ML20149D397

A Compilation of Reports of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.July 1992 - June 1993

ML20149D397
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/31/1993
From:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:
References
NACNUCLE, NUREG-1423, NUREG-1423-V04, NUREG-1423-V4, NUDOCS 9309210031
Download: ML20149D397 (81)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.- ? 'f

I

.

f

., c. T, .^q. N.+.. ..a,,.-,,

.,,.,1,y..',;,.,.,

.,

_, *[ ',.,;,.g',,, '. g:, ';r,

e., g'. r;..y,.,.o,.,,,

q c..-v.,,.a.,, ,.n..q,. :., w

3. ; ;.

^ ll

• ., c. f. ;,. a... :..

...g ~.

• ',, g; c,,..

4.. ..3 :-,i..;~. -.!y. ,,,, e, 4 .,,,r. ,,;._. g.c.;., i. 3.:-;,,<.;l:. ;n4.: y:. . _ vf,...v,.c.,.,q u..',.":. a- ...,;., g',.J, G.. y::.:.Q_,',%'*,<9',..7,.*;_ .W o

r :.

7.,, '. Y',. z --, c. .,+m,..A,:, y'. ...p.m.. s ':,w w.. >.s y 9."y . y;..,; V;..,. + :., s,.,u. Q:..., Q.; y,x, ac q' s:,:,' .9..;;;.':.c ~ t _%, c9 L ,g,..o- ::. :.o ',e :. r%r...r ',.;; z., y *.z',; 1..

c...

s,w.:9. m ..S: :;a.,,._.p.v,s.', u, s W: i.,. *i;u.O.,; __.., 3.,,'; : p 6 p. g. ' :-: q' u ,y , s, y n'., s.g, p. p.?.*; c,* u, .e,. _ ;pt;- (.L n:.;.;,f_,:_ - <m. . !...q.;,.,y..<*, ,r.. ;,:< ;, p. v,... 9 . m.. 4,k [ ; h 2 e :,,' ['... h. $: {.I k.(',' '. N. ' ; )/. ].h. . ' ( 4.I..(.jh.) .I [h,

• .b. '$..h.l U.

,h .h. ',kN [,,. h [: 1

f.. ;.ii

... t i.;j.:"b r t ,,,l ^* .v..

* - ~

, ' ', : p ya -t, y'r. n': ;,.'..,-..V , ';..., .f... v. .a.'. b,.. ? .,: b.,;v '.,V.-:,,,.,.1,-;..'-f' :. 1_; s., ;,,.),..e' h. ..';^....,,, <: -, _. ; : :;,'{r '., +;y :,.o '., v 6 :. 47. f.. " : a - p.-

.. : 9. " ;,.,...., c':

m.s_e ..o ':l :..;,. '.. n'

c. :

s,- . ;; ;., p...e.< :.:.;,,;:;, ~..% :;. ; ~.,; i,y. '...: * ,5 . :.y..n:- 'rwe+.r '.':. g ^ . ! ',~ /, :... '.,l. W" ^

s. :,

,c. 4. :y.~. '- { }*..i.f,. '., ?';;((.;.c .,..'. '?l -;, ;,. - .o }"s; 9,.,.lll, ',', ;.,,'r' .'... :[,. (lh: t*. ." ' : h.,,- j. '; : 'lA " w - Q h_V;d.] < ' : y:*.: 1'L.;}, :f.l.' .,['_ };':.3 f, '(:l- ^ .,l o; v f,..._. ' %, ' ' l", f;: ..,i.. [gs. :.y.. ; q. ...n r ~.....-.. t o.e, -

s.,. c."3..;"s."

sy). y.' ; ;_ : '.. '.. ?... -, .;.q ? ..',,u..;~...._ v ..w

j y<.. +

;......,. ' :; ;~

.....d. u ;. *: '.r.f - :v 'w $'.' b 4.... .,."s,

• , -.:-.,,:.- - :.. e.s. <.

i .:.,,,...,.y.; 3 , ' [. j 5 ,.,,,,.......c..,A.,g.... l> .- s s.-. ^ (* .-,,.,...-.,.....e,. .~ +...a...., < "_; ..i 7,- ) 3,,"., ; g..,,,'., e..- i .-. y ...a..,, ... c u, o. s 7;, ..-. 3, nam..,.q ,,e .'i .,.... -...s.,* ,c ..<:<.s,, /....s..c,..,

t.

n., A * ~ ' {. ;'..,., ' t .f,. '. .,E. ... f.. .. f' j. ': '.._,. :) b ...,., a r lt l '- w: :n 4. .v... .c .s - :'. l y,_ ' a." e... s. q,*- ..n. .y:,.. - '.-),, ; 'd. ' i.... - ' k_ __,;- - ;_^'.. -. ;. 7. l.y. '; ' "... .... ,.M"

4.... ', *.

_..,'{,.,' ..,;. e.. -... * ; % ,l.* . - -., r;. _ ;.i,:. ; b : : ; ' _ ?;'[., l, ,+... _ ey ) }_. ) e,s ".

..p.: '-v.:

'; ' i :.. _h". y i';,. -, _ '.

.;'+

' ) -

+.- '. <,.,, ;.

c. y l;....- _. {.

f,,.:. i.:

f '

r n

\\.'. : ' ~ . :l ', _ ',,._. ' _.j l '. 3.;f '. x.," v. ;. },. ; l ' _) i '. _) :..;;, .;V's

:. : _;' f.:l;,, ; _ ;., y

,..(_,.

-~ r',*-

s p' ..n,,;,'.", .L g ;,. yl-, _;;. a.,i_- r,,. " .. a '...i _ ;, '2.

...g;:,__.%..,

,,.....a . ' :,' T. :

_.x 6 '..

e j'.,.'

I,. l ' '... lya

.'.. -c.t.*,. Q.Am..L'. C,

../.. s;;,' O ':::> s.,'."

l.' _ K i ll. _.,, ; P. qWe :;;... ' ' '. *.,' 'r. k. 't' :..', y _ y. ' ~...._,._;;,,.~ M ' b L C... g'.,.. ; -v. s.',.,. ' :.'. _ '.. l ",4 )........q, .~y:. .g:, , ' _ _.. ;;.. _*j.., ' '_.:.'.H' Q. * *;",. .'L., g p s .z.. y, _ %. l c ,-- y,,., '. _ l 'f ! ^ ~; - i- ,e' 7' 'd.[ .. ':., !?../ ;

l.1;f > r

-,

.'.i,'n. .','2 . a.. :. ,.. -' 9.- . ", - -. ;>'.7: l} l ,.b.".,.'.;. J %.;, ',. :.,.,, o.* L. t q.' :.., _.. m..,_..,..; e....; :.. }- .....4...

• .._. ? '- .

. 3, *: - ~,..,s.. q,+ , A. ;... . [,. 9 ,:y:. ;. >.~..c*r.....,,' ;' y.._.:.- ,...,5 . b.v.- V ;.}_ .s p _.;,',._b. .g'*' ? .,e'.^ ; ;, 4;._ ,. -, 52 *. ._w. ' '... q.;" m, j- '.. p.. - ~f. '. _ t'. :, , lff w:,,,..L.;.....,... ^ ,s, ,, :,,...'.r. 9 ..;...:,y...,' ...*<y3 >.,. h. :u..,.... - ; .o...:. :., t,e 'j.. ;..._,,...<.y, e,,.. t .s *,.. .. 4:. ,e <:'...t,. s ;'_-.,, :t... '.. _. 9.... ;. :..; :... _, ~,s"- .n.,.e g ? - t. y ' '.. :, J #!*. 7,, ' -l: . J,;.. j i" c..., ;,,,, ;,'.y' S,i ',b

,'. '. '.f; 4

-[.,l' M.J '.' l t, 'A :'s O ' ',' 4.' g, ;.'.. :.,;, "?.,. .: -., '" y'. ' + N.,., ' /.', ' r t-+_q. -;!... - l :..l..4,,.~ a

• ,t :

.9 ,..c ;.,,; p...;, >9...,*L l-

• },

M f.- _ f '_..q... v. s.. :. *. ' %. :'.Y.... ; *,.. : l_'__-... (' ' ;. -g', .-.,.l. ?L .;~,., ,;._,,s '(_,.,. _ ::, .4. <....s,,,a,.'.,:

_, y,,u, ',,w, Gy,.,,,,, -....e.

a,._ J. s ...s .._,;=.:...~ e' \\ ' :., _ _, f., r ;' - r,..,.,

.......O,.;, ; 7.,

..,o,.. ;;.v. ~ y .,...y, g .l

v..... <..... ;:. -

...-, t ,.. ~., 3 ..e ' ;:. ?... ,,a 3.; <,,.- ....g..--., ac:.<;. ,,y.- y ' ' ' '.:

Jn '., ; '.

.V... % f'; ' ~-. '..,,,,,.g.r. ..m' r. J.. a ; '. -. ~ ;r:, -.. z::............

c

. G ;,-.. ;,9 ". u_ ' : : ;3..,

by4. o;.

• 7 ~. :

J.,.:.. , '..'n.;.

;-, _

.s r -....

....'.....:-;...'i...b .:ll*.- Q,,....','.J..,~.e, ....s<.., ...,'.,._.,..;...,...t, . J..~..,L 9,r

e., -, :'.a..

. + '.'. %., G :; ' :,'. ;{,,. - - ',), , ___,'q ,.,v ' e n _...,~. .e. .,e.-, y . ' : :'. ? L.* .: * ' ' ', ' i %.,,*....;- '.'.e' - ,. *^:*') ',,.. = ,.:.,L. '.'.d.,.i:, '.'4 ^*, 'E., /. ' -

e :;.; y p i :.

^;.... : e; .e., '; : :~.. ;...;,. ;.., _., ;- ;..- - -;,..r,. ;. ;..::.. ..., ), ' ' ~.; * ;, ; :. a; :

...e

'y..',.;< ,' -. v. 5. r..,..,,,: "c v ',... ;. ,.,..,,,..,.. '.; d

• l l...

-V :..J v. y'. : $:;.. ; M.._.-. .y, : -.. _.. r '.. ; :...,.

c...-... ;

_....,.. ';,. ;r :.. .. ' M. ' :. r ',. '. ';. - :. T.:.'..( J. ",

. : '--s0 I; -

'.% %..- h 'p ' 1 ). '. " - '$ %.5, o ......,... l.,.(, ' ;.,...g;..,,,..,?....s... ll ' s.. .,,. _ -,,....s., ..., i _.: p ~1.,_.g t.. L _. y.....

a... ' -..4.J

.. G.: '..s.. w

f g. -...,... -.,, (..;.

:. ;;,,. : g ' ;.1f 3. ~..; _. /

c, :, -a U n 'k.7 a..,. 4,. ..t . 3:;,. ,e ,k, l:3 e

7. ' ;...

,',a_..

c :. ;. < ;s,: i'...

r __ Y,; ; . v ' ',f _. ' 4 ":,. b. t '. Q :( '.. '. ',

3. T '., f k i. f,,.J; 'i q '.,'. ', ', :hK: ; l,$ ? :'k;

• .
• y 5*[... l,

l-l,_,;'., ';4, f[ .:.. : s_, , Q:. ; ..l l.;.f,..ll l:' _ f f ' ,l. ^ 3.. l, '. '

lf,,,' h....

....,..,;-.. :..e- ..,,.....,-s,.a ...,.n.,.. ' _'.{ ; '. L,. p. .......:, t .,.e.

5 g,g,g.. _.},,

.._ y', ; _. g,..,3',~.-[ ',.,.; ; ;,,,,, b.,y. , - ( $... [s. - {....,' s [ $y..;9' :.; [.

~ c. s }

y.... 3 p..

-........ '..i.u; ). ,g.' W ,t .y' ..f: ,., 5 ; ;. ;z e, _ q. f . y g ..y.,y ;., p. .,;, [.:.... f....:;.,,.yQ? : n.'; . %: :a..m'.' ' 1 P. :.j..~.,":'.. e::..;. ' * :. :^: 2...., '. n. ' <:.?.,. Qs.. -

8. - <. ' ' -

' (:. ~". 2.w:. )', .. C,; ^ ( i...,; F,; O.:,,' ..O. t -..,. s-

s, ':' ;, y. -

2 .n:v, :.; '... H. s.,. -., '. '.,. ". ' "..h' ?]:s:... ": '-, 'p % - y, 4.+.J: - *. ;'; .\\ ,..s. -':: .y %. - '.

' p '.

v f.:...f;,r;i. h.. %.. ;,l.+4 :,: e s 1. ' "i. -. c;<,;

q

>u. y L.; -c i; ' ?. d,, [i t -..}. p l,'.: ; .:i::.. c,...Q . :. " '.l' ' > ;,o " N _ yg i,. i. '. ? g,...[q ' h. Q '. ' 4.:;.[.'.y].>,,..,4 A; ; of. ;;..g. 't.. ' ? W,.:'. n { ; j.; ~ j...,* : t..- y[ :. + .. l '.y.'..' lc ?.! q f;s,t -.,l ,1.."' y 'g ',i. /. '.,'.., %..G + ; . :-','y." , l7 ',f - . f

s -

.,4...,'.;. s.,,,j... c - x.0 1; y ..- ' ~^. ; r, ,. %, :. ~%.m.,....u,~(.. :- a c :. ';..... ::,.. . g :<,..., q: ' e. .: ;,c~e: y;... ?.... 'as . : :: $,e:,lq e :,', ; '. ;.w 4p'..,:, _ .. ~. ' f_ :. ;. ' 9 . r;,, '.,7,' iQ;; y V.a h;j:.,::; W;.f4 W':$ 'n..

• .l r.'%..;}. ;

r.l,. c.W ;-; y Q..,. :~.\\.: n,g : ;. ; ;.' gv. %..,. j \\ % '. p%. 3-v~..Mt .s,. e;9 ; [1;g,,.y. ej-

• v;a: 7. ;-

g. ' j q::;{q :;;; a

. :. ;:7 ' : ' ^.

aY,:n.:

. '.,

.y;..n. 'e.v} c;f; q.e,$,

'." y:O \\q:O;l ":l.h, ".!,;;, >.:.' ? s f!l3.R f* ::f, u *e....J.; ;': :. :::.. f.. w.,,....

w: os r* 1 ,n. ..4.. v. ,4

, n

, a

• sn

... i.f. _l41 h ;1,.4l '.. _.'. a l':Y'.jfl ';'q:l:', '1 [ _ ' r.Q?., ^3.3~5 ':*{. f l'i.b.:;,?[?:: M ' O,-s $,. ~ ;*U.s... ,. <M....M N ., 'j '.K. ~l , A. r. :, ?!, ' '. :., ;l. J " j; 4,.;. i, k. "{.:{:.:.:,.,. i.. T. ..i@ .:.....c. te A t '?... n,.. ;:.~.; ?..m..g.,.,:,...^;. ,,p...<,..g.,..,'.--.,.':"..c)....j....** .b... : e. ... s., '. : A,.X.ym' N::p s. c,.,. n e., ^,

J". i..... s. :y;.,,..,,,y...,..

,':c. . :.'/. 7,,.., *::n.,o.:: >. -. '.:', f. '; i, p:: :z... - ? ;;,::. ' 4 .yj

..y....-

't;. < JL '! q;, .t. .s. '.:' ? ' H,g. #,...,.,.,. [.,, i ;i,,. ;" f' G...,,... - 4 u. (,::.., t ..e. )..W,,:.! l(;':'.l.y. '.' 3 p Ny ..,, e;. > g i 'j ' :s:s:.;? U.... i..,.. r b. ', "l%g.. :.'. / "? 'if..i ,e .7.,;.,...,;$,'.....,,~5,',Y,P n .i-g .u. " 7 7, P...'.6,. *. r- '. l' . 4: ,.. : ;j.i : ........... y. ;:..,. :,. :,,, '. ' Je _..;. ;'v l. ..,.;..,.^c' ' '.: <.:, ;4. ?;n,<..'.) g'

w u, -

w.

e 9

,.

, 7 ":.p ' '. c.'...*,; 'v...:, y. v..., 9.a... %,. :;.':g..)..,3 >,v e, e . 'as .. s". Q. ~: ,,4 .,t -. ::u. :.., ._.9.- L.,r~.'*:','..'., L.: w.. - r., t, _ ;,,. J y. ...,\\5'.;.......- . ". s.v, ? : ,r ,... m.,: : .'.n..,s. y;< /. *...;,.,. xi.q:.':p'.: ; l V. '..* ~....

...p..,....-

+...: p. ~r-w.

g... :

...,.;,;<,,. c,...e...:.*,.;..;,,..: ......e.....z :> e 9 .c'v.'.' ..\\ (; ~.

;..~.s, n.,;,. 4 ;,.,j. ;

,,..,y

,.m .s. ... s};,; - it > f l ' j ), *.l'.Il N(,:j.? ' ;_: '.,. s;..,, y :, s.. ..,o . i v.:.,..y : +-., s.; .y. lt:. :.c..i,u; 3, _,f. :,~.1l: h.Q$.Y.., ; -..,J;. '.:. :s ".. :. ',., : .,..:s , g,...n..!,..- se.. ... r.. w -......,..,,..,e a. ... 9:,.. _.:.^' J,, l :% ~' :., "l $:Y:.. \\.. *,f'_ :,,,.l.. -?.1 dll ; '., $. J');j k.s )!.~-,. 1: -...,.3... ,,,o .e ' L,Y,f:?. e w...: . k: l.f;D ..?... # s.t + y. .k, ' ".. _ :lp: ? ' Y . '. '.;,. '.:.* 'y. '.$'. : q. :, ..w

q:.

0: 1:., ,. l. ': v.:.,Y.

c.. m

-'....?, Q.,.,, L4. ',. '.. % -.. :.. ::'.. .es. ~:. '., '& i,:7.

• a

>: ' ;. ", ;t.v. '. ' '~. :,;..-..,.; l'.._.'.-[_.'<,,..'.'.7.:;.L** "',, -,.. e.4., Y. n: ;... /.i.. .~,% ,v;...- .... ;.. :.,..'.nes.. :s., '..,. ~;, _.,: }. }l.,'. :; -

y.... ;p., *. ~.

. st*., . a.f. ;v< ) c*..*, '.,.l:r '7,:c <.,.... -.-. ,'.C._'...: n. . a.:. ... ;a,- ' .....>.; :. - + '.,,..,.au ., ',f % ml.;.9,,. '..: ; _,. '.,a :.,

...?..,.

.s, <.,* ', )... ;h. ;.,. L,'" :a ,..,. t... ', x. ., l1 .a.'

• 9:,y,.q -)'., f. ' ;l:f. ;,,:., V, h:

jls'..',.L,.,

s..

.'..q',.,,y.;c.-.. ';s..... ......... v. u, c, ~..i...f:.....,.c.. .c. s, y s. 1 c.. .,.q. -,.4:......_....,..... a. i. .\\,- ..,1 .e-. .c, ':lli ;...,.. ?,. _,4.y...',. z,.

s.g ;. ;,e.,.

c.- ... ',....., ~ _;qq, :, a..,..

..~.';.--; ' '-.... ;

,.......~.:. 4 :: *. u .'4.. y _ _. 1 c,f.. c .. ~. .c y, y. ..1 <..._...,;1, ',,.. ' f-... 3' : u, ' ^ ' * '. :,r..:.,..q.., n ...y,...,... y, m

e..:..i. : *;,.

,1 ~N g ;...,.,,. ,a c,.. . ~. . 1.c ' ". Q ;:.~. ;, 7 ;, ',,,.,qp '.. ;....b : :;'. y',,q..h ',.,... '/. ;ll:. J. ;'.., ' j.:.:.. ?., m a. ;.4 ,^ .z

... ?

.. ; &l. ; L ' 1 : <. '.'

pG.? ;. ' r"... j.,._. ; 1: ;;..:r:. f. .F; '.. O ,Gc. ::L..'_',..ce. ?,. b ,a

. fy, ';Q

;: '.

. :-{ a h.. ;,~.. i.'- y. : .. ',.{.'"m.... . - '.:,c '. ~ _. , T '...?..;. 7, (. ;** 'J . {... 'g. j.g f. "^: :; ': : .f:. A _ : ~j ....+: .G.,.j. 4,.;[:;_.,,, ;. ..',.:.n ~ e....; <!,.... h : : ..), [ ~ f. ' l: \\_, ' :" y:,, :.~ , o..,.;.* :1;.:,.. c,. ::: ". _, -:s.::: u y _,; : [' ,e...,. '..s .. '.,...a';,"',.,,..,,,,'t .g',,,,'e' '.. '.,. {.'y ..,;i,., 7 l.,. ,*.. ' '.',;.,-l..,: 1 ' 9..,.g, 1 ; '. ? l; ^ : ..,..,,g.....,....,., 7.g,.....,,.. e.r., c. .w." .a ..1 ...s, *'y ....,.,g... " -... ....- rj -.. .l;... ~. -1 ,..g..,..s.. g.;:;.. v:.. 1. '.., n, _.,..e ',a_. ". :.. r A. , 1...'...

c

....j.. n.,.: 3 ..i ,,,,,. f:, : %..[. .. r c;*,,...f'.~,..,..*7.....,... ' ' :K. "...i.,, .. h, r(. ;. q 'J.,.' f;,p _- [,,- '. 4. - ..,i.; '.,- ; _.,f. , '. - : L.; 3...,.

s.. o.. -.;'-

r - - .'t....'.:.. y.: - i..; 4./ '.,i .,,..i3.-. i ' ' ..y- .if- . '.' 9. w .+

r... F.,...

..~ ; s .v, 4 o ,s, ,,..y,. ,.. N, l.'. Nh,~ } ".?j,'. ?.; j '.c m .,.., q. :t,. $ ^.il.L T %... Y I<,.;...?. ',',.? I ':^ L Y. ?..,;nl.,.&. . c w.,. d..',. :.? $. I',.'Y. Y.' N ^ -.'J t :R [.. ? 1 .9: '., ;) Y..,.,. ~ k: .. ' ':. E: n 4.': s .;,. :.:. y.m q-n. ....,..- y.....:. 6

. c. _,.

.w '..'.?- '.. " :.. : _.. g 4',,.*. 3.;; 5 ',,. ; y:.g., '.- s ,,;l...,, ., '. <. ; :n. .s..

9,

:

• e..y. ; %,,... * :., ' '. R.

S... : ;.,..,. s.,; :. p.m. r:a

t

., i - .. e.. ;-'. ' .g ;_ ;.-

• .(.. ' :._ _ ::,;,,

..< o-e , a.... ;.. __.___...._-%..,,'_.<.gs,_ ..,. 3. ..L ...r .s.:; . " -y J. _._....._.__L. _ ;.__' : y [.n. M ;; e.. _ _ y., - :,.,7,;... ,, a.: :. ' 4 __.,r -g. ,. 0.. j.. s.g p. e. 9

,,.l

b'

' ",. ;," L 4, ;' K. C i ". S,.. jy :'10 V JJW:

9.",, ..) ". s TW.V.%$h0!*t$" '1.','.+:: ? '1. y.. 3 s:.90i J 5 2, 3 ? '; U %,. M M21001, % O031 ~

~;2.5lb [?

• M::!3 ' M.

!.?

aF f f.% PDR NUREC .fy 6. ::; KC; C'...f, b: V '.s l,) 4... h ;.T ' y A423 R PDR' -:. ... f.g;y?..;. %.;. ' : 3 , _, N. ~,... w. F.;.._ ... ;;;...,{. e

. '..; L.:,. :; 7.,....; = r.

v,.'..:

s. o..

>..,e.6 : '.....,. ".4 ..L m_ 2,: % y. 4 3., < w ~;,:..e.... ? s .u v.,. v. :

l##%$$$P 6 5F5EMMMS,WNWHMS m ms o g ,h_eb b@ Mdgdh_;@dhkhh/9% b.dM66 WMnjM&m .MU y hg ggyhhh:hg.3.. Yh. a ,b n i w w w w'M;.@% a i p -m m - r or 4p;%pp% ppm u, 7" " "MTPqw~ *p' 'p' ~ ppog@ga ng%m ny b;, W' ~Wf y n F '~ ,c, &"Mn c fl%W Mr T g g ngj3 .mp pg,i,,f'; "f ? 8 ?, r i f QLQ gu ,g s o m a, w,gd%s g,e n.-y n n y_m ~e,nr,w,gg%ggy hhh e,n +wa,nnuw,n,w y -~ nm g: inn e n eA" e n r n w w mm a W. n m wmi;. irw: a symg g 9YD'M, any. %p&4g&$PhkhdN,y %wngh(yAn py p ygg-g ny g: z. x n NNkhM f h Mq. Mihle M N < nem uma$$nddegewdinews sh 3 ]- I 5., m b e A nwe A h e m m0w c u g4 4 MM _WWiW_ff%&M&_lp@ & _*$$ _%_? W U%_WQyDWpg_Q%0,%M,%_G < W%9 ..MM vwakP %n kw i@

&n.ru &:c Mtw, ap@aeq@4%gg W&y&ggns #Mh&m&M wW i w

/;t. qy n w m n, m p m b wp m ;r m&y y, w& yM u %w % m %w n,M M wq p rA g ,o se p u T, #o w w no am usw m%w m:cp+79 yn ~ w w %. w,e a m xw. 4 m n 4 h&p,.nf man &gyW Ws.wm% 4 o.- : u k i n g mm; i e m t p . + 4x ghp m '- n , m e, u;n,n% gM kg p.c y s qs y a %ypy%p%s.mn= n , m.m,p%m a vm m Qg w 3 a v .e e gw by , c 4y mc f'i " M I.g 2i hIhf i ( - -- k i h h_h$g$g,_Q@Qiham h[ k h h h,,Q,Q,Q h_f in f K g g_@g,g$ h M 4p% p$% m % & ?eM ms fJ Q M Q; . f g@ %1 o ,e m g p g$ $ n %w@w w? x m.ememums:upgpwg i,s.,, p% PQ jIMl Nd ? VMdXe T94Yh81N $pMj. ge nm ., upwsh&f%w;kn,g$s{pw%gwm?,yL a smiy p wa g gv n wm. a ammwn:a w n msmun_we;wma_wapensy.. 1 +gc m phsu p, ww,y,c-=n=.==' mms wmp ,,am pm. 3mpem yppp? > m, J; tw mam up mypg yg g y QQs ,m

• yf gf43 p g,

w^ w W Nt Mw kgp W f ~- 1 a u &pn@iqp%@pgesu a 2 m, L pynQ&pgsnn gy fs ww MNj%%m 6fhMg%$$MggaQOuh d5&w %gMOWSh$$w%n@g R qlv f ew w Mhf W SA y a s %ggscwqe. n ~y

1. h.ag _g gapp ggw u p [ 4 p ar m w w gr ert _u p

3 f h wggggggspapnpampeesem mwouuw wunagaqw w ggggqp4gg wgEppp e, f 73Aqwgggy wngpp y.A pggenwq e gwegygggggguggggggggggggggn j r. wA%ewwgmA 4 L ABBBBEIRa

( I AVAILABILITY NOTICE Avadabihty cf Reference Matenals Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources: 1. The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street. NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555-0001 2. The Supenntendent of Documents, U.S. Government Ponting Office, Mail Stop SSOP. Wnshington, DC 20402-9328 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the hsting that follows represents the majonty of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive. Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda: NRC Office cf Inspection and Enforcement bulletins. circulars, information notices, inspection and investi-gation notices; licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and apolicant and i;censee documents and correspondence. The following documents in the NUREG senes are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceed. ings, and NRC book!ets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regula-tions in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances. Documents avadable from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Documents available from pubhc and special technical hbraries include all open literature items, such as books. Journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained f rom these libraries. Documents such as theses, d:ssertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the pubbcation cited. { Singte copies of NRC draf t reports are availab!e free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Of fice of information Resources Management, Dtstribution Section, U.S. j Nuclear Regutatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. j l Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory { process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and i are avadab!e there for reference use by the pubbc. Codes and standards are usually copy-nghted and mey be purchased from the orig.nating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the Amencan National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. 1

1 ~ _1._i~~ E_~Zl l~ ~.. _ _TE .--_Ti~ T~._ _.__..._ _. f. i.".h[A 3 } N URiiG-1423 'g,6 ,[ Volume 4 A Compilation of Reports of T1e Acvisory Comm.ittee on Nuc. ear Waste July 1992 - June 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i f 5 __. August 1993

t k ABSTRACT I This compilation contains 17 reports issued by the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) during the fifth year of its operation. The reports were submitted to the Chairman and Commissioners of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Executive Director for Operations, the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, or to the Director, Division of High Level Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. All reports prepared by the Committee have been made available l to the public through the NRC Public Document Room and the U. S. Library of Congress. i .i i f f iii

t I PREFACE The enclosed reports are the recommendations and comments of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste during the period l between July 1,1992 and June 30,1993. NUREG-1423 is published annually. Volumes 1, 2 and 3 contain the Committee's reconunendations and comments from July 1,1988 t through June 30, 1992. I [ i 1 i 1 4 V i ~I l

1

l t 1 l ACNW MEMBERSILIP UULY 1.1992 - JUNE 30.1993) CHAIRMAN: Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Retired Professor of Engineering in Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 't VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Martin J. Steindler, Senior Chemist / Senior Technical Advisor, Chemical Technology Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois i MEMBERS: Dr. William J. Hinze, Professor Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana l Dr. Paul W. Pomeroy, President Rondout Associates, Incorporated Stone Ridge, New York EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Dr. John T. Larkins Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vil

TABLE OF CONTENTS t Pilge ABSTRACT iii PREFACE. v vii MEMBERSHIP i NRC Staff Review of DOE Early Site Suitability Evaluation, July 7,1992 1 Progress in Site Characterization Activities, August 4,1992 5 Staff Technical Position on Geologic Repository Operations Area Underground Facility Design - Thermal Loads, 9 August 4,1992 1 Program Plan for the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, September 30, 1992................................ 11 i Draft Regulatory Guide 8013, "ALARA Radiation Protection -) Program for Effluents from Materials Facilities," 17 September 30, 1992 Staff Technical Position on Consideration of Fault Displacement Hazards in Geologic Repository Design, November 24,1992 19 Significant Issues in the High-Level Waste Repository Program, December 1,1992 21 Iterative Performance Assessment Phase 2, December 22,1992 31. ] i 1 l iX

i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) i Page I Impact of Long-Range Climate Change in the Southern 33 Great Basin, December 22,1992 Issues Raised in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Section 801, February 5,1993 37 Program Plan for the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, February 9,1993 43 Possible Impacts of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 on NRC Activities to Address Ongoing NRC Initiatives in the High-Level Radioactive Waste Program, March 3,1993............ 51 Source Term and Other Low-Level Waste Considerations, March 31,1993 55 Proposed Rulemaking on Amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 Clarifying the Requirements for Assessment of Siting Criteria, March 31, 1993 59 Revision 1 of the Final Standard Review Plan for the Review of Remedial Action of Inactive Mill Tailings Sites Under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, May 25, 1993 61' Review of April 21,1993, Draft High-Level Radioactive Waste Research Program Plan, May 25,1993 63 Preliminary Comments on the June 8,1993 Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to Dade W. Moeller and John T. Larkins Regarding Renewal of Appointments and ACNW Charter Modifications, June 30,1993 65 INDEX 69 X

f[p**fCo h UMTED STATES h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y y-E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

p

,'I WASHINGTON. O C 20S55 0,, M; - / s

• ss.*

July 7, 1992 Mr. B. Joe Youngblood Director Division of High Level Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 t

SUBJECT:

NRC STAFF REVIEW OF DOE EARLY SITE SUITABILITY EVALUATION In response to your request, and as a follow-up to the ACNW Working Group meeting with you and your staff on June 17, 1992, we offer the following comments on the Early Site Suitability Evaluation (ESSE) for the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository site. Our comments relate both to the ESSE, as prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a contractor to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and to the draft review prepared by your staff. Purpose of thp Early Site Suitability Evaluation: One of the-weaknesses of the ESSE is that neither the report, nor the DOE staff, has clearly enunciated the goals of this effort or how the report is to be used. We believe that DOE should emphasize that this is only one step in an iterative process and that too few data exist to permit them to reach definitive conclusions at this time. Although the ESSE may help identify priorities and data-needs, it is but one of several inputs into this process. Above all, the ESSE should not be used to justify the termination of studies designed to provide additional data in support of suitabil-ity findings currently ranked in the high-level category. Specific Comments: Many comments provided by ACNW members and its consultants are contained in the transcript of our Working Group meeting. Of these, we want to highlight the following: 1. One of the objectives of the limited review conducted by the NRC staff is to evaluate the' consistency and completeness.of' the data used in the ESSE. The draft NRC report should-comment on this objective. 1 U

Mr. B. Joe Young od 2 July 6, 1992 2. The NRC staff evaluation of the Peer Review of the ESSE, that was conducted under the auspices of the DOE contractor, was limited. Our opinion is that there were deficiencies in the DOE Peer Review process. These need to be addressed by DOE. 3. The DOE contractor did not provide an adequate description in the ESSE of the role and application of expert judgment. This inadequacy should be reflected in the NRC review. 4. It should not be assumed that the comments provided as a result of the NRC staff review cover each and every topic within the ESSE. In certain cases, the NRC staff comments only serve as examples of problem areas. Although the NRC staff has made every effort to cite the more important questions and inadequacies that have been uncovered as a result of your review, you should alert the DOE staff that the lack of comment on a specific subject area does not necessari-ly mean that your staff agrees with the DOE evaluations and conclusions. 5. Review of the ESSE also confirmed the need for DOE to expedite its program to develop and apply models for assessing the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Such assessments represent a major source of input into the establishment of data needs and research priorities. 6. There is clearly a need to actively involve affected states, af fected Indian tribes, and Federal agencies in the evaluation of the suitability of the proposed site. The NRC draft report reflects considerable thought and care and is professionally done. We hope that the Working Group meeting, the transcript of the meeting, and the comments in this letter will be helpful to you and your staff. Sincerely, df f Dade W. Moeller Chairman

References:

1. Science Applications International Corporation, SAIC-91/8000, Report of Early Site Suitability Evaluation of the Potential Repository Site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, January 1992 2. Science Applications International Corporation, SAIC-91/8001, Report of the Peer Review Panel on the Early Site Suitability Evaluation of the Potential Repository Site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, January 1992 2

Mr. B. Joe Youngbl'ood 3 July 7, 1992 3. Memorandum dated June 5, 1992, from B. J. Youngblood, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, to Raymond F. Fraley, ACNW,

Subject:

Transmittal of Review of U.S. Depart-ment of Energy " Report of Early Site Suitability Evaluation of the Potential Repository Site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada" 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1297, " Peer Review for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories, Generic Technical Position," February 1988 l l l l l 1 4 3 s J

p%9 8 UNITED STATES ['3 /h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

.k'

• [

WASHINGTON. D C. 20555 o,, %l ' y August 4, 1992 i Mr. Robert M. Bernero Director l Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

PROGRESS IN SITE CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES l Since its inception, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has devoted considerable attention to the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) that has been developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the proposed high-level waste (HLW) repository at Yucca, j Mountain, Nevada. Shortly after release of the original document in December 1988, we met with DOE officials several times to review various details in the SCP and with scientific and engineering personnel from your staff who were preparing an official response to the SCP for the Commission's consideration. We provided extensive comments on the preliminary versions of.the resulting Commission document, the Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) (NUREG-1347; August 1989), in our letters to the Commission (July.3 and August 21, 1989). Since that time, we have continued to monitor and review the SCP updates, the study plans, and DOE's efforts to resolve the issues raised in the SCA. The purpose of this letter is to convey to you our concerns about the slow progress in resolving issues enumerated in the SCA. This situation, coupled with delays in receiving, reviewing, and commenting on the DOE study plans needed to implement the'SCP, jeopardizes the orderly, coordinated, scientific progress for the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site. For this reason, we j recommend that the NRC staff significantly increase its efforts to j ~ urge DOE toward a more timely and coordinated approach to site characterization. Although the staff has made considerable . improvement in the pace of study plan reviews, we believe it should implement a more rapid review 'of the various documents submitted to j it by DOE. The SCA includes 2 objections,133 comments, and 63 questions.. One objection has been resolved but the other still remains three years af ter issuance of the SCA. Although we understand that some of the. 5 1 j

i Mr. Robert M. Bernero 2 August 4, 1992 accompanying challenges are formidable, less than one-half of the comments and questions enumerated in the SCA have been resolved. Despite this situation, the work of characterization continues and new study plans are being prepared and existing study plans are being revised. If these plans are to be properly integrated into the SCP, the comments and questions enumerated in the SCA must be resolved. Otherwise, many of the potential benefits of these preliminary exchanges will not be realized. In addition, the NRC staff should alert DOE to the need to address and satisfy the deficiencies noted in the SCA, so as to ensure that i the study plans represent a valid approach to site characteriza-tion. One example is Comment 32, which deals with the limited discussion in the SCP on the integration of geophysical investiga-tions. Geophysical investigations of the earth's subsurface provide critical input to the tectonic model of the Yucca Mountain region, which will be used in predicting future tectonism at the proposed IILW site. Accordingly, such investigations must be appropriately integrated with geologic / tectonic studies so that the resulting data will be available in a timely manner and useful to tectonic analyses. This is only one example of a fundamental concern that must be considered in every stage of the geologic investigation in the site characterization process. Nonetheless, this concern, which was clearly identified and addressed as item (3) in your letter of July 31, 1989, introducing NUREG-1347, is yet to be resolved. The study plans are essential to the implementation of the SCP in that they define the testing procedures that are to be used. To date, the DOE has submitted less than half of the proposed study plans to the NRC. The NRC staff, in turn, has reviewed and commented on about three-quarters of the total number of proposed i (draft) plans received. Implementation of several of the study plans, which we have reviewed, is strongly dependent on guidance i that is to be provided in other plans, which have not yet been made available by DOE. This situation is impairing the review process and, even more seriously, may limit the effectiveness of the actual exploratory studies. This is a matter that should be addressed by the NRC staff through direct interaction with DOE. In summary, we believe the lack of timely progress in resolving the objections, comments, and questions enumerated in the SCA and in developing and approving the study plans to implement the SCP could impair the orderly, scientific progress of effectively characteriz-I ing Yucca Mountain. This will also have an adverse impact on meeting the licensing schedules. We recommend that you encourage your staff to work with DOE to accelerate the review process. i Particular attention should be focused on those aspects of the SCA in need of resolution to ensure that study plans are developed that will yield valid scientific data for site-characterization. l r 6

Mr. Robert M. Bernero 3 August 4, 1992 Finally, we urge that your staff take specific steps to point out where the lack of responses by DOE to the SCA and the absence of associated study plans could place at risk the scientific quality and appl.icability of the investigations now being planned or executed. Sincerely, b Dade W. Moeller Chairman i I 7

y'couq[g UNITED STATES y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y'3 g c AtJVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 0,,

• [

WASHINGTON. O C. 20555 i August 4, 1992 i l Mr. James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1

Dear Mr. Taylor:

f

SUBJECT:

STAFF TECHNICAL POSITION ON GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY OPERATIONS AREA UNDERGROUND FACILITY DESIGN - THERMAL ] LOADS During its 45th meeting, July 29-30, 1992, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste met with the NRC staf f to review the final version of the subject Technical Position. As a result of this review, we recommend that the. Technical ) Position be modified to include explicit mention of the i applicability of empirically derived models in the assessment process. We also recommend that the NRC staff review the transcript of our meeting regarding other minor and editorial changes. Otherwise, we believe that the NRC staff has satisfactorily responded to our concerns and the comments of others made on the earlier draft and that the Technical Position is ready for formal publication. Sincerely, j Dade-W. Moeller Chairman

Reference:

Draft of Final Staff Technical Position (STP) on. " Geologic Repository. Operations Area Underground Facility Design -- Thermal i Loads," transmitted July 8, 1992 'in Memorandum.- from B. J; .j Youngblood, NMSS, to Raymond F. Fraley, ACNW 1 9-II

f* "% ? UNITED STATES !( NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h.. ' 3 m ' g n M ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLE AR WASTE g

• f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555

%...+/ September 30, 1992 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

PROGRAM PLAN FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE Since December 1989, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste ( ACNW) has provided at four-month intervals a program plan of anticipated Committee activities. We view these letters as a convenient avenue for us to share information on where we intend to focus our efforts. This letter covers our proposed plans for the time period, October 1992 through January 1993. We look forward to your comments. In preparing this program plan, we have considered the list of technical issues of particular interest to the Commission, requests of individual Commissioners, the EDO'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 concern to - the Committee members. The priority for each proposed issue is based on information provided by representatives of NMSS, NRR, RES, and the EDO office, as well as our own interpretation of the subject in relation to our activities as a Committee and our input into the regulatory process. This program plan is based on the current best estimates of work output by the DOE, EPA, NRC staff, and their consultants.and contractors, as well as our own views on how to deal with these issues effectively. As a result, it is anticipated that certain aspects of the plan will need to be revised. Full Committee meeting dates for this period are tentatively C scheduled as follows: October 21-23, 1992, Meeting and 47th Meeting Site Visits (Las Vegas, Nevada) 48th Meeting November 19-20, 1992 49th Meeting December 17-18,.1992 50th Meeting January 27-28, 1993 In addition, we will~ hold working group meetings as necessary to f acilitate full Committee review and action on specialized topics. 11

The Honorable Ivan Selin 2 Specific topics to be covered during these meetings are described below. October 21-23, 1992 (Meetina and Site Visits) The Committee will meet in Las Vegas, Nevada, and visit the Yucca Mountain site and related facilities. Current plans include the following: e Wednesday, October 21, 1992 - 47th ACNW Meeting The Committee will continue discussions of a supplemental request from Chairman Selin on a systems analysis approach to reviewing the overall high-level . aste w program. (High Priority) The Committee will receive comments on the proposed high-level waste repository from State, Local and Indian Tribe representatives. (High Priority) i The Committee will invite DOE to discuss work in prog-ress, results and strategy for setting priorities at the proposed Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Repository site. (High Priority) f[ The Committee will be briefed by DOE and its contractors on the Accelerated Seismic Initiative, and be provided information on the June 29,

1992, earthquake that-occurred near the proposed Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Repository site.

(High Priority) The Committee will hear a report from the Chairman of the ACNW Natural Resources Working Group on a meeting to be held on October 20, 1992. e Thursday, October 22, 1992 (Site Visits) } The Committee will visit and be briefed on the DOE Geographic Information ' System (GIS). The GIS is a digital database of Yucca Mountain which describes the geoscience characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site. The Committee will visit and be briefed on the remote sensing laboratory in north Las Vegas. Friday, October 23, 1992 (Site Visit) ) Members will be briefed on the Climax Mine test and tour the Climax Mine Model. I r 12 A

The Honorable Ivan Selin 3 Members will tour the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste site. They will be briefed on drill rig operations and a tour of the LM-300 drill rig. The Members will be briefed on and tour Midway Valley Trench 14-C and 14-D and discuss new geophysical work from Exile Hill. Members will tour and be briefed on the Hydrologic Research Facility. Members will visit the Sample Management Facility and Geoscience Laboratory. Members will review the integrity of the tunnels at Little Skull Mountain following the recent earthquake. Members will visit the Ghost Dance Fault. ILovember 19-20. 1992 - 48th ACNW Meeting The Committee will complete preparation of a response to the supplemental request f rom Chairman Selin on a systems analysis approach to reviewing the overall high-level waste program. (High Priority) The Committee will hold discussions with a representative of e the State of Connecticut, Department of Health Services, regarding the State's role and perspectives in the siting of a low-level waste disposal facility. This will include discussions of State regulations for these facilities. (Medium Priority) e The Committee will review and comment on a staff technical position on fault avoidance. (High Priority) e The Committee will be briefed on the recently completed national profile on mixed waste and its implications for future actions. (Medium Priority) The Committee will be briefed on the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking Process on the Radiological Criteria for Decommis-sioning. (Medium Priority) The Committee will consider potential impacts that different a waste forms (spent fuel, vitrified wastes from different sources) could have on repository performance. (High Priori-ty) T e The Committee will meet with the Director General of the British Nuclear Forum to discuss items of mutual interest. 13

The Honorable Ivan Selin 4 p.ecember 17-18, 1992 - 49th ACNW Meetinct i The Committee will meet with the Commission to discuss items e of mutual interest. (High Priority) l The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on its evalua-e tion of DOE's proposed resolution of Site Characterization Analysis Objection #1 (Exploratory Studies Facility design and design control process). (Medium Priority) The Committee will be briefed by the CNWRA on the results of e geological cross-section balancing activities and their implications. (Medium Priority) Jitnuary 27-28, 1993 - 50th ACNW Meetin_g The Committee will review and comment on the development of a staff branch technical position on guidance for performance assessment of low-level waste disposal facilities. (High Priority) j e The Committee will be briefed on the role of engineered I barriers versus natural barriers. The Committee will be briefed on the scope of the Regulatory e Impact Survey for Fuel Cycle and Material Licensees. (Medium Priority) The Committee will review the activities of the CNWRA includ-- e i ing the use of natural analogues in model development. (High Priority) r l e The Committee will explore the creation of a performance i l. indicator or event reporting system that would monitor the l current status of the management and disposal of low-level l waste. (High Priority) The Committee will review and comment on the revised draf t NRC e High-Level Radioactive Waste Research Program Plan. In addition, it will be briefed on the complementary technical j assistance program. (High Priority) i Other Topics: (Will be considered as documents and time become i available consistent with priorities noted.) il The Committee will be briefed by the high-level waste staff on i e i its position on penetration of the Calico Hills tuff and its review of DOE's Calico Hills / Risk-Benefit Analysis. (High Priority) q i i 14 l i

~ l The Honorable Ivan Selin 5 The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on its review of the DOE reports on the Exploratory Studies Facility Alternatives Study. (High Priority) i The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on its review e of a DOE topical report entitled " Erosion Rates at the Yucca Mountain Geologic Setting: Methodology and Results. " (Medium Priority) I e The Committee will be briefed on the current status of the Systematic Regulatory Analysis being conducted at the CNWRA. The Committee will be briefed on the compatibility between NRC e and Agreement State regulations for low-level waste disposal l facilities. (Medium Priority) The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on its plans e for guidance development (BTPs and regulatory guides) for the high-level waste and low-level waste programs. (Medium Priority) The Committee will be briefed on decommissioning plans for the e Shoreham nuclear power plant. WORKING GROUP MEETINGS ACNW Workina Group on the Potential for the Presence of Natural Resources at a Hich-Level Repository Site, October 20, 1992, St. i Tropez Hotel, 455 East Harmon Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 8:30 a.m. - The working group will discuss methodologies for the assessment of the potential for natural resources at the proposed high-level ] waste repository site at Yucca Mountain. The relationship between future exploration for such resources and the potential for human intrusion will be emphasized. i The Impact of Lona-Rance Climate Chance in the Area of the Southern Basin and __ Rance, November 18, 1992, Bethesda, Md. - The working group will discuss the significance of climate change as it may impact the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository over the next 10,000 years. Specific topics include data identifi-

cation, acquisition and interpretation, which ' can be used to predict potential changes to natural conditions at the site.

Quality assurance and use of data in developing and validating j i computer models for predicting global and regional climate, as well as for characterizing the uncertainty in such predictions will also i be discussed. Models and their evolution will be discussed along 1 with the procedures and opportunities for their validation. ACNW Workina Group on Phase 2 of the Hich-Level Waste Iterative Performance Assessment (IPA), December 16, 1992, Bethesda, Md. - The working group will discuss the progress of Phase 2 of the high-15 l J

The Honorable Ivan Selin 6 level waste Iterative Performance Assessment effort by NRC. The Group will also be briefed by DOE representatives regarding the status of the DOE's Total System Performance Assessment. Syneraistic Data Needs for Resolvina Volcanic and Tectonic Concerns at Yucca Mountain, (early 1993) - The working group will attempt to i determine what data are necessary to resolve and/or move toward i closure in the subject areas. It will also attempt to determine how and by whom these data will be analyzed. of the topics to be This list represents our best est rat. considered through January 1993. If yt. your fellow Commission-ers have additional items to suggest or proposed changes in priorities, please let us know. ^ Sincerely, (CYQ Dade W. Moeller Chairman cc: Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Plangue i Samuel J. Chilk, SECY James M. Taylor, EDO Robert M. Bernero, NMSS Eric S. Beckjord, RES 5 16

ga%g y ?, UNITED STATES y ' > v. c ' ) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

• [

WASHINGTON. D C. 20555 o,. _o? September 30, 1992 Mr. James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE 8013, "ALARA RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR EFFLUENTS FROM MATERIALS FACILITIES" During its 46th meeting, September 22 and 25, 1992, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste met with the NRC staff to review draft Regulatory Guide 8013, "ALARA Radiation Protection Program for Ef fluents From Materials Facilities." On the basis of this review, we offer the following comments: 1. One of the primary objectives of the regulatory guide is to offer recommendations for limiting radionuclide releases and accompanying radiation exposures to members of the public. Since the goal is to limit the effective dose to the individual likely to be most highly exposed, we believe it would be useful to elaborate on the process used to identify j this person. The approach recommended by the International 1 Commission on Radiological Protection is to identify a critical group within the exposed population who, because of its location and living habits, would receive the highest dose. Since it is often difficult to identify the single individual receiving the highest dose, it is generally assumed that protection of the critical group as a whole will provide adequate protection to the most highly exposed individual within that group. We recommend that licensees be permitted a similar approach. 2. To assist in demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, the guide recommends that licensees set ALARA i goals for radionuclide concentrations in effluents at 10 to 20 1 percent of the regulatory limits. Although we understand that { these percentages were selected to ensure that NRC licensees j meet the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) National -l Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), we believe the recommendation is too specific and that the new lower limits could, in time, become de facto regulations. To avoid this, we suggest that the regulatory guide recommend that ALARA goals be set at a "small-fraction" of the j regulatory limits. This will, in our opinion, accomplish the J 17 1

Mr. James M. Taylor 2 September 30, 1992 same purpose while avoiding any regulatory misinterpretation. Surveys can be conducted periodically, as is the case now, to ensure that materials facilities licensed by the NRC meet the EPA's NESHAPs. We trust that these comments will be helpful. We recommend that the regulatory guide be issued as soon as practicable. Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman

Reference:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Draft Regulatory Guide 8013, "ALARA Radiation Protection Program for Effluents From Materials Facilities," August 18, 1992, transmitted by memorandum dated August 20, 1992 from C. J. Heltemes, RES, to R. F. Fraley, ACRS t l l l t i 18-l L i

i s 9 Ric 4 c o po, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i g. _g

E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

?.'.... /[ ? WASHINGTON D.C. 20555 o, i Novmeber 24, 1992 Mr. James M. Taylor l Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

STAFF TECHNICAL POSITION ON CONSIDERATION OF FAULT DISPLACEMENT HAZARDS IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY DESIGN r r During its 48th meeting, November 19-20,

1992, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste met with the NRC staff to discuss the i

subject technical position. l The Committee has no objection to the staff's proposal to issue l this technical position for public comment. We recommend, however, that the NRC staff review the transcript of our meeting for detailed comments and criticisms. The-Committee plans to review the proposed final version of this technical position after public comments have been received and resolved. 1 Sincerely, ) Dade W. Moeller Chairman

Reference:

Memorandum dated October 28, 1992, from B. J. Youngblood, NMSS, to Raymond F.

Fraley, ACRS,

Subject:

Transmittal of Draft Staff - J Technical Position (STP) on " Consideration of Fault Displacement Hazards in Geologic Repository Design" to the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) cc: H. Thompson, EDO J. Blaha, EDO .l R. Bernero, NMSS j J. Linehan, NMSS J. Holonich, NMSS A. Eiss, NMSS B. J. Youngblood, NMSS j i 19

i ( prow ft Io. UNITED STATES . y '* i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l r C ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLETR WASTE

j~

0, -

• [

WASHINGTON. D C. 20555 /

• ...+

December 1, 1992 [ l l t I The Honorable Ivan Selin Caairman l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES IN THE HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY f PROGRAM The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) was asked at a meeting with the Commissioners to continue to identify significant issues that have the potential for delaying or otherwise interfering with the timely development of a repository for high-level. nuclear waste (HLW). The ACNW focused on items of large scope that could hinder.the development of an HLW repository, severely impact the schedule set by the Department of Energy (DOE), i or disrupt the orderly licensing process by extensive delays or untimely polemics. In addition, the ACNW was asked to provide an outline of the process of developing an HLW repository. The following is in response to these requests. The issues that appear to qualify for inclusion in this communication constitute a fluid assembly because various parties to the HLW repository program are' engaged in ongoing analytical studies, research, development, demonstration, full-scale tests and the like. Further, many studies md other activities are not { clearly visible or the outcome of these ef forts is not predictable. j Therefore, we provide this communication with the caveat that the issues believed to be important today may not be so in the near future. In addition, the Committee provides a summary in which the j issues cited in this communication are ordered by the Committee according to their impact on the outcome of the repository development process. Finally, the impact of the recently passed legislation under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 is likely to result in further uncertainties about the relevance of some of the issues raised in this communication. 1. A number of issues have been identified under the heading of regulatory considerations pertinent to site characterization and licensing of a repository. 21

1 The Honorable Ivan Selin 2 December 1, 1992 a. The NRC staff should develop positions that can serve as a basis for recommendations to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) relative to the Academy's role, mandated s by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, of providing findings i and recommendations on reasonable standards for the s protection of public health and safety for the proposed j HLW repository at Yucca Mountain. l b. It is likely that regulations, issued by the NRC and other

agencies, will not be wholly compatible or consistent.

It is not clear what constitutes resolution of the issue of compatibility and the stage at which this should be accomplished. The Commission should request the NRC staff to clarify this issue and, if appropriate, initiate rulemaking. I c. The DOE has promulgated 10 CFR Part 960 but its { relationship to 10 CFR Part 60 as far as the licensing process is concerned is not clear. There may be a need to clarify this relationship, especially in light of the l emphasis of the DOE on 10 CFR Part 960 in its Early Site Suitability Evaluation to the exclusion of inferences ] from 10 CFR Part 60. The Commission should request the NRC staff to identify the role, if any, of 10 CFR Part 960 in the licensing process., j t d. Considerable data that are useful or necessary for a licensing application and are anticipated to be involved in the licensing process will be or have been obtained without use of the rigorous quality assurance (QA) procedures now being implemented. The Licensing Support i System (LSS) has been established to encompass pertinent i data but has not yet been inaugurated. Further, the LSS may contain data or results that have similar deficien-cies. Also, the guidance for the application of QA procedures to development and validation of models, and to decision-making among competing conclusions is at present substantially absent. The inclusion of QA-deficient data or protocols in selection, validation and j evaluation of uncertainties in models could pose signif-icant difficulties in the licensing process. The Commission should request the NRC staff to initiate a comprehensive review of the guidance to the DOE that is necessary to define the quality requirements for the use of all important data obtained prior to promulgation of the QA requirements and for relevant models developed l for the licensing-related repository description. 22 i

m. i l The Honorable Ivan Selin 3 December 1, 1992 l 5 e. Expert judgment will be a necessary and important part of the licensing process. Acceptance of expert judgment, its methodologies and its results in the waste management l arena continues to be controversial and could disrupt a licensing process. The Commission should request the NRC staff to proceed with rulemaking to delineate the processes and standards for application of expert judgment to ensure that this technique can make a useful contribution to the licensing process and that its application will be accepted in an adversarial setting. f. The NRC staff has apparently taken the position that performance enhancement of the engineered barrier system (EBS) cannot be used to of fset the potential deficiencies likely to be encountered in the geologic media. This position has caused significant concept and design l difficulties, appears to be without technical justi-j fication and also appears to be without bases in regulations.1 Owing to the inability to predict for any I site if all of the attributes will meet all regulatory requirements, the Commission may wish to examine this position to ensure that the DOE is not burdened with a requirement that is neither necessary nor feasible to implement, and with one that contributes little additional assurance of protection of the health and safety of the public. The Commission should instruct the staff to devise means to ensure that major improvements in the EBS can and should be used to offset inadequate retention / confinement properties of the geologic environment of the waste. The NRC staff should identify functional criteria for such trade-offs. 1 l IAs specifically stated in 10 CFR 60.112, it is the total system that must be judged in terms of meeting the regulatory requirements, i.e., "... The geologic setting shall be selected and the engineered barrier system... shall be designed to assure that releases of radioactive materials to the accessible environment following permanent closure conform to such generally applicable environmental standards for radioactivity as may have been 4 established by the Environmental Protection Agency In special emphasis is addition, 60 CFR 102(e)2 indicates that placed upon the ability to achieve isolation by virtue of the characteristics of the geologic repository. The engineered barrier system works to control the release of radioactive material to the geologic setting and the geologic setting works to control the release of radioactive material to the accessible environment." i 23 d 4 e w- ,--sv

The Honorable Ivan Selin 4 December 1, 1992 l g. The properties of HLW that was previously stored in pools or dry storage and is assumed to constitute a waste form suitable for disposal in a repository are uncertain. The Commission may wish to require the NRC staff to identify those properties of the stored spent fuel that are of importance to the repository and those tests that are considered necessary for qualification of this waste as the interim storage time lengthens. Similar consider-ations should also be given to HLW glass that may have been stored for some time under various conditions. h. A significant part of the licensing process for an HLW repository involves the selection and analysis of scenarios of postulated events in the repository, coupled with the application of a variety of models of the physical system. The processes by which models are designed, tested and, where appropriate, validated to be representative of the present and future behavior of parts of the repository system are not included in regulations or guidance to DOE. Particularly, the protocols for obtaining agreement that a specific model adequately describes the future state of a system have not been defined. The Commission should request the staff to define a methodology for obtaining agreement on this issue in advance of the licensing process. We recommend that this topic be included in early rule-making, in order to provide guidance to DOE for the performance assessment process. i. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations have not been codified and considerable uncertainty M remains about the existing standards for C and other gaseous radionuclides. In addition, the NRC has not developed specific and comprehensive guidance to DOE on its requirements for the confinement of such radioactive material. This uncertainty could strongly influence the entire EBS design, testing and analysis. The Commission may wish to instruct the NRC staff to begin development of such guidance in the near future, recognizing that the new environmental standards will influence the details of such guidance. j. Protocols for testing of the EBS and its components under repository-relevant conditions have been difficult to define and apparently such testing has not been conducted in a manner agreed to be satisfactory. The DOE, as well as the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), has initiated tests that are believed to be repository-relevant. Owing to the extensive time requirements for tests whose results are to be 24

t-I The Honorable Ivan Selin 5 December 1, 1992 i extrapolated over the expected life of the EBS, the Commission should initiate development of guidance, perhaps in the form of staff technical positions, on the criteria for determining when test conditions are repository-relevant. k. The DOE has indicated that the overall performance l assessment of the repository system may not include an j allocation from the performance of the waste form. This approach apparently does not agree with the view of the i NRC staff and has resulted in exchanges that appear to be at an impasse. Since the waste form (spent fuel, glass) .j is now either prepared or in the process of being prepared in facilities that are substantially completed, the Commission should request the NRC staff to clarify the details of this disagreement and adjudicate, at an i early stage, the position it wishes to take in this matter. 2. The Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) Facility has received I attention by the Congress, DOE, various Indian Tribes, cities, counties, and States, but has not developed into an accepted project with a currently valid starting point or a schedule for its completion, licensing and operation, owing to the pivotal position of the MRS in the disposal of spent fuel, l several issues are pertinent. a. The required' life of the MRS needs to be defined and the specifications, criteria for siting and construction, the content of licensing documents, and the anticipated licensing process need to be established, published and approved. The Commission should request the NRC staff to develop the details of regulations related to the j licensing of an MRS. j i b. There has been no substantial development of a backup t 4 concept to the MRS in the event that it is not feasible to locate, site, license, or operate such a facility. While the reasons for such a failure will be non- [ technical, their effect could be profound. There has been little planning for this eventuality, and the 6 I Commission should request the NRC staff to initiate such studies in cooperation with the DOE and the office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator. 3. The scientific / technical investigations for the repository program being conducted by DOE are aimed at a comprehensive i licensing document for NRC review. The studies that have been completed and those that are in progress are likely to produce L results of variable quality or applicability. Further, there i 25 e. m

The Honorable Ivan Selin 6 December 1, 1992 will certainly not be enough time and resources devoted to these studies to provide full insight into all scientific / technical questions. The NRC staff has commented on the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) prepared by the DOE and has provided DOE with a significant list of issues to be resolved. This list is in the form of the Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) issued by the NRC. The Commission should initiate inquiry about the importance to the function of NRC of having 1 all of the issues and questions raised in the SCA resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC staff on a time schedule commen-surate with licensing needs. Similar questions should be answered regarding the importance of having all study plans which are based on the contents of the SCP completed and submitted to the NRC staff before work on the associated topics is initiated. 4. The post-emplacement process for a repository involves a period during which the repository is to be monitored and for which retrieval of the waste is to be planned, a. There are no criteria for the thermal and other measure-ments that are to be made during this period. The Commission may want to explore the need for such criteria and, if found necessary, request the NRC staff to develop and promulgate them in order to ensure that technologies for data acquisition and interpretation can l be provided in a timely f ashion for the design of the EBS and the repository. b. The need to retrieve the waste after emplacement and backfilling influences the design of the repository and the EBS. The staff has not defined what type of retrieval will be required, the extent to which retrieval is likely to be needed, under what conditions retrieval is to be practiced, or the standards and criteria that would govern the retrieval. Owing to the importance of these issues to the design of the repository, the I l Commission should encourage the NRC staff to define more closely, prior to licensing, criteria for the various parts of the emplacement and retrieval process, the monitoring protocols that are expected to be applied by j DOE, and the regulations that are needed for this part of the HLW disposal system. 26

The Honorable Ivan Selin 7 December 1, 1992 1

SUMMARY

A review of the HLW disposal system, its development by DOE, and the regulatory structure emplaced by the NRC and the EPA resulted in identification of issues that can be arranged under several major headings and subheadings. These are listed below in general order of decreasing impact on the successful and timely development j of a functional repository. A. Regulations and Guidance Report Section 1. NRC Recommendations to the NAS (la) 2. EBS Performance and Natural Barriers (1f) 3. Protocols for Use of Expert Judgment (le) l 4. Model Selection and Qualification (1h) 5. QA Applied to Models and Data (1d) 6. Condition of Aged HLW (1g) f' 7. Relevance of Waste Form Performance (1k) 8. Repository-Relevant EBS Testing (1j) l 9. Regulations for Gaseous Radionuclides (li) i 10. Regulatory Consistency (1b) .11. Role of 10 CFR Part 960 (1c) f B. Completion of SCP Comments and Study Plans (3) C. Post-Emplacement Regulations 1. Retrieval of HLW (4b) 2. Thermal and Other Measurements (4a) D. Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility i 1. Definition of Licensing Process (2a) i j 2. Back-Up to MRS (2b) The importance of rulemaking as a process that can remove from contention selected aspects of the licensing process appears to be rising. This is particularly true as the development of experi-l mental methods, scenarios, and experimental results is proving to j 1 be a much slower process than originally envisioned. The following i topics for potential rulemaking have been identified in this communication. 1. Consistency between EPA Standards and i NRC Regulations (1b) 2. Protocols for Use of Expert Judgment (le) i 3. Model Selection and Qualification (1h) i The Commission should initiate a more aggressive rulemaking process and seek to complete, at an early date, those rulemaking items that 2 27

l 1 l The Honorable Ivan Selin 8 December 1, 1992 impact the repository design and the development of experimental data. In addition, we provide this response with the recognition that additional considerations could be added. Further, we plan to review and continue monitoring the results of systems analyses being conducted by DOE and its contractors. The schedule of these efforts may allow a report on their status before the end of this fiscal year. i L'incerely, i M o r Dade W. Moeller Chairman

Enclosure:

HLW Relational Diagram E I 1 f t [ d J l ? E I 't 1 28 i

HLW Relational Dia_aram. Id,1e,ih,2a,2b MRS Siting & li, 3 1f if, t h, 4a, 4b Licensing Site Site Repository m investigations Qualification Design 1f "~ RS 18 Site Attributes, Operations Geologic, Geochemistry '9 R R R 1 d, 18, 19, ii.1j. Ik e e e 19 jf 1 c' 9 9 9 2b Waste [g Transport u u u Properties HLW to 4 NI D' I Ra a Oa Repository 13 O Ct

1. t Et 1

1 I Performance o o 'o Assessment 9 Licensing 3( Process

RPA;Standsds.1.

1h mm..,: n,, 1a 1e, io, it in, ii. 4 da,4b jf D&D Surface I { l Close Operate Facilities ( Monitor L 1 l Repository j-1 Repository Repository i _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~._ _ .) i 2 ..,,,-v. -.n, -...-w-- ..--...s .n,

---

.-n--..

a-,

h" "' GDg t ?g UNITED STATES + NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y W. g W.' s ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE P[ WASHINGTON, D.C 20555 o,,.. / % '.u Decen.ber 22, 1992 4 t f f Mr. Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety t and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

ITERATIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PHASE 2 l The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) held a Working Group meeting on December 16, 1992, to evaluate the current status of the NRC staff's Iterative Performance Assessment (IPA) Phase 2. The l ACNW also discussed this subject during its 49th meeting on December 17 and 18, 1992. An additional objective of the Working l Group meeting was to compare the IPA results with the U.S. Department of Energy's Total System Performance Assessment. Participating in the Working Group meeting were performance assessment specialists from the NRC staff and the DOE's High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program staff and representatives from the State of Nevada. This letter provides our initial comments on Phase 2 of the NRC staff's IPA. 1. The NRC staff has made notable progress in IPA since the completion of Phase 1, and deserve commendation for this major effort. They have clearly stated the objectives of the program, carried Phase 2 work nearly to completion, and they have delineated reasonable goals for future performance assessment (PA) work. 2. The staff should be provided adequate resources to meet their expanding responsibilities in this area. We note with interest the Strategic Plan being developed to guide.these activities. This Plan should provide for expanded utilization of codes and other tools developed elsewhere. 3. The ACNW has significant concerns regarding the PA process and its application. One example is the treatment of uncertain-i ties. We plan to study these matters and will communicate our comments and suggestions to you shortly. We are looking forward to reviewing the Strategic Plan for HLW Performance Assessment being developed by the NRC staff. Addition-al information and further insights on the above comments are 31

Mr. Robert M. Bernero 2 December 22, 1992 available from the transcripts of the Working Group meeting and the discussion of the ACNW during the latter half of the first day of our 49th meeting. Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman l P l i i i 32

y!p%k UNITED STATES y ' 3.., p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

?

f E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 8 WASHINGTON. D C,20555 o %...+ / December 22, 1992 [ Mr. Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

IMPACT OF LONG-RANGE CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT BASIN The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) held a Working Group { meeting on the Impact of Long-Range Climate Change in the Southern l Great Basin on November 18, 1992. The ACNW also discussed this subject during its 48th and 49th meetings on November 19 and 20, 1992 and December 17 and 18, 1992, respectively. The objective of the Working Group meeting was to explore the state of knowledge of the potential impact of long-range climate change on the anticipated performance of the proposed high-level radioactive waste (HLW) repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The principal questions of concern to the Committee at this meeting were: e What is the significance of potential climate change in the Southern Great Basin to the integrity of the proposed HLW repository at Yucca Mountain? What are the nature and quality of models that will be used l e for predicting the climate for the next 10,000 years at Yucca Mountain? Are data and methods available to test and qualify the models? l e Participating in the Working Group were nine specialists in climate I change from the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Geophysical Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, ' and consultants to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the State of Nevada. Presentations were made on: (1) the impact of climate change on the repository; l (2) paleoclimatological and paleohydrological methodologies, DOE Study Plans to conduct the required investigations, and preliminary results from the Yucca Mountain region; (3) the role and status of paleoclimatic and paleohydrologic data; and (4) the basis, role, and status of global climate models and regional (southwestern U.S.) climate models. 33 t.

Mr. Robert M. Bernero 2 December 22, 1992 The meeting provided an excellent opportunity for dialogue among ) climatologists, geologists, geochemists, hydrologists, and modelers i and gave the ACNW a useful view of the climatology studies of the Yucca Mountain region currently underway by the DOE and its contractors and consultants. Several specific items came to our attention during the Working Group meeting that we believe are of sufficient importance and interest that they should be communicated 1 to you. These include-1. The current paleohydrologic and paleoclimatic studies at Yucca Mountain serve as a baseline for forecasting climate and for testing climatic models by hindcasting. These investigations will not be completed until late in this decade, at the earliest, thereby impeding timely analysis of the potential impact of climate change on the integrity of the proposed HLW site. 2. A critical element in determining the ef fect of climate change is the rate of infiltration (fracture and matrix permeability) j through the vadose zone at Yucca Mountain. The relationship between precipitation and infiltration flux is an essential parameter in relating predicted climatic conditions to the { impact on the proposed repository. The definition of this parameter, its variability, and the related uncertainties l should be given high priority. 3. Preliminary estimates of the impact of climate change ever the next 10,000 years at Yucca Mountain indicate that the proposed repository will remain above the water table. However, these predictions'are based on climatic and hydrologic models that are preliminary in nature and are supported by an inadequate data base. Additional data acquisition and analytical studies are warranted. Sensitivity studies should be conducted to determine the degree of uncertainty that can be accepted in these data and these models without invalidating conclusions regarding the likely impact of climate change on the repository. 4. The meeting revealed an apparent lack of intra-and inter-communication among the several disciplines involved in climate study (e.g., hydrology and climate modeling). While individual researchers displayed a high degree of i understanding of their own science and mission, they also displayed a lack of awareness of important information that could have come from other investigators. 5. Climatology is a significant discipline that needs to be represented within the areas of staff expertise available to 1 the Commission. There is a need to monitor the Yucca Mountain climate change program and especially the climate modeling efforts of the DOE contractors. 34

Mr. Robert M. Bernero 3 December 22, 1992 6. Not all current DOE programs aimed at investigating climate change at Yucca Mountain are being performed under the study plan submitted to the NRC. f Additional items of potential interest and further elaboration of the above points are available from the transcripts of the Working Group meeting and the discussions during the latter half of the first day of the 48th meeting of the ACNW. Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman I a i i I i 35 2 l

) f stic fi fg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g i.,,( p, g, /

e AovisoRY COMMITTEE ON NUCLE AR WASTE o,,

'f WASHINGTON. D C. 20S55 ,/ February 5, 1993 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Chairman Selin:

i

SUBJECT:

ISSUES RAISED IN THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992, SECTION 801 Daring its 50th meeting, January 27 and 28, 1993, the Advisory t Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with representatives from the U.K. National Radiological Protection Board, the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and the NRC Staff to discuss the three principal issues that the National Academy of Sciences will be addressing in response to the assignment outlined by the U.S. Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Committee did not have an opportunity to review SECY-93-13, which presents the NRC staff analysis of these issues. The comments that follow are primarily based on discussions held during our meeting. In considering Section 801 of the Energy Policy Act, it is important to note that the charge to the National Academy of Sciences involves the development of standards that are intended to f be site specific for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. As we interpret it, these standards, to be developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will be used to guide the design and to define compliance of this repository. In this regard, we offer the following observations: a. Environmental standards are most useful when formulated i without reference to a specific site. We interpret Section 801 of the Energy Policy Act as calling for the development by EPA of " generally applicable standards" but for the proposed Yucca Mountain site. This should provide EPA sufficient flexibility to avoid the development of standards that would be unnecessarily site specific. In making corresponding changes to 10 CFR Part 60, the Commission should similarly i avoid, wherever possible, developing regulations that are uniquely applicable to the Yucca Mountain site. The regula-tions should be based on assumptions or conditions that have 3 a sound foundation in the pertinent technical disciplines and methodologies. 37 l I

- -. - _ _ ~ - The Honorable Ivan Selin 2 February 5, 1993 b. Regardless of the form of the standards, we believe that they should be geared to specific time periods in the future. For example, such periods might include one during which it is reasonable to assume the presence of institutional controls, a second during which it is assumed that the biosphere will be comparable to the present, and a third that extends so far into the - future that the associated predictions have such unacceptably large uncertainties as to compromise their usefulness. The Commission may want to encourage this type of

approach, c.

Fundamental to the standards should be a provision that individuals and populations in the future are accorded a level of protection at least equivalent to that which is accorded to individuals and populations alive now. ISSUE ONE "Whether a health-based standard based upon doses to individual i members of the public from releases to the accessible environment will provide a reasonable standard for protection of the health and safety of the general public"? In response to this inquiry, our answer is "Yes." In support of that view, we offer the following comments: } a. We interpret a " health-based standard" as incorporating a f " risk-based standard." In this sense, such an approach would represent a major step forward in that risk is a more funda-mental criterion than dose for the protection of members of the public. Although a risk-based standard could incorporate a limit on the dose, it should also reflect the possibility that the limit could be exceeded. Setting the standards on i the basis of risk would also avoid having to revise them as newer data on the health effects of radiation are developed. In addition, application of a risk-based standard makes it J possible to compare the risks of radionuclide releases from a l high-level waste repository to the risks from other environ-mental contaminants. 3 b. Interestingly, this approach, if adopted, would place an i

annual, versus cumulative, limit on permissible doses to l

members of the public. In incorporating this approach, i however, it is important that the limit include application of the concept of the " critical group," rather than the concept i of the " maximally exposed individual." Benefits of the J concept of the " critical group" are that it ensures not only that members of the public will not receive unacceptable exposures, but also that decisions on the acceptability of a practice will not be prejudiced by a very small number of individuals with unusual habits. 38 4 m --n , ~ wv

The Honorable Ivan Selin 3 February 5, 1993 l c. A standard containing a radionuclide release limit avoids the necessity to estimate environmental radionuclide transport and associated human intake. [However, determining compliance with such a standard through environmental monitoring would be t very difficult, as would be comparing a release limit to the impacts of other radiation sources (e.g., natural back-ground).] An environmental standard should have broad application; one that incorporates radionuclide release limits is useful only as a guide for design. d. Limits on individual doses should not be used as a justifica-tion for selecting poor repository sites. For certain proposed sites, it could theoretically be possible to exceed a dose limit for individual members of the public due to the fact that there is very little water available. A " risk-based" standard would help to overcome this problem by making it necessary to take into consideration the probability 1 that the individual dose limit might be exceeded. At the same time, limitations on the quantities of water available would restrict the number-of people who could be exposed, and the associated collective doses (or societal impacts) of the radionuclide releases. In this regard, it should be noted that collective dose estimates beyond several generations are not very useful due to a lack of information on the number, or the living habits, of people who might live in a given area. i ISSUE TWO i "Whether it is reasonable to assume that 3 system for post-closure oversight of the repository can be developed, based upon active i institutional controls, that will prevent an unreasonable risk of breaching the repository's engineered or geologic barriers or increasing the exposure of individual members of the public to radiation beyond allowable limits"? 1 In response to this inquiry, our answer is "No." Supplementing this response, we offer the following comments: a. As a basic premise, we believe that the assumption of institu-tional control (or oversight) for extremely long periods of time is neither practicable nor workable. It is imperative that the assumption of post-closure oversight not be used as a justification for lessening the stringency of the repository design. b. Reliance on active controls also has the disadvantage of conceivably leading to acceptance of an otherwise unsatisfac-l tory disposal facility, because it could be assumed that unacceptable radionuclide releases would be detected and mitigated by active controls. 39 i

. _ ~ 1 i The Honorable Ivan Selin 4 February 5, 1993 c. The post-closure phase presents an opportunity to continue to monitor the performance of the repository and to gather data that could be useful in the siting and design of similar facilities in the future. Although we share with the NRC staff the concerns that intrusive monitoring equipment is not acceptable, we believe that technologies could be developed for collecting data through remote sensing operations or 1 electrical connections that will not negate the integrity of the repository. Key parameters on which data might be collected include thermal conditions, the presence of mois-i ture, seismic events, and radionuclide releases. ISSUE THREE "Whether it is possible to make scientifically supportable predictions of the probability that the repository's engineered or geologic barriers will be breached as a result of human intrusion over a period of 10,000 years"? In response to this inquiry, our answer is "No." On the basis of our discussions, we offer the following comments: a. As a basic premise, we believe that the design, construction, and operation of an HLW repository should be conducted using the assumption that there will be no post-closure oversight. That is to say, we believe that the design should be robust enough to ensure that such oversight is not necessary. b. In our opinion, inadvertent human intrusion into the proposed Yucca Mountain repository over the next 10,000 years is a reasonable likelihood; in fact, we believe it is reasonable i to assume a probability of one for such an event. This being i the case, we concur with the Board on Radioactive Waste l Management that it would be more appropriate for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to base its risk assessments of human intrusion on its potential consequences, rather than its probability. Following this approach, the possibility of l human intrusion should be a factor in the selection of a site and the design of a disposal facility. l I c. We believe that the risk-based standards for individual members of the public should generally apply to radionuclide releases that occur as a result of human intrusions that have a probability of bypassing a portion of the repository barrier system. However, the limits should not apply to public i exposures that occur as a result of actions by intruders who l bypass all the repository barriers. Intruders who possess the [ capability to intrude into a repository in such a manner would presumably possess sufficient technological capabilities to identify any radionuclide releases that accompany such t actions. The standards should include general guidance on l I I 40 t v--~

The Honorable Ivan Selin 5 February 5, 1993 design considerations that might compensate for the damage to a facility caused by human intrusion and mitigate any radionuclide releases to the environment. d. We believe that the probabilities and consequences of human intrusion should be considered outside the normal evaluation of the safety of a repository in the same manner as threats of sabotage are considered in terms of releases from a commercial nuclear power plant. For this reason, we concur with the DOE position that radionuclide releases to the accessible environ-ment from human intrusion should be treated separately from potential radionuclide releases caused by natural processes and events. e. In addition to the spec.t f ic requirements enumerated in the statement of this issue, the upcoming National Academy of Sciences study offers an excellent opportunity to investigate the possibility of making scientifically supportable predic-tions of the probability that various barriers within the repository will be breached as a result of natural events over a period of 10,000 years. We strongly encourage such an effort. We trust these comments will be helpful. The Committee plans to continue to review the impacts of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 on the disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Sincerely, N_ _ 4 Dade W. Moeller Chairman References-1 1. SECY-93-13, dated January 25, 1993, for the Commissioners, from James M. Taylor, EDO, " Analysis of Energy Policy Act of 1992 Issues Related to High-Level Waste Disposal Standards" 2. National Radiological Protection Board (UK), " Board Statement on Radiological Protection Objectives for the Land-Based Disposal of Solid Radioactive Wastes," Volume 3, No. 3, 1992 l 1 41 i

@ MGy\\ UNITED STATES i y 3..-a ' h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/

/ r ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE g j WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 g-f February 9, 1993 I The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairman Selin:

a

SUBJECT:

PROGRAM PLAN FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE Since December 1989, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has provided at four-month intervals a program plan of anticipated l Committee activities. We view the letters forwarding these plans as a convenient avenue for sharing information on where we intend to focus our efforts. This letter covers our proposed plan for February through May 1993. We look forward to your comments. In preparing this program plan, we have considered the list of i technical issues of particular interest to the Commission, requests of individual Commissioners, the agenda items proposed by the s Executive Director for Operations (EDO) for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and ACNW, the NRC Five-Year Plan, and items i of particular interest and/or concern to the Committee members. The priority for each proposed issue is based on information provided by representatives of the office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), and the EDO

office, as well as our own interpretation of the subject in relation to our activities as a Committee and our input into the regulatory process.

The schedule for the program plan, as outlined, is based on the current best estimates of work output by the Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and NRC staff and l their consultants and contractors (including the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses [CNWRA)). As a result, it is anticipated that certain aspects of the plan will need to be revised. Full-Committee meetings for this period are tentatively scheduled as follows: 51st meeting February 24-26, 1993 52nd meeting March 24-25, 1993 i 53rd meeting April 28-29, 1993 54th meeting May 19-20, 1993 c 43

The Honorable Ivan Selin 2 February 9, 1993 In addition, we will hold working group meetings as necessary to facilitate full-Committee review and action on specialized topics. i specific Topics to be covered during these meetings are described below. February 24-26, 1993 - Sist Meeting i The Committee will meet with the Commission to discuss items l e of mutual interest. These include the Committee's report on .j a systems analysis of the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal program and its review of the charge given by Congress to EPA and the National Academy of Sciences regarding the development of standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain HLW repository. (High Priority) The Committee will review with the NRC staff possible impacts e of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 on ongoing agency initiatives in the HLW arena. (High Priority) The Committee will discuss with technical and legal profes-sionals the acceptance, in an adjudicatory review, of scien-tific evidence based primarily on expert judgment. (High Priority) The Committee will meet with university personnel to discuss ongoing research on the development of computer programs for assessing airborne releases from earth-mounded concrete bunkers and other types of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. Of particular interest will be the evaluation of any possible impacts of such studies on associ-i ated NRC regulations, regulatory guides, and technical posi-tions. (Medium Priority) t The Committee will be briefed by a representative of the New l e Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group on the assessment of flammability and explosion potential of transuranic waste. i (Medium Priority) March 24-25, 1993 - 52nd Meeting I i The Committee will meet with representatives from the Electric e Power Research Institute (EPRI) to discuss studies EPRI has conducted on the volumes of LLW that may require interim

storage, the applicable regulatory requirements, and the i

associated guidelines for waste generators. (High Priority) J The Committee will explore with invited State representatives e and others the creation of a nationwide system for summarizing current trends and indicators of performance in LLW management i and disposal. Included will be the possible development of a i 44 i

The Honorable Ivan Selin 3 February 9, 1993 i system to report significant events (mishaps) that occur during such operations. (High Priority) The Committee will be briefed on proposed LLW disposal sites e rejected by LLW host States. Representatives from host States, HMSS, and the Office of State Programs will partici-pate. (High Priority) The Committee will meet with the NRC staff to hear an updated f report on the status of the Licensing Support System program. l (Medium Priority) The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on the. rela-i e tionship of the review of the State of Alaska radiation control program by the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors to similar reviews by the NRC staff. (Medium I Priority) April 28-29, 1993 - 53rd Meetinq j i e The Committee will be briefed by DOE personnel on newly developing strategies and initiatives for confirming a site i for an HLW repository. (High Priority) } The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on its review e of the Maine LLW Authority's Waste Disposal Facility Conceptu-al Design Report. (High Priority) { The Committee will be briefed on the status of the decommis-sioning plans for the Ft. St. Vrain Nuclear Power Plant, i' (High Priority) 1 e The Committee will review and comment on the Standard Review Plan for the Review of Remedial Action of Inactive Mill Tailing Sites Under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), Revision 1. (Medium Priority) The Committee will be briefed on the working group's review of o three additional regulatory guides being developed for implementing the revised 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation." (Medium Priority) May 19-20. 1993 - 54th Meeting r e The Committee will review and comment on the revised draf t NRC High-Level Radioactive Waste Research Program Plan (NUREG-i 1406) and the associated implementation strategy. The discussion will include a briefing on the complementary technical assistance program. (High Priority) 45 i e -- - -,-r -,nm.,

The Honorable Ivan Selin 4 February 9, 1993 Tne Committee will hear a status report by the NRC staff on e the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning. (High Priority) The Committee will be briefed on the status of the decommis-e sioning plans for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. (High Priority) The Committee will review the NRC staff's approach in using the Dose Integrated Over Ten Thousand Years (DITTY) Code for verifying cleanup at sites considered under the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking. Basic assumptions, scope of use, and extent of use will be addressed. (Medium Priority) i The Committee will be briefed on the Decision Support System, e an interagency cooperative effort (RES is involved for NRC) being developed by Sandia National Laboratories to generate an environmental risk evaluation and database management system. (Medium Priority) l e The Committee will receive an information briefing on the Waste Characterization Study. (Medium Priority) Other Topics - These will be considered as documents and time become available, taking into consideration their relevant priorities. i The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on its plans e for developing guidance (branch technical positions and j regulatory guides) for the HLW and LLW programs. (High 4 Priority) { e The Committee will be briefed on the potential impacts that different waste forms (spent fuel, vitrified wastes from dif ferent sources, etc. ) could have on repository performance. (High Priority) The Committee will review and comment on the development of a e staff branch technical position on guidance for performance assessments of LLW disposal facilities. (High Priority) i e The Committee will be briefed on the NRC Five-Year Plan, i specifically in areas such as the goals of NRC HLW and LLW programs and associated research. (High Priority) I e The Committee will be briefed on the current status of the systematic regulatory analysis being conducted by the CNWRA. (High Priority) The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on its review e of a DOE topical report entitled " Erosion Rates at the Yucca 46 a --- - m

The Honorable Ivan Selin 5 February 9, 1993 Mountain Geologic Setting: Methodology and Results. " (Medium Priority) The Committee will be briefed on the compatibility between NRC e and Agreement State regulations for LLW disposal facilities. (Medium Priority) e The Committee will attend a tutorial conducted by the NRC staff (NMSS and RES) on the step-by-step technique that involves the use of personal computers to calculate complemen-tary cumulative distribution functions. (Medium Priority) The Committee will be briefed by scientists from Johns Hopkins e University on their studies on the use of geochemical natural analogs for estimating the performance of an HLW repository. (Medium Priority) The Committee will continue to broaden and update its technical understandina of HLW disposal by the followina technical exchances away from headquarters: e June 23-24, 1993 - Tour and interactions with personnel at Canada's Whiteshell Nuclear and Underground Research Laborato-ries. October 27-28, 1993 - Tour and interactions with DOE program e office personnel in Las Vegas, Nevada, and at the Yucca Mountain site. ACNW WORKING GROUP MEETINGS e Pequlatory Guides for Implementina Revisions to 10 CFR Part Z_0, March 26, 1993, Bethesda, MD - An ACNW working group and the ACRS Subcommittee for Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems will jointly review the following proposed regulatory guides for implementing revised 10 CFR Part 20: (1) DG-8006, " Control of Access to High and Very High Radia-tion Areas in Nuclear Power Plants," (2) DG-8009, "Interpreta-tion of Bioassay Measurements," and (3) DG-8013, "ALARA Radiation Protection Program for Effluents From Materials Facilities." Low-Level Radioactive Waste Performance Indicators, March 23, e The working group will explore with { 1993, Bethesda, MD invited State' representatives and others the creation of a nationwide system for summarizing current trends and indica-tors of performance in LLW management and disposal. Included will be the possible development of a system to report significant events (mishaps) that occur during such opera-tions. 47

The Honorable Ivan Selin 6 February 9, 1993 _Encineered Barrier Systems (date to be determined), Bethesda, e MD - The working group will review the role of, and the degree of reliance that should be placed on, engineered versus natural barriers within an HLW geologic repository system. e Potential Impact of Groundwater Use on the Performance of a Proposed Hich-Level Waste Repository (date to be determined), Bethesda, MD - The working group will consider the likelihood of groundwater use and the resulting impacts of this use on the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain HLW repository. Included will be an evaluation of the potential for the development of geothermal energy sources within the vicinity of the proposed site. This meeting will supplement the October 20, 1992 ACNW working group meeting on the potential for natural resources at the Yucca Mountain site. _C_haracterization of the Unsaturated Zone Flow and Transport Properties (date to be determined), Bethesda, MD - The working group will examine the relationships between precipitation,

recharge, and flux through the unsaturated zone at the proposed Yucca Mountain site, and the adequacy of ongoing field studies to ascertain these relationships.

Emphasis will be placed on the modeling of flow in the unsaturated zone, alternative conceptual models of fracture versus matrix flow, and conditions under which fracture flow can be shown to predominate. The working group will also focus on the recharge term in hydrogeologic models, alternative conceptual models for how and where regional recharge occurs, and the effect of assumptions about recharge on model results. e Use of Fractals for F]uid Flow at Yucca Mountain (date to be determined), Bethesda, MD - The working group will examine the use of fractals in the development of conceptual and numerical models of fluid flow in unsaturated, fractured rock. Studies show that the roughness characteristics of fracture surfaces can be simulated by the use of fractals. DOE is considering the use of this approach in its study plan on fluid flow in unsaturated fractured rock systems. This list represents our best estimate of the topics to be considered through May 1993. If you or your fellow Commissioners have additional items to suggest or proposed changes in priorities, please let us know. Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman 48

l. The Honorable Ivan Selin 7 February 9,.1993 cc: Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque Samuel J. Chilk, SECY James M. Taylor, EDO Robert M. Bernero, NMSS il' Eric S. Beckjord, RES i-L L 1 .l 1 I i l l 49 l l

tb8"IGO . ye. UNITED STATES y '3 h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1

E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

1. 8 o,

WASHINGTON. D C. 20555 p#

• ..e March 3, 1993 The Honorable Ivan Selin l

Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF l 1992 ON-NRC ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS ONGOING NRC INITIATIVES IN THE HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROGRAM During its Sist meeting, February 24-26,

1993, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with the NRC staff to discuss its response to the Commission request for the staf f's views on the possible impacts of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 on ongoing NRC initiatives in the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) arena.

The staff was to pay particular attention to the impacts on activities to identify the regulatory uncertainties in 10 CFR Part 60. The discussion focused on the potential impacts of the outcome of the-charge within the Act that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) request the assistance and guidance of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in developing a set of generally applicable standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. A key factor to keep in mind is that the EPA standards (and 10 CFR Part 60) will primarily be used as guides for the design of the proposed HLW repository. We concur, as stated by the Executive j Director for Operati'ons (EDO) in his memorandum of February 9, i 1993, that the most immediate impact, regardless of changes to the ] EPA standards, is the necessity for significant interactions by the NRC staff with both the NAS and EPA as each organization moves 3 forward with the responsibilities assigned to it by the U.S. Congress. j Possible NAS Recommendations to EPA In preparing its

response, the NRC staff hypothesized four recommendations that the NAS could make.

These were designed to span the range of likely impacts of the NAS recommendations (and subsequent EPA standards) on the NRC HLW program. We believe the four alternatives bound the range of possibilities. These alternatives, with modifications suggested by the ACNW, can be ,l stated as follows: 51

The Honorable Ivan Selin 2 March 3, 1993 1. Retain the 1985 cumulative radionuclide release limits, but support them with a ratii nale based on doses to individual members of the public. 2. Extend the individual protection requiremente of the 1985 EPA standards to 10,000 years. 3. Add a " health-based standard" or " risk-based standard," delete the cumulative radionuclide release standard, and af-i the use h of institutional controls to prevent human intrusion. 4. Combine Alternatives 2 and 3 and add the use of institutional controls to mitigate the effects of radionuclide releases caused by natural events. Impacts of the Alternatives on Reculatory and Technical Uncertainties In order to assess the impacts of these alternatives, it would have been helpful if the staff had included the portions of the Systematic Regulatory Analysis that relate to the Commission's question. Nevertheless, our review of the report prepared by the NRC staff indicates that the various alternatives would have the following possible impacts on the regulatory and technical uncertainties in the NRC program: 1. Alternative 1 would result in essentially no changes to the regulatory uncertainties facing the NRC; standards as outlined in this alternative are substantially the same as those promulgated earlier by EPA. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 would require projections of individual dose rates far into the future, and this would presumably increase the associated uncertainties. The extent of these uncertainties, however, may be reduced by focusing on an average member of the " critical group," as previously recommended by the ACNW. 3. As noted by the NRC staf f, Alternative 3 would negate any need to evaluate either human intrusion or its associated uncertainties. We believe, however, that there would still be a need to characterize the natural resource potential of the Yucca Mountain site. The NRC staff has not presented a compelling argument to support its contencion that this alternative would require deletion or modification of 10 CFR 60.122 or changes in the subsystem requirements of 10 CFR 60.113. 4. Adoption of an individual dose standard (under Alternative 3) would probably require additional site characterization by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). For example, it would be 52 l ~.

The Honorable Ivan Selin 3 March 3, 1993 necessary to estimate more accurately the concentrations, rates, and timing of projected radionuclide releases. This could increase the associated uncertainties. This would also l increase the corresponding review efforts by the NRC' staff. j In addition, such a change would require extending the associated performance assessment models to include specific dose pathways. 5. The existing EPA standards are based on what is technically l achievable. Use of a health-based standard could result in standards that are less stringent and therefore more readily subject to confirmation of compliance. This should reduce the associated regulatory uncertainties. 6. Alternatives 3 and 4 require that prolonged institutional l controls be developed to prevent human intrusion and to l mitigate the effects of radionuclide releases that occur as a result of natural events, respectively. Both of these necessitate that 10 CFR Part 60 be supplemented with more detailed requirements relative to associated repository monitoring. These requirements would have associated I technical and regulatory uncertainties. Such a monitoring l program would also have to be supervised by the NRC staff, and its implementation would negate the staff's desire to terminate the repository license once the HLW had been emplaced and the facility had been sealed. 7. Alternative 4 would also necessitate a major revision in the nature and purpose of the siting and design requirements of 10 CFR Part 60 to reflect the use of institutional controls and possible engineered systems to mitigate the effects of radionuclide releases caused by natural events. This would result in major changes to the Format and Content of the License Application for the High-Level Wasta arpository, the License Application Review Plan, and c.ol 4 assessment requirements. Alternative 4 may also reg ra :. n _ anal site characterization,

design, and assess nts by DOE for i

mitigating the effects of natural events. as a result, the i staff would need to conduct additional reviews and quality assurance activities in all of these areas. These changes would involve additional technical and regulatory uncertainties. Summarv It appears that the NRC staff (consistent with our understanding of the charge given to it) has addressed most of the regulatory and technical uncertainties associated with the anticipated range of ? impacts of the EPA standards, as they would be revised for the proposed Yucca Mountain HLW repository. The key items with which 53

4 I The Honorable Ivan Selin 4 March 3, 1993 1 we disagree or that we have added to those enumerated by the NRC i staff are summarized below. 1. Although the application of institutional controls to prevent human intrusion would negate any need to evaluate associated radionuclide releases or the related uncertainties, the natural resource potential of the Yucca Mountain site would still need to be characterized. 2. The NRC staff has not presented a compelling argument to support its contention that prevention of human intrusion would require deletion or modification of 10 CFR 60.122. Similarly the staff has not supported its contention that T adoption of a risk-based standard would necessitate changes in the subsystem requirements of 10 CFR 60.113. 3. Application of the critical group concept may reduce the extent of the regulatory and technical uncertainties associated with estimating individual dose retes. 4. The requirement for long-term monitoring after repository closure will negate the ability of the NRC to terminate its involvement with the licensee; it will also require that the NRC staff develop regulations for such monitoring. We trust these comments will be helpful. We will continue to interact with the NRC ataff as it follows these developments. Sincerely, a Dade W. Moeller Chairman j 54

maro,v ?,, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y)3m .E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE o, [ WASHINGTON. D C. 20555 %, *..../ March 31, 1993 Mr. James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

SOUFCE TERM AND OTHER LOW-LEVEL WASTE CONSIDERATIONS On March 23-24, 1993, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) convened a working group meeting to discuss data being collected on the characteristics of low-level radioactive waste (LLW). The primary purpose of this meeting was to gain a better understanding of the LLW source term, emphasizing those character-istics of the waste that, upon disposal, might influence public health and safety. Participating in the meeting were members of the NRC staff, processors of LLW, operators of the three existing LLW disposal facilities, and representatives from the Low Level Waste Forum, the Electric Power Research Institute, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), and four states in which methoc's for disposing their LLW are under consideration. This i matter was also discussed during the 52nd ACNW meeting, held on March.24-25, 1993. Through this letter, we share with you some of our findings, observations, and conclusions. SOURCE TERM 1. We have been concerned that data on LLW emplaced ir a disposal-facility may be insufficient to evaluate the pocential for radionuclide releases. We understand that one of the guiding criteria in the development of the Uniform Low-Level Radioac-tive Waste Manifest System was to provide data considered essential to the conduct of performance assessments of t disposal facilities. It may be that further refinements of the Manifest System will be required to satisfy additional-needs for data. Owing to the site-specific data requirements for estimating the release and transport of radionuclides from disposal facilities, the staff should ensure that the data l being collected through the Manifest System can be used for analyses covering the full range of environments likely to be found in the various LLW disposal facilities. Also, we urge that the practice by the NRC staff to provide definitive i 55

l I Mr. James M. Taylor 2 March 31, 1993 j guidance to several of the states in the design of LLW source term surveys be continued. 4 2. Improvements have been made in the methods that are available l for estimating the quantities of certain key radionuclides l 129 (for example, I) that are present in LLW. Although, in l prior years, the concentrations of radionuclides estimated to be present at below detectable levels were recorded at the levels of detection, empirical scaling factors have been developed that result in significant improvements in the quality of such estimates. The program of the NRC staff to encourage submission, review, and approval of a topical report on this matter should be expedited. Once the topical report has been approved, implementation of the new scaling factors should be encouraged. There also continues to be a need for much better recording of the bases for the quantities of specific radionuclides present in LLW. One item of informa-tion that should be included in the Manifest System is whether such quantities are based on measurements or estimates. 3. Although better source term data will be useful as indicators of trends in the generation of LLW, such data will be benefi-cial in many other ways. These include their application in l facility sizing and design, transportation studies, waste l processing, occupational health and safety assessments, and cost evaluations. Although source term data will, at best, continue to have accompanying uncertainties, these uncertain-ties will often be smaller than those associated with the data in the environmental transport models used in performance assessments. Thus, attention needs to continue to be given to improving both the models and the data used for assessing environmental transport. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 1. There is a need to provide better guidance to LLW facility developers on the characterization of sites for LLW disposal facilities, in terms of both screening such sites and conduct-ing detailed evaluations of those that are undergoing further consideration. The data resulting from site characterization may be equal in importance to those on the source term. The NRC staff should institute an aggressive procram of regulatory support to the states involved in such activities. 2. There is an increasing trend on the part of LLW generators to send the waste to treatment facilities for processing before disposal. Such processes include incineration, super-compac-tion, and smelting. These processes provide not only the i desirable volume reduction but, in some cases, enable the waste to be converted into inert forms by, for example, vitrification of the ash from incineration. These processes 56 4 r --

Mr. James M. Taylor 3 March 31, 1993 i hold promise for more definitive performance assessments of LLW disposal facilities with the attending increases in 1 confidence about the protection of the health and safety of i the public. 3. The Performance Assessment Center at INEL maintains a library of computer codes and performance assessment methodologies, and its staff is available to assist the states in health and safety assessments of proposed LLW disposal facilities. The NRC staff should encourage the states to take advantage of this resource. This is especially true in light of the fact + that many different approaches are currently being used by the individual states in conducting performance assessments. Another incentive for using the Performance Assessment Center is that both LLW disposal facility developers and regulators i often see performance assessments as a discrete component of the LLW disposal process, not as an essential part of disposal facility evaluation. This situation needs to be recognized by I the NRC and Agreement States. We understand that appropriate t guidance is being incorporated into the LLW Performance Assessment Development Program Plan being prepared by the NRC { staff. i ~ 4. The representative from Texas indicated that the state had developed a system whereby radioactive wastes containing radionuclides with half-lives less than 300 days, or having external exposure rates of less than 0.01 mSv/ year (1 mrem / year), can be sent to a municipal sanitary landfill for i disposal subject to certain restrictions. This has resulted i in considerable savings with no apparent detrimental health effects. j 5. On December 28, 1990, the NRC staff issued a request that the i nuclear power plant utilities report any mishaps that occur in the management and disposal of LLW such as, for example, l failures in the solidification of ion exchange resins. The l NRC staff should be encouraged to tabulate and report this information. l l 6. Several participants in the working group meeting were concerned that the individual states and compacts are not j i acting to reduce the number of LLW disposal facilities under l consideration. With the trend toward waste compaction and i incineration and the application of techniques to reduce the s generation of LLW, the number of disposal facilities required j may be reduced even further. Although correcting this situation is not the responsibility of the NRC, an overabun-i dance of disposal facilities, each operating on a part-time l basis, could lead to health and safety problems. 4 I 57 j e ,,-.y-~,,y, - - - - -w_,-. ,,~,

.= _~_-= 1 Mr. James M. Taylor 4 March 31, 1993 As may be noted from the comments above, the working group meeting proved to be stimulating and informative. We will continue to follow these and related topics. Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman l I t-t h 5 a T r 58

j,d ** "' G%g y, ,S UNITED STATES l g ' )3 }, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISClON j E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASit 5.* ' 0,, I ~ ' 8 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 5 "%..V' e March 31, 1993 Mr. Ja.mes M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 I l

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 60 CLARIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT OF SITING CRITERIA During its 52nd meeting, March 24-25, 1993, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste met with members of the Office of Nuclear Material l Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) to review the proposed rulemaking on " Amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 Clarifying the Requirements for Assessment of Siting Criteria." On the basis of our discussions with the staff and our detailed reading of the supporting documents, we believe that the NMSS staff has prepared the proposed rulemaking in a competent manner. We endorse issuance of the proposed rulemaking for public comment. Sincerely, l Dade W. Moeller Chairman

Reference:

Memorandum dated March 11, 1993 from B. J. Youngblood, HMSS, to John Larkins, ACNW, transmitting " Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 Clarifying the Requirements for Assessment of Siting Criteria" 59

pa atcoq) UNITED STATES + 8,' 3 m ' h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g( c ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE ( '[ D WASHINGTON, D C. 20S55 %...*4 May 25, 1993 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

REVISION 1 OF THE FINAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR THE REVIEW OF REMEDIAL ACTION OF INACTIVE MILL TAILINGS SITES UNDER TITLE I OF THE URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT At its 53rd meeting, May 19-20, 1993, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste met with the NRC staff to discuss the subject document. The Committee concluded that the revised Standard Review Plan was well prepared, covered the subject in a comprehensive and clear manner, and therefore is ready to be issued. The Committee recognizes that there are differences in the regulatory considerations associated with. Title I and Title II sites. Nonetheless, we believe that the general approach outlined in the subject document will also be suitable for application-to Title II sites. Sincerely, Yg Dade W. Moeller Chairman

Reference:

Memorandum dated January 21, 1993, for John Larkins, ACNW, from Abraham L. Eiss, NMSS,

Subject:

Transmittal of Proposed Final Standard Review Plan for the Review of Remedial Action of Inactive Mill Tailings Sites Under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, Revision 1 61

i

emcwIo, UNITED STATES

+ ' i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i t. E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

/

.*[ WASHINGTON O C. 20555 1 o,gv j e.... l May 25, 1993 Mr. James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF APRIL 21, 1993, DRAFT HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE RESEARCH PROGRAM PLAN During its 53rd meeting, May 19-20, 1993, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste met with the NRC staff to discuss the latest draft of the "High-Level Radioactive Waste Research Program Plan" (Draft NUREG-1406). Last year the Committee reviewed an earlier draft of the report. Our comments at that time were summarized in a letter to you dated May 1, 1992. More recently, individual members of the Committee have interacted with representatives of the RES staff on this subject on an informal basis. On the basis of our latest review, we offer the following comments: 1. The current draft of the report shows progress and reflects considerable ef fort on the part of the NRC staff. Although we believe they have conscientiously attempted to respond to our suggestions and comments, we recognize that development of the report is an iterative process that is not completed. 2. Concerns regarding the draft document are enumerated in the transcript of our meeting on May 19, 1993. These concerns include a need to define the audience for the report; to improve the clarity-and conciseness of the discussions of the principal issues; to provide better guidance for improved programmatic interactions among the several relevant groups and organizations; and to define clearly the methodology for assigning priorities and resources. 3. We recommend - the completed revised report be reviewed by senior level members of the NRC management staff. Overall, we have concluded that development of the draft High-Level Radioactive Waste Research Program Plan has been a useful learning process for all involved. Although considerable progress has been made, work remains. 63

Mr. James M. Taylor' 2 May 25, 1993 We trust these comments will be deemed constructive and that they will provide useful guidance. Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman

Reference:

NRC High-Level Radioactive Waste Research Program Plan (NUREG 1406) Pre-Decisional ADril 21. 1993 Draft Document i \\ 4 i ) 64

f[p mc I UNITED STATES s y ) 3 uf'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -J\\ c ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE o,

• [

WASHINGTON. O C 20555 %, '*.../ June 30, 1993 l The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

SUBJECT:

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON THE JUNE 8, 1993 MEMORANDUM FROM l SAMUEL J. CHILE TO DADE W. MOELLER AND JOHN T. LARKINS REGARDING RENEWAL OF APPOINTMENTS AND ACNW CHARTER MODIFICATIONS Members of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste have conducted a preliminary review of the subject documents, paying particular attention to your charge that the Committee focus in greater depth on a smaller number of issues. We are seeking a better understand-ing of the meaning of these changes and their significance in terms of the Committee's activities and viability. We are developing a process for implementing these changes in order to serve the Commission in a more effective manner. As part of this process, we offer the following comments for your consideration. We appreciate the Commission's guidance to help us focus on key issues. The revised charter directs us to concentrate on 10 CFR Parts 60 and 61 and to be responsive to Commission requests and directives. It is our understanding that we will continue to be i responsible for analyzing and reporting to the Commission on l_ significant topics that we identify related to waste disposal and i research. We trust that you expect the Committee to identify emerging issues and to propose, as appropriate, topics related to nuclear waste that are outside this charter but are significant to public health and safety or could adversely impact the Commission's ability to conduct effective regulatory programs. Another comment concerns the terms and qualification of members of the Committee. It may be useful to limit the term of members of the ACNW. However, the obvious need to maintain the institutional memory of the Committee, to provide continuity, and to ensure that the limited number of members on the Committee are able to function in a relatively uninterrupted fashion, leads us to a strong recommendation that no more than one member of the Committee be changed in any one year. Further, while the fields of expertise suggested in the subject document may be useful, the large range of technical and scientific topics encompassed by nuclear waste 65

The Honorable Ivan Selin 2 June 30, 1993 management may make it desirable to ensure that members are broadly knowledgeable in technical and scientific areas related to this field. We plan to obtain suitable nominations for candidates with several types of backgrounds. We believe that a critical element in the operation of the Committee is an effective system for communications with the Commissioners. If the Committee is to be of most benefit to the Commission, it is essential that the Commission provide to the Committee its insights and help to identify priority issues. As part of this process, it would be advantageous for the Committee to have more opportunities for in-depth discussions with the Commis-sioners on significant topics. We look forward to worki y with you to enhance our methods for communications. As noted in Mr. Chilk's memorandum, increasing activit s in the general area of nuclear waste disposal are anticipated. Although we will make every effort to conserve resources, based on a preliminary assessment, we do not envision being able to meet the needs of the Commission, even under the revised charter, with any significant reduction in our budget. In a continuing effort to be responsive to the subject documents, we plan to meet next month with several Commissioners to gain the benefit of their counsel and guidance. This will be followed in August by a Committee retreat during which we will develop a plan for improving the overall effectiveness of the Committee. We look forward to reporting the results of the retreat to you and submitting a list of potential candidates for Committee membership. This list will be prepared with due regard for the technical specialty areas that you have identified. We look forward to the development of a mutually agreeable plan for future Committee activities. We believe and hope that the Commission concurs, that it is important to the Commission, the NRC staf f, and the public to have a nuclear waste advisory committee to serve as a source of independent advice and technical support. Finally, while we recognize that we serve at your pleasure, it is essential that we have the full confidence and support of the Commission as we proceed toward our mutual goals. Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman 66 ~ ' ' ' ' =v"~-'

4 The Honorable Ivan Selin 3 June 30, 1993 i Re.ference: Memorandum dated June 8, 1993, from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, for Dade W. Moeller, Chairman, ACNW and John T. Larkins, Executive Director, ACNW,

Subject:

COMIS-93-003, COMFR 001 COMPR-93-001 - ACNW Charter and COMSECY-93-018 Renewal of i Appointments of Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) Members (LIMITED DISTRIBUTION) L l 67

l l SUIUECT INDEX 10 CFR Part 20 17 10 CFR Pan 60 . 22,59 10 CFR Pan 960 22 Carbon-14 . 24 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) 24 Climatology 33 Committee Chaner 65 Early site suitability evaluation 1 Energy Policy Act of 1992 21,37,51 Engineered barrier system 22 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 24,37,51 Expert judgment . 23 Fault displacement 19 High-level mdioactive waste disposal program . 21,51 Iligh-level mdioactive waste repesitory site. . 5, 9 Iligh-level radioactive waste research program 63 Itemtive perfonnance assessment (IPA) 31 l Iow-level mdioactive waste source tenn . 55 Monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facilities 25 Program plan .I1, 43 i Quality Assumnce ..... 22 Radiation protection program 17 Regulatory guides... 17 Researth progam.... 63 Site characterization analysis 5,26 Sourre term 55 Southern Great Basin 33 Systems analysis approach 21 69

SUBJECT INDEX Technical positions ........................9,19 Thennal loads ........................................... 9 Uranium mills .................61 Yu cca Mou nt ain.................................... ........5 y 9 9 e t t } [ n f ( .? t i i s n 70 i y I U i

NRC 70f*M 335 U.S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N

1. REPORT NUMBtR

%""*"**A ",L,".L %'T *"- UEL nos. mi. m BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET (5er mstructans on the renese)

2. TITLE AND SUBitTLE NUREG-1423, Volume 4 A Compilation of Reports of the Advisory Committee 3

o^TE RtPoRr euBoiSHeo "oa " ^a on Nuclear Waste - July 1992 - June 1993 l August 1993

4. FIN OR GR ANT NUMBE R

5. AUTHOR {S)

6. TYPE OF REPORT Comnilation

7. PE RIOD'COV E R E D fincam.e ustest v

i l Julv 1992 - June 1993 l l

e. ey ORgN

,N12 AT lON - N AME AND ADDR ESS (n 4ac. prorm Ow.s,en. Ofte or me,.on. us swear m,vserary c-,, e,.er ee.e,ing empress. n to erweer, pro as, l Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 2

9. SPONSORING ORG ANIZATION N AME AND ADDR E$$ tif mac. rype %nw a neo e~; # contrarror prwer NAC Damen. Offsce or Regen. us. muchar Rephtory Commespon, and ma*hne een,ess1 Same as above

[

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 11 ABSTR ACT f200 worm er sent I

This compilation contains 17 reports issued by the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) during the fifth year of its f operation. The reports were submitted to the Chairman and i Commissioners of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Executive Director for Operations, the Director, Office of Nuclear or to the Director, Division of j Material Safety and Safeguards, High Level Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. All reports prepared by the Committee have been made available to the public through the NRC Public Document Room and l the U. S. Library of Congress. P 1

13. *WA'LAseLH v st AltutNT

12. KE Y WOR DS/Di SCR:P10HS (t er worm er param enes wo must resee eners mi sucerme rae sesort.s nni4m4+mA

14. E'lcukT v CLAEU7 eCA f soh Nuclear Waste Manageraent

,7,,,,, High-Level Radioactive Waste Low-Level Radioactive Waste ,,"q$p==ifi=d 1 Safety Engineering aa = = 4 # 4 ^d i Safety Research 1s."r a m' =or m rs j

16. PRICE.

+ 98RC FOMM 335 (749) a w

l \\ ) i Printed on recycled paper Federal Recycling Program

.: 3 m w $~Y ! h qua hf?@ ip$ e + k'b 5s $l y m, ,~ + w" wig kl p;y <h$f 32 ~ e ~*& p agap yy4pg i $a.h k* > >hkn l pg 9~hY ~ ~ .,s f m l

?kh? n at i%

• MVY kh
• )$a $

in .Yh Miih$e g ifu y$vhl wl. L!hlg e

g :fl '

w ?g._5 .Q n85%g 3 . gg

h?

i 2 f$ 7N ,y fg p k u W[ %g}. . lD$! dfffiff a%g{$gt I QQwf e 9 X* Qmg$x M/ l p t 44%l. byl ~ lWi@"^ 9 ap'eO' Mk' <,, ilIk sp$3f( 2 Q /I i s,z. b s. e_ J?h; *' ~:), h[s . l..- u i qf;; s fk; g m;3 M9[6 ja. n .f / [' m Vyff%ys,. y,

"s T

c m QR e a(f T j; 4 %{2D fs y F# _( ( %b" !'k cs ~ w ff5 g! 9jhk., 9 t j.' Mgl," y. m. l :.. u n. 8 Qh. c :p y [N) 4Y,4 l a Y 'ltl, '. w:8 ^1ge ; 2 I gh? g w ~- '*'As.% ---%-,c-_.

- ~...

, h '.[.h..,[. . v.' [.,f ', (

l. ::

. Y h,:f 't.' l'.' '.(; "., s.1 . <.,.'[-D \\.' '.,[. 'k.I ;. . ','] ' 5 b.... U 5 7.[ [$ V... '., lIO' h. N..'.. [, f..":. j..f r, '. .;[ i;,< ;,.<..;. .):,.,... * :.; :....,,, '.. I, ' '...,', l..'\\s,.. (;, O..;;.,,..,.,.. ',.',".. *.'m,e. s' j, q',

• )I '

,. g.; r ; =. r. s- 'r: s.,.. es', -,,. ;.,i '....,i. o e* .m,....s,- .,.c.+ ,.w.".... 1 s _, ;.v .u'. ; 4,,g' ' 4.. ;.m. ~,.....

n.; 7..,..

,.

_., n.,

R,.y....

..r .y..; L. n,. t e.......;s. '.- ..<.c....,.c.a. :. -. ,a.,yA. e- - A .s ....z,.,l : '. ':", ;_l... >c..,..,'..*y._. .,.... - se c:;.,.7- } hn. .#.e.n. s v. .m,9.1 s .%~.,. e.> " ; f ',.., -- .:.y ^.-' ". : s ^ '..e., ,s s

s

e,.s :.: ;.. /

u 9 s.. )...,;,,.. hWee. e {4, s.1'.. - ..o. D.-, ...I,. ,,,,......_....,.,,.._.r...r. ..a. .',_.'.."v.',,',...<...- . 1. , s: = 4.. -. l: -. s,. :...: f ', :k... :.;j,..,

. h.. e ~.,.,.,-:1

,.} s c., - ,...~y S 3.s 3',. r,\\, O '. l -. ; ", 4, >. ;,, ::...v'. ' e w .s q e.7. -l ;+.,. c y%:s.+ A, ; ...... Q.,,?.. ~:. .t .n ' ' - .J ~. '..g.'q,.. ',. 'z.':.. ;.'._..,,,,,...,..l...;;<

*. ~,. ;,

lav. :. n r .y,_.,'Q..1,-,.... - -.v~.,

4. ;tq ;

.,,,, c)n..n..< n, s., ' ~., ; ~ ,,..L.._.;...-_e%, .. ] r :. : ?.:,......,,,,;;.m,. >. r_,' ,t*>' _c.,_.s...~ a.:*,.,:., * ;,,:', y. .,;..~ v v. _,. ~,... ..,.,z.','; ;,,._'_.3.,,,.,. , y 7..:c.p, n. s Or,., L. -. Q * -{. 'y. 3 g.-

• ,'s':.' ;:. -< :

.,9'.. ..s. .,, ',.. } : ;, ;,..,... ',.,. ,; '. Q W, y i. v ~s, n. ,s .r, . p. .'1',s... : n 'r

..,. g &.y.?

, : ','u.... h,', :; ;, y :..; f. -:,y;y. - q:',,.. ';.. *.,..,. 'v.j ...:= ;,.'. ;;..- h fu ' c ~'.r.^'s ;h '??b

• .s..,,19.

9. f, {,,, a. 7 -. - ".l,;,,

.,, A.

5. ;). ~." lr ? te - ' ; %.,, '..... : r ' e , ;:...A.a. ' :.

• f,';. 'A: r,

,",',4

u.

.a r(

>,- y.;.. ,(; .<: ;;. ' ;. :.. i; n * ...,a ,,-.'.f.. 3 5, t- -.*,4 ..q.q . ' v.1 .}** $ ' W,. i' tJ '.,::,. ?.2 ' ' : s_., - +, - 'f..a ' \\.. '.;,, ',, '. ',,J y't.<, G. }..', ,'..; ' '. ', ' " - N i '; ' ;,,,, y,,,, c, ,b. .l* .U*- q _ p 'f,, ( .'-.a *. '* : :.ll, t ;- -'r. t. '<. ,p'k,',.._.,.\\.,'*;~,',r.,..,n. se .,Q:.*.*,.,...;' ..._.,::'.,~....,'t.*.*:. .sr.. i, ' 1'.,y. Y' p ' :. i j: ',,,.,6'c',..,'?- i) .'s ., ' ^ ~ 4',. 4' '- J ., .y'V ', ' '.r o, l' M' ' '.., u e i g ,, s,. ' '; c,r 'w." '*,: ,..,...l'y

',L.f h '.

Vi _. " W U Me' ')5,,... A ) ',.,, 's. 'l,*'

r -

.f :/,f M,, A. 4 %,, :,,,,[ [ * )'.,' 'f.'.'.'3,,;,',,,,,,,.',,?,',.c'/.,,,,# ?. ? '. ','..",, 2 - 9 'J S. *, ' .9 ,I z i< I ',f:t ;," -,

• 1,,,, y? ".

,<:.,;'4 '/ d.,1., 0,;.%,Y:; c,,- w -,,R[..* ~l Y) '.,l l:!. A'- 7 r .. ; /, 't ',s,,.., ~ c T s o r f _t!.,,' y c **, ,,6. ,g,-.- ,:..',;,,.w.',, 1 h,., }J, g,;.,)",p, e." ,,,,,p', +; h.h *^- - ,'[."_'.' ,.... j L t.y; ;l. 'l, '. st. : A .-y.,.,,....,.'h , '.f,.,;),.,, ): f : * : ;, ,,.'.. " }

• f,_ ' :.,, ' ], b.h,.

.,'[,,* I

• .s

e..,;.., : ' ", '..,

l f' l'j;[.. ' ' ;. :,.' :.'.[, 'l.".T ?, l '.3 ' 'a; I, ' ~f-1 y ' TIQ1 _ '[' ;,,. f. ' ';.2,i, ; _f ' g[*[, g.y'. : :,f.., i',^ D ?,,;. ; r.%_'

' '. '.[5

,lW.,.;., ',,..'.,,, P.,f..#y.. : ,s.,' ','!, F,

• .i'.'..,...s'

$;,[.:,. - i g '..g... " '- {, b., ..[ j' t O. f.," {, ',,';,.:, ( '._, c. r, _ i. I',['[ " } '.(,. ,.. g '", ;;,,. l'4 ,,,,, '. ^ ..,'....,'.',J;;. g, s. ,..' [., 'i. I,' 3,'...';. * ' - - 'd'

>u w <;..

^,m ~3', ., ~... -...-*r -

,.a.

t.. .o.,

f. '

t,. '.l!,,....,., ' t:...r' . 6, %. " '. : * *. ./' ,:'.- i:.r l. - ;r - n**- '.d ..'.',',g.. 'd' M s, '.*:.': ' ;- S',:.;,,. T ': y l , : *,'.,.,l-^ ? '... ~. : s... : i,, ' '.. :

r. '*L:.

- R"..':, A' .t 9 .{

• ,te; e,'.,,, *;, ' '... ' '. _

.....} 'A' -a... 't. ,p ' '. 4..,; 4 ,-. '. =., ', y. n.' ^ j ,1 =}. :,,. p .I t- .-,,., y s; _ ',. ".,,.,., ' -..,.. **

• .. '...(. ;. ~ ~....

,.._=;,, ',,, ;.,...,. f. 4. .g y l_g T- ?'t

<-,,*A

',d 3.,..g p-f;,.,,,. 6..:. . l.s s., ,.',,.,.A,W.'.,,.' ,.,4 ,.d.c s. a y,, -.

• q :e..

e.t. .,.... '.. s. r :. ',,;...,..

f;,

,.,.....p ..-.'.,...i,..s s ,,r.. .,s.,. .,,.,.*,.,Q......s. g y

• 1 y+ e.p

,...,,, t y ,, i f-l .n- ...y ,,...... g - t- .r.. ,,,e...; 7., , ',.,.'s. l ..<,,;,-}. ct. w .g ..k..,.,..'.,'m.+.'..,..V,, . :...w .g., s 's., c. r..,,ci',. ..g., . s.. '.. :1. ':...s.. i s. 4. _.. s e.: :. ;,: y ,..',.s ..w;- . - :..,..,g:.. ,4,7.'.;..:'....... -.. ..'..i,.. ,g .a 3 ,a,, g,-.,, , 3. /f.,.... .q., .fy-.-a

.

.- v s,

e7, a e,. ~. * ' ' - --,., ~ - -s.e -

m.., I, -

s. ,.,c,.,s,* i. '.41,. ,I, ,1 <<....g, s:, <. 'v., sf, .V.;.....,.,. e,.... :, s '. ;. u-...,:c

n.. J..

~ p *-. ,.,.".);,'.., "., '. - '-*:. ,e.., .,,n 1. ,, q.. f. y*',1." :..."..,,,....- ., s. %. y.y.,. g.., : '.. ;; a, :.,- r: "*a.,...

s. ;'$4~., s,..,,;_

..n..w .:,.~.')'_',-.... ", '.. ',,.

,,~

..,g..;.c...,8,'k). '.e -,"q.."'o... '.p s'. a,..

..s,,..,: *.t.'s, '., -.,.

[ ',

.f. ' :l _; S.. v. n, s.,'.1,t, .=.y ....e.- h,. :

• + > ~. :

..ig : 1 ...., ' *.. qs:, e'<'.T.. Q',' r., g'.l. i.\\:~ .- 'U.. [-?.,;;: 3

n. >.,' // t <

r 1.AJ,,t {. '. r. .,'* 4. 'f -.-.. J,,,.i ,,,.r-

• n

,".-<}.,.*....,,,.,',,.3". [l-u . /,' - : 4 .,'/,,.l. N.(0 [/ -, ' ['.:';g t,.

~

f. l ,/c, (

• 4 j

.Q ,,,1. ..,.,.:,3 l,,,, -.....' '. -,;' [. 4. g [; '.... > $ Y* li s f,,..,. /. f, .,:', m, f. . y; .,' h. y ..,., '.-*....... '.., i gr -,.,...,,,..; ,.A.?,.,,..,...l.i,.,;,,s. ,....,.,,p',': .1, .-,'...'*'q'.. ' '..

v. u.,~ ' ' '- g e

.l s, 3. .i,- 4 , "?

• . *.-, ; f.

1. , 'J/

. y ...P,.. a v: *, ". -..,.., - d i,":.'.v. f ,..s. 1,.,e.e. 9. 4'c, -s ...... ~ .', ~, .,..~.Q... 64,.,..... 9*. : ,n ,. s . '..,a' a ,r,.. ~,

',,n

..,q'N; 4.;^p;".

• i, i..y ',,.v,.4,,,,...-eh

,{,;p Y". :, ' ', . l,'..- ,n

l.h' ph., .',

,u,,. ,'Y':' IN - l:r -... $ ;.'.;, s ... /f0 n.' ob ,. -.,,l. f.'.*f. ; :. ^."... ' '. 0',. ' l,,]0;,lt: h l' .s~ ,, *T q u.

• wt.'.,'...~'.,.

,,- a'.:." ?.,,*..,,6.-...:;.- - p- ^. l

• ,o J

...j l,. 1:-

• .v. y

., - ;l l o> ..s.. .: i ' ..Y.....*..-',...,...,,.,..,.4..-.,~*t + ' ,..,3,.+.a b. .? 8,* .- *.. - - y , :,,i ,.':.,'....a...,. ,s.o... .,s ' :.l q .s.

g.a tr

.e v.. s,...., pi,: :, 4 - -...p. > j. ". p ".,v..,:, ,.v. - ,,,..? 3 -L .- a ..'4.,,,<,- g, W t ..c.* 7 m ', ' l 3. " P, '..'_'.L' .-..i. ,).:. 4 4',Q ;/,p ':p*y'% "N.Jfr'.e ',,'f r;Q ' '., ?. - '. ' -'.a,,.'-..,. i %. ".i.... - a ..N..$, 8 .-e..<. .t ,. j;. cP-Q,'.Q,.g" 9 j, J. ' S.'..... ",, '?. ,k '.l'. 's ,....,.....',/,,.w' ,'l.,,,-l ,,,,,p. ... '. ' a,(i.y. .e - .,..,f.,,"e. L. - : <, , -

• i... ',.

c. g ,,L : R. ' - l - *- ..,. i y. s: Y. -, : -. *l u . :'; -:,r,:

. c: - >- -

.%* :: ;,, ;; ?. p. ', G...., '. ; .~.t...',.".,....,%.,.i+.. .s,, :".... ', _ '. :. : ,'M.; %,ot... ..,s, : tsc .- '.,y ,s s 1 .l . :.~. se .,s. e,.,.,. - " - ',:,,. ..,{- i ..n ..,s.., ..,s s J es - ., j, ": *. ~. 1..'....'.. ..., ',. ~ .g a.. ,., =.. .T n ..,..,i. es ^ .,;.a,,.,.* -..' %, : g.. ,,1 ' t g

.. R.{" ".

.s .~ > '?- ,. '. ~. ,.. f ', _. ,.i s T'"y '-P p ,',s.' l' :. _ 7l.. ' :. ;,[<

..'. '.,) 'l ],'

s.. _. l..'); 2 -' Q,',;," ' ; * '.,' -,f. l:y

• • s);, -

.I .i ' . - - - :;,'. ;: w...., l[. (, g q .. - ;.., ^. '.. ri.. " h.,..,, ,a s. i, ',.. ..'Je..,.$.... --...., 1,.. Q:,.'._.,.,,,. ,._..,;.....;~.,...,.....: l> ;.y .c.,ce, :,r.> ...y _v,,..

e. ;

e;.<;.

u

:s -,

,N,ll ?...,; l: '., ' ? !,',? I :'.ll ' l- .u U1 G,

,.

[, :.;.,. ': '. ~, ' (. ',.

.4' ? ^ : " '. '!,

,

... ',,r. ;: i < ^ '. ', '.::,'c-,9 9 !;V

p ' lQ :. ij,,, - j,i'. :j, h, 6 N. p[::'l *,'. j ;. ' L,s J.,, (;. 3"

- {.g. ' y..... O.....' ; ~ :' '. ',' '.,..... * ,.., $ : ', ;f y "l' T, 7 '. e..., '^ 2.

.. >. o ':; :

...... -s.i .a

A; * * 'l

.~;'\\'*2 % '. :g ^ .~r', ': ^;- ~ vu. '..{.'.'.-:.i...:. A.:, -

..", M.4,G", ".'

v.g.. ' : < %. ;ll Q

.?: i,. a. - - ~ .' l: ' ~, r . t "l-:'. :, ] .'.,,.,.......'..,'+.9.'.;,,.;.'. ... '... m. 4.,. x.g; : -.;<c...,.p. ~ c::g ': :

. g,.',

e.:....v ..y y:. s,..',,,;i,.. t.,.'.J ru, * ; 7; ~.....,..,..., q,s,.: ,,.3 ..M... %+.,g. 1'. i,('.. -%.' :.,Q 4 C :. F' v :' .',c:..t.;.;,. y - .. a n ....,.+p.,,.,v..c.,< ..s'

L;.

os.. .~ s,

r;.

,. ~., -

~ ., \\ :.. w ;,"., ..Q: g :. <,,i vr .v: : r; 's. .r qw',;. 9.:,.:s... :. *.. - 3-z

_..;;._.....,....%,,..%,:;..d.,,._;......',.a

. : ys ......m.. ;,. _. 9. '; ,.. w, .- ?..n....e,~.o ;, g

~ ;.

.f, . y

. g r...

~,es*- .. < n. ;;....,.,;... ..,a ..., s - .. s., ;. 4., # :.- =, ;w..y ;,. u.'l. _ s. c. .y.y}!,./'.,..,i,.'..,..., ay,... q:;.. q._. j. y,, ;_,c.. ;.,'., _.,L- ... ;... j. . '.,;.a. c ;.. : E,.:. 3.; s.. g r;. '..', :!lv.'.

s. ~4...

-.>...r:,.,a..s.,'... .,.',..f....f, .: ;..._.y. ,_o. ~.,; . < ^. ',....: ' ' o ,f'..,;:../.'..s....'. .,....,o." g.s, :g, '.i.e. u, _ : :. v'.h", ':., u,'.,a....:;. :. '. ,p, ,+.s' a :P-j.. rj i. cc. y- .:r r.4.... .s .n ..i"+ .:s. :.:w; e o : y ! :.8 _ l.'..y % ;;. ', A. ;..'.

• 'l :

',4 i( \\.;'I

', '~,

.*l%) i y' :;.;0

'!J. V7 mb % T l Q, ~*t '.'.. ;;.y + Q.. ':y - Q y::j.: p.s..:i.'h.... 'c. ) :9.. 9. _, ; s O :,l .' ' '., ' : : '. 7. ; ,X':.. ;l;"..: " '. - @?.y *::]E'-

+

.-*,\\

4. m

4 &,

p.y,,.s -s ',,d.S:... 'h': ' ; d '-' L i.. ',....', s n : - 4'..,,

• : v _:.

~n 4,.. r*.... y....;_'; y.. ;;.,. :....,. ;;;... ;,. e,.Q,, y,-

.9

f

)

6.,o ,c r. ,j .u a > ~, :.& r ~.o' i; .r L n-d+

4., ;;.. -

s \\ -Yo, ',.

1. .. :-% ': l t '.

~.o c y. .c. '....:'  : . ' b ::h.%. Y:d'S,%.. ,;a,..'.."- , D;d.c. - ' ' i '_..,+..:l'.',.<",;. \\. ~, ~. ' e;f ll 4 NC Nh !.U"' :. _.f.',I,. .y,..:. s.. .,o. t :... ' '. .:. -. ~- -,b q '...,k :,.......f,.h':f,:' ' * :h l\\' . 1rss E :. u:,, i - '..j.: .,.% l f '.h f. ;, ,4 ^f*d: ,}. ~ ': ' {, ;i.;': l.,.\\;

., ('

, ',.

' t' i :. 'l."h ' .. A ' __ l [: .1,, V ' ' :,., ,n:f,/% Wf.' 3* ' :,.*,- (4 ^. i.?,. : k.. ;*!.;::{:.,' z. _.*.'J, f., l *!y. i ;q..,

.'b

• ,'.....*.(]:,.-,;',-..'S'.h '. I

'g:... _ " '...

y << \\ '"^. '),]

;;,:..'.e-

. =,..-'... Tl : .1 d w;,,... i' ? _,.i ' f l s;;;, *i;.;:,,4 ,.. w ' f. "; ' r '.c' '.. ?

). y "' ',.

_"-'

) .,;r '.'i Y , [. , - -d Q '[ ' U.','y;. ,' '. :.. ".S 2 1 f f '.i ::; ),..,f.- , p".c,y. ge,. <. g..p,f,.;f.)g s., : :%. "-'.. l r, ;.,' c ].,..'.;, ' i u }.n p:1 19 },. '._ ~,.,; - j

• , o; y.

...;-',y..,_: '],

1.j-s,,'

& :,'. n .y .;9 ,.g..,,. .:q: ;;- * ; Y.,.,. 7,..c.,.e..,;,._ i.% _,. si -.- -...., *, ..: U.*.s.t..' f, 4.. ': ,-.,.,a.'.,o- . '.^

;,, f

': i,b ' :Q ':. i.-,f ;, e.,

,l:..g ;.'. '.. _au :;,-, - ',,,.~-_ ~.:.-:.,.,. - ".-.-.v.;...,..,,.'.,. _s ., 'c *; '= g,..,, ,.y.. s:,, . u+ _f. H g.t M.. p. ~'.; s:<.,vc:%f J ;,. lh,.,,,:

':: n

.". ?..

fgy::., .s. :f ;}.. }+.g 4;. '."-'.. ,.'.~.".&..,.,<':.'..',.:,%'.i,e..f.,.-' -i, j ..c ' '. 'y. y >... '. _' ^ll:i. '. ? W s : l,', '. V :..,;. c.v. :, :,. . l:,', % r,,'.: ...,.'...:,. -. <...;,..,p.- ...;,~..- ~,'#... s

c. 's..... : -

.e n

v....:..., 4. 3. :

..,..T . "..,..,. - ::.+ m .e.

'.,;.'O.'"',...K,...

': ^F ~ ; < A: ', 'r'a r. 'c.:.'.I'e'.....N

• I:' :.T.. ' ',. "l. ; ~'.,::

v :..,._ ).Q..Q:; (. b '.', i.d. .,:,;y L ;, v. f.,.f'..,)z:ly f Q::.',.'.V l l :.,l * '. *..?. ' ;'.,.. .g . '.b,Y..

• ' 1:. '. ' k. ;;.,.. b:

.'.~...'I n .1* 'v. : : .. !c, ;%;., V., :: ;..' s,. '...,,:,. s.~-m..,', .. ;, i:

q. " Q..a,

a

'_s.. y.., u :. "s, ;...,....,,,.., ': : - e.'-,.-:-

n... '. c..:

,.3 ..s :.,, ".. e- .r...

;.u e t

i...:,.t +.

. ~

me~ y;: ,,..y .:,r a.. ..',.,_..'.3,-v'. d,: g y -....f '..-.(,. ;.. ~. jo. -'.. \\.)...":~. .. q.. ;' ;.,. ht ._e. . m :. m.,. ,.., y. c..;;l _..g. '

w s y.y

a p 3. y;,' .. ~ y :,,... : i i '[ f.':h'. l ; ;' ' J '..::,..'..,

4,., '. v.[' _"i-

,[h. y. l'.j- ..- " N., ; - '\\.,. '1,'*'

l~ n. ' ;;k ;;',',.d l.#' ;,

, i-.,.',. 7-l ,[ 1 - .f. I:, %,,*/ (.. *:[ 'ie [.k . [, e' i-.,.,: N' . 'j ; 4....,; f.". ),;# 'I

';,,.. '

, ) :<:; '

.,*.,.i '.*.Ii.,.,,* ,P.'.' e,, , 1 l.- .. " e: nl' 't." i :. c, : : ;..., 9 ;,:.m,, _" lx ;.s.l ; * ;,1,..... .h..,'.,'i q :j U

A )y :x..'a V'

,.2 t .,:(.

, [

j ~:, _7, ..y.. ; ; ;.., ;'. ;. ;;. '.,.' y;. : $ g.:*;.,.,.+

w

,;,.: f. '. : n.....:.

..z; M L f d' . ; ; }l y...:;,. .. s a,ym, s -:;.. g . 3...':

e s,. :.;,i s;

.:/'.,n.,...... . s;,, . ~ -. .u s.,, ',.. ~ ..;,:.N.u.:;:)s.y 3 pig,yf*.,:'.:~'.;a..,:: '..c... :q.: & %.,".; <;.;. _... }:.... - 7 4 p . _. / 4

a'.. ;

1. -

i :* ...s :, ;; - .k. c. -'.. 3 c;. ~.. .v c q,, , j- '. *: { -. :- >vp_'...- .:'.;..;:y q,;s..::..::: : ,;. :..;. *.)a_, V9". .t v.

gW; e.

i;;._.r):,u'c ? '

.:.e.

[

:'.. ; _ ::.,.:}} : f. v..:' :, - '.n

;. y ';;'-ll. v 3 :..

't.. : ~ ; .:. i: Q.r.,,,(... ii, s. ;',Q:,s.... F,;.. ::.. ;; r.- i..k n. . A.. E,.,:. ' :. ...N,o,._...<.., y, ;;.,., ;,.. ;. e. N' V. r 1 c-. ) .a

• :.,, t.. <.!v.*

O j.,.m :,,:. '.. ;. .~:,.. ; 17. :...,A.r..: ;,,

.+..-

,g:. e

< ; '., ': i

; f>i mg

.' :.:. M '".s ,e * ') e,;' '.Q. l ' ',p, ;~. - l ' _.,:, * ';;' : ; '.. '; ;' 5,. ,y....,'2. ' f.,;l ",;~ :: '; m6'> ? '?l ?....;; )?,,!(e,. : 4.,~ 4 . :}y:, ,p*,f. A %,:? l : ~;)[ % ,'['; S.

4. :p_ ;,,: ~,;.p;; L 'y; ; ';,, l. :g:,

n,:.,:,. a.: ; u. '. -; ;;i. : ?{D;.[..-l . h., j ' '-l<* *. 1 ', l y,%,., _ _. _,, _.

t. w

"; j. .~ 9

• ..; ( %'.!.1 f' "l ','l ? _ r; ,'? ;.' L '. '.!.' {',,'.' _?_ : r

'..,lf '??h i;):lll _l } ' ','.? '.:?.. '. ..!.' '.j'.i.' }.: _ ;,,, ]v'

• .o... ' ' ',.

.. n.n Y. ' 3..a .%^. m b,t.;Q;],W*: r,;- .',$' O , ;,.,.. ^,; ~ -; .'- ;- ' ;, os. ;-.: ,g. . ; n' *.::... v. ; j ; n " y *;. s 1 ',. '... '.,*,.. ) ';: s. a, , G j :',.'.; ' V :'}.f. 's. n. '.' :' -.- ;;.. ^ y.,; i :.. _:. j'.:,*,' :*[,. '. ;. ', *,;,;,,.,.;;'.j; ;),... s a .i. j - . p ?).: ;.: '.Di ^;.,, P ;.,.,.',.... '... '. +,' :. '.".s ' I ';. "'.'j'.,?'.,f',, ar.. ).'.,,' :'s ..,4.,;; s ...._.;...- e,.. u ,.c..

.n

.r.,, 3.: :__.:~. ::,

y -Q,., _... s,3 ._ -;. 5. Q,., e ;- "~..,*;,, ' - .;a ' * - 2 ; -;..,.;.. _-...,. ._,*.,,;,y%.....?',..%,.,'.

s

..(;...:

,.. ;_ ;;,,;;::h.-.. ~..;.: ',-

• ',,-, g, ::. h :1;. :

. s h, s. vs: .;.,..... ~. :: <a,, s,...., ; ; '. -:. n.-

.__...,,;,. p

, 3: ..s...'..g.,':.- - ;. .'8".=.4 -.y q, e:.in..v.. p,z,,,': .; $p*:., ?v..,< .!;.; - 4'w .m,..,-a,s..+..._ !. b;.. ~..,,;.. t.,. ):,:.... w;. . y ', :. % J'.,.4.....t.1,

. ',q;

, w.. >,..,p, 't.:, ~,' r;: - ........ : n :.... , 9.r., ..~ - -.. :+'. - :_, .a,. y'. 4.J. .o....g .. ?l: .x.'..,,. .,2 ,< v w .uyrM7+ }. ,.q - ..2v,.. ,..:, :. ~,., ,.. -,, 9. s - . +.,.. y;. .m (;... _y l '[ e,,}:}.;:. - . 'k,. . r,,.- .. h., ...4 h ',. ' . h.Ik, '.( ,N 5. ' '[? '. ' .,o. :f-r;:.., .4 'h 'l- ..'[.. , ?. - 2.. .y '- ..z',.,..,- -.:..+.r. ,4....---' .~.# ,...,a , _, f,;s. ,4. , T, ' /..g ;.',y,. l....;:. :.... r' * >.. ' ', '

• i % '. :...,l. '..; ; :

,s {s::?.... a....,..,. ':'..,....,;.... ':.e

.,~: :" ;:..

W. ': p,.._.], (., ..al-

,' y..

s .,,. f.,J ;.;, '.:.... ;. ;.

""..se.O p..

'c

.,-_,' ^

?...."- ,,,, e / y.. } c * -... - ' .3 . ",. ;,;.,. g , g, s , i

1. . a,:'. : *,.,V,.. w.

,,3 '...( ! l1 .,, Al, 3,

". 4...s fe "..

vn... : in;. L &y ,.',..,(..,%,.:::.,':.',,".,. ^.;'.... .s,... s,':: e. n -,......v.n;,.....;.- >- ~... *. '..,. "..: ..'.is. .v.....'. - 1 -.. S.- r: 1.y. .s.. jp ,. v.. _ v: n ,.n.. q- ..,.4- ..h,, .,Qf,..,..,..,..s. ..:..,..: ;. ',0. ;* 4 t , ;..c. g,. ~ n.......,. 1> .~ a..".. e c

m. s:.s..

'. _. v. . :. e. + '. w; Q*, - ,_l-.. .:c .5,.. <.. 's :,. <*r. f. ...m 4 .-'... -l). =, f d: .;{ '...' n*g'.' ',.'":.',Q,. ',.';.,e(.':,.,-w Q.1. '. } ; 'y.;,.f'. ' ?;.,., ; '*... f,. ',. f.:g,,'j.,,;; ;'.. : ',,'. ',<. ; '}j.. =,,... -

,....,_,..,';',.,;.

._,.,,....,q:...

-"o s....

..,,,...,',..,.;'....,4-3

..;.,.. ht. ..:ge..,.,

..,,.4

... ~-a-.,.,.,.y...--'.v.. . ' :o: 1. ,.o. i - - * ,.. s 1- 't'.7't ,t a..

• ^t'.

L. ..',...;<",4.m.i V 4 . _.. ;t v.9 v..u.< -.~ 6 ' f., :, ) '... ",.,? .,..s -...."C. J','- -.'.. o i ' *, '., -E'. :,.; . e 1 in. .~.4 .d. -.... ' '1.*.,': -My t < q. ': ; ..,r".,.,,-.' ' ".-... * ' - ;r e' 1 P

. -. 'I*

. -, sjl. d N$'..4. ',.'J'..'.I.,'..',..,.;...;' ..... 'f. 1 "' i+d: .*, ' j'.~ .9 $ ':. f.... .s. ^.. y,- ,,:%y, ; .u..,4 '. f, .t'=.*,. .. ?.'.1,'Nr.3 -U*.,- g ... ', -.-j ;,. ; ..c m.'PT i r,'-. .( j 's,4', ,. A y ' '. r...(:. - TdQ - ) l y; p.:.' ;,,;.lg.J.n '. f ",,.?....y'; r' .- P L. _.;..:a, '.q c l..'y. 4 l'5 'v ' i ,u...,."i-. w<-* .'V.;4'. 2' p y,

• p,,,i' _, ';' *. ',.

,',-.;pr J 2:,: ,, *... ' '",.' g;; c' tu.,,;," .'..P;. -:.J. s,:

?'; '.. *

.. [ e:,'n Ct '.. 7,. >./.,_... . s , - \\,l ' L, n:.

< e

, W,,f,. :

k.

'.."q",. '.: ,. ' ", i.,% c. :-". e ',.c,,fy,\\,. ' <. (,..tl . :,., J.-,....s.'.- ,'...."..t.,".".,i._....,,A-'... a.- y

• i

3

,.r '..'...; \\ c'/ _..,,,, ;,.s s ,;-.... +:... i.y. < vo p - ,(,.. : .a .y,. ;.. .'.._,*t.o

x.g,.,. <*.

c -.7:: 3... .,d O f. s,.. L,.s, .q' g, M .s 3,,. ; - .'c.... .( / ,+-... n,.,. 3'.;. gp. ;j '.... y,.i ...., ;, - t .s..,. y ....; ;,.,. /. % ?.'A".':',gi>.;).cc t:i,., -, - s ,.;, s

c.q

' ". -' ;

q;f 7,,..;. c, P . ;'.(:. . :c - i. .S 3s ; p* U t 'q, 4 ) -: & h h..$:?. !.'IY.?:] ? l Y. 'O.N...: .'.W Q%.T% ? Q.' %:; i k." ' 't::i:'!..W LH

~~

'I / i. ' : '.' :1. p. s.. :.. f. ..% 0 0 : i' ) - W0..b?Y ":Y;L: ( i.WN : ~ '; ?~ Y: '.. ' ^ my wy:. p;p~,;ygy,.Wd.' g.: &:;[f:y h% ?::c y m + :. m.w. m;;. N ?.YY.! My;N,);.%.7.Y "; :h' O. :? l .U, Q :h ? x.:i.z::<m%.. HJ P: h3g 6% A8.: ' .n;, Q.#; 3; W 6:t.. C . i" wy px v g; v; ;..y (,.. a:r:; m+ 4.. :,m. a,g 3. yy ;yW,. y y. up.;..~ ..p v e,. '.. T:. : c c.-w w..+ y .- +:...: w.m .w w s.v em.e:< ::e. x,.,.,.i p= ? ; A, ' -m +.g:.u w.n..,, ::.,, %,.;. ' .g ~.,e w. . ';. p..:.

h

.,,. 2 ".. a c. ; **.,. : ; '. ; u..,..v 3O'UY ; D ;..

... '; :.: 3 ~ "w<y; ...n.;. y. . :2.. ...v.:n : ;.. > .w &;. ;l:$$ NQ::'i'%* Q?? J'S %.Q,;a ,..,:. ~:. n...w :. i,b.l3%yf Y l,':l:.'.":':$ U. .m. :-' ;}.p... <--./ v. y,..y v

.QA:$w'ff;I)A...

l

. "? kc.,.:: :).) ?.ln :. ah 4,'(.: l.

.../

.u.. .L'{.' G k. &.%5f:::. :k.Yl ,,.y._ y';,,' "_._.%n:.M :m?..,';,;..e4y f 1

.?..:.; G :n s t L.:: W. : m,..g.

a. a..% y:.pt n., ?a;,, J.,. a: ; %.c,y,..Y, :n m. mm.,. ;.'w..W... y.

:r.... ; c.g.y w.

c .,Y

; n i

i. :f. r:,, ; 9: n u'%.

• ,' m., 9:.. n. ; gn ;,i.. ;, _.. _,._,,

. 4 3 ;. -...,. ;...e.;q :.,. g :, ;.;c..,., o a.~.:- .i - ;,-.:

w..p

,,,_ _...z,.

_ p ;: y _. _ '_.. _;, ; y.,,;, w., :..;;.. 9 4 _ ;.,,.: : =. ........r .}}