ML20150C204
| ML20150C204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/12/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2548, NUDOCS 8807120352 | |
| Download: ML20150C204 (27) | |
Text
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .
~
ggs as+'8 c rop WiM 8'
' '~
CERTIFIED COPY a-.
f' R; , tj i
f f
'm f ja 70 DATE ISSUED:Feb.12.'88 I
h{[ hb SUMi@RY MINUTES OF THE MEETING 0F THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
JANUARY 21-22, 1988 The ACRS Subcomr.ittee on Waste Management met in Room H-1046,1717 H.
NW., Washingtor., D.C. on Thursday and Friday, January 21-22, 1988.
Enclosure A is a copy of the Federal Register Notice of this meeting.
Purpose:
The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the following topics:
High-level Waste -- Thursday, January 21
- 1. The impact of recent Congressional legislation on NRC's HLW program
- 2. NRC's Review Plan for their review of the Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plans (originally for 3 sites; now reduced to 1) :
Low-Level Waste -- Thursday, January 21
- 1. Revision 1 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) for low-level Waste (LLW) Shallow Land Burial (SLR) I
- 2. Status Report on Rupture of THI-? Radioactive Waste (LLW) Liners !
g 71 g 2 800212 des:c HTED ORIGINAL 25a0 pop c 0,.
l
~
Minutes Waste Management 2 l Subcomittee Mtg.Jan021-22
Radioactive Waste Research -- Friday, January 22
- 1. New directions (for FY 88) in the HLW and LLW research programs in response to legislative and budgatary changes
- 2. Performance modeling of the LLW disposal site and nitrate pit at Chalk River, Ontario implementation The above topics were reviewed and discussed in accordance with the iroposed Presentetion Schedule (Enclosure B). The documents provided durino this meeting are listed in Enclosure C, and are available in ACRS files.
Subcommittee Action Taken:
The subcomittee prepared draft coments on the NRC Radioactive Waste Research Program for ACRS consideration during its 334th meeting, February 11-13, 1988.
Attendees - (Enclosure D)
January 21, 1988 January 22, 1988 Members -2 Members - 2 D. Moeller D. Moeller M. Steindler M. Steindler Consultants - 2 Consultants - 4
]
c i
. Minutes Waste fianagement 3 '
Subcomittee htgcJana21-22 O. Orth D. Orth K. Krauskepf K. Krauskopf F. Parker J. Till ACRS Staff - 3 ACRS Staff - 5 O. Merrill 0. Merrill J. Parry, Sr. Fellow J. Parry, Sr. Fellcw A. Tabatabai, Fellow G. Brown, Fellow A. Tabatabai, Fellow S. Arndt, Fellow NRC - 12 R. Browning NRC - 8 J. Surmeier F. Costanzi M. Tokar W. Ott J. Kane T. McCartin J. Greeves E. O'Donnell P. Lohaus T. Nichelson G. Gnugnoli J. Lambert R. Smith L. Deering M. Fliegel P. Reed P. Reed M. Dunkelman PNL - 2 J. Kendig M. Bergeron D. Robertson DOE - 3 E. Regnier J. Turi T. Brazley Others - 11 Other - 6 Total - 33 Total - 27 Meetina Highlights:
I I. Introductory Remarks -- D. W. Moeller, Chairman j Dr. Moeller stated that the purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss several topics on high-level waste, low-level waste and radioac-tive waste management research, and that the meeting was largely infor-mational. Referring to the Proposed Presentation Schedule, he described I the topics to be covered on each day, emphasizing the fact that, at the ACRS meeting on February 11-13, 1988, the ACRS will be completing its
Minutes Waste Management 4 Subcommittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 report to Congress on NRC's research program. He said'that he hoped
- that after the review of the waste management research program on the second day, the subcomittee would be able to offer some sigh.ficant comments on waste management research as an input to the ACRS report (whichtheydid,asnotedabove).
II. Impact of Recent Congressional Legislation on NRC's HLW Program --
R. Browning (There were no handouts for this discussion.)
Mr. Browning, Director of the NMSS Division of High-Level Waste Manage-ment, indicated that his remarks would be limited to the impact of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 on the geologic repository only. He pointed out that the Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) and transportation work are under two other divisions of NMSS, and that he has responsibility only for the high-level waste repository. Mr.
Browning discussed the principal impacts of the legislation or his division's work, viz.,
- 1. Focus all work on the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site
- 2. Stop ell work on the sites in Washington and Texas within 90 days of the bill's signing (which was on December 22,1987).
- 3. Stop all work on granite sites and the selection of a second site until after the turn of the century.
Minutes Waste Management 5 Subconriittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 He then discussed the redirection of resources within his division to respond to these changes, emphasizing that their organization was already structured in such a manner that the cancellation of work on two of the three sites had little effect on them. He said that their resources were budgeted to review the three Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plans (CDSCPs) simultaneously, but now they had only one to review. They simply shifted their resources tc accommodate the changes.
Regarding some key dates in the program, he stated that the NRC will complete its review of the Yucca Mountain CDSCP in time for ti:e final SCP to be issued by the end of 1988. If all goes well, an exploratory shaft will be sunk at the site in mid-1989, and the application for a construction permit will be made in 1995.
Mr.BrcwningdiscussedtheLicensingSupportSystem(LSS),theelectron-ic data base currently being developed by a negotiated rulemaking procedure by the High-Level Waste LSS Advisory Conriittee. He stated i that this system will expedite the "discovery" process during the !
l anticipated 3-year licensing review period by making repid recovery and searches of the literature possible; all relevant information will be available from storage in an electronic format. !
Dr. Steindler asked if the LSS would disallow the introduction of "surprise" data, i.e., data that are not in the system. Mr. Browning said that the answer to that (and to many other questions that were raised during the discussion) would be determined oy the negotiated
Minutes Waste Management 6 Subcommittee MtgcJan.El-22 rulemaking, which was started in September 1987 and would continue for four more months (i.e., through May, 1988). He added that it was an innovative first-of-a-kind technical and legal approach to an otherwise very complicated and time-consuming process.
Dr. Moeller raised the issue of the Technical Review Board called for in the NWPA Amendments Act, connenting that since this 11-member board will report to both the Congress and the Energy Secretary, there may be some conflicts of interest, and that the NRC will probably be asked to interact with them. Also, he observed that, since the State of Nevada is opposed to the selection of the Yucca Mountain site, politically the selection may not be considered final -- Congress has, in effect, over-ridden Nevada's opposition.
III. FRC's Review Plan for the CDSCPs - R. Browning Mr. Browning said that the Yucca Mountain CDSCP is the only one being reviewed using the pian that was developed for all three CDSCPs. He did not go into any detail in his discussion and only a few minor questions were asked regarding it.
There were no handouts for this discussion.
IV. Revision 1 of Standard Review Plan (SRP) for Shallow Land Burial (SCB) -- J. Surmeier, M. Tokar and J. Kane J. Surmeier introduced the topic, emphasizing that they would talk especially about the alternative methods for disposal, for which they
Minutes Waste Management 7 Subcomittee MtgoJan c21-22 ,
have a requirement to complete and issue their regulations by January 30, 1988. This deadline was set by the Amendments Act (the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985).
M. Tokar followed Handout #1 closely in describing Revision 1, again with emphasis on the alternatives to SLB. He identified five major options, viz., above-ground vaults, below-ground vaults, earth-mounded concrete bunkers, shaft disposal and mined cavities. However, he said that NRC believes that trench-type burial, as per 10 CFR 61, is adequate. The principal focus in NRC's strategy is on, below-ground vaults and earth-mounded concrete bunkers as the most prenising alternatives to SLB; the strategy also calls for the encouragement of standardization.
J. Kane said that the principal design criteria for the alternatives to SLB are those that provide assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. He discussed the importance of engineered structures in LLW disposal, the primary objective of NRC's regulations being to preclude the possibility of the waste becoming immersed in liquid. He discussed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers work in this area, an agency with whom he worked for 12 years prior to joining the NRC (See NUREG/CR-5041, Vol. 1 Task 2a:
Below-Ground Vaults, December,1987. A second volume on earth-mounded concrete bunkers is in preparation.).
l l
l
Minutes Waste Management 8 Subcommittee Mtgodan021-22 l
In response to a question by M. Steindler regarding greater than Class C (GTCC) wastes, J. Greeves said that according to the Act, the Federal government has the responsibility for GTCC wastes.
V. States Report on Rupture of TMI-2 Radioactive Waste Liners - J.
Surmeier J. Surmeier provided some background information on this event, stating thatinSeptember1985,five6'x6'concretecontainers(withcarbon steel liners) containing EPICOR res. ins were solidified under GPU's general license, with Westinghouse-Hittman as the contractor. In October 1987, they planned to conduct coring tests, but found that two of the centainers had circumferential bulging and wide cracks along their vertical veld joint through which concrete pieces had fallen out.
He said that was all the information he had at this time and that a meeting was being at TMI-2 today to review this event; ACRS review of the event would have to be rescheduled for a later dato.
VI. Uranium Recovery Management Program -- P. Lohaus, G. Gnugnoli, and R. Smith i A. Presentation by NRC Staff l l
In order to put the NRC Uranium Recovery Management Program (URMP) in l proper perspective, P. Lohaus, Chief of the Operations Branch, described the organization of the Division of low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning (DLLWMD). The URMP is in his branch. He said that i
Minutes Waste Management 9 Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 their presentation was designed as a broad overall summary of the NRC URMP, and that they would cover who is involved, what they do, the statutory framework for the program activities that are regulated in the comercial sector, and the DOE remedial action program (and NRC's role and responsibility in that program).
G. Gnugloli explained the regulatory framework under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, describing both NRC and DOE roles in this program.
R. Smith of Region IV, whose Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado has the responsibility for administering NRC's uranium mill '
tailings program, discussed what their office is doing under the UMTRCA Title II program, which deals with the licensing and inspection of commercial facilities pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40, including providing assistance to agreement states and interactions with non-agreement states.
Following the DOE Staff presentation given below, M. Fliegel discussed NRC's Title I Program, under which NRC conducts a technical review l leading to concurrence with DOE's remedial action program, i.e., the cleanup of 24 abandoned sites (see Handout #6).
l l
B. Presentation by DOE Staff J. Turi of DOE discussed the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project (UMTRAP). His presentatico was made with by a series of colored
. Minutes Waste Management 10 Subcomittce Mtg.Jan.21-22 l
' I slides and a printed handout f5. The highlights of this presentation !
. follow. ;
- 1. Under the authority of Public Law 95-604, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, DOE's objective is the stabilization and control of residual radioactive material associated with inactive mill tailing sites, including the performance of long-term surveillance and maintenance of disposal sites.
- 2. Mr. Turi delineated the various responsibilities of the federal agencies involved, viz., Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior, Department of Justice, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy (whose responsibility is to conduct remedial action under UMTRAP, cited above). NRC's responsibilities include the establishment of disposal regulations, concurrence in the DOE remedial action program, licensing the disposal site, etc.
- 3. There are 24 remedial (action sites, 23 of which are in the western linited States, the other one being at Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
Legislation before Congress at this time will require the completion of the remedial action program by September 1994. I i
VII. New Directions in the NRC (FY88) HLW and LLW Research program in Response to Leoislative Changes and Budgetary Constraints -- F.
Costanzi l l
l
Minutes Waste Management 11 Subcomittee Mtg.Jan,21-22 F. Costanti reported that their combined HLW and LLW budget for FY 88 has been reduced by 18%, from $7.070M to $5.795M ($3.645M for HLW and
$2.150M for LLW).
Because of the legislative changes, their HLW research program has had to be redirected in some areas. Ongoing generic and tuff research will centinue, and some research will be redirected from salt and basalt to tuff. The Center for Nuclear Waste Pegulatory Analyses (CNWRA) will be funded at $1.204 million out of the $3.645, resulting in $2.441 million for direct funding frca NRC for generic, tuff, materials and engineer-ino, hydrology and geochemistry, and compliance assessment research.
The previous support for INTRAVAL ($200,000) and Hydrothennal Field Experiments ($150,000) has been dropped.
In the LLW aret, of the $2.150 million budgeted, $1.180 million will go for materials and engineering, $490,000 for hydrology and geochemistry, 4 and $400,000 for compliance assessment. More details on both the HLW and LLW prograns are displayed in Handout f7.
VIII. Demonstration of Performance Modeling of Near-Surface LLW Disposal Facilities at Chalk River, Ontario -- E.. O'Donnell and T. McCartin, NRC, and D. Rcbertson and M. Bergeron, PNL l
A. Presentation by NRC Staff E. O'00nnell cited Title 10. Part 61.50 (a) (2) from the Code of Federal Regulations, which states, "The disposal site shall be capable of being
Minutes Waste Management 12 Subcomittee MtgoJan.21-22 characterized, modeled, analyzed and monitored." He stated that the objective of this work at Chalk River is to test the quality that can be expected of site characterization and performance assessment by LLW licensees. He indicated that this is an international cooperative effort involving the USA (NRC/PNL), Canada (AECL), and Japan (JAER1).
, His introduction and overview addressed the reasons for the project being dore. at Chalk River, a delineation of the project tasks, and an overview of the results.
Dr. O'Donnell sumarized the regulatory implications of this work, as follows:
- 1. Greater uncerta mty in modeling is associated with interaction of radionuclides with site soils.
- 2. Geochenistry at a site is site specific. It is important to have procedures for reducing uncertainty associated with interaction of radionuclides with site geochemistry.
- 3. Non-tadioactive materials can play an important role in enhancing radionuclide mobility (e.g., competing ions, acid, organics, and complexingagents).
See Handout #8 for more detail.
B. Presentation by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) Staff
Minutes Was'te Management 13 Subconait2ee Mtg.Janc21-22 Mr. Bergeron and D. Robertsnn discussed the results of modeling the "A" Disposal Area at Chalk River. The site, objectives, tests and results are presented in detail in Handouts #9 and 10. The Summary and Conclusions for this site are:
- 1. The initial data base from Site Characterization Plan was adequate for defining site geohydrology and heterogeneity.
- 2. Predicted and actual downgradient migration were in reasonable agreement.
- 3. Major discrepancies were lateral plume spreading and internal distribution of radienuclide concentrations.
4 The detailed data base did not significantly change modeling results.
They stated that the major uncertainties in this study were:
i
- 1. Source term behavior (specifically inventory), waste release l to ground-water systen, and temporal and spatial interaction )
l with ground-water.
- 2. Dispersive character of ground-water system, specifically, heterogeneities and simulation approach (Analytical to '
Numerical).
Minutes Waste Management 14 Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 Dr. Steindler commented that he thought the excellent agreement between modeling and experimental results was fortuitous and site specific --
that they were not generic enough in nature to be applied to the model-ing of other sites, particularly those where less data were available and where different soil and geochemical conditions exist. Dr. Moeller agreed. The presenters also agreed, but said that the methods and techniques used here were vindicated by the results, although the methods and techniques used were somewhat empirical. However, they disclaimed that the good agreement was due to curve-fitting.
D. Robertson and M. Bergeron discussed the iesults of modeling the Nitrate Pit, also at Chalk River, which were presented by colored viewgraphs, the publication reporting them not yet being available.
Copies of a portion of their viewgraphs are provided as Handout #11.
They discussed the physical description of the site, its history, the source tern, the modeling code, geochemical considerations and various waste release and migration scenarios. Their Summary and Conclusions i and the Major Uncertainties of this study were the same as for the "A" site. However, they added an additional c0nclusion in this case, i.e., l l
that for a relatively simple geohydrologic site, which the nitrate pit j is, site performance modeling can provide fairly accurate results.
l l
i Drs. Steindler and Moeller's comment regarding the "A" site applied to l l
the results for this site also. l T. McCartin of NRC/RES discussed the DPCT model simulations using the Chalk P.iver data base. He explained that DPCT (Detenninistic l
~
Minutes Waste Management 15 Subconnittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 Probabilistic Containment Transport) is a 2-dimensional (easily
- upgradable to 3-dimensior,all random walk particle tracking model developed primarily for the high-level waste program, and primarily because of numerical dispersion problems. He said that the raason they believed that the model would be valuable at the nitrate pit site was because of the low dispersive nature of the soils, plus the fact that M.
Bergeron had already modeled it (so they had his results to use as a guide). Mr. McCartin said that the conclusions of this study were:
- 1. Particle tracking is a useful method for simulating transport in.a media characterized by low dispersivities.
- 2. Uncertainty in the retardation factor is the largest contributor to model uncertainty.
Dr. Till asked how, in a real situation, does one determine site dispersivit: Mr. McCartin said, typically, by curve fitting to a tracer test, and went on to explain that dispersivity is a difficult parameter tn measure -- that, when you are measuring it, it varies from 1 1
the scale you are measuring it on. Mr. Bergeron added that dispersion is a real dilemma in the field of transport -- you usually can't measure )
it at the scale you are interested in. I Dr. Till strongly recommended that they assemble their results and say, here is the bottom line of the work and these are parameters that are most sensitive to site characterization, and here are some recommended methods for deriving these parameters -- to guide people on what to do. j l
Minutes Waste Management 16 Subcommittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 He also recommended that they compare their results with data reported 1
in the literature. He said they should look particularly at the results l developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to see what they l
did regarding the sensitivity analysis on their low-level waste model.
NOTE: A transcript of the meeting is availeble at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C., or can be purchased from Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, NW, Washir.gton, D.C. 20005, Telephone (202) 628-4888. All documents listed in Attachment C are available in the ACRS files.
ADCENDUM: Subseatant to the preparation of these minutes, a letter was received from ACRS Consultant K. B. Krauskopf, who was in attendance during the meeting. His letter is included as part of these minutes as Enclosure E.
i i
835 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1988 / Notices Board in accordance with 10 CFR 2.701
' .n" Advisory Committee on Reacter the cognizant ACRS staff member.Mr.
Owen S. hierrill(telephone 202/034- (1980).The addresses of the New Board Safeguards Subcommittee on Waste members are:
Management; Meeting 1413) between 8.00 a.m. and (45 p.m.
Persons planning to attend this meetin8 Administrative Judge Glenn O. Bright.
thy ACRS Subcomm.ttee on %,aste are urged contact the above named Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board hianagement will hold a meeting on indisidual one or two days before the Panel. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory January 21 and 22.1988. Room 1mo.1717 scheduled meeting to be adsised of any Commission Washington, DC 20555 11 Street. NW., Washington. DC. changes in schedule, etc. which may Administrative judge Richard F. Cole, i has e occurred. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board pu ic a t ndInc 'ng wiH be open to Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory htorton W. tJbarkin, Commission. Washington. DC 20555.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follow s: Thursday. Jonvary Ass stant Decutis e Directorfor Project B. Paul Cotter, }t.,
Re s ie n .
21.1988-830 a m. until the conclusion Chief Administratis e ludge. A tomic Sofety of busi::ess Friday.Jonnary 22.1933-
~
lFR Doc.86-535 Fded 1-12-88. 8 45 am) and Licensing Board Panel.
8 30 o m. until the conclusion of mmo coos isso-os u Issued at Bethesda, htar> land.this 4th day ,
busiress.
The Subcommittee will resiew the of Januar> 1988.
following perlinent waste management Advisory Committee on Reactor IFR Doc.88-537 Filed 1-12-68. 8 45 am]
topics. HLir:(1) Status report on lhe Safeguards Subcommittee on Thermal m coot neo-o.u ef fects of recent legislative attions on Hydraulle Phenomena; Change on NRC's llLW program, and (2) NRC's Location of Meeting Revica Plan for the Yucca hiountain The Federal Register published (DockH No. 50-3224-5)
Cunsultation Draft Site Characterization h1 nda). December
. 28,1987 (52 FR Long ! stand Lighting Co. (Shoreham Plan, including a status report on NRC's 18891) contained notice of a meeting of Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1);
resiew. LLIP:(1) The DOE and SRC uranium mill tailings programs; (2)
N#DE" 5drauhc Reconstitution of Atomic Safety and Phenomena Subcomm.ttee i scheduled for Uconsing Appeal Board Resision 1 ef tFe Standard Reuew Plan January 20 and 21,1988. 8.30 a.m. The for shallow land burial (SLB). includin, location has been changed to the Los Notice is hereby given that,in engineered barriers and alternalis es to Amos Study Center. Buildmg SM accordance with the authority ennferred SLB : and (3) Status report t n recently. 207-Room 216, Ceso Cmnde Street (off by 10 CFR 2.787(a), the Chairman of the reported rupture of TMI-2 radioacta e Ircst/enez Road). Los Alamos National Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal waste liners. RES:(1) New directions for L bomfory. Los Alan 7os. NM. All other Panel has reconstituted the Atomic llLW and LLW research in response to Hems ,nertaining to this meeting remain Safety and Licensing Appeal Board for legislatise and budgetary changs. and the same as previously published. this operatinglicensing proceeding. As (2)liydrologic transport and modeling of reconstituted. the Appeal Board for this the near surface nitrate disposal area. Dated Ianuary 6.1988.
proceeding will consist of the following Chalk Ris er Nuclear Laboratory. Morton W. Libarkio, members:
Oral statements may be presented by A ssistant necutive Directorfor Project- Christine N. Kohl. Chairman, members of the public with the Renew.
lFR Doc.88-538 Filed 1-12-88. 8 45 amj Alan S. Rosenthat concurrence of the Subcommittee Dr. W. Reed Johnson Chairman: written statements will be mm.o coe, n%
accepted and made asailable to the C. lean Shoemaker.
Committee. Recordings will be permitted Secretory to theAppeo/ Board.
IByproduct Matertal License No. 53-17854-only during those portions of the 01; Docket No. 30-13435; ASLBP No. 88- Dated January 4.1968.
meeting when a transcript is being kept, S (FR Doc.88-536 Filed 1-12-88. 8 45 am]
and questions may be asked only by "* *" " ,
members of the Subcommittee.its Finlay Testing Laboratories,Inc.t --
l consultants. and Staff. Persons desirin8 Designation of Licensing Board in to make oral statements should notify Place of Single Member Presiding DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the ACRS staff member named below as Officer far in adsance as is practicable so that Pursuant to the authority contained in National Highway Traf fic Saf ety appropriate arrangements can be made. 10 CFR 2.721, the Atomic Safety and Administration I
During the initial portion of the !
Licensing Board for Finlay Testing Petitions for Exemptions From the meeting. the Subcommittee may Laboratories. Inc., Docket No. 30-13435.
exchange preliminary views regarding Vehicle Thef t Prevention Standard; matters to be considered during the is hereby appointed. Administrative Chrysler Corp.
balance of the meeting. The jud3es Robert hl. Lazo, Glenn O. Bright and 'tichard F. Cole will serve in olace ActNcy: National Highway Traffic Subcommittee will then hear of Administrative judge Robert M. Lazo Safety Administration [NHTSA). DO1.
presentations by and hold discussions who had been serving as a single with representatives of the NRC Staff Action: Grant of petition for exemption member Presi ding Officer.
and other interested persons regarding suuuAmy:This notice grants the petition As reconstituted. the Board is this review. comprised of the followin8 by Chrysler Corporation for an Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting Administrative ludges: exemption from the marking l has been cancelled or rescheduled, the Dr. Robert M.Laso Chairman requirements of the vehicle theft Mr. Glenn O. Bright prevention standard for a 1989 Chairman's ruling on requests for the Dr. Richard F. Cole passenger car line Chrysler intends to
. opportunity to present oral statements introduce. The agency grants this and the time allotted therefor can be All correspondence, documents and other material shall be filed with the exemption under section 605 of the obtained by a prepaid telephone call to 1
1
, PROPOSED PRESENTATION SCHEDULE l MEETING 0F THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
JANUARY 21-22, 1988 (REVISION 1 - JANUARY 20,1988).
Thursday, January 21 1 I. High-Level Waste Management 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Opening Rerrarks 0. Moeller, Chairman 8:45 - 9:30 a.m. Effects of recent legislation R. Browning /
on NRC's HLW program J. Linehan,HLW 9:30 - 10:15 a.m. NRC's Review Plan for Yucca R. Browning /
Mountain Consultation Draft J. Linehan, SCP; Status of NRC's review HLW 10:15 - 10:30 a.m. ***** BPEAK *****
II. Low-Level Waste Manaaenent 10:30 - 11:20 a.m. Revision 1 of Standard Review Plan M.Tokar,and (SRP) for SLB J.Kane,LLW 11:20 - 11:30 a.m. Status Report on Rupture of TMI-2 H.Tokar,LLW Radioactive Waste Liners 11:30 - 12:00 NCON Uranium Recovery Program, P.Lohaus and Introduction and Framework G.Gnugnoli,LLW 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. ***** LUNCH *****
1:00 - 2:00 p.m. The Title II Program R. Smith, Reg.IV 2:00 - 2:15 p.m. ***** BREAK *****
2:15 - 3:15 p.m. DOE's Title I Program J. Turi,00E 3:15 - 4:15 p.m. NRC's Title I Program M. Fl iegel ,LLW l
4:15 - 4:45 p.m. Executive Session D. Moeller, Chairman l 4:45 p.m. RECESS ENCLOSURE S
i i
- ~
c Page 2 Friday, January 22 III. Radioactive Waste Management Research 8:30 - 8:40 a.m. Introductory Remarks D. Moeller Chairman 0:40 - 9:40 a.m. New directions in the F. Costanzi High-level program in RES/WMB response to legislative
& budgetary changes 9:40 - 10:20 a.m. New directions in the Low F. Costanzi level program in response to RES/WMB budgetary changes 10:20 - 10:30 a.m. ***** BREAK *****
10:30 - 10:45 a.m. Introduction / Background Demonstration of Performance E.0'Donnell Modeling of near surface RES/WMB LLW disposal (FIN B2862 PNL) 10:45 - 12:00 Noon Brief review of performance David modeling of the nitrate Robertson disposal area, Chalk River PNL Nuclear Laboratory Marcel Bergeron,PNL 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:00 - 1:30 p.m. Modeling of the nitrate T. McCartin disposal area, Chalk River RES/WMB Nuclear Lab. by means of a particle tracking code 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Results of the performance David modeling of the "A" Disposal' Robertson Area, Chalk River Nuclear PNL Laboratory Marcel Pergeron PNL 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Exacutive Session D. Moeller Chairman ,
3:30 p.m. ADJ0 URN 1
1 4
l
i l
ENCLOSURE C LIST OF HANDOUTS DURING THE MEETING 0F THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE Ofl L'ASTE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY 21-22, 1988 WASHINGTON, D.C.
- 1. Revisfor 1 of the SRP on Alternative Methods of Disposal, J. D.
Kane/M. Tokar, January 21, 1988
- 2. Division of low-Level Weste Management and Decommissioning Organizetional Chart
- 3. The NRC Uranium Recovery Program Framework, G. Gnugnoli, January 21, 1980 4 Document Name: URF0 Briefing (R. Smith'spresentationmaterial)
- 6. NRC's Title I Program, M. Fliegel, January 21, 1988
- 7. Waste Management Research Program, FY 1988. F. Costanzi, January 22, 1988
- 8. 61.50(a), Code of Federal Regulations, E. O'Donnell
- 9. NUREG/CR-4879, Vol 2, Demonstration of Performance Modeling of a low-Level llaste Shallow-Land Burial Site, D. Robertson et al.,
Novemuer 1987
- 10. "A" Disposal Site Source Term
- 11. Nitrate Dispcsal Pit Source Term
- 12. DPCT Model Simulations Using the Chalk River Data Base, T.
ficCartin, January 22, 1988 i
i I
I i
- 0. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON L,0 CATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE January 21-22, 1988
/ j y ATTENDANCE LIST N Av.E AFFILI ATION D.w.atsau an Aces #1snara A. T $ w a u rn D Creru C ou. m rsa r I< . M t w u ,>.c *
T. SnowaiE MRc LymxS/p/swm 5 . M env 4 c /P S S >r. F r u m 3 Sameira Ac Aw '
- 41. Thre e
^
% W A WK n X G ersves ^
k beho.V J N R.C / LLW
& NAIUGAlOLI NIE C/A/M.rJ/l L4)M 3 3 6MiT4 NRd_ /uR /:o/R.Dr M. fuese, art e A.w P REED Iv ec / ResI wmee M. Dunk \ ma n WRt./LLW .
J f. Kp d' (f pi g( / St. 2 7 )*
N N G 26TLew' h F/ LL mTA. A-f l k 50% Db 6 f 0 ovtT2h?
/
EA^cLeMRF D
- 0. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT l ACPS SU5 COMMITTEE MEETING ON l'
LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE January 21-22, 1988
/[. /
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT: NAME AFFILI ATION W , //h b O/ w_ *V N6 YiY W %
E k al (2 0 - Oo& 0 be b <> oJg L ro u /v e-i L Ag Tag h > Ac_es QAo u em % .
Mus NAs 96VLfr 6dADE S f)-/t C h ale s F. (EAs o y A unic 4 y E c c, t.o e, r O keri M Add OK MV5 Cup, '
L,c. cn . - . , , - o c ru e c- !
[') ; w s in 0Alut Nolr' hl}V7TT/LLI.h JA Nwe-r AlfC/t1 wt1
' Rosar Gmz sazj.
caThu@ co m Aec H l W RLrek I INEL c P. ?)~ d BJi&lourp 1
(
N ._
T i
- 0. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT ACPS SUSCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE January 21-22, 1988
/ ,2 ,2, ((
ATTENDANCE LIST NAME AFFILI ATION D. w'. /4 te /
- A c RS Miem.be r M . J. S wt i n el er "
' e. P4 & rrt Ac? 5 Cen.*<
b+
- p. De n
K . < ra as k .-f u o
3y u 6.S.N erH l ACE9 S -h a - f. (
s . 3 =% rc ~ n Sn. =&l u w
__h. 0 *0L '~n $> tt i EL.LJW F Ce+a n m; #R c./ REs /WM a '
- d. Crr n " H r M e h4, m E.'O bo n n < // ' '
J. ?e ,& PWL (RG5 On% ds)
A. se ,- a n n S /Arne Aces n (n 4e //, -
~
)
Y M, c L o is n ,vraMrsjwsA
~..~--r,, -- , _ . - , - - - - , - , - - - , , - , - , , , , , - - - -,-, , - =m-,-nn - -
---e.- p - , - w ,,--w- o g ,,
- 0. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON t,0 CATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
~
DATE Ja nua ry 21-22, 198S PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILI ATION Olhcw AML 0 c OhltM '
Mvs Ga
(' O L h&JA '/ 0 4 TD
.L. W4 OIS UJ % p/'Ut$C
. 9 Ln 0nJJ ArEh C 73 C b u J M A-c_ a ?
3 lashc4 N 6.a b - n-ve e
~& % pee G1L3cm/ o . s. = c% ~
% s L & aeed Ps '
D uid obe fcod PN L-h /T MYst NAT ;
/j/v a i J A)<c s a r> tJ4'c-//CFF \
PAL R,7?d ac ) Rss
& m# unc4ess i l
l EW9 E S /G+' /Y ~ 77M4K5.I
~~~~~-e l , .
30 January 1988 l Mr. 0.S. Merrill -
Senior Staff Engineer, ACRS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,DC 20555
Dear Owen:
i Here are a few reflections on the meeting of the waste-management subcommittee a week or so ago. I thought the meeting in general was excel-lent: the presentations were good, and I certainly learned a lot. i Browning. This was a fine summary of current activities and the effects of the new legislation. I was particularly glad to hear of the intention to send an NP.C seismologist to Yucca Mountain, and I hope a geologist and hydrologist can be included. At a previous meeting, in a casual conv0rsation with a couple of NRC geologists, I sensed considerable unhappiness that they were confined to desk jobs in Washington when they would like to be in the field to get acquainted with details of the site at first-hand -- and I could I certainly sympathize.
Regarding the huge bibliographic reference project that Mr. Browning described I can only echo the worries expressed by my colleagues on the subcommittee. It sounds like a noble effort to get some control over the frightening volume of literature that waste management has generate / ad I certainly commend the effort. But I hope that those in charge realize the need for critical judgment about what items to include and what to exclude, and particularly aboutindexing. Otherwise use of the system for getting information on any topic is all too apt to spew forth a discouraging mass of l barely relevant information -- as I have learned to my sorrow when I have l tried to use Stanford's hbrary system for literature searches. l Review plan for Consultation Draf t SCP. I see no excuse for the length of this massive document. Granted that part of the length is due to inclusion of material on Deaf Smith and Hanford; even with this excluded, there is far too much useless verbiage. The document, we were told, 'is to provide technical guidance to the NRC staff and contractors"; now surely any reason-ably competent member of the NRC staff or contractor who has been on the job for a few months would already know the stuff contained in the first nine pages and the painfully repetitious instructions in the "Background and Approach" part of each Review Guide? Seems to me I have read this sort of thing over and over and over again in innumerable NRC and DOE documents.
Is there really any point to this endless repetition?
- - --- ~~-- ~ - ----- ---
-.,,,-,,. e-- ,,,.---%m- - . - , - , y-,---,---- -- , , , . - - - - - - . ,- - . ,- --- + , - - w
1 l
\
. I would also complain about the lack of any attempt to prioritize. It .
looks as if the author (s) of the document simply set down any conceivable item that popped into his (her, their) head (s), without any thought as to what was important and what was trivial. Let me take as an example the review guide on geochemistry of groundwater (page 131). Surely itis no i
secret that 'an understanding of the geochemistry of groundwater is a concern for both the siting of the repository and performance of a nuclear waste repository" (second sentence of Background and Approach). Why is this sort of pontificating needed? Anyone who doesn't know the importance of groundwater geochemistry has no business in the waste-disposal game to start with. Then, under Criteria,21 items are listed with no indication of relative importance. Whatis the poor staff reviewer supposed to do -- just l
go woodenly down this list, checking each item to see how adequately DOE has considered it? Seems to me the list could be handled more meamngfully and more efficiently like this:
Impcrtant: Composition of groundwater: concentrations of dissolved material, including major, minor, and trace elements l l
i pH and Eh l
Colloids and particulates: nature, amounts, and sizes of particles l Methods of sampling and analysis S+conda ry_: Temperature, ambient and predicted post-closure; possible l effects on composition and density l Degree of saturation with respect to precipitation of silica, j carbonates, and silicate minerals Possible effects of radiolysis, especially on Eh i Possible influence of reaction rates and disequilibrium Trivial except in special cases: Stable isotopes Groundwater age Others would doubtless arrange the items differently. I'm not advocating this particular pattern, but just pleading for some arrangement that would give the reviewer an idea of where his(her) time can best be concentrated.
4 1
. ~
1 l
Urantum mill tallings. I'm glad to hear that there is real progress in this endeavor, but I still feel that a lot of taxpayers' money is being wasted .
on overkill. ,
[
TMI-2 waste liners. Here I could complain that we didn't hear enough about why the cracking occurred or what was being done to prevent a similar calamity in the future, but I gather that the phenomenon is so recent that the necessary studies haven't been made.
Planned research. Whenever we hear about NRC research, the presen-tation is chiefly devoted to a listing of plans for the future. This is well and good, and Mr. Costanzi did a fine job of telling us about new directions in respons+ to legislative and budgetary changes. I wish that sornetime we could hear also a bit about past performance -- what pieces of research have been planned, which ones have given good results and which ones have not, and how such successes and failures have influenced current planning. Also it would be ni:e to know the basis on which projects for planned research '
are selected -- what projects have been considered, and why some were chosen and others discarded. It seems to me this sort of discussion would give us a better basis for judging the whole research enterprise. I was glad to learn that in-situ experiments in tuff will be emphasized;it's too bad that ,
I such work can't be done at or near the Yucca Mountain site itself rather than in Arizona, but I gather that DOE has preempted the favorable Yucca Moun-tain locations.
Chalk River. I was fascinated by this effort to compare modeling with actual performance. It showed the possibilities of such comparisons, but showed with equal clearness the numerous pitfalls and the extreme care i needed if the results are to be used for actual prediction. I hope that this !
kind of study can be tried in other places.
Enough for this time. I hope these rambling comments will be of some use.
Best regards, Konrad B. Krauskopf
._..7.._.__......._.._..
_