon.
(b)"samplewascollectedbyspoonful."
Minutes / Waste Management 16 August 17-19, 1987 After showing several viewgraphs illustrating the above problems, Mr. Mandler discussed Sample Degradation of:
(1) Sulfate wastes, (2) Process A -- Plant 1 (plants are also unidentified),
(3) Process 8 -- Plant 2, (4) Process C -- Plant 5, and (5) Process D -- Plant 4.
Citing the results from two tests: (1) the deterioration of a cation resin sample from Process B, and (2) deterioration of a sample from Process B, Mr.
Mandler said that in both cases the samples were intact, looked sound, and were well-cured prior to leaching.
During leaching tests, the first sample completely decomposed to a pile of loose debris in 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />; the second sample reached the same condition in 60 minutes.
Observations and comments by the Subccrrrnittee:
1.
Chem Nuclear is the only vendor currently doing solidification at nuclear power plants. Although the process they use has not been licensed, its use has been "grandfathered."
2.
Mixing time is 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
Sometimes the cement begins to set before every component has been added.
3.
INEL worked with small (5 cm diameter x 10 cm long) samples whereas a liner (mixing container) will typically hold 150 to 200 cu ft of resin.
The small samples had contact exposure rates of approximately 1 R/hr.
4.
The mixing is done by hand and is not an exact science, which may lead to good or bad mixes.
Part II:
Preliminary Results Mr. Isaac's presentation covered leaching studies for various radionuclide concentrationsinwasteresinsamples,withgaschromatography(GC) analysis of chelated samples. The leaching study objectives are:
Minutes / Waste Management 17 August 17-19, 1987 1.
Collect low-level decontamination waste fonn samples from several-operating nuclear power plants.
2.
Measure leachability indexes of 10 CFR Part 61 radionuclides.
3.
Measure leachability of chelating agents.
4.
Determine if chelating agents affect mobility of radionuclides.
The work remaining to be done on this program include:
1.
Finish calibrating GC for picolinic acid.
2.
Cumplete GC analysis of remaining leachate samples.
55Fe, 63Ni, 3.
Complete analysis of selected leachate samples for 90 241 Sr, and Pu.
4 Corrplete analysis of cation ion-exchange membranes to determine 60 fraction of Co in leachate that is complexed.
Observations and comments by Subcomittee:
1.
They have few answers as to why the radionuclides behave the way they do.
2.
Are they using these data to develop a program to obtain answers to the questions needing to be addressed?
3.
Work is being continued without developing a research plan to gain answers to the key questions. Their listing of work to be done did not include the development of such a plan.
4.
Are they using the right tests? Of what value is the leachability index?
5.
The speaker referred to the data's reproducibility (precision) when asked regarding its accuracy, but did not comment on its accuracy.
Minutes / Waste Management 18 August 17-19, 1987 4
6.
The leach rates vary by a factor of 10 and there is no obvious explana-tion of why.
7.
The INEL program is funded at $130,000 per yeer.
W. Ott of the NRC Staff explained that their work was designed to show that the solidified resins were acceptable. The work shows that the leach rate test is not a good measure of the acceptability of a waste.
8.
Where are we? We have LLW "solidified" and buried that is not accept-able. The solidification process may need better QA and research personnel may need to look at other waters as leachants. The waste that crumbled the most, leached the least.
9.
We need to understand the licensing of solidification processes when now we see they do not work.
Fortunately, all such wastes are going to a dry site -- Hanford.
V.
Overview of HLW Ouarterly Progress Report to the Commission -- W.
Walker, DHLWM (Documents Nos. 10 and 10.1)
Preceding Mr. Walker's presentation and discussion, Dr. Moeller referred to the DOE Mission Plan Amendment, pointing out three areas which he felt were very important.
1.
Need for better QA 2.
Issues heirarchy 3.
Performance allocation (which Dr. Parry said he wants more detail on, stating that NRC insists on it, but cannot explain how to do it).
After a brief discussion about the above between Dr. Moeller and Mr. J.
Linehan, DHLWM, the latter introduced Mr. W. Walker to make the presentation on the HLW Quarterly Progress Reporting Program.
Mr. Walker said that the Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) on the Pre-licensing PhaseofDOE'sCivilianHigh-LevelRadioactiveWasteManagementProgram(SECY
Minutes / Waste Management 19 August 17-19, 1987 87-137, dated June 8,1987) was the first of an ongoing series of QPRs to be provided in response to the Comission's request as referenced in the Chair-man's April 7, 1987 letter to DOE.
He stated that the purpose and rationale for the QPRs is to provide timely information concerning DOE /NRC activities that are critical to the success of the NWPA prograu.
He then gave an overview of the contents of the QPRs in general, and discussed specifically the contents of the first QPR.
He identified six activities listed in the DOE Draft Mission Plan Amendment which the DOE committed to help implement the licensing process and which are listed and discussed in the referenced SECY paper.
Mr. Walker also discussed the Major Issues and Resnlution Approach for each of the 3 nominated sites, which also appears in the referenced SECY Paper.
The Subcommittee commented on and noted the following:
1.
Regarding the Licensing Support System (LSS), H. S. Schofer of the ACRS Staff will be the point of contact.
Regarding whether foreign litera-ture would be put into the LSS, it will not be for the present, but NRC is setting up an international meeting of HLW repository regulators at which this subject will be discussed.
2.
Regarding the program for licensing topical reports, this can be done informally prior to DOE actually becoming a licensee.
3.
Regarding "Adoption of Conservatism," NRC must clearly define what it means by this term, and DOE must show that there is sufficient conserva-tism within their design for NRC to license the repository.
4.
Regarding the QPP, ' 1 issues were discussed:
(a) Rulemaking on Lds -- to assure input into the system (b) QA program must be in place when the SCP is issued.
Minutes / Waste Management 20 August 17-19, 1987 5.
Regarding the provision of funds by DOE to the States -- why not on a matching fund basis?
6.
Request that ACRS receive the monthly onsite NRC representative reports from the Nevada, Hanford, and Deaf Smith County sites.
VI. QA Audit of Las Alamos National Laboratory Mineralogy / Petrology Program for Yucca Mountain -- J. Kennedy, DHLWM (Document No. 11)
J. Kennedy discussed the development of QA programs for the site charac-terization phase of the HLW repository program.
In particular, he discussed the NRC Staff QA audit of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) mineralo-gy/ petrology program for Yucca Mountain.
This was the first audit conducted under this program -- DOE had identified this LANL program as being ready for the NRC audit in December, 1986.
After discussing LANL's involvement in the repository program, Mr. Kennedy said that the objectives of the audit were to:
)
1.
Independently evaluate an area DOE believed to be qualified by assessing both (a) the implementation of the QA program at LANL and (b) the ability of LANL to perform quality technical work.
2.
Provide DOE a benchmark for NRC Staff expectations.
3.
Build a foundation for future NRC Audits j
Mr. Kennedy then described the detail, technical portion, major findings and conclusions of the audit. As a follow-up action, he said the following i
actions would ensue:
1.
Audit report -- August 1987 2.
Interactions with DOE to resolve issues 3.
Internal LANL/00E follow-up needed to bring in persons experienced in the licensing process 4.
Additional audits, e.g., BWIP 5.
Lessonslearned(internal)
Minutes / Waste Management 21 August 17-19, 1987 Dr. Moeller made the following observations:
1.
10 CFR Parts 2 and 60 are the bases for the NRCs QA (and QA audit) program 2.
He asked the rhetorical questions:
(a) Does a QA program assure quality?
(b) How far should NRC go in its reviews of QA and requirements?
3.
The LANL QA audit was a trial audit to lay the groundwork for the developing QA audit program.
4.
Regarding the qualification of the NRC auditors, they were:
(a) experienced in laboratory equipment (b) technically qualified (c) qualified in QA 5.
The major conclusions of this LANL audit were:
(a) The QA program is not fully in place at LANL (b) DOE people at LANL are not always following their own DOE QA plan (c) The DOE QA program does not meet NRC's requirements j
(d) LANL's needs regarding personnel:
(1)jobdescriptions and (2) a CV on each worker.
Dr. Steindler commented that the performance analysis of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) standard is better than the CVs of the laboratory staff.
He also asked if the running of standard samples with good results could be all that is required for good 0A.
J. Kennedy answered that such an approach cannot be used since the analyses being done are not standard or routine.
Dr. Moeller further asked and noted:
Minutes / Waste Management 22 August 17-19, 1987 1.
What about certification of laboratories as a means for QA7 2.
Where does the USGS come in? Will they be audited by the NRC?
3.
Be innovative regarding analytical laboratories.
Look at replica-tion and peer review.
4.
Follow-up, interact with DOE to correct the problems.
NRC polled the people involved to get feedback on the audit.
5.
A state-of-the-art analysis requires a different approach.
Since NBS, USGS and EPA cannot help, the NRC Staff should utilize peer review and the use of advice from (and the involvement of) the scientific community.
VII. Preparation of the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) Review Plan --
R. Johnson and K. Stablein, DHLWM (Documents Nos.12 and 13)
R. Johnson presented a briefing on the process, preparation and content of the NRC Review Plan for DOE's Site Characterization Plan (SCP) for each of the nominated sites.
The plan was originally developed in 1983, and is now being revised.
K. Stablein discussed the objectives, scope and approach to the SCP Review.
Their goal is to have an internal draft of the total review plan by the end of August, and the final plan by the end of September.
They discussed the three-fold purpose of the SCP Review, which is to:
(1) determine whether the SCP contains the information required by 10 CFR Part 60 and other relevant documents, (2) identify the extent to which DOE's program, as presented in the SCP, SCP references and selected study plans for conducting activi-ties during the site characterization phase, will enable them to obtain the information needed to support a license application for a geologic repository, and
Minutes / Waste Management 23 August 17-19, 1987 (3) assess whether the DOE program, as presented in the SCP, SCP references, and selected study plans, will have significant adverse effects on the waste isolation capabilities of the site.
Dr. Stablein went on to discuss the Scope (range of actions to accomplish the purpose) and the Approach to the SCP Review (including acceptance review and site characterization analysis).
He stated that:
1.
The SCP will be updated semiannually, which NRC will review and l
comment on.
)
2.
The guidance for preparing the SCP is given in 10 CFR Part 60.17, R.G. 4.17 (revision of 3/87) and DOE's Annotated Outline.
3.
The review plan includes a technical review and an administrative review in order for NRC to determine if the plan is both technical-ly and administratively adequate for guiding their review.
Dr. Mark raised the rhetorical cuestions regarding the potential flooding of geologic repository sites:
1.
Can runoff water be a problem?
2.
Will perched water be a problem?
3.
How can the technical community predict future flooding conditions?
He answered the above, particularly the last question, by stating that the j
best data are those from the past.
Dr. Moeller noted that:
1.
The large size of the SCP means that NRC cannot review the entire SCP in detail, but must be selective.
Minutes / Waste Management 24 August 17-19, 1987 2.
The first SCP, for Yucca Mountain, is to be issued by DOE on September 28, 1987. The NRC Staff has seen this SCP in DOE's Public Reading Room.
3.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Waste Management will probably have no direct role in the review of the SCPs, other than reviewing the NRC comments (Site Characterization Analysis - SCA) on it and providing input on the SCA to the Comissioners.
The SCA will be given to the Commissioners in draft form one month prior to the March 1, 1988 deadline for the SCA to be provided to DOE.
Vill. Discussion of WMSC's Visit to DOE's Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations (NNWSI) Project Office and G-Tunnel, Climax, Drill Yard and Yucca Mountain at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) -- D. W.
Moeller, WMSC Chainnan (Documents Nos. 4,4.1, 4.2, 4.10 through 4.14, and 16)
Dr. Moeller led this discussion, referring primarily to his revised Sumary Report of this trip (Documents 4 and 4.1).
The other documents cited above contain the details of the trip report.
As mentioned earlier in these minutes (page 8), of special importance are the ACRS consultants' letters (Document 4.2) which report their coments on the trip, and that Dr.
Trifunac's report resulted from his investigation of the Seismo-Tectonic aspects of the Yucca Mountain Site prior to this trip, and was reinforced by his making this trip.
The highlights of this discussion follow:
1.
Dr. D. Moeller noted that travel time of radionuclides in an unsaturated iredium is the main issue, not the movement of water as a measure of travel time.
2.
Dr. C. Mark remarked that:
(a) Carl Johnson's (State of Nevada) concern about underground nuclear testing is unfounded.
l Minutes / Waste Managment 25 August 17-19, 1987 l
(b) DOE should take the public on tours of what we saw.
l (c) Volcanism may be of concern.
3.
Dr. M. Trifunac commented as follows:
(a) Because the underground water table north and northwest of the site was shown to be 300 to 400 feet higher than it is under the site (which he did not understand why), the potential effects of nuclear weapons tests on the water table need further investigation.
(b) The effects of nuclear tests on faults and water movement could be important, since explosions could hasten the release of stresses or strains in nearby faults.
(c) He asked the following rhetorical questions:
i
- 1) What is the rate of emplacement of the waste and its total volume?
- 2) The geometry of the opening (if expanded) should be ex-plored.
Can you expand in all directions or only one?
(d) Volcanism calculations are suspect. What has been done needs to be checked. And how can you make estimates of the popu-lation doses that might result from a volcanic event?
Dr. K. Krauskopf stated.
(a) Of the presentations on the NNWSI, the one on geochemistry seemed j
the least satisfactory.
In particular, retardation factors were presented with no discussion of their necessary qualifications and with only a sketchy description of the experiments from which they had been determined.
i (b) The concern about volcanism seemed exaggerated. An eruption directly beneath a repository or in its innediate vicinity could have disastrous consequences, of course, but an eruption at any distance would only cover the ground surface with lava and/or ash
i Minutes / Waste Management 26 August 17-19, 1987 a
and would serve to protect rather than disturb the repository.
The eruptive center nearest to the repository site, active possibly as recently as 8000 years ago, is several kilometers away.
(c) G-tunnel provides an opportunity for experimental work in a tuff bed very similar to the Topopah Springs unit at Yucca Mountain, except that the amount of fracturing and the amount of ground water are probably greater.
R. Zininerman is conducting some excellent experiments in the tunnel. The movement of water in response to heating has been investigated by putting electric heaters into holes drilled into the walls of the tunnel, but the results are somewhat questionable because the tunnel is well ventilated and thus different from the environment in a sealed repository. A larger-scale experiment to simulate repository conditions more closely could be mounted by sealing off a portion of G-tunnel or a branch tunnel, and such an experiment would seem well worthwhile.
(d) Movement of water in the unsaturated zone remains unclear, despite considerable research on the subject.
Water from a light rainfall scaks into the ground to shallow levels, then returns to the surface by capillarity and evaporates.
Most of the water from a heavy rain follows the same pattern, but probably a little sinks to deeper levels. How fast it moves downward, whether it is influ-enced by fractures, and how much eventually reaches the water table, are the great unknowns. The USGS team working at the top of Yucca Mountain is trying to get answers. Heavy rains in 1984 gave an opportunity to follow the downward movemen' (by neutron logging in drillholes), and in three years a little W aoparently moved a meter or sc. This is important woi:
Gd be con-tinued.
(e) Earthquakes ere a definite hazard at the Yucca ' v 'm
- site, particularly during the period of constructing anf
.iing the repository.
Once the filling is compete and the repository has been sealed, the chance of earthquake damage is remote; long experience has shown that well-built underground structures are
Minutes / Waste Management 27 August 17-19, 1987 little affected by seismic shaking.
Conceivably, displacement could occur on a fault intersecting the repository, providing a temporary conduit for a little ground water, but this seems most unlikely.
In the historic record of Southern Nevada, earthquakes are infrequent and of no more than moderate intensity, so that even during the construction period the chance of serious damage seems very slight.
5.
Dr. Keith McConnell of DHLWM presented slides on the NTS visit showing 5200-foot high Yucca Mountain (including views of tuff outcroppings, surface evidence of fault lines, extinct volcano craters, etc., as viewed from on top of the mountain), the exploratory trenches, and the location of the two exploratory shafts, (which will be on the eastern side of the mountain, above the repository).
l IX. Overview of Court Decision on EPA Standard for HLW Geologic i
Repository -- C. Cameron (0GC) (No documents provided)
The principal points brought out by Mr. Cameron, as noted by Dr. Moeller, follow. Since there was no handout provided the transcript should be read if more detail is desired.
1.
The suit was filed in December 1985 (following the issuance of the EPA Standard in November 1985), between the States of Maine et.al.
vs. EPA on two items:
(a) Groundwater protection requirements (b)
Individual protection requirements The Court action was to vacate the entire EPA Standard.
2.
The EPA Standard:
(a)
Sets radiation standards for waste management (b)(1) Specifies a general containment requirement for 10,000 years.
(2)
Provides assurance requirements -- supplements (b)(1)
~ Minutes / Waste Management 28 August 17-19, 1987 (3) Specifies individual protection requirement for first 1000 years (4) Places limits on radionuclide concentration in
]
groundwater 3.
Regarding the above, the court upheld (b)(1), plus reasonable expectation of compliance (it need not be absolute compliance),
like "reasnnable assurance" in 10 CFR Part 60.
4.
TheCourtalsoupheld(b)(2)andtheALARAconcept(whichwas deleted from the final standard after being in the draft standard, which the court said was acceptable since multiple barriers take care of this).
j 5.
The Court denied (b)(3) and (b)(4); (b)(3) was denied since the safe drinking water act applies, i.e., 4 mrem /yr, whereas in the EPA HLW Standard the limit was 25 mrem /yr.
EPA did not explain the deviation, but they must provide a rationale and resolve this discrepancy.
6.
(b)(4) was denied since it applies only to the first 1000 years after waste emplacement, which EPA did not explain; the States sug-gested 10,000 years.
EPA must extend the time to 10,000 years and provide a rationale for doing so.
j 7.
Groundwater limits and individual protection standards were added to the Court's denial in response to public coments.
8.
NRC will have to reassess the situation. The Court's decision should not invalidate the si.'.e selection process by DOE, and need j
not delay the HLW repository program.
9.
The question as to why the Court vacated the entire standard is not resolved. The resolution of this Court action may require a long time; there's no way to guess the schedule.
Minutes / Waste Manag:mant 29 e'
August 17-19, 1987 X.
Report of Recent NRC Staff / Contractor Meeting on Pre-Emplacement Groundwater Travel Time -- F. Ross, DHLWM (Document No. 14)
Mr. Ross summarized a recent NRC Staff / Contractor meeting on groundwater travel time. The meeting was held to discuss the development of a guidance document, i.e., a proposed regulatory position which will reflect the latest NRC Staff's thinking, comments of DOE, States and Indian Tribes, and the NRC Staff's position on uncertainty. Such a document will invite public partici-pation in the deve h pment of final guioance and, when issued, provide formal guidance to DOE.
The current status of the documents follows:
1.
Hydrology Section Staff Review was completed 8/17/87 2.
Division Level Review is in progress 3.
Transmit to P.ES for Review (no date giten) 4.
Issue Regulatory Position for public coment (within a few months)
Dr. Moeller observed that they want dats primarily on water travel time, since this is a conservative measure of the safety of the site and was established originally as one of the basic site characteristics.
If this rate is too high, then the movement rate of the radionuclides must be de-termined, which fs more difficult to do, albeit it is only this rate that is meaningful.
Dr. Moeller also observed that the draft report provides a framework for resolving the questions regarding groundwater travel time, on which the NRC is currently working.
XI. DHLWM Program Plans for FY 1988 and FY 1989 -- J. Linehan, DHLWM (DocumentNo.15)
J. Linehan discussed the NRC HLW disposal programs for FY 1988 through FY 1989 as presented in the above named document. He stated that they have 96 people in their HLW Division and about $6 million for technical assistance contracts, which is about what the State of Nevada or.a "good, solid Indian
Minutes / Waste Management 30 August 17-19, 1987 Tribe" gets.
He also said that they anticipate receiving from DOE 1 Site Characterization Plan (SCP) per year for the next few years, and that the FFRDC contract will be awarded at the beginning of FY 1988.
Regarding early closure of issues via Rulemaking, Dr. Linehan cited 2 exam-pies of where Rulemaking will be used:
1.
Methodology for dealing with portions of the EPA Standards 2.
Methodolegy for predicting groundwater travel time DOE agrees and a mutual plan is being developed.
Dr. Moeller encouraged them to select an example and move ahead on this approach.
Three GTPs on QA have been issued; the so-called Q-List GTP is to be issued soon without ACRS comment. The Subcomittee expressed disappointment at not having the opportunity to comment on it.
XII. _0verview of Proaram Plans for the DLLWMD -- J. Greeves and J.
Surmeier, DLLWMD (Documents Nos. 17, 18 and 19)
Dr. Greeves provided an up-to-date organization chart for the relatively new Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning (DLLWMD). This Division consists of three branches -- Operations, Technical and Regulatory.
He intioduced those of his staff who were present, principally John Sunneier, Chief of the Technical Branch, Paul Lohaus, Chief of the Operations Branch, and Dr. Michael Tokar and Maxine Dunkelman of the DLLWMD Staff.
J. Surmeier then gave an overview of the LLW Division's Program Plans.
Some interesting statistics about the Division are:
j 1.
They have a $2 million/ year beget for Technical Assistance Pro-grams.
2.
There are 45 people in the Division.
3.
They conduct the inspection program fonnerly conducted by I and E.
4.
50% of their time is devoted to license reviews (for LLW).
j
Minutes / Waste Management 31 August 17-19, 1987 He said that their programs cover the following areas:
1.
Low-Level Waste (LLW) 2.
Uranium Recovery 3.
Financial Assurance 4.
Decomissioning He reviewed and discussed each of these areas in more detail.
Some of the highlights of his presentation and ensuing discussion with the WMSC follow:
1 1.
Because there is no requirement for NRC to maintain an inve'1 tory on the amount of weste that can go into a given LLW site (in spite of the fact that there are inventory limits for a single burial site on certain radionuclides - 1297, 99Tc, I4C, and H, all of which are relatively 3
mobile), NRC is obtaining copies of the manifests from the site opera-tors, and may ask for Rulemaking changes in this regard; also regarding the QA of the data, i
2.
In the area of Performance Assessment, they are looking at existing sites, using site specific data, coupled with compnter codes to check technical requirements, e.g., groundwater travel time.
Some models are for wet sites, some for dry, using both RES and TAs; in all cases the geochemistry of a site is critical.
4 3.
Regarding guidance on Mixed Wastes, they do not endorse EPA's approach on toxic chemical wastes, even though Congress says EPA has the respon-sibility.
J. Surmeier said that both EPA and NRC staffs are aware of the problem and are addressing it.
4.
Under their Low-Level Inspection Program, they provide guidance to inspectors. Also, NRC inspectors have access via SNM portion of li-censes at Hanford and Barnwell. They also provide assistance to the States.
Minutes / Waste Management 32 August 17-19, 1937 a
5.
In the area of Uranium Recovery, he said that the Denver office is doing some of this work, and that DOE is helping and directing the Remedial Action Program (in which NRC must concur).
6.
The DLLWMD Financial Assurance program is for accidents, decomission-ing, etc., and is based on risk analysis. Some licensees could have events that could be very costly to clean up.
Economists, attorneys, PRA people, etc., are working on this program.
7.
Decomnissioning activity is just getting started; nuclear power plants are being covered by NRR.
NMLSS handles about 9000 licensees.
Dr.
Moeller commented that NCRP Report No. 91 defines 1 mrem /yr as "de minimis" and R.G. 1.86 specifies radionuclide amounts that are accept-able for release.
He also said:
(1) that the Waste Management Subcomittee will handle the full range of decommissioning activities, both those of NRR and NMSS, (2) that, since rubber gloves and resins will burn, almost any radwaste would be a mixed waste.
XIII. Current Status of States and Compacts for the Disposal of LLW --
S. Droggitis, OGPA, and P. Lohaus, DLLWMD (Documents Nos. 20 and 20.1)
The current status of States and Regional LLW Compacts (2 or more states) regarding the selection of LLW disposal sites was discussed, principally by S. Droggitis.
In response to a question asked by Dr. Moeller, Mr. Droggitis said that states are currently paying a penalty for sending wastes to the 3 existing LLW sites, at the following rate.
$10/cu.ft. in 1986 and 1987
$20/cu.ft. in 1988 and 1989 340/cu.ft, in 1990, 1991, and 1992 Since a barrel holds approximately 7.5 cu.ft., the cost of the penalty in 1988 will be approximately $150 per barrel.
Minutes / Waste Management 33 August 17-19, 1987 Mr. Droggitis first reviewed the background for this subject by discussing the requirements of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, and the Generic Flan for the Development of a new Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (showing Congressionally-mandated milestones) from 1986 through 1996.
He then discussed the status of the various compacts as described in the above-cited documents as of August, 1987. The second of these documents, No.
20.1, was not available at the meeting but was provided shortly thereafter and is included with these minutes as a sunnary of cthe current status of the programs as described by Mr. Droggitis.
Some points made by Mr. Droggitis follow:
1.
The current plan calls for Barnwell to shut down in 1992 even though it will not be full -- they just don't want to accept any more waste.
North Carolina was to take over then, but North Carolina has outlowed shallow land burial -- says the disposal facility must be an engineered, earth-covered facility.
2.
Within the U.S., sixteen sites are currently being considered for LLW disposal by individual states and compacts.
3.
Some entrepreneuring states, such as California, see this program j
as a financial bonanza for their state.
XIV. Alternative Methods of Disposal of LLW -- M. Tokar, DLLWMD (Document No. 21)
Dr. Tokar said they are using the following definition of alternatives:
"Alternative methods of disposal of LLW are those that would utilize engi-neered barriers or structures, or which would otherwise be a significant departure from traditional shallow-land burial." He identified 5 major options, which are discussed and summarized in NUREG-1241:
l Minutes / Waste Management 34 August 17-19, 1987 1
1.
above ground vaults 2.
below ground vaults j
3.
earthmounded concrete bunkers 4.
shaft disposal 5.
mined cavities He stated that, as required by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amend-ments Act, NRC is to identify LLW disposal alternatives, and to set up the process for the submission of applications and the granting of licenses, NRC has decided to focus on below ground vaults and earth-mounded concrete bunkers; this decision will promote standardized designs.
Regarding the proposed use of Portland cement, Dr. Tokar indicated that it is relatively new, being patented in 1824.
He said that the Roman cements had to be kept danp for some time.
Further, he stated that concrete should be set to avoid freeze-thaw cycles, which can degrade the concrete, and that reinforced steel should be epoxy coated to prevent its chemical interaction with the concrete.
Dr. Moeller noted that 10 CFR 61 requires that disposal facilities should be designed to prevent contact of the waste with water, and that soil over a bunker provides a barrier to radionuclide migration.
Dr. Steindler asked, if a State requires retrievability, will NRC check to be sure this requirement does not increase the dosage to the workers and to the public? Dr. Tokar said it would probably not, that NRC checks only relative to the requirements in 10 CFR 60.
Dr. Tokar said that "recovery", which must be reviewed during licensing, is the terin used for the retrieval of a leaking barrel during operation of a LLW facility.
I Dr. Orth asked, regarding general design criteria, why relate to requirements for dams, high-rise buildings or nuclear power plants since the risk is so low. Dr. Tokar answered that intruder protection can be 5 meters of dirt or a concrete barrier.
Minutes / Waste Management 35
,o August 17-19, 1987 Dr. Greeves was asked by Dr. Moeller where NMSS stands on Topical Reports on the topic of solidified wastes, indicating that the Subcomittee had re-viewed this topic with RES two days previous.
Dr. Greeves mentioned the requirement of stability in 10 CFR 61, and said that d Branch Technical Position (BTP) regarding the stability of Classes B and C solidified wastes had been issued in May, 1983.
Dr. Greeves further explained that the NRC had approved 2 high-integrity containers -- concrete and a stainless steel mix. Several vendors came in for the solidification process using (a) cement, (b) polyethylene and (c) bitumen, all of which gave then problems if the ratio of solidification material to waste was too low -- particularly for. cement and bitunen. He said that the NRC has informed the LLW facility operators of these problems, reducing the amount of waste per unit of cement, and asking the vendors to reassess their processes.
With reference to the discussion of the solidification of decontamination wastes (IV above), Dr. Moeller raised the following questions.
1.
Since BNL experiments have been reacted to by NRC, and their results provided to all vendors, does this mean that NRC is accept-ing the BNL data, and has the NRC redefined the BNL program?
2.
What is the justification for the regulatory action taken by the NRC?
Dr. Greeves stated that the NRC had not reviewed or approved the solidi-fication processes being used by the 3 LLW disposal operators, but said that the processes were "grandfathered" (as was previously stated on page 16).
XV. Status of Mixed LLW Program -- J. Greeves, DLLWMD (Documents Nos.
22and23)
Dr. Greeves discussed the Dual Jurisdictional approach for guidance on and regulation of low-level mixed waste. Since EPA has regulations regarding hazardous (non-radioactive) waste and hRC has regulations for low-level
Minutes / Waste Management 36 o
Augus? 17-19, 1987 radioactive waste, these two agencies have been working together to arrive at an acceptable way to implement Dual Jurisdiction.
They have agreed on the following to date:
1.
Definition -- January 8, 1987
)
2.
Siting Guidelines -- March 13, 1987 3.
Design Concept for a Mixed Waste Disposal Facility -- August 3, 1987 He stressed that the NRC goals are to protect:
(a) the public (b) inadvertent intruders and workers, and (c) to provide long-term stability.
The EPA goals are to prevent migration during active life, and to provide:
(a) Two or more liners (b) A leachate detection and removal system (c) 30-year post-closure care period, after which the leachate pipes would be removed (d) long-term stability and minimization of release Thus the NRC/ EPA Mixed LLW Design Concept is designed to meet both the NRC and the EPA goals.
Dr. Greeves showed viewgraphs of toxic chemical waste disposal facilities, regarding which Dr. Moeller noted that they did not give confidence of good operation.
l NOTE:
A transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D. C. or can be purchased from Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
20005, Telephone: (202)628-4888. All documents listed in Attach-ment D are available in the ACRS files.
I l
l o
PRESENTATION SCHEDULE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
AUGUST 17-19, 1987 Monday, August 17.- RES 8:30 - 8:45 a.m.
Introductory D. Moeller, Remarks Chainnan 8:45 - 10:00 a.m.
Program Plans (FYf.B-92)
F. Costanzi and R.
~
10:00 - 10:15 a.m.
BREAK 10:15 - 12:00 N00N Discussion of Sebcomittees's D. Moeller, Visit to U. of Arizona F. Costanzi J. Philip 12:00 - 1:00 p.n.
LUNCH 1:00 - 1:10 p.m.
Introductory Remarks on W. Ott Solidification of Decontaminated Waste 1:10 - 1:30 p.m.
Program Objectives of P. Reed i
Solidification of Decontaminated Waste Program 1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Description of Work R. Kempf, Performed at BNL:
BNL a) FIN-A3253-Properties of Solidified Decontamination Waste b) FIN-A3246-Decontamination Impacts on Solidification and Waste Disposal i
3:15 - 3:30 p.m.
BREAK 3:30 - 5:00 p.m.
Description of Work Performed J. Mandler at INEL under FIN-A6859 C. McIsaac, Characterization of Low-Level INEL Decontamination Waste from Operating Nuclear Power Stations 5:00 - 5:30 p.m.
Executive Session i
5:30 p.m.
RECESS
&Ac//hteWr~
/
e'.
Tuesday, August 18 -- HLW 8:30 - 8:45 a.m.
Opening Comments D. W. Moeller 8:45 - 9:30 p.m.
NRC Staff Comments R. MacDougall on DOE Mission Plan Amendment 9:30 - 10:15 a.m.
LANL QA Audit J. Kennedy Report 10:15 - 10:30 a.m.
BREAK 10:30 - 11:30 a.m.
Site Characterization R. Johnson Plan Status and Staff 11:30 - 12:15 p.m.
Report & Discussion D. Moeller of Subcommittee's
& HLW Staff Visit to NNWSI/f1TS 12:15 - 1:15 p.m.
LUNCH 1:15 - 2:00 p.m.
Overview of Quarterly W. Walker 3
Progress Report to
& Project Commissioners Managers 2:00 - 2:30 p.m.
FY88-92 HLW J. Linehan Program Plans
& W. Walker 2:30 - 2:45 p.m.
BREAK 2:45 - 3:15 Overview of EPA D. Fehringer i
Standard Court Decision 3:15 - 4:15 p.m.
Briefing on Pre-Emplacement D. Chery Groundwater Travel Time
& Staff Meeting 4:15 - 5:00 p.m.
Executive Session D. W. Moeller 5:00 p.m.
RECESS I
6'
..b..
j i
DRAFT #2 WM:PAGE 3 WM Wednesday, August 19 -- LLW D. W. Moeller Opening Coments 8:30 - 8:45 a.m.
J. Sunneier, LLTB Introductory Remarks 8:45 - 9:00 a.m.
J. Sunneier, LLTB FY 88-92 LLW Program 9:00 - 10:15 A.M.
Plans & Technical Assistance BREAK 10:15 - 10:30 a.m.
S. Droggitis, States and Compacts SLITP 10:30 - 11:30 a.m.
Status Update LUNCH l
11:30 - 12:30 p.m.
J. Greeves 00E Alternatives to
& M. Tokar, 12:30 - 1:30 p.m.
Shallow Land Burial LLTB J. Greeves, LLTB Mixed Wastes Update 1:30 - 2:00 p.m.
t Executive Session 2:00 - 2:30 p.m.
ADJOURN 1
2:30 p.m.
l G
)
t i
s<
29742
. Fedese) Register./ Vel 52. No.1W/ Tceedey August' 11.19er l' NeenrAs
' he petitions fWed la this ceae are,a Adminletroenssa US. U+.'
^.! r StP=d e4 Waddagten, DC this 3rd absy of available for inspection at the OInce of Labor, aci n Street.NWM '
___s Aupesasas.
,a l
f, MarWm K Femba, the Director,Omca of Trade Adjastment - DC 20211
,.,., a v,
-f,.9 A f D7rectan @se spedr.' *- y -
Assistance, Employmeai and Traissag/
Am*fac*
~
q,
..w.
.'-,+,
- /,,* m ?
.N,
M a
e:
o e 4
g=,e g=,,e,,
e u
eig Cn riisortese campasse Cas out arbe7 7/22e87 18, F1 Cu arus Get schrt DeuseL tuL e u===r =\\ hs er1/62 7/21/07 99 pe Ceresceuruneet CJ wussurans JDc.Asr!
Verse Human st 6347 7/26/97 te,376 Pergamma QusaceL D
&/SJS7 ' 7/27/87
- 10. 976 W omes..
CHrus Ttmessen Oest eduuse ta r Cammacsue opyg Cm s/3/s2 7/3447 ts. Fr?
Cp aruf Gem Eeng, Emsingr t.e: ---
Gates adoenes P,eggen gaapasi Huustyt rt 8/5M7 7 / 'SM7 10.979 nautess Pussnesim da DhmA Phr(, Getagy stcoopg $$ghgg$
GbeneBEL Spir
$p"&/%)
. f/!1/$7 t 9, $ 7$
$ rest
,e 7s10,97 tGL too osarufGas L-Purgamma Casa GOusemage
- * =ma La a/3/sJ
' 7/94/57 99, sti Crwat 8== =h'i=
ydrupue apud De.
S/3MP
- h. Uut heureusses SristmAbsg h r.
, nsaams hPeartenitosa te Ptse fuiste(
A=mes, re trag? ' s/ sot 7 to. es2 C>chmut SDI Anstr'come Pitnescu 6.aAset u
Casey. a M47 7/2c/97
- 19. 983 anAcmeeve P'oducEE es$Apr 7/7747 1gg 964 e'ruarused 94 pert, i
i 7tigo Pinesus ons *===
Dirquist sPF Teodram Caerurams hagecre 3.64 sf) temmangsag u adsder 3/>g7 ft. 3p9
' 7stena Uhes C.!te? a 5,lT 23 Utc4 pfY 6/247 7/34/87 19.tes F1ssee'qL C
~
[FR Doc. 87-18229 %d S-M-87,'ku aml,
NSF Assistant Director for the NMSS Division of High Leve! Wasta Management's program plans for FY Engineering. as web as other itama..
== i =a coes estwo-as 1986-FY 1992, NRC's comments on the K Raheses m au,
DOE Draft Mission Plan Amendmant, i
%%. m-
-, g,,,,,
the Q List Generic Technical Position NATp006AL SCIEleCE POUfeDATION j u8"* g 1,-
(GTP), DHLW's recent QA mini-audit of
[F1t Doc. 8'-18247 FUed 6-1M%45 amj e portion of the DOE Los Alamos Open Meettag of the Adv4eocy Committee For Design, Manuf actudng, m' '==a caos rees.ei.e NatiCmal Laborstory work on geologic and Computee4ntegrated Engineedng repositories, and the Subcommittee's j
July 29-an 1987 vMt to the DOE Nevada q
j
(-
Hatlosel Science Foundation If0CLE.AR REQU'. ATOM Nuclear Waste Project Office. Yocca J
inmenes the followtng miseting:
COMMLSSION Mountsin and other Nevadt test ette Name: Advisory Commedttw for Design, facilities.
On Wednesday. August 19, the
)
A Manufacwrtag; sad Competer-Sa de h tko ash Subcommittee wiD review and discoes Irrtegrated Eics-, (DMCE7 g,,y,,,
Deto and Ume August 27-28,1987, tot the NMSS Division of Low leve! Waete a.m.-5SO p.m. August Z7; 9:00 a.m De ACR$ Sobcemmittee on Weste Management and Decommissfordng's.
Mastagement will hold a meeting on program piens for FY 1988-FY 1992, the 3:00 p.m, August *8 Placat National Cah c= Foundation, August 17, is and 19,1987, Room 1096 Environmental Standard Revfew Ptan 1800 G Stre+t, NW, Washingtm, DC ;
1717 H Street NW,'Weshington, DC for LLW siten, and stetus reports om The entire meeting will be open to DOE's uranium recovery program, EPA's i
Roene 5*h' '
Type oNeeting' Opse ; -
~
Pubhc atteridemos.
11W Standard, state LLW compacts.
na agenda for the sub)nct==W greater than Clasa C wastee. mixed Cmtacs Persoon Dr. Machael Woesry, "
shan be as followa.
wastes. altematives to shallow-lend Mondoy, August 17,1967-800 a.m. anW burial for DOE tow *>evel westee, and National Scieme Foundstion-the cos,efu,jon af 6.si,,eee foreign r=rr-cial LLW programs.
hh'[,,
[,,n,8^
me f the blic with ry Min ny Purpose ef Meatlag; To provide advica concurrence of the Subcommittee o
reenr inendations, acui counsel on Wednesday, ALgust 19,1967-&J0 on Chairman: wrttten statements w!Il be ma}ct goals and pn1Maa pertaining y und the conciasses ef besa'
occepted and made available to the the Divis6on of Denga. Manuf-e==tus On Monday, Auguet 17, the Ceramittee. Recorthng, will be permitted andr-
- 'teg,,ing prip,tny Subcommittee will review and discuss,
only during those portkme of the ~
the Omce of Research's HLW and LLW, meeting when a transcript is being kept, ct.-, teel Agendneru.r m..w ens.
research prograrn plans for FT 1988-FT and questions may be nakad only by h
and hre. ;.tn 1992, the solidatathem elllW and the members of the Subcomunkttee,its directieras for the DMefou in Devfge, Sww.s July 2s,19e visit to the consultants, and Staff. Persons dea &rtog Uninrsity of Ansena and its hiddneut_:
to make oral statements abound notify MaM adam #se..
,3 Engineertas discussions c(
sita naar Seperke, Arinoma.
a the ACRS etaff member mered telow as
,the
., budget (beff198E MA On Tuesday, Augnet la, the. vu tar in adys ace as le practicable so that
, badget taenes whh t at.n S&wttee will revie,s and checmas t, appropdate arrangements can be needs.
h W
N
- j e
a 4
l
.,r
I Y
Y--=="=
=
s 7.
fp.7.,3 *t
. s y
'yn; i.,' '
Federal R@ter / Vol. 51, No' 364 / 'Bes3 day, Amsta C.,$AGF 1 IM=W Y
Send or deWer comimeEs foT l tr=n w'essemis**M 423 3.Maes& " t h,seusun.
During the Inllat portion'of the t ADontsa:
A*Nir e.xtM a#
'esting. the Subcommittee may Wilia2m C. Duffy Agancy Clearsame;M ' 84m*
.chaa6e preliminary Wews regarding officer. Officer of Pereoanel t abesy as mass enusem 68-
.antters to be considered during the Management.1900 E. Street NW.._ j the emansparteele=W balance of the meeting 'rb ~
Room 6410. Washington DC 20415,#~ < **ma ' ' " " *
- a '"'d W'*9'* ***
Subcomraittee will then bea' and pre:entations by and bend ekscussions
. Richard Eisinger.Wotuse4aa Desk datusethresstemeto and nehetuagt osauneste beaERIPW' m.
with representatives of the 641C Staff Officer. Office ofIntnraatinn. Office ~
- appropstete Pedypok11ebeneathe#4 of Management and Budget Room and other interneted persone sogarang
,a002,, New Riac=o e OfLee Buildsag, ' agencies and to prienteengsminu
',** 6't this nyiew.
v Perther infonention reperthng lepics g., Washington, DC 20003.
i "C"
. ~eMned tatement tothiepropeamL to be discussed, w hether the meeting
'P0" bei been cancelled or rescheduled, the this time.h DEF5 we bemeseshte ter '
kigh i
Chairinan rujirrg on requests fcr the opportunity Io present orel statement:
Offica of Personnel Management l public and egency reelew and =m===L a.nd the time allotted therefor can be pass r. Colvard, i po)6,dag pabhcatsee of the DNS, e obtained by a prepaid takphone cal 14o Deputy Director.
public hearing un11 be betd.PeMic moder the cognizant ACRS staff munber, Mr.
[TR Doc. s7-tetis %d 6-10-4r; H5 am]
I will be given ei the timer and plameed 6e Owen S. Merrill l telephone 202/634-cose m a beerug.
>- '<: 's 1413) between 8:15 a.a2 and 540 p.m.
- To ensure that the feB range eMwees Persons plaantng e attend this meeting i, Matd to this pnaposed ah ase %
ace urged to coetect the above named DEPARTMENT DF TRANSPORTATION. addressed and all signfficant fesues Individual one ortwo days before the lidatified, comments and agentions ocheduled meeting k be edesed'of an Federal Highwsy Administradon e are invited trosa et tatsreseed perese "d changes b schedule' etc., which may lC==*="taw W epa a rming h ld be
' } proposed meetre and Gne Da ban ecurnd Emirontsentalimpact Statement; directed to the FHWA at the adebees Date: Anguet s.1982.
SurTy and James City Coun5es, VA
- MW tre A DCTT.
ay ACTioer. Notice ofintent l Program
,g (PR Doc. a?-18:22 P9ed b1ked.H5 sto)
. t, m Orde 123 2 insarans State and
'"N CC88 ?"* d asneu aw.The FHWA la lasuing this I cal review et Federal and FedersRy notice to ad6e b pubbc bt en i,g
,g g,,gg,.
('.
environmental impact statement will be,
g MFtCE OF PERSONME1.
. prepared for a propose (. highway project g,
p.,,
MANAGEMENT in Surry and }ames City Counties, E
iniormation Cotection lor OWB Vr3nia.
t a~
=a --->cr:
w e,.m.,ru.d
.e.a.i George E. Kirk, Jr District Engpneer, i
WMCt Off' ice of Personne1 iFederal Highway Ariminiatration, P.O.
'.sa m a ooot esi+.a w
' " ' 8 "" "
. Box 10045, Richmond, Virginia 23240-Ac71one Notim.
0045, Telephone: (804) m-2380.
, w 'and W W
~
amau
- RY: In accordance with the SUPellhsENTARY WWFossaATsott he Admin 68tration Paperwork Redachon Act ol1980. (Title FHWA,in cooperation with the Virginia
, this notice Department of Transportation (VDOT)
, App 8 cations For Renewal or 44 US. Code Chapter 36)finformstion will prepare an Divironmentallmpact
,86edmcat6on of Exeseptions or announces a ceUection o j
from the public which has been Statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide Appecations To Becesse e party To An submitted to OMB for clearsace, an improved croselag of the }ames River i Exemption j
S4andard Porm 177, Ststement of along Roste al between Surry and Office of Ha===4=== Materials
- l Aaawcy:
Physical Ability for Ught Doty Work is James City Counties.
%ransportation,Research an T
used to collect information from The proposed project wel consist of egrams Admin 6seretten. DOT.
a-appucasts for poettions in the the study of senoral elsernettves to competitive semce about their physical relieve congestlon at the existing
, ; Actioec Ust of apptioetiona ler senewal capacity to perforrn the duties of Jamestown Ferry which crosses the
- or modification af esemptions or 4.*
sedentary and moderately active jobs.
. james River from SmTy County to Jarsee.spplication to become a paseg to an
./....N.
The SF 177 is used by agencies in lieu of City County.
lasunnption.
requesting or requires medical Various build okernatives within b h in -.
" tie 5 tw l esamtmetions to desmanone study aree will be esalysed.
s ' procedures governhag the J--- ^ - - !
goattDestiom for these poettitms. There here are also three alteenestre.t to
~
. der and the pseessseng af,===ra'===
are tt's individuals who respond the propcmed pas,ect under ~
- 9ro,m the Department of T._,--
- a :
mensaUy for a total besdan e(1st hours.
consideration:
. ' Hazardous Matettate Regulationetoo -
For copies of this proposal, sail Wtilian
- 1. Null or Nc4hrnd Osndtt6en--4o
- erstente the traffic brrpects of
'CFR Part tw, Subpart B). notice le C. Duffy, Agency Clearence Officer. on maintaining the existing ferry servloe. -., Jhaseby gfven that the UfFee of
' t. Ferry Service Improvement-40 tHazardoirs Materials Transportation has l l
(202) 632-m4.
OAft: Ceroene.nts en thle proposal
' evaluate the abAity et sa lamproved farty. {rsosived the apphenh== deswib 1
should be received en or be8ere Auguet
- service to accommodnee the iberetn. His notice is abheevented to I
21,1987.
r, I
l
O. MERRILL v
WASTE MANAGEMENT ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
g /7
)
August 17-19, 1987 DATE ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT: NAME AFFILI ATION
.AC/r'S Affmasrc D. W. A1 oeu er C.
41Anx.
ArPS A4 S-reme en ACRS Aces R
Suvisiw AcPs Cossu2 paw C
Phre m
bl. '775icum Acrs S. J F%elv Se 4c2S Rwow O, S hawba 32 ACPS SrsuEse,e.,
_ P=
R%;c4 Ac2S Alexsee W,
k'esaseac Aces @m,1 rnr-
- N brera ACNS D f Wh/SS 0 0//$A/ Z Y'
^
l
/t M/, hy j
/
R. thi a t
/
- j. Phib e KAd Cdeden M11sp /Datv i
Arrswwr C
i
O. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT ACRS SUBCOM.MITTEE MEETING ON H St. NW., Washington, D.C.'
LOCAT10N Room 1046,1717 DATE August 17-19, 1987 ATTENDANCE LIST AFFILI ATION NAPi Cww S. AdOzm ACRS Srnrr QQCa//
v%e/ps c%
a 59L C. ADAut cs {& Zd-to c.v.
Msztsaae.
TWEL EG 4 6.T2Apo "J.W. MA woksa EN L fh Alech sS
%ux A ca, el) Co ur i
0.44V h Pp Bdt PA!L R. P n2 une/Res 9cied T. W W R5 Ne5 b-o a 4%n kn(i.
O. Merrill 1-4 0MMITTEE M Ef!NG ON WARTF MANRr,FMrNT Room 1046,1717 H St. NH., Washington, D.C.
0cATIO:1:
August 17-19, 1987 MTE.
ATTENDANCE LIST
/7 PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE ii0.
AFFILIATION JL.,s GKuilran
&nc, ile,;-la,c (6 tan,,
C V
/
/
~
/
E 091B
/rt_&,
H. b -%% K VL-
/AAHL
&09tu AcM-s l~ e r' t V ll e fl c Y S 0 9 ~) b NPk <Y W9 &
TA,Ukrb
& OWf Kc M rnN /[d P. s ~
e on ans u C.K.UGMPP
.E 424 NaNL Lal-1 haws saow hvasajum &/s
%,6d k w h KBKWA 2-on 2
/
h v' M c T s / d b
& A40 e t t G-1%
% W. M ooh 6 - 09 7-r GG4G IAche DMM Giob L'-0Wt Ab 7 tTee I, W E E-o9'E M M /NrK l
O t
U O. MERRILL u
WASTE WiNAGEMENT ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION Room 1046.1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE August 17-19, 1987 gg/g ATTENDANCE LIST NAME AFFILI ATION i k Mdnnel{
U d AIK O a & A $ m m.1 lbs A9M ka S u w il Unroo /Uu,rro Cycwwe s dwk, Eeis
- mh Pai hkde sm(
6an U n n(rsktt Me e,wa n < He la s,n m-u PmL R Rn o ut nee b1h6 C6h E 4-114C
.fD s Yo u u se u m
- ReJrnss/# a<>RB Jlm ifc << n ect u n c.'/ u m s s k+< o i3
/
1L-B A G adamu/ v tirs PAUL. J. BEMB[I A rJRc h Mss)MLW l
L SAJ, tw wru / u n r.s h u a
\\
I6$d L. hhnsw NM $N Mis) Hus "hR Gt. %5,w M AC / M Mss / M LT 4
'pFF<tv RNu
& C / M s,s / M 7 A
/hd l R os 5 MtcW$ }NLnt 9W E.
Nk%
Wb5 1:
sAY.(ok Nx o /NH SsJHL ol3 P R o o i s -r 1-tde ok to+samcw
'f f
blh/l Y
(copy 7NVE CN N4
' ' " ~
- 0. HERRILL
'. h WASTE MANAGEMENT ACAS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
l i
DATE August 17-19, 1987 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:MAME AFFILI ATION NAL bHN LIN @kN re urn.ss /s2 ao do c kaw ->
Sv A8atf&
nV2qam ss-] Ht 7-R Mac /guom R E hownim.
4 i
i i
4
'? E65E 5W 5N Y Y!K W5N*YNWA N5,
L.
& s.. s s a v,u.
O. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE August 17-19, 1987 h!
4
,3. -
P
~
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE P'<!NT: N AMI AFFILI ATION D W.
/VI oe I kn A-C P S
- Ie m bw C.
/V1a<k M 7 5+iinct h e
?
4.
Shetsmon 2
ORw AWS Cenpue rur
?.
PMzc M A1 Tkmwnc W.
k% u s k e > L O S. AAe,<-i)I A-cit S 3+a f f
- 5. 3 Pa r co kc125 3r. Feuow T
a - s k ak MM 95 /nnt w I
/
M l
<# 7
/
~
- 0. Merrill "d5$NCOMMITTEEMEETINGON WASTr MANAnrPrNT __
Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
LOCAT[0:1 August 17-19, 1987 k h ((
y, y)
DATE.
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE iiO.
AFFILIATION FA'bft:k LL].%sy
(- o f f 3 Nn,' fur 0j<r f' ne U N f/Ok '
bM LA A D-U944 1(
I DA,(9ATH 6-0W6 A(85 M @d KE Kr.,astu oF E -6950
[]Gmytdn M f 7d'
//PAlkM
/b[nu 4 H o lfm u r
[
U more N F c wt c
Pn ta ukn
.s-m&,
sA v k. D W R M. <--
E - 09 LO l\\ C Ch leu w % 4-
'r FL W W C c, s7 6 cf A.1 cc-6CD39 N
2 D
/ e, # s y'
//e. / 4 V
[0137
//&r.W /
We T. Mhk5 E-I000 MS/TR(
A c'es -l ez-ho
% s, eo o 17 6 w ntn w < O / N i ^ # i ^
Eef%
c dann LlnNr6W111 Aar Ccan eo 25 7 Lt se-PA TeTsu TM^ z Ee 94 9 7 spi c_
h Tl om s e i r;-os?r 3rric-l
- 0. Merrill l
- AtRb50BCOMMITTEEMEETINGONWASTF MANAr,FMFNT _
j Room 1046,1717 H St. Nil., Washington, D.C.
L.0 CAT 10:1:
August 17-19, 1987 DATE:
PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE NO.
AFFILIATION D W M e u. a e n.
ACRS JAusen A&. 5Husea N
S '5/N M f R.
T U
D.
M A R. K D.
Oft.TH Acts l'ensuurur H
M. D IPWNAc d.
(RAW / Wow d s.ne,e u ACES 5 tar
- s..i. % sy AC26
<=saov l
,t
- i,'
- 0. Merrill
, ACRS SUBCCHMITTEE MEETING ON _ uAsTF py w,rurNT __
Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
LOCAT10,l: __
August 17-19, 1987 DATE:
k P.;
ATTENDANCE LIST dA76
/ @ 4/'
PLEASE PRINT:
AFFILIATION NAME f
Hk$
C 0 fl P
. TAN P 1 A t.'r G j e f
//f 0 D LL)6f/)/
$ b $ Peeve 2 D
NRd/ LLWW -
Cao\\ Lobv s
}
nia c / e e. a., n
%d 5 o re m sign.
1,L h ~/ ? d k W
/
y A. c. h L e l+Y?/kms b%bw i viJ.
f f( Yl$L. I 71 h?A--
\\
E EI / u N Af m C.
btt i A As F~a (t &t t t.
)
N A.c /t_i_. vfl New.~
Dwnkd%cn
[
ev rt.c. / A 6 s / w M a R+see l(en es <e vi ct I
\\
3
}
l S
y i
/(
1
/
i l
}
1 O. Merrill ACRS S,UBCOMM8TTEE MEETING ON WARTF sur,FMrNT _
1 Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
LOCATIO,l:
I p
August 17-19, 1987 DATE.
I.
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
AFFILIATION NAME BADGE NO.
W& r hekykh S
.1~~
Ofy7 fekJbTt?cy__
a
[
- O 99 ~)
bU0 CDA 00S AYI OY aA.nera
& ()H9
/ CRS Cr>r4<W'DA (v; g % ( 7 gs. 9 g f,
2-o at HoduA aans: Cao g 3,p E-HC[
[ted?N cesut k f,
h. B, % A u A-< _
-1 WB Ala.wlc4/
E'0774 s,_
g
,(di
. e-o n '
LN -
a. <tm <
//c e, Vl7 'l 6 4 ere v
/d //c /
/er/43 r5 rI
' FU<d' E - oft '
Fcl ocw F b e b,*<
V ft b6 E-oly)
Eh /e/vfcW-0
~
i 3
b I
k t
. i.k -
o List of Documents Distributed During the Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Waste Management August 17-19, 1987 Washington, D.C.
"... range Letter for Owen Merrill from Dade W. Moeller,
Subject:
1.
of documents and other items that the ACRS Waste Management Subcom-mittee may need to consider," dated August 1, 1987.
Briefing handou't,on RES' HLW and LLW Projects, no date.
2.
3.
HLW Research, Materials and Engineering.
"Re-Memorandum for Owen Merrill from Dade W. Moeller,
Subject:
4.
15, 1987 with document 4.1 vised Trip Report," dated August Items 4.2 through 4.14 are other trip-related documents.
attached.
Summary Report of the ACRS Waste Management Field Trip to the 4.1 University of Arizona and the Nevada Test Site, D. W. Moeller, July 28-20, 1987.
Letters from each of the five consultants providing their 4.2 coments and observation on the Field Trip -- Dr. Frank L.
Parker, Dr. Melvin W. Carter. Dr. Konrad B. Krauskopf, Dr.
George F. Pinder, and Dr. M. D. Trifunac.
4.3 Near Final Itinerary for Tucson /Las Vegas Trip.
4.4 Research Overview for ACRS July 28, 1987, J. Daemen.
4.5 Rock Mass Sealing.
4.6 Salt Repository Sealing.
4.7 Location of Oracle Ridge Mine.
HydrologyofFracturedCrystailineRocks--S.Neuman.
4.8 Paper by Donald W. Peterson, Zoned Ash-Flow Sheet in the 4.9 RegionAroundSuperior, Arizona (1968).
Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations, Sandia National 4.10 Laboratories.
4.11 Nevada Test Site Road and Facility Map.
Paul T. Prestholt, Senior On-Site Licensing Rep., July 28, 4.12 1987(ShouldbeJuly 29,1987).
Presentation to the USNRC ACRS by Carl Johnson, Nevada Agency I
4.13 for Nuclear Projects July 29, 1987.
h MCHME40' D
1
U, -
< <t LOD - Waste Mgmt. Mtg August 17-19, 1987 4.14 NNWSI Project Briefing for the ACRS Subconsnittee on Waste Management, July 29, 1987 (Includes presentations on:
(1) Technical Concerns and Briefing Objectives (2) Organizing Principles for Site Characterization (3) Ground-Water Flow (4) Radionuclide Retardation (5) Tectonics (6) Volcanism (7) Potential for Hydrothermal Activity 5.
Introduction to Decontamination Waste Briefing.
Solidification of Decontamination Low-level Radioactive Waste.
6.
August 17, 1987.
Description of the Separate Tasks Performed Under the Two Decon-7.
tamination Waste Research Programs at BNL.
Characterization of Low-Level Radioactive Decontamination Waste, 8.
Part I, J. W. Mandler.
Characterization of low-Level Radioactive Decontamination Waste, 9.
Part II, Preliminary Results, C. V. McIsaac.
Briefing for the ACRS on the High-level Waste Quarterly Progress 10.
Reports to the Commission, Wayne C. Walker, August 18, 1987.
SECY-87-137, First Quarterly Progress Report on the 10.1 Pre-Licensing Phase of DOE's Civilian High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program, June 8, 1987 Briefing of ACRS on Audit of HLW Repository Program, August 18, l
11.
1987.
Briefing to the ACRS on Preparation of the SCP Review Plan, Robert 12.
L. Johnson and King Stablein, August 19, 1987.
- 13. General SCP Review Plan.
4 Reasons for Developing Proposed Regulatory Position (Briefing on 14.
GroundwaterTravelTime).
k J
~_-
4A-LOD - Waste Mgmt. Mtg August 17-19, 1987
- 15. Draft of HLWM Program Products FY 89 Budget.
- 16. Memorandum for ACRS Members from O. S. Merrill,
Subject:
"News-paper clippings from the Nevada papers (July 28-31,1987), plus one from the Washington Post, August 16, 1987.
- 17. USNRC Organization Charts, April 15, 1987.
- 18. USNRC Division o'f low-level Waste Management and Decomissioning Organization Charts, updated to show current Division and Branch Management.
- 19. Briefing for the Waste Management Subcomittee ACRS, Overview of Program Plans, Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning Division, August 19, 1987.
- 20. Briefing documents for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Status.
20.1 Memorandum from Spiros Droggitis,
Subject:
"Current Status of Each State in Providing Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste - August 18, 1987; Memorandum dated August 24, 1987.
(This document was provided subsequent to the meeting.)
- 21. Alternative Disposal of LLW, Dr. Michael Tokar, August 19, 1987.
- 23. Memorandum to the States, Compact Regions, and All NRC Licensees from Hugh L. Thompson, NRC, and J. Winston Porter, EPA,
Subject:
"Joint NRC-EPA Guidance on a Conceptual Design Approach for Com-merical Mixed Low-level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities," August 3, 1987.
l i
..