ML20150C294
| ML20150C294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/30/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2564, NUDOCS 8807120420 | |
| Download: ML20150C294 (46) | |
Text
_ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D Y .i \ &f$-A6hY M. p9'n 4 /?^'O ran zh/t/
1; i tilfd I$.Y *g h 'ih $ h ' . CERTIFIED COPY DATE ISSUED: March 30,1988
SUMMARY
HINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARCH 17, 1988 The ACRS Subcomittee on Waste Management met in Room H-1046,1717 H.
NW., Washington, D.C. on Thursday, March 17, 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 nuclear waste management topics.
I. Nuclear Waste Management Research
- 1. Methodology for setting nuclear waste management research priorities.
II. Low-level Waste
- 1. TMI-2 waste liner event
- 2. Status of Recommendation on Resin Content
- 3. Recent developments in LLW licensing; status of State Compacts III. High-Level Waste-8807120420 000330 64 PDR i s
]' ,
a .ie -J f' DESIGNATED ORIGINAL te m,p,,EJ a3 c<_ ewe >
Minutes Waste Management 2
.- Subcommittee Mtg.Jan.21-22
. I
- 1. Q-ListTechnicalPosition(TP)
- l Implementation i The above topics were reviewed and discussed in accordance with the Proposed Agenda, Revision 1 (Enclosure B). The documents'provided during this meeting are listed in Enclosure C, and are available in ACRS files.
Subcommittee Action Taken:
The subcommittee decided that draft comments should be prepared on the 0-List TP for ACRS consideration during its 336th meeting, April 7-9, 1988. Dr. Moeller said he would prepare them within a few days time.
Attendees: (Total - 53, See Enclosure D Members -3 ACRS Consultants - 3 D. Moeller F. Fogarty P. Shewmon D. Orth M. Steindler J. Till ACRS Staff NMSS Staff - 9
- 0. Perrill K. McDaniel l
J. Parry M. Tokar R. Savio J. Surmeier J. Kane RES Staff - 4 L. Person l T. McCartin J. Kennedy R. Grill J. Holonich
- 9. Reed M. Bell J. Pittman M. Dunkelman GPA/SLITP - 1 Scientech - 2
- 5. Salomon RT hattson D. Meier i
l i
i i
Minutes Waste Management 3
. Subcommittee Mtg.Jano 21-22 a .
DOE - 4 R. Stein NBS - 1 T. Eng E. Regnier J. Clifton J. Blaylock EEI/UNWMG - 2 State of Nevada - 1 T. Colandrea
- 5. Zimmerman N. Montgomery Others - 20 I. Openino Remarks - D. W. Moeller Dr. Moeller provided 6 preview of the meeting, giving a few introductory remarks on each topic to be discussed, as follows:
- 1. A review of a methodology for prioritizing research is being established by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. On the basis of a previous review of the proposed approach, as applied to nuclear power plant safety, the ACRS concluded that the new methodology represents a significant step forward.
Today we are to hear how these same techniques might be applied to the NRC research programs on HLW and LLW.
- 2. A review and update of the problems with the solidification and handling of ion exchange resins used for the treatment of low-level liquid wastes. The Subcommittee has been looking into this problem for several years. Recent events show there is still work to be done. This presentation will include a video of the THI-2 waste liner event, and the status of cement waste form solidification issues.
~
l7dnuBestasue Znagemen?
~
O Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22
- 3. A status report on recent developments in the licensing of LLW disposal sites -- an update on the status of State Compacts.
- 4. A discussion of the NRC's Q-List Technical Position, which identifies items and activities in the HLW geologic repository program that are subject to quality assurance requirements.
Dr. Moeller said that, following these discussions, the members and consultants would review the topics discussed to prepare written com-ments on them, as appropriate, and discuss future work and activities.
He asked that they be prepared to identify (1) the major upcoming problems in the waste management area and (2) where the subcomittee can most effectively direct its efforts.
II. Methodology for Setting Waste Management Research Priorities --
Roger Mattson, Scientech, Inc.
Dr. R. Mattson described the methodology being developed by Scientech, Inc. for NRC research prioritization, in general, and discussed the results of its application to the high-level waste and the low-level waste research programs, in particular.
He said that the requirement for prioritization comes from the NRC Strategic Plan (July 29,1987), wherein it states, "Prioritize research projects according to safety significance." This state-ment and the Strategic Plan constitute the basis for this effort,
l Minutes Waste Management 5 Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 the objective of which is to provide input to (1) planning, (2) resource allocation and (3) comunication.
He emphasized that four critical attributes are used to evaluate researchactivities,(1)safetyassurance,(2)usefulness,(3) appropriateness and (4) resources. He said that for each of the first three criteria three sets of questions must be answered to determine the relevance of each area to NP.C's mission. For safety assurance, questions which reflect the underlying agency goals --
vital, important, and vigilant; for usefulness -- highly useful, somewhat useful and potentially useful; and for appropriateness --
highly appropriate, somewhat appropriate and potentially appropriate. And for the fourth criteria, resources -- cost to date, cost to complete, and cost in current FY and cost in next FY.
He said that the prioritization products are (1) a one-page sumary of activity, i.e., a sumary of the assessment of the research, as performed by a panel of experts, and (2) a sumary chart, i.e., a graphical sumary of the results of prioritization.
Dr. Mattson stated that the high-level waste and low-level waste research programs were prioritized separately, each against the four criteria named above, and not together or in competition with each other. However, both were prioritized separately in the same three areas, (1) materials and engineering, (2) hydrology and geochemistry and (3) compliance assessment and modeling. And in each of these three areas, in addition to an explanatory paragraph
Minutes Waste Management 6 Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 describing the rationale and justification for this research, the safety assurance, usefulness and appropriateness of this work is discussed, followed by a statement of resource requirements fer its accomplishment. The net result is a one-page, highly condensed, succinct summary of activity for each major area of research, copies of which are included with these Minutes (Attachment 1).
The above-referenced sumary chart is also included with these Minutes (Attachment 2). This chart gives in an even more condensed version the results of the application of the research prioritization methodology to high-level and low-level waste research. However, as was brought out in the discussion of this chart, caution must be used in its interpretation, based upon knowledge of the process and the inputs that went into its formu-lation.
Dr. Steindler asked if it is the activities, or the product of the activities, that are being judged by this methodology, adding that the product is the key, not the activities.
Dr. Mattson said that the procedure ensures that the right questions are asked. And Dr. Moeller noted, rhetorically, what he considered to be an important question -- but who sees that the quality of the resulting work is acceptable? (This question was subsequently answered by J. Pittman -- see below).
l I
t L
- 4 Minutes Waste Management 7 Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 Dr. J. Till, citing some previous work on prioritization that he and associates at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory had done about a decade ago, comented that their work was more quantitative, and observed that Scientech's approach was more qualitative. He asked if the current effort could be made more quantitative. R. Mattson said that it had been earlier, but had now become more qualitative and that a better balance between the two was the direction they are now moving.
Dr.J.Tillalsosuggestedaddingothercriteria,viz.,(1)public perception, (2) feasibility and (2) reduction of uncertainty.
Dr. Orth stated what he considers to be a basic question, i.e., are our safety standards (e.g., EPA standards) and safety goals cor-rect?
Dr. Steindler asked how the NRC staff will know if the research results will be useful -- if the research is properly structured and/or planned.
J. Pittman of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) answered that this methodology does not bypass the other standard reviews and evaluations that are performed to ensure the usefulness and quality of the research results, and that the peer review must not be separated from this evaluation. Also, he said that this is the role of the new RES Advisory Comittee, and that public perception issues are very important.
--y- ,,-, - - ,--, ---, -, ,
-Minutes Waste Management 8 .
Subcomittee MtgoJano21-22 )
i III. TMI-2 Waste Liner Event -- M. Tokar, Division of Low-level Waste i
Management and Decomissioning (DLLWMD)
Dr. Tokar gave the background and chronology of events pertaining to this subject and the status of the 5 liners still on site. He said that the first indication of waste form degradation was the bulging of some of'the liners, observed in July 1986. When reexamined in October 1987, two of the liners were found to have split open, their now dry contents [ originally solidified in September 1985, consisting of resin, sand, cement, lime, additive (ECIII) and water) having disintegrated and exuded through the cracks onto the floor in the space between the liners and surrounding shipping containers.
The liners in question are of Westinghouse /Hittman (W/H) origin, '
and W/H along with the utility licensee, the GPU Nuclear Corporation, have developed a test plan, which they are implementing, in an attempt to determine the cause of this occurrence and, hopefully, how it could have been prevented.This should help them initiate the necessary changes to ensure that it does not recur. Both physical and chemical tests are planned.
Both GPU and W/H have been very cooperative with NRC in this matter.
D. Orth comented that some resins expand with ionic decomposition and that high levels of radiation will de-cross-link resins.
However, the high radiation levels would have to yield doses of 10 7
Minutes Waste Management 9 Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 to 108R to do so. The surface dose rates of the two liners were only 2.0 and 4.5 R/br, respectively, thus discounting this pos-sibility.
Dr. Tokar said that W/H had submitted in September 1985 a topical report on their methodology. They set a limit of 25% resin content, but the failed liners had 50% (by weight of resin and radioactivesand--greaterthan40%resinand0.8% sand). Also, the containers at THI had too many curies to be shipped, which is why they were held in storage -- otherwise the NRC would never have known about the problem. The reason for this was that the solid-ified waste liners are usually shipped soon after storage, but in addition to high curie levels, insufficient shippino casks were available -- hence they were held in storage at TMI, rather than being shipped to Hanford, which was the customary practice.
The lead PRC group to date has been the TMI p*oject office. With the disbanding of that office, it is believed that the lead responsibility will be shifted to the HMSS/DLLWHD. However, there was still some uncertainty expressed and not resolved as te NRR's role in this matter since they are responsible for the licensing of TMI. It was suggested that NRR be invited to discuss with the Subcomittee their responsibilities in this matter, and their interface with DLLWMD in the waste fom solidification program, in general. The NRC has no role in licensing the solidified waste until it is shipped for disposal as per 10 CFR Part 61. However, DLLWMD has the responsibility for reviewing and approving the
Minutes Waste Management 10 Subcomittee Mtg.Jano21-22 topical reports (TR) on wa',te solidification. It is expected that W/H will submit a new or revised TR as a consequence of this event.
It is also expected that DLLWMD will review the results of the combined GPU - W/H research on the cause of this event. And DLLWMD will be developing new and/or revising existing generic topical reports on solidified waste.
IV. Status of Recomendation on Resin Content -- M. Tokar Dr. Tokar discussed the background of the cement waste fom solidi-fication issue. He said that there are currently four cement solidification vendors: (1) Chem-NuclearSystems,Inc.(CNSI),(2)
Hittman Nuclear Services, Inc., (3) LN Technologies, Inc., and (4)
Stock Equipment Company. To project the long range behavior of the solidified wastes, three of the four vendors use accelerated oven curing of test specimens but, because of concern about the effects of oven curing, NRC asked Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) to run some tests. Their test results indicated potential problems with atypical strength behavior and surface / bulk degradation. Dr.
l Tokar discussed these test results in some detail.
l Dr. Tokar said that as a result of these tests (and other work),
i the NRC sent letters to all four cement vendors recomending a maximum loading of resins of 18 weight percent. The letter also requested (1) data supporting the proposed maximum waste loadings and (2) submittal of new topical reports on all fomulations not l covered by existing submittals. The letter also required the l
l i
Minutes Waste Management 11 4
, Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 )
e e vendors to discontinue the use of all waste fomulations not l certified or not in regular use by more than one customer. He then discussed the responses to date of the four vendors, each of whom l has provided a written response, except Hittman who is scheduled to meet with NRC on March 28, 1988 to discuss their proposed test program. The details of the responses of the four vendors and Dr.
Tokar's sumary of this issue are provided with these Minutes (Attachment 3.)
Dr. Moeller asked if the accelerated. oven curing of test samples is representative of the nomal curing of solidified wastes. Dr.
Tokar replied that the heating is to simulate, in a small volume, a large volume of concrete. Also, it permits the vendor to evaluate each run before that particular formulation is used in practice --
and, with accelerated testing he can test many f9rmulations more rapidly.
Dr. Orth stated that the vendors do not understand ion exchange resins. He added that the order in which you add the ingredients in the mix is a key factor -- also, that ion beads have a lot of water in them. He strongly recomended that the vendors need both cement and resin experts.
Dr. Tokar said that the NRC Staff is keeping abreast of the prob-lems regarding resins, and that they now have the help they need in the cement area (as previously recomended by the ACRS) in the person of James Clifton of the National Bureau of Standards.
Minutes Waste Management 12
, Subcomittee Mtg.Jan021-22 V. Recent Developments in LLW Licensing; Status of State Compacts -- )
S. Salomon Dr. Salomon discussed the status of LLW disposal licensing of individual states and compacts (groups of states). He pointed out that the law required each coepact to designate a host state by January 1, 1988. California is going it alone and may be the first state to set up a new LLW disposal site; they will begin receiving LLW in 1990. The site is 25 miles northwest of Needles, California, Economics, public acceptance, geology and hydrology characteristics are all favorable, e.g., ground water is 700 feet below the surface and is saline, hence there is no hydrology problem. There will eventually be 11 to 15 sites in the country, which may pose an economic problem for the sites -- there are now only 3 sites and they are having a tough time economically. Part of the problem is that disposal site operators in states which have little waste will, as a consequence, charge higher costs. Several states want Class C wastes to be recoverable for later shipment to a HLW repository.
l The current LLW Compact Status is shown pictorially and in tabular l
form in Attachment 4, which also presents a generic schedule for the development of a new LLW disposal facility, including Congres-l sional milestones and penalties under the Low-Level Radioactive l
l Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of 1985.
VI. Q-List Technical Position -- J. Kennedy l
l l
l t
Minutes Waste Management 13 Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 Mr. Kennedy discussed the fina' version of the guidance document, Technical Position on Items and Activities in the High-Level Waste Geologic Repository Program Subject to Quality Assurance Require-ments -- or Q-List TP for short. He said that the purpose of this briefing was to describe the resolution of public coments (partic-ularly the Department of Energy's coments), and to obtain input from the ACPS and others before issuing the final position -- the target date is March 31, 1988.
He discussed the historical background and motivation that led to the document in its present form, stressing the need for the NRC Staff's early-on identification and resolution of QA-related issues, the need for a site characterization program to be in place early, and lessons learned from reactor program experiences in the scope of a QA program (i.e., safety-related vs. imporhnt to safety items).
He said that one controversial issue, the specification of a 0.5 rem accident dose limit, was changed -- the term "accident dose limit" has been removed and 0.5 rem is used as the threshold for identifying items important to safety. Whether DOE will now proceed with their proposed Request for Rulemaking on this issue remains to be seen.
Also, they have redefined the Q-List to include only engineered items, not natural barriers. Major site characterization activ-ities will be identified by DOE in a quality activities list. And,
Minutes Waste Management 14 Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 regarding the identification of accident sequences for use in design, the Q-List states that 00E is to analyze sequences con-sidered cr edible, but they should also examine lower probabil-ity/high consequence sequences for use in design.
Other issues discussed by Mr. Kennedy were (1) important to safety items need only be identified if retrieval is necessary, and (2) redundancy in safety systems was modified to be consistent with Part 60.
He stated, in summary, that the objectives of the 0-List Technical
/ositMn have been fulfilled and issues have been identified and eddressed appropriately for this stage of the program. Also, he u.id that the process for position development has been thorough with extensive outside involvement by States, Tribes, Industry and DOE.
The subcomittee members and consultants provided oral coments and some word en0 i neering on the Q-List document, primarily for improvenent of clarity and meaning. There were no major issues with which the ACP.S took exception.
VII. Public Coments on the Q-List Technical Positon -- T. Colandrea Mr. T. Colandrea, on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute's Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (EEI/UNWMG) gave a very
! brief presentation which was complimentary of the NRC Staff's l
I t
Minutes Waste Management 15 Subcomitt'e Mtg.Jan.21-22 revised Q-List TP. Hesaidthat(1)UNWPGgenerallyconcurswith NRC's resolution of coments related to the Q-List TP, (2) the Q-List TP is thorough without being overly prescriptive, and (3)
NRC should be comended for their efforts. The Waste Management Subcomittee members and consultants agreed.
VIII.txecutive Session -- D. W. Moeller The major topics discussed during this portion of the meeting were:
- 1. The solidified waste form problem at THI, and the overall, generic problem of waste form solidification and degradation as evidenced by the TMI-2 event. This also included the uncertainty as to where within NRC the responsibility for follow-up on matters of this type lie -- TMI Project Office (nnw disbanded), NRP, (licensing responsibility), or the HMSS Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning.
And how does the NRC responsibility relate to the Licensee, the Vendors and the Agreement States?
Dr. Moeller requested Dr. Steindler to write down what he would like for the Subcomittee to do on this matter, indicating he would do the same (both agreed to do so), to collectively arrive at a position on this issue with the intent of reviewing it in depth at a future Subcomittee meeting. It was suggested that representatives from NMSS and NRR, the four cement vendors identified above, the Licensee
Minutes Waste Management 16 -
Subcomittee Mtg.Jan.21-22 (GPU) and perhaps even a representative Agreement State (Pennsylvania, for example) be brought together to thoroughly explore this issue.
- 2. Major topics for future review by the Waste Management Subcom-nittee [or its successor -- the Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW)].
(1) The above waste solidification issue (2) Geologic repository perfonnance assessment, models development, etc. involving NRC, DOE, EPA and their contractors. It was Dr. Moeller's understanding that R.
Browning of DHLWM would propose an agenda for this review.
(3) The de minimis and below regulatory concern (BRC) issue (4) Monitoring of LLW Sites, which was planned for this meeting but cancelled due to the NRC Staff's heavy current involvement in other LLW issues.
(5) Decomissioning of nuclear power plants -- now in NRR and/orNMSS(DLLWMD) t' 1 ,
Minutes Waste Management 17 i Subcommittee Mtg.Janc21-22
~
(6) Transportation of Spent Fuel and other high-level radio-active wastes No letters were written on any of the above topics during this portion of the meeting. It was decided, however, that a letter to Chairman Zech, commenting on the Q-List TP, should oe drafted for ACRS consideration during its April meeting._ Dr. Moeller agreed to do this.
NOTE: A transcript of the meeting is available 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., Washington, D.C. 20005, Telephone (202) 628-4888. All documents listed in Enclosure C are available in the ACRS files.
ATTACHMENT 1 -- SUtiMARY OF PRIORITIZED ACTIVITIES FOR HLW AND LLW RESEARCH PROGRAMS "ATTACHMENT 1" HAS BEEN DELETED DUE TO PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION F0IA EXEMPTION 5
a ,._e.a _ sm . - 4,. A w -. _ qw$4 t
- J
\
ATTACHMENT 2 -- TABULATION OF PRIORITIZATION
ll l
so t t o n t e eu di a imd er r de t ed ei r pe e xt r n c ea t s e r esg eus m ni n c r
it e d ul o en oc s
2 dbu a f es
- t. r s le 't f no ere
.. gevk rd n a c od c lo hl a ma s
i.
u o
y s
t.
2 2 6 6 ca 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 A A ^ B B 5 2 EC 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 2 5
) It
- ( 1 1 1 1 1 0 a.
5 33 E0
. v 0 0 5
. M * ,
1 1 1 6 7 5 e
r
. 5
. 1
. *s -
0 n 'J 0 'J 6 6 5 1 S l l1Il mie hi.
r at e p p "w a. o
- i. .
mpr r rop
- e. .
sop i
r op p sA PA A
r e
p p g O u
t
. r.. . : y a uy nw e.
.ua l
. v r * ,
i2 v.
e n su. m Pu o . e.. u.
u g O f A
t.
y A
g e c s.
s ]
Y M
r R
T T G
P RYT T R S N R S N E
I A E M E EJ f
E H S M E P
J O SSM 2
C CO S E G N O C E S
O E S E E S D C& A. W ND C& EA.
wN t E L e AS Y A Y Cn s:
n A UF AL G
O L
O ELM: S G A
n R L
A I
O O
L Ny At tLE nE R cT D G TE R D Pm M
oA r e, oA Y Ou n M.
e H - -
a P M H -
Cs -
4
3- 32E=4- fu I111 il
h k
. I,
/
5 I
t ATTACHMENT 3 -- SOLIDIFIED WASTE VENDOR RESPONSES AND
SUMMARY
l m sd mm a am- -
j .
i i
i i
1 RESPONSES TO NRC LEIIER -
CNSI
? ,
- ON MARCH 1, 1988 CNSI SUBMITTED A NEW TOPICAL REPORT (TR)
THAT ADDRESSES 26 FORMULATONS.
l l
- THE TR PROVIDES A DESCRIPTION OF CMSI'm APPROACH TO I
CERTIFYING WASTE FORMS.
l
- THE TR LISTS SEVERAL PROPRIETARY ADDITIVES THAT CNSI CLJUMS l
PROVIDE FOR LONG-TERM STABILITY.
I 1
r
,
! 2-A 9
R
- THE TR DOES NOT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DATA ON CEMENT STRENGTH BEHAVIOR OR DEGRADATION AS A FUNCTION OF CURE TIME OR l WASTE LOADING.
l
i i
1 4
l a
i
! RESPONSES TO NRC LETTER -
HITTMAN J
i
!
- NO WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED.
l l
i i
i
!
- MEETING TO DISCUSS PROPOSED TEST PROGRAM IS SCHEDULED FOR I MARCH 28, 1988.
1
4 RESPONSE TO NRC LETTER -
LN TECHNOLOGIES
- LETTER FROM LN TECH DATED JANUARY 11 1988 SAID THE 16x WASTE LOADING LIMIT WOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED UNTILL ADDITIONAL TEST DATA BECAME AVAILABLE.
- ON FEBRUARY 22, 1988. NRC STAFF MET WITH LN TECH AT COLUMBIA. S C. PURPOSE OF MEETING WAS TO:
- 1. OBSERVE A DEMONSTRATION SOLEDIFDCATION
- 2. REVIEW RESPONS5ES TO PREVIOUS MRC QUESTIONS
- 3. DISCUSS RESULTS OF FURTHER TESTING
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AFTER INNERSION VS. CURE TIME '
(Preliminary Results - Feb. 22,1987)
Cure immer Act. Pow Ecod Ecod Ecos Cat Anton F11xed Bor.
Time Time Sal _ rarb. abo 3 PCH P202H X>O3H S502 Resin Resin Resin 22:In 14 d 77 d Dem ++ hh ++ ++ ++ hh +h ++ sc sc '
Sea ++ hh ++ ++ ++ ++ hh h+ ++ ss 28 d 64 d Dem hh h+ ++ ++ ++ ** hh hh +h sc sc Sea ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ hh h+ h+ se s 42 d 50 d Dem hh hh ++ ++ ++ ++ sc sc ++ hh dd Sea +h ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ sc sc h sc hh dd 56 d 36 d Dem hh ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ sc sc h h* h sc dd Sea hh ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ sc sc h+ sc sc dd 70 d 22 d Dem hh ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ss ss sc sc sc sc dd Sea hh ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ sc sc sc h sc sc dd 84 d 8d Dem hh ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ sc sc hh sc sc dd Sea h+ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ sc sc sc sc sc sc dd I
( Legend: Acceptable Not Acceptable i
+ sample intact d disintegrated
- minor flaking sc severe cracking h hairline cracts ss severe spalling s minor spalling i
RESPONSE TO NRC LETTER -
STOCK i
- STOCK RESPONDED TO NRC's LETTER BY SENDING A LETTER DATED JANUARY 8, 1988 THAT ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT:
- 1. STATUS OF NRC's BTP ON WASTE FORM.
- 2. REQUEST FOR A COPY OF BNL REPORT.
- 3. DID NRC COMPARE STACK TEST RESULTS WITH OTHER VENDOR TEST DATA.
- 4. MISCELLANY i
l .
- NRC RESPONDED TO THE QUESTIONS AND SENT THE REQUESTED INFORMATION ON MARCH 1, 1988.
t
o -
SUM M ARY l
- THE CEMENT SOLIDIFICATION VENDORS ARE RESPONDING TO THE NRC LETTER IN A VARIETY OF WAYS WITH REGARD TO THE MAIN POINTS ADDRESSED.
- THE NRC STAFF IS CONTINUING TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE VENDORS IN MEETINGS, VIA TEI FCOMMUNICATIONS AND IN WRITING RE: (1) RESOLUTION OF THE CEMENT ISSUES AND (2) REVIEW OF THE TR's
- AN EXPERT ON CEMENT COMPOSITION, STRUCTURE AND PROPERTIES HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE NBS.
4 9 P
-b ATTACH! TENT 4 -- LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE COMPACT STATUS e
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACT STATUS -
MARCH 1988 i
- NORTHWEST MIDWEST UNAFFILIATED STATES FIFED
- WA is hast State . Mi selected es host State
- 17% National LLW (11 States)
AK
- NY to host site - 6% National LLW - SLB banned
- SLB
- SLB banned = MA to host site - 4% National LLW - SLB banned
O nO f7WA _
HI e j MT WI 4, O f
)
' 40 '- -[ MI '. 88h NORTHEAST j OR 1 1 i
,A-g- unRI* NJ and CT are party St 1
.i
-1 IN OH PA h
)
~ ~ CT
- NJ and CT selected as host
-NJ States
-. SD ,
i l -DE
- 6% National LLW
__ MO M -MD . Burial technology to be UT
' DCgj determined by host States CALIFORNIA i
% / APPALACHIAN
!
- CA to host site /
' f i CENTRAL MIDWEST
- Introduced in 100th i
' . SfB WY *ILishos: State Congress.1st Session,
- Southwestern + 12% National LLW for consent Compact enacted AZ -
" I
- SLB banned
- PA is host State IL g
' L' NE
- 12% National LLW
- SLB banned WESTERN NV CO
- Introduced into ,
yA
, Congress for content
!
- AZ is host State '
NM OK NC 1
- NV current host State F
\
LA At GA
- CO next host State with .
~J
{ operating site by 1992 ,
- SC is now host State using SLB
+ <1% National LLW
- NC selected as host State with
~~
FL l 3
- SLB TEXAS 3, operating site by 1992
' ,2,
- CENTRAL
)
- 30% National LLW i $ = TX to host site "'
- NE selected as host State
- New burial technology to be
- g oe a uw we sa. * < 1% National LLW
- 6% National LLW determined by NC - SLB banned r
- SLB restricted
- SLB restricted l Q
-t PR b
Note: National LLW volume for 1986 = 1.8 million cubic feet. Source: State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs SLB shallow land burial Office of Governmental and Public Affairs. NRC
~
INTERSTATE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE COMPACTS CONSENTED TO BY CONGRESS AS OF MARCH 1988 Northwest Rocky Mountain Central Midwest Central-Midwest Southeast Northeast Alaska Colorado-HS-2 Arkansas Indiana Illinois-HS Alabama Connecticut-HS Hawaii Nevada-HS-1 Kansas Iowa Kentucky Florida New Jersey-HS _
Idaho New Mexico Louisiana Michigan-HS Georgia Montana Wyoming Nebraska-HS Minnesota Mississippi Oregon Oklahoma Missouri N. Carolina-HS-2 Utah Ohio S. Carolina-HS-1 Washington-HS Wisconsin Tennessee Virginia i Unaffiliated States COMPACTS REQUIRING CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT Maine (3)
Massachusetts (3)
Appalachian _ Western Southwestern (2) New Hampshire (S.1551; H.R.3025) (S.717; H.R.1530) New York (3)
(100th Congress, North Dakota 1st Session) Arizona-HS Arizona Puerto Rico N. Dakota (1) California-HS Texas (3)
Delaware S. Dakota N. Dakota Rhode Island Maryland S. Dakota Vermont Pennsylvania-H3 Washington, DC West Virginia Notes:
HS: Host State (1=first; 2=second)
Source: State, local and Indian (1) ND must enact legislation to become a member of the compact. Tribe Programs (2) Only CA has enacted this Compact. Office of Governmental and (3) ME, MA, NY and TX are each planning to dispose of its own LLW. Public Affairs, NRC
y g
6 r 6 9 e 9 / n 1 E
. 9 i
/ f 1 o 5
g t n
e m
9 - t r
a 9 p 1 - e D
d S.
4 U
- 9 9 - :
e c
1 r u
o S
. 3 3
9 - 9
/
9 . 1
- Y 1
yLU /
1
- T I 2 -
L 2 9
- WE 9 /
1 E C 9
_ R /
NAF A 1 1 A L E Y
FA R OS 1 9 =
TO A 9 =
NS P D 1 EI N =
_ MD E L
C 0
9 @-
l 9 I
_ EA 1 l
_ VW E
DE U ,
RI V 9 9 OC T 8 9 U "
F 1 A e NO n o
AI _
LD 8 8 U t s
PA 8 8 le CR I
9
/
1
/
U i M
1 R EL 1 l a
E n
=$'
l NV o E E. 7 i
s s
G 1 -
8 _ . e I W 9 . r g
6U
- O 1 8 n
. L / - o 1 C
/ - s 6 7 e 8 - t o
9 O -- n 1 - e
- - D s y n y O y e g l o t f
i i t
s o y t a i t
t y i l
i t
r .
l o n a i c e . l a n it e c i i l
a c n it s h l
i l c f Y r s o c c m p a l a
o a p e a n p f s
T e l
p e s t f
o r
a l a o l a
_ I t
- t a
t a
i e l l
a e s p s V
i g d a at t n d e i
t s s s o
v s n o is o p
I pn s o nt e p d T
C md e t s
i it i
d i z l a p p en ee c i s i s
s n r n s is d t c d A on ce h o p a c
e t i f id d t e ms i
l t e u e y ep o c n l ps i s r d
t l t a t t c e n t s i f
it d c
e e v
c e
r a
c e e ig s ms oas b mu e c n v o
an l e e le h l e
l e e D C S L C P i o r R
i S D S C S S i :!iI.l ;j, 4 i
j .-
1 i
)
- l 1
i REESTODES ABC PENAP.TES l
! INEIEft115tWPAA OF 1985 *
! ../
j , Ed, Jro 7
/'[ .$
2ko bo Abo!fo 3X$4'= % /
l se disposal rights efter I j /-
f l -- - > --+ -+ ---+ ! > f/ ->
! M state tones title er serfett's' / State takes
- - Sony buey Semble Semble timed. Seer Irtple ,-
title Y 5ercherTe Access 5ercharge Access Access Sortinorge /[/
/ .~sorcherge (s5d(2)(c))votetes / j/
E (s5e(2)(A)) (s5e(2)(91) (s5e(2)(C)) Isle (2)(3))
E , ,
n -
n n
9- -
o -
./ -
l
= .
! 5 l l. Rettfy compact $tting plan License oppil- License Discesel Disposal
- 5 legistetten er (ge-It-alone) cetten er Geeerswe's applicatten site site E Covernor certl- or host state essorence to NEC (s5e(l)(3)) operettemel eserettemel I
fles totest to and sitleg that state con pro- (s5d(2)(c)) (s5d(2)(c))
- develop een ylee (conosct) wide for -
- - _ . . " .
site (s5ets)(s)) er ttu etter [992 (s5e(I)(A)) (s5e(t)(C))
l Prepared by Bill Newberry Governor's Office - '
I South Carolina -
May 1986 l
8 #
ENCLOSURE A -- FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
t Fed;ral Registir / Vol. 53. No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1,1988 / Notices ' 6211'
( landscaping. screening and similar Secretariat. General Services Dated at Bethesda, Maryland. tbts 22nd -
Administration. day of February 1988. y'.
means.
- 13. Views. The design of the entire M. Rebecca Wtnkler. For the Nuclear Regulatory Comad,sdon.
William G. Mcdonald. 'b y 't",
waterfront develpment shall, to the Committee Monogement officer.
extent possible, preserve and February 25.1988 Director. Office ofAdministration and~
- architecturally enhance views from the Resources Megement.
Potomac River and the Viriginia
[FR Doc. 88-4350 Filed 2-2S-88. 8 45 am) swuo caos rssm
[FR Doc. amet Filed 2-2SM e 45 am)]- (; .
shoreline. ,
aumso coos is**was
- 14. Aquotic Resources. The Developer commits to minimize adverse impacts on NUCLEAR REGULATORY dvisory Committee on Reactor existing aquatic resources, including COMMISSION Safeguards, Subcommittee on Weste wetlands and fisheries. .and provide Management; Meeting appropriate mitigation measures to Documents Containing Reporting or compensate for unavoidable adverse Record Keeping Requirements Under The ACRS Subcommittee on Waste effects. in compliance with applicable Office of Management and Budget Management will hold a meeting on Federal, state, and local laws and Review March 17 and 18.1988. Room 1048,1717 regulations. AoENCY: Nuclear Regulatory H Street. NW., Washingtoa. DC.
- 15. Landscaping The Developer Commission. The entire meeting will be open to agrees to landscape all proposed Acnow: Notice of the Office of public attendance.
development in order to restore as much Management and Budget (OMB) review The agenda for the subject meeting of the tree covered character of the of information collection. shall be as follows:
shoreline and the hillside as practicable Thursday. Aforch 17.1988-a30 a.m.
(as shown on the "Illustrative Site Plan"
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory until the conclusion of buainess and "Landscape Concept" maps. NCPC Commission has recently submitted to Friday. Aforch 18,1988-a30 a.m. until Map No. 3:06.00 (05.12) 30012. sheets 1 the OMB for review the following the conclusion of business and 2 of 4). proposal for the collection of The Subcommittee will review the
- 16. Amendments. This agreement may information under the provisions of the following nuclear waste management be modified at any time by the mutual Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C- topics: (1) Q. List GTP. (2) TMl-2 waste agreement of NCPC and James T. Lewis Chapter 35). . , .,
liner event. (3) recent developments in Enterprises. Ltd. regarding aspects of the 1. Type,of Submission, new revision LLW licensing. (4) status of state o tensi n:Extensjon. compacts. (5) monitoring of LLW sites.
[ development which a. serve to carry out .
N the generalintent of this agreement. b. 2. The th/e of the infomotion (6) methodology for setting nuclear co//ection: Certificate of Medical waste management research priorities, effect the implementation of Section 1. Examination by Facility Licensee.
and c. which would improve the and (7) summary report on Sandia
- 3. The form numberif opphcoble: National Laboratory Perfo mance attractiveness of the develpment.
NRC Form 396 Assessment review meeting. March 15-WHEREFORE, we have set our hands
- 4. How often the co//ection is se,1988 and r als this _ day of required: Upon application for an initial Oral statements may be presented by
- lames T. lawls Enterprises, Ltd. operator license, and every six years for members of the public with the By the renewal of operator or senior concurrence of the Subcommittee James T. Lewis President opera tor licenses. Chairman; written statements will be National Capital Planning Commission
- 5. Wo wi// be required or osAed to accepied and made available to the report: Facility employers of applicant,s Committee. Recordings will be permitted gy f r operators licenses. only during those portions of the Robert j Nash.Vice Chairman
- 6. An eqimate of the number of meeting when a transcript is being kept, IFR Doc. 88-4298 Filed 2-29-88; 8 45 em] responses.1000 annually. and questions may be asked only by swwo cooe tsao.es.= 7. An estimate of the toto / number of members of the Subcommittee,its hours needed to complete the consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring requirement or request 350 hours0.00405 days <br />0.0972 hours <br />5.787037e-4 weeks <br />1.33175e-4 months <br />. to make oral statements should notify NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 8. An indication of whether section the ACRS staff member named below as 35&l(h) Pub. L. 9696-511 cpphes: Not far in advance as is practicable so that Committee Management; of Advisory applicable. appropriate arrangements can be made.
. Committee for Science and 9. Abstract:NRC Form 396 establishes During the initial portion of the Engineering Education the procedure for transmitting meeting, the Subcommittee may information to the NRC regarding the exchange preliminary views regarding The NSF Advisory Council and the medical condition of applicants for matters to be considered during the Advisory Committee for Science and .nitial or renewal operator licenses. balance of the meeting.The
. Engineering Education are being AcoREssts: Copies of the submittal may Subcommittee will then hear
, renewed for an additional 2 years. be inspected or obtained for a fee from presentations by and hold discussions The Director of the National Science the NRC Public Document Room.1717 H with representatives of the NRC Staff
, Foundation and the Assistant Director Street. NW Washington. DC 20555. and other interested persons regarding for Science and Engineering Education. FOR FURTHER MORMADON: Conunents this review, 3
- r. respectively, have determined that the and questions should be directed to the Further information regarding topics renewal of their Committees is OMB reviewer Vartkes L Broussalian, to be discussed, whether the meeting necessary and in the public interest. has been cancelled or rescheduled, the'
( This determination follows consultation (202) 395-3084 Chairman's ruling on requests for the r
NRC Clearance Officer la Brooda l.
, with the Committee Management Shelton (301)402-8132. opportunity to present oral statements CLO34/Rd k
> 1
g F dsal Register / Vol E. No. 40 / Tuesday, Mtrch t 1968 / Notices ~
'. ..6212 .
how that Interest may be affected by the involve a signiftewat reducsiosi Iss e and the time allotted therefor can be results of the proceeding.The petition obtained by a prepaid telephone call to margin of safety, should specifically explain the reasons
, The Commission, in a lettar from T.
ie cognizant ACRS staff rnember. Mr. why intervention should be permitted f wen S. Merrill(telephone m2/634- Ippolitto to R. Engel dated September 23,1981 encouraged LTA test programs . with particular reference to the 1413) between 7:15 a.m. and 4.15 p.m, and stated that as long as analyses of fc,llowing factors:(1)The nature of the Persons planning to attend this meeting petitioner's right under the Act to be LTAs use approved methods and meet are urged to cnatact the above named made a party to the proceeding: (2) the indhidual one or two days before the approved criteria. It will be concluded nature and extent of the petitioner's that no unreviewed safety question scheduled meeting to be advised of any exists. Under the terms of the proposed property, financial, or other interest in changes in schedule, etc which may the proceeding; and (3) the poanble amendment. LTA installations will be effect of any order which may be have occurred. - verified by the licensee to be in w p%, g,, accordance with approved methods and entered in the proceeding on tha M"W*IJ W criteria and a report forwarded to tha petitioner *4 interest.He petition should Commission at least 30 days prior to also identify the specific aspect (s) of the Assistant E ecutive DaectorforProret subject matter of the proceeding as to R' " operation. Accordingly, the proposed amendment would not:(1) Involve a which the petitfoner wishes to intervene.
[mkc.am Ned um an aint significant incre.ase in the probability o' Any person who has filed a petWon or m C008 78"*8 leave to intervene or who has been consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possitrility of admitted as a party may amend the a new or different kind of accident from petition without requesting leave of the IDocket No. 50-2941 any accident previously evaluated. or (3) Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the Nebraska Public Power District: e a significant rededion in
- first prehearing conference scheduled m Cons +deration of Issuance of margin of safety. the proceeding, but such an amended Amendment to Facility Operating e Camission is sengt ph petition must satisfy the specificity Ucense and Proposed No Significant cements a thf a proposed requirements described above.
Hazards Consideration Determtnation '
and OppwWy W Heedng wti ay e h e the t e ri fe r publication of this notice wd! be scheduled in the proceeding, the The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory considered in making any final petitioner shall hie a supplement to the Commission (the Commission)is determination.The Commission will not petition to intervene which must include considering issuance of an amendment normally make a final determination a list of the contentions which are to Facihty Operating License No. DRP- unless it receives a request for a sought to be litigated in the metter, and
- 48. Issued to Nebraska Pubhc Power hearing. the bases for each contention set forth District. [the licensee), for operation of Comments should be addressed to the with reasonable specificity. Contentions Cooper Nuclear Station. located in Rules and Procedures Branch. Division shall be limited to matters within the Nemaha County, Nebraska. R sa c ds ce of scope of the amendment under The proposed amendment would fdn i(ig ,, p c nsideration. A petitioner who fails to modify the Techmcal Specificatoas (TS) Commission. Washington. DC 20555. file such a supplement which satisfies to permit the use of fuel assembly and and should cite the publication date and these requiremets with respect to at control blade Lead Test Assemblies page number of this Federal Register lesst one contention will not be under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. permitted to participate as a party.
Specifically, during the forthcocung "h$f arch 31.1988, the licensee may Those pernutted to intervene become Cycle 11 refueling outage, the licansee, file a request for a hearing with tespect parties to the prxeeM subiect to any .
in cooperation with the reactor vendor to issuance of the amendment to the limitations to the order granting leave to (Cenera! Electric Co.) plans to Install subject facilit operating license, and intervene, and have the opportunity to two Lead Test Assembly (LTA) control any person w ose Interest ma be participate fully in the conduct of the blades and fotr LTA fuel anemblies of affected by this proceeding and who heanng. including the opportunity to different designs than previously .
wishes to participate as a party in the present evidence and cross. examine approved for Cooper Nuclear Station. proceeding must file a written petition witnesses.
Before issuance of the proposed for leave to intervene. Request for a if a hearing is requested, the license amendment, the Commissia hearing and petitions for Isave to Commission will make a final will have made findings required by the intervene must be filed in accordance determination on the issue of no Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended with the Commission's "Rules of significant hazards consideration. ne Practice for Domestic Licensing (the Act) and the Coeunission's Proceedingsin 10 CFR Part 2. If a final determination will serve to decide regulations. when the hearing is held.
ne Comadssion has made a proposed request for a hearing or petition for If the final determination is that the determination that the request foe leave to intervene Is filed by the above request for amendment invoh es no ,
amendment invcfves no significasut date, the Commission or an Atomic '
significant hazards consideration the hazards consideration. Under the Safety and Licen:Ing Board Panel will Corrmission may issue the amendment ,
Commission's regulations in to CFR rule on the request and/or petitf on, and and make it effective, notwithstanding 50.92, this meses that operation of the the Secretary or the designated Atomfc the request for a hearing. Any hearing facility in aaredeam with the proposed Safety and Llcensfng Board wi)! Issue a held would take place after issuance of notice of heanng er en appropriate amendment would not (1) involve a the amendment.
signiEcant inasene in tbs probabdity or order. Normally, the Commisston will not come8teenses af an acenient previously As reqvtred by 10 CFR 2.714. a issue the amendment until the evahested. or 94 mene see posstbarty of petition for lesve to intervene est set expiration of the 30-day notice period.
forth with partienlarity the interest of
- a new or different kind of accident frees flowever, should circumstances change any see6 dent psevious&y evalmated or 4) the petitioner in the proceeding. and 1
9c 4
r
{
0 L. f
q- .
d, .
I Fed;ral Regist:r / Vol. 53, No. 53 / Friday, March 18,1988 / N: tic:s 91H5 l
9 to make oral statements should notify Da ted: March 11.1988. 3. Significantly incsease the .n ..
( the ACRS staff member named below as Morton W. uberkin, probability of occurrence or the .c
, far in advance as is practicable so that assict, nt Ewutive oirectorfor Project - consequences for an accident or ; ,, ,,
l appropriate arrangements can be made. Review. malfunction of equipment knportagtto, Durine the initial portion of the (FR Doc. 8&-0019 Filed 3-17-88;IL45 amj safety previously evaluated in the safety meeting, he Subcommittee, along with s m ea coce no w analysis report. ne diesel generators any of its consultants who may be are standby equipment.%ey do not'.
present, may exchange preliminary contribute to the occurrence of an ,
views regarding matters to be (Docket No. 50-285) accident. However, the diesel generators considered during the balance of the are used in certain accident. mitigating meeting. Omahn Pubile Power District and Fort sequences.This one. time extension doc:
Calhoun Station, Unit 1; Consideration not degrade the ability of Diesel The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold discussions ofissuance of Amendment to Facility Generator No.1 to respond and operate Operating Ucense and Proposed No as required for accident mitigation. Past with representatives of the NRC Staff, Significant Hazards Consideration operating history has ir.dicated a high its consultants. and other interested Determination and Opportunity for persons regarding this review. degree of reliability for Diesel Generator Hearing No.1. Monthly surveillances on Diesel Further information regarding topics Generator No.1 will continue to be to be discussed, whether the meeting The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory perf rmed as required by the Techm, cal has been cancelled or rescheduled, the Commission (the Commission)is Chairman's ruling on requests for the considering issuance of an amendment opportunity to present oral statements to Facility Operating Ucense No. DRP- pa{amet eat the possibility for an and the time allotted therefor can be 40. issued to Omaha Public Power accident or malfunction of a different obtamed by a prepaid telephone call to District. (the licensee), for o,neration of type than ay paluated preWonh in the cognizant ACRS staff member, Mr. Fort Calhoun Station. Unit 1. located in 8a ana MpMe deSel M. El Zeftawy (telephone 202/634-3267) Washington County. Nebraska. The generators are standby equipment.
! between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p m. Persons request for amendment was submitted a yo l
planning to attend this meeting are by letter dated March 9.1988. , e and e ex n urged to contact the above named The proposed amendment would does not alter the failure modes individual one or two days before the revise the Technical Specification (TS) previously analyzed in the safety
- scheduled meeting to be advised of any to allow a one. time extension in the 18 analysis report.
l changes in schedule, etc., which may month surveillance interval for the 3. Significantly reduce the margin of have occurred. inspection of Diesel Generator No.1. safety as defined in the basis for any Da ted. Ma rch 15.1988. This extension would allow Technical Specification. The function of Morton W. Ubarkin, performance of this inspection durin8 Diesel Generator No.1 remains l
the refueling outage scheduled to begin unchanged and the possibility of the l Assistant L ecutive Director for Project gjy, September 1988. The 18 month ,
failure of a diesel generator is within the inspection of Diesel Generator No.1 is bounds of the margins of safety as
[FB Doc. 86-6018 hied 3-17-88. 8.45 am) currently due by April 30,1988.
defined in the Fort Calhoun Station j
" " ' ' ' ' ' " Defore issuance of the proposed Technical Specifications.
l license amendment, the Commission The staff agrees with the licensee's will have made findings required by the analysis, and accordingly. the Advisory Committee on Reactor Commission proposes to determine that Safeguards, Subcommittee on Waste At mic Energy Act of19M. as, amended (the Act) and the Comm,ssion i s the proposed changes to the Technical Management; Revision regulations. Specifications involves no significant The ACRS Subcommittee meeting on '
The Commission has made a proposed hazards consideration.
Waste Management scheduled to be determination that the request for The Commission is seeking public beld on March 17 and 18.1988. the amendment involves no significant comments on this proposed notice of which was published in the hazards consideration. Under the determination. Any comments received l Federal Register on Tuesday. March 1, Commission's regulations in 10 CFR within 30 days after the date of 1988 (53 FR 6211). has been rescheduled 50.92, this means that operation of the publication of this notice will be to Thursday (only). March 17,1968. The facility in accordance with the proposed considered in making any final-determination. The Commission will not Subcommittee will review the following amendment would not:(1) Involve a nuclear waste management topics:(1) significant increase in the probability or normally make a final determination Methodology for setting nuclear waste consequences of an accident previously unless it receives a request for a
. management research priorities,(2) evaluated or (2) create the possibility of hearing.
. Thu-2 waste liner event (3) status of a new or different kind of accident from Comments should be addressed to the NRC recommendation of resin content any accident previously evaluated, or 13) Rules and Procedures Dranch, Division limitation in cement based LLW,(4) involve a significant reduction in a of Rules and Records, Office of i-recent developments in LLW licensing margin of safety. Administration, U.S. Nuclear Reg'ulatory and status of state compacts, and (5)"Q- This detemination is based upon the Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Ust" Technical Position on items and staff's review of the licensee's and should cite the publication date and activities in the high level waste discussion regarding the above criteria page number of this Federal Register which proposes to determine that the notice. Written comments may als2 be
( '
geologic repository program subject to quality assurance requirements. All requested charges do not involve a delivered to Room 4000 Maryland l significant hazards consideration National Bank Building,7735 Old a other items pertaining to this meeting remain the same as in the previous because the proposed changes would Georgetown Road Bethesda Maryland not: form 8.15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Copies of y notice.
,I *
\'
ENCLOSURE B -- PROPOSED AGENDA, REVISION 1 l
i l
l
[
3 WM: AGENDA WM REVISION 1 - MARCH 10,1988 PROPOSED AGENDA FOR ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT MARCH 17, 1988-WASHINGTON, D.C.
8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Opening Remarks D. Moeller, Chairman 8:45 - 10:15 a.m. Methodology for setting R. Mattson, waste management research Scientech priorities 10:15 - 10:30 a.m. BREAK ,
10:30 - 11:30 a.m. TMI-2 waste liner event M. Tokar, LLW Staff 11:30 - 12:00 Noon Status of letter to cement M. Tokar, LLW Staff vendors 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:00 - 1:30 p.m. Recent development in LLW S. Salomon, licensing: Status of GPA/SLITP State Compacts 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Q-List GTP A. Duncan, J. Kennedy, HLW Staff
.(
3:00 - 3:15 p.m. BREAK 3:15 - 3:45 p.m. Executive Session D. Moeller 3:45 p.m. ADJ0 URN ENCLOSURE 63
L
'0 'C ENCLOSURE C -- LIST OF DOCUMENTS
t
'LIS' 0F DOCUMENTS PROVIDED AS HAND 0UTS DURING THE
, ACRS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
. MARCH-17, 1988, WASHINGTON, D.C.
- 1. NRC Research Prioritization, R. Mattson, Scientech, March 16, 1988
- 2. Appendix A, NRC Safety Assurance Questions, March 15, 1988
- 3. Summary of Activity (Draft) High-Level Waste and Low-level Waste, pp. 40-45, March 16,1988 (Distributed only to ACRS Members, ACRS Consultants and ACRS Staff Members because of its preder;isional nature)
- 5. TMI-2 Waste Liner Event - Dr. M. Tokar, March 17, 1988
- 6. Status of Cement Waste Form Solidification Issues, Dr. M. Tokar, March 17, 1988
- 7. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Status, March 1988
- 8. Repository Q-List Technical Position, J. Kennedy, March 17, 1988
- 9. Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG) Provided by T.
Colandrea for his presentation on March 17, 1988 Enclosure C
4 --M 6 -,,
ma< -a> 4 w A A y, -,--g+ smae 1 -n, e -9 1
1 1
1 l
l l
i l
I l
ENCLOSURE D __ LIST OF ATTENDEES i
I l
l l
l
O. MERRILL
> ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATION Roo . 1046, 1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE March 17,1988 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT: NAME AFFILI ATION D. W . A % / /p e A C TE S i % n he e
- . J. % , n ci lg - " "
P G . S he w m om
).or+L AtEci Conw l 4ami y y.n a o
_ W F o crn re r y
( S. M erri ] bCRDJ ~CL .M Y
. A P CU1 'I 5. 1 ELLDW 9p C _ It ' Nnt v>h Ws K. K Me % u onss srin N. TO 54'd W h TJ" (* 4d- C YmaN Vsii L A) Fee /N5rc Wo/H+J SuR.hif/6/L i i m f; r )[/
J eseon Rav>t ains.s.u.ws(ias
~
m ' Mc cadin a s s , De, wn i le008 S . ScSw NIR SS , atim M V
Pb iu R, Fero iPes / os /w m e h!<a OsasLtll // Ll le S{tk 3'.Yktb I Alt IbecWnl-EF dlim klc < . , ,,, e cl ~ rJi> t 5~ S / Hw> 41 doe Ho c> m c k ( MHSs /NL /o/1 o Mcurrr 5,LANcsToN Doe locr sw M -
(css h,M E i,
% ^
ZF YCH D/DM'CY S/Gb' W 4Y 77t'E 900/?, /7t"f,R/
Pkense 51res & Hae w esueep' 7 '
- 0. MERRILL O
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT i
LOCATION Roo .1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE March 17,1988 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT: NAME AFFILI ATION
\Ro wt Mctk Tu %/<ed Y u ~ h %vku b b>.L+eN l M L. hwwu usesroa fu e i c.
- 39. G,:// (U 2 c /d fr
- J Lo.TE em? tJRc'/12 E.s S .% c cen SER4l4/Re ckftl 1
I 0m NGL / &UJM '?
@ c. i m - Fc m c4 II E e1 / u a w.n c
- fa ne j l' // f f " ' F41/**'d A VA "s 76{ /.1it s, W Q Si'/n AsdA<da-cA~6;-r >s C,
%1 M'(., MUS A, wu . T b d ,I,= ,
hlR c_ /'n cudd 1 r0 li < h k' //> c L- US C Fi4 ke<an// sit s'
L AJ I'e c/ss br ^< er
/
E40446 W. BARB SML/ MUGS l
%k DOE /Wo '
Yldd!&G " sMc' /$ u &
E cLuw( Rcsniev DDE fs)n h/n /M L' s i> R S W ~ &TM & /7P/Mrc Pad kk S ail s: _ z _ _ st .s a m. u fLE&$E .9/ gal /p/
- y,75 77 y ,
- 0. MERRIL'Ls.
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATION - Roo . 1046, 1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE March 17,1988 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT: NAME AFFILI ATION Y 'V/s'1 %d< NUS x Bloh '% A Dos -
OCC i
Y TPup $~,.
/
c/
l0 '
\A1/lh 14KOLEcJ/c 2- WRSnu,Y/dc' dss 4 5
// G ARY F4vsT west 00/ue t .
d I rl E L P l L >t-t D Otf / N V
WASTE MANAGEMENT 0. MERRILL
-JBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON t
,'0LAT I O ) . Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE:
March 17,1988 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
B NAME BADGE NO. AFFILIATION C L be m % L.? G7I T Hca,% (2ebwlA G h6' L~t Ocu s s e udk. /
V e\er %U L-ep io Sc>edech ; -
NWS vu O2b lt'Q- (O'f W (} odcht( RF 1LL '30N Eo64+ Acos /M
\)nr%' ) sisuo } E 0 0-7 /rc RS (enx -
%<~ ; sewq .oq at 4 noatd Am+
@ k+ lcs 09 l 2 Af t/ s .
rb.% FwU ODy Efa /vywmG
$6Il11 0f f
~
C 'l l l TCYl/7o /cc } pf
/ "l' - A/D~ o S (o 7 A A J 4 c, J # f h / e Ik u & pla n o 4C 3 Y n o d P /r / h f a 96n MA N~ /dM['; W h l, < F K'ill- E of7o u . s . 'c e n .
A'eabst hhmeasuu: E n9nI @cSeb Hem. Imt.
%ta Co csa o/UW E004 E c= Y L) /t u t.k G Nuns u;. uus E oh. h n m ~ m Laes O a/ mn a ' # f'
.{+l in/ w r, ,nul va ~w
& $'il'bLlf)' S -Ofl 0 b f0 / &
a,z, a s 7 -ow O're
' Gcus ficak k MY1 12'4' Wc'
/ $6?W n nc '
/u o'
_ Paws % E -t m sk L I30 6 ft 6 e E' dcN9 C/dcc/AV
WASTE MANAGEMENT 0. MERRILL ACRS, SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON - - -
e, LOCATIOlJ:
Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
March 17,1988 DATE:
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE ii0. AFFILIATION b fot wnu '
F 099h ll Af (O W1(r
$ bk D r,h ,,,eo.u b' F o 9fh4 9 L.ir c) Nwrel1 y , rtI( ina W n i F o r7 L/ p ,o g - pit ,M 4 A~ q na y 4 WM- G 6
4 e
e
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _