ML20155F071

Summary of Second ACNW Meeting on 880721-22 Re Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Regulatory Control Exemptions for Practices W/Public Health & Safety Impacts Below Regulatory Concern & DOE Dry Cask Storage Study

ML20155F071
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/04/1988
From:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
References
NACNUCLE-R-0002, NUDOCS 8810130116
Download: ML20155F071 (42)

Text

-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. ,'. ~d S

UL I ,sB A l#

t TABLE OF CONTENTS Ppg xM/d MIKUTES OF THE 2HD ACHW MEETING JULY 21-22. 1988

1. C ha i ma n 's Re p o rt (0pe n ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

11. Proposed Comission Policy Statement on Regulatory Control Exemp-tions for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety impacts are Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) (0 pen)..................................... 1 III. The Departnent of Energy (DGE) Dry Cask Storage Study............... 4 IV. Status of Generic Technical Position (GPT)/ Comments /Rulemaking on Guidarce for Detemination of Anticipated Processes and Events (APE) and Ur.snticipated Processes and Events (UPE) (0 pen)................. 6 V. Environmental Monitoring cf Low-level Radioactive Waste Dispesal Facilities (0 pen).................................................. 10 VI. Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (0 pen)................ 14 VII. EPA Standards for High Level Waste Geologic Repository (40 CFR 191)

(0 pen)............................................................. 16 V111. Eriefing en the Barnwell/ Savannah River / Chem-Nuclear and LN Tech-

• nol o g i e s Fa c i l i ti e s (0 pe n ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 IX. Executive Sessions (0 pen).......................................... 19 A. Reports. Letters and Memorcnda.................................. 19

1. ACNW Corrents on Response to Questions on Proposed Yucca Fountain High Level Waste Re;ository................. 19

2. ACNW Coments on Draf t Generic Technical Position:

Guidance for Detemination of Anticipated Processes and Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events.......... 20 C. Future Agenda................................................... 20 DEMmTFD 3RIGIN AL N

i Certified Sy__ i; i

{pkI SG10130116 881004 0 g FDR ADVCM NACNUCLE R-0002 PDC

e ', s*

APPENDICES 2ND ACNW MEETING HINUTES JULY 21-22, 1988

1. Attendees

!!. Future Agenda

!!I. Other Docurents Received 11

t 66M Fed 2ral Register 8 Vol. 53. No.135 / Thursday. July 14, 1988 / Notters Deed at R&tle. Maryland. this 6:h day With regard to potential non. 1968. Room 1046.1717 H Street. NW.,

c!!4 tua radiologicalimpacts, the proposed Washington. DC. The meeting will start Fc,r she Lclear Regwlatory Commission. changes to the Technical 55ecifications at to 30 a m. on Thunday, July 21 and Elwe G Adenum, ins ols e s) stems located within the continue until close of business at 5.30 D re ; tor. /weet Dervete //-/. O,usson of restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part p m. It will resume at 8.30 a m. on pie oi ege rrecc u / // 20. It does not affect non. radiological Friday luly 12 and continue until the Irp Doc. AA.13Mt f.lsd f.tJ48, a el am) $lan; eIlluents and has no other close of business at 5.30 p m.

'"VifJnmentalim act.Therefore, the c,u,,,4 coce nm Commission conc udes that there are no

% 21. W 4

siptficant non.tadiological 2030 a m .30 45 o ma Comments by

loonet ha 60-2tti enstronmentalimpacts associated with /CNWChairmonlOpenHThe ACNW the proposed amendment. Chairman will report briefly regarding CPU Nuclear Corp. and Jersey Central Tee Not ct of Consideration of ite=s of current interes'.

' "I lasuance f Amendment and 10 43 c m..J!13 p m.t Sc!c w est erat g Stat or Opportuntt) for Heari*g in connection g,;ulatory Concern (OpenHThe NRC Environmental Assessment'and with this ertien w as rubbshed in the Staff will present their proposed policy Finding of No Sigmficant impact Federal Registet on June 3,1588 ($1 }R statement to the ACNW.

The U S Nuclear Regulatory 20W) No request for heanns or petition  ::23 p m -J Mp m.r Do Cos A Storate

Commission (the Commmien)is for leas e to lnservene w as filed StudylopenH1he DOE Staff will bnel cens

denr3 issuancS of an amendment following this notice the ACNW cn their Dr) Cask Storage io Prous:enal 0;erating License DFR- Alternata e to t.6e Prcpesed Action Study.This study is required b) the 16 issued to CPU Nuclear Corporation Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (GPL'N. th e 1.censee). for operatien of it has been determ.ined ths' there is no of 198? to be si.bmitted to Congress in the 0 3ster Creek N. clear Generating menurable impact anociated with the Octobe r 1988.

a en ent a al at n S'ation. located in ocean Coura. New ,rf{cs ,, , J pm- R ma Ru/cmcAins on I" % envronmental tmpet or greater Anticirc!,d end uranticipa!,d Es ents j Ernironmental Assessment e nurenmental impet (Open)-The NRC Staff will discuss the i preposed ruhrnaking oi, this tep;c.

i identif,cct.cn of Prcp; sed Action A!:erac6 er Use c!Rescurces 4 xp m>$ np m :A CNW Act:wties The preposed amendment would This action does not insohe the use of cad freperetlon of ACNW Reports l

resise Technical Specification Sections any researces be)ond the scere of IOpen)-The ACNW will discuss 1 3 2 C. 4 2 E. and 6 9 3 to reCect the use of reJoarces used dunn) normal operation. ACNW actisities, future meeting en enriched sodium centaborate agendas and organizational matters.

solution in the 51andb) Liquid Control Fin &ng oi No Signifiant Impact Based uren the forego.ng Friday,lul) 12.196a

5) stem lSLCS)

The prepeted uction is in acrerdance enurorenental a ssenment. the # # c m A n o m.; Enwrentnents/

with the hcensee's arphcation for Commisssien concluded that the Afengereg of ten./.eic/ Waste

smendment dated %) 10.1968. pretend action will not bas e a recihties lOrenHThe NRC Staff will signif cant effect on the quaht) of the d

scuss the NRC Draft Techriical The Needfor the Prepesed Actica hean enutenment. Accordingly the Pesition on this tepic.

J

' The preposed change to the Technical Commission has determtred not to e n a m .f t n o m e Center!0r Specifications is requred in order fer prepare en eruronmentalimract g,,,f,,,we,f,g,pferon.Anely,,,

the bcensee to comply with ATMS Ru'e stater ent for the preposed amendtnent. (OpenF-The NRC Staff and (10 CFR 50 62) and C<nene latter abo 3 For further detols with res;ect to this re resentatises frorn the Centet will "Clanfication of Equnatent Control act.on. see the request for amendment tr ef the ACN'W en the status of this capacity fer Standb> Liquid Centrol dated May 10.19u Cop:es of the p7e gra m, 5 3stems." dated Januar) ;8.1985. J # o r.) .u Mp m ETA Standards request fer arnendment are asai!=ble,*for Enurcament:1 Impacts cf L'r Prepesed i N 'i"*V*****h* C** *'"i** fM W Croksic Beresitory (Oren>

j g g,,, INbhc Document Room 171' H Street. The EPA will proude a bnefing on the NW, % ashington. DC and at de Ocean The Ccmmission F u comp!eted its County Library Referenn Deranment.

'" ' f ' h d '# b #'

j

euluation of the protesed revisien to 101 Washtnstcn Street, fems Riser. I MF * ~# NF * ' II## #8 #^#

the Technical Specifications The 80'" " 'II/S* "

{ *New jersey 06*53~ Nac!ror ord LN'"#C A A"/CA'"'Technoicgres fa breposed revisnon censee to use would an ennched allow so&u n the 8 ppnW W OaN and huh S d' g

'*' 6,$, "'' " ce""" " '

l Uq"M'i's","s**,n'e u's'e"of in joke F. 5 tot 3-

E"E'E"nNf OEi.of Sou*

er enriched sodmm pentaberete salution Carchna will bnef the rnembers of the h'" N "#l*'#' #~# 0 "8 * * */ ACNW to prepte them for their would not increase the probabiary or

' "AN prepend usu to then facthiin in urh consequence cf accidenta. no c.hanges p Du par rhd r.lus e 45 eml Aupst The Office of State Program wul i' are being saade in the t) pee cf any i effluents that may be released offsite, em me nm sho desente the Agreemerit States i and there is no sigmfiunt lucrease in {regram in general and thor recent the aUowable indmdeal ce carndeine dvLaocy Committee on Nwcdea' C occupancnal radaation esTesure. n inI r at' Y/aam RevWon 1 4 Np m -4 43 p m :NRC St:1 factions I1 Accord.tgly. Lhe ComtrJesion concludte The Adusory CemsJttee on Nucjear en ACNW Accomtrendations (O;enW i that thts action woulJ resbit an no j, s:gnificant enuronmental is,p et. Weste will hold a meetmg cm lu]y 2142. The ACNW will discuss with the NEC I

1 I

I i

)

i Federal Resister / Vol 53. No.135 / Thursday, July 14, 1988 / Nofices 36695 4

For 16e Ltlear Rel lato') Commrision notice of hearing or en appropriate 1 S'.iff the schons that the NRC Staff has i taken on ACNW recommendahons Eajender Auluck, order.

4 e p rn -s rr m : ACNtV Actmt.ts As requ! red by to CTR 2114. e I x *.e: A srstc t D ?c:tv for Proircts TVA i

cM bem at or c' ACNW Rey :s Pv ws n.se o'far c!SpeciatPro:< cts. petition for leave to intenene shall eet (Op.r)-The ACNW wdl d:scuss forth with partictilarity the interest of

] irF D e sMssse FOed t 1Ms 8 45'am)

ACMV actnitin. future methng , m c oe, ,,w., the pehtioner in the proceedmg and how j that interest may be effected by the apr.Jes, and c man.astienal m.It ers procaderes for the conduct of and results of the proceeding.T1 e petition patc s.Scn in ACNW methrp woe should specifically esplain the reasons looctet Nos 50 315 and 50-3ts) 4 pMe ed in ibe lederal Register en w hy intenention should be permitted h*r t,19M [H FR Rn; In .ccerd.rce Indiana Michigan Power Co.: with particular reference to the i w nh II.e se pruc edsres. oral or w r.t'e n Consideration of issuance of fellowing factors (1)The nature of the s'a't r t r.'s me) t e preser'ed b) Amendments to Fac61 sty Operatin0 petitioner's right under the Act to be j rebers cf the put'ic remrd.ngs wdl Ucenses and Opportunity for Hearing made a party to the proceeding.(2) the L4 primate d un13 dwring those ;urtm*s nature and estent of the petitioner's cf the treet;ng when a trawr'pt is bei g The Un ted States Nuclear Regulatory property, financial. or other interest in

), h;t and qscabors rra) t e aske3 er.h Ce-%smn (the Commission)is the proceedmg and (3) the possible ,

b> members of the Cem'roter its ccri dm issuance of amendments to effect of an> ordet which may te l con A nts. and Staff persons dem r; F.a:;ni 0 e r t.ng Lcenses Nos DFR-SS entered in the proceed;ng on the to nok e cr.1 statemen's sh oJJ r:' f3 a*d DI Re4 issued to the Indiana pet tioner's interest.The petition should ll M 1;an Nwer Compan) (th' alse identify the specific aspect (s) of the  !

the Eierutne D. rector cf th Off.:e cf '

i the ACRS as fa'in ads ante as 1 censeel fer ercrancn of Donald C sut ect rnatter of the proceedmg as to ptact cet le in that appre;r..te Cc:k Lclc ar pl.nt, Una Sos 1 and 2. which retiboner wishes to intenene arrangements can t e m.Je to al:.,w tN laca d m Bernen Coun*>. hiichgan. Any person who has filed a petition for i rec esa*> tirro d,,r.rg th e tree t.rg ict in accordance with the hcensee's len e lo inten ene or wno has been }

suh statemtn's Use :f sh:1 m:' en a;;hcahen for amendments dated admitted as a party rnay amend the Mr.,491.19*A the amendments w ould petition without requestinp lease of the  !

4 girture and teleus.:n ca~ r as dJ.*E

! th1 rnert rc may be 1.r de d to sele:'e d res at t 6e Techmca15pecifications Board up to fifteen (15) day s prior to the ,

mthons o. the meet 1r g as de'crm-ed (15 it to trak e trem more consister' f rst prehearing conference scheduled in [

~

b the Chairman inf;r ahen re;wd rg with NRC gadel nei concerning the proceeding but such an amended i t? e tme to be set u Je fer th,s ; at se et ta,n:rg mJk sampto for analysis in retthon must satisfy the specificity ,

! may t e obtained t > a t er a d ten rbre a dd ':c n the T5 bases concemmr requirements desenbed abne.

cal

to the Esecame D.re:'c r of tF e raie.:u e gueous effluents w ould be Not later than fifteen (15) day s prior to Office of the ACKS Mr Faye ond } cFa ged to te trore consistent with the the first preheanng conference l l

Frele> prior to the r tehrs in ue w cf w,p,n;g,e Standard TS's with schedeled in the proceedmg a petitioner ,

tt ng,3 to the thsto'd dose rate release shall file a supp!errent ta the petition to ,

l tu ACNW psyba'.>rgs.t rreet a et esch mas d.Je tfer adss'ed 3 the potw a) fer a chOd ned an eitonal intenene. which must include a list of ,

i l

Chairman as necessary to f acJi' te the ettcr wdd be corrected the content ons that are sought to be (

condact of the mecht g pe's:rs b u iss.,ame d the prcposed htaated m the matter, and the bases for t

tann.re to tiend s%JJ check w ah th ; my ,_,ng.nents. the Commission each enntention set forth with ACPS f u

vme D ce's if s_c t w di t.se made f.nin;s reau rad by the reasonable specificity Contentions shall ructed.hrt wmJa resJt m tro r Atem c Enern Act of1954 as amended be hmited to matters withm the scope of j # "" " " " '

(tt e Ao] and the Comtrission's the amendments under considerahon A LM IOle1W re g.Ja hen s pehboner who fails to file such a l Py A.,gast 1L 19M the licensee ma) sup;!ement which satisfies these [

lh C H3)le requirements with re.pect to at least ene

.4 - * , cc - ,, w ., , , - P c ide a redest for a hunrg wtth respect Contenhen w dl not be perrnitted to I (F k Dx (Lit &M iJed t 1W s 4' a-l to ist.4Nt Cf the 6mendments to the ,

l I

su.s coeg vie sAect facdity c;erabrg bcenses and participate as a part>

f any persen whose interest ma) t e Those perrnoted to intenene become (

! afNcted t> this poceeding and who art es to the proceeding subject to any ,

IDr.eset Not to HD 50-760. 60-1981 imitations in the ordet etantmg leas e to  !

w:thes to parbcipate as a part) in the "1cg must (de a wntien request intersene. and hne the opportano to l I Beethly Notice Apphcations and fM F unns and a pennon f a leau to parbcTate M) in N conhet M t e  ;

. i Amendments to Operating utenses heanns including the orportunit) to l Including No 5'gmbcant Hazards I"'"une Reqwnts for a hurirg and pasent eudence and cros6-examme  ;

Considerations, Tennessee Vaney t ehhons fx luu to intunne shau be witnesses Authorlty; Correction fud m accMdance with the .

Comm.ssen's Rules of Practice for A eequest fx aheanns or a pahhen - L On bne 1.1su the Federal Register De reshc Ucensms Proceed ess" m io for lease to intenene must be fded with {

pubbshed the Erweek!) Nehte cf CFR Part 2 If a redest for a beatmp or the Secretary of the Commission. U S lisuance of Amendment to Fa:Aty pehhon fer lease to intenene is fded by Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Operahns Ucense On page M5: for the abcu date. the Commission of an Washmston. DC 20555 Attenbert  !

B owns ierry Units 1. : and ) Atem.e Safety and Lcensmg Board. Docketmg and Senice Branth cr ina)  ;

tep;ht. hen dated lanuaq 1419M TS- des gnated b) the Commisoen or by the t e dehstred to the Commission's Pubhc r Cha rman ef the Atomic Safe and Docun ent Roem.1717 H Street. NW.,

23') the effectat date real'Ma) 4 l

Im " The correct effecta e date is M*) bcensing B:ard panel wule on rdtthe Washington. DC, b> the abose date [

< 4 19'.8 request and/or petition and the Where pehtions are Ided durms the last 5 j Drej at Exkde Maryland tv irik d,3 Secretary or the des gnated Atemic ten (10) de)s of the nohce Penolit is f Safety and bcensmg Board %dlissue a redested that the pehhorser promptly so  ;

cf R tw$ i 4 .

I

. e e

{

/, .... a c % l

% UNITED STATES

. i ' f* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADvi$oRY CoMMITTit ON NUCLE AR WASTE I.h N-*f]/

WASHINGTON. O C,20HS (

I

%, ...../ -

July 15, 1988  :

SCHEOULE AtiD OUTLlHE FOR D15CV5510N 2ND MEET 1hG Of THE ADV!50RY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE s JULY 21-22, 1988 '  !

WASHlhGTON, D.C. i i

Thurscay July 21. 1988. Room 1046, 1717 H 5treet. N.W.. Washington, D.C., l;

1) 10:30 - 10:45 A.M. Chaiman's Coments (0 pen)  !

1.1) Opening Remarks (OkH) i 1.2) Items of current interest (DWM/0$M)

2) 10:45 - 12:15 P.M. EelewReculatoryConcern(BRC)(0 pen) I

'E .1 ) Feview and coment regarding proposed  !

TAB e---- Com.ission policy statement on BRC  !

(DWM/OSM) 2.2) Presentation by William Lahs of RES l on this subjtet p f

12:15 - 1:15 P.M. LUNCH

3) 1:15 - 3:30 P.M.

ll DOE's Dry Cask Storage Study (0 pen)

T4E 3--- 3.1) Review anc coment regarding DOE's {

t Dry Cask Storage Study (0WM/05M) i 3.2) Presentation by Dwight Shelor of j DOE's Office of Civilian Radio 6ctive i Maste Management. QA Division 3:30 - 3: 45 F.M. BREAK

4) 3:45 - 4:45 P.P. Rulenaking on Anticipated and Unanticipated Events (0 pen)

TAE 4 -- 4.l} Review and coment regarding proposed ruler.aking on this topic 4.2) Presentation by Dr. John Trapp of NRC's j 1

Division of High Level Waste Management

5) 4:45 5:45 P.M. ACNW Activities and Preparation of ACNW Reports t (0 pen)

TAB 5--- 5.1) Discuss Future ACNW activities, future sneeting agendas and organizational matters (DhH/05M) 5.2) Preparation of ACNW re appropriate (DhH/05M) ports, as 5:45 P.M. RECESS I

{

l t

[

l

I

,. ,. i 2nd ACNW Mee%ing Agenda 2

[ I i

1 a I j Friday, July 22,1938, Room 1046,1717 H Street N.W., Washington. 0.C. l

! 6) 0:30 - N A.M. [EnvironmentalMonitoringoflow-levelWaste i Facilities (0 pen) l TAB 6--- 6.1) Fieview and Discuss NRC Oraft Technical j i

Position (DWM/OSM) f.2) NRC Staff Presentation on this subject i i

by Dr. John Starmer of Low Level i j

s Waste Division {

g n : .- W40  :

h 30 - Gr e5 A.M. BREAK ,

i im : o 5 <- -  !

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses

7) St45 - 11:30~A.M. (CN N ) (0 pen) I

TAC 7.-- 7.1) Discussion of "The Center," its purpose. l charter,etc.(DWM/SJSP) i 3

,7.2) Mr. Joseph Bunting of NRC High-level Waste .

j l

Divisien and representatives of Tne l

I Center will mate presentations j l  !: I:cC (

TEPA Stardards for HLW Geologic Repositen (0 pen) >

l  !) } } :J5 - Mv+0 F.it.

TAB 8--- 18.1) Review and coment on the current status of the EPA Standards (DWM/SJSP) l

}S.2) Can Egan will present the EPA's current  :

status and future plans ['

s:N na r k j

i pr$ .It10 P.tt. LUNCH I

Brie,o en Site Visits in South Carolina I i:3d 4:,[ P.M.

9--- [7~D~iscussionofplannedsitevisitsby l 9) [

TAE j l . ACNW, August 3-5, 1965 (DWM/SJSP) f i

t l9,2) Presentations by the NRC Staff Office f of State Programs, (Don Nussbaumer), l

, State of South Carolina (H. Schealy), i U.S. 00E (J. Daly), Chem-Nuclear (Mr. l Ryan)andLNTechnologies(R.Voit) f i

N

10) 4:00 - 4:45 P.M. NRC Staff Actions on ACNW Recomendations IDren)

TAS 10--- 10.1) The ACNW will discuss with the NRC Staff  ;

i the actions that the Staff has taken  !

on ACNW recomendations (OWM/OSM) f i

ACNW Activities and Preparation of ACNW Reports

! 11) 4:45-Sh0P.M.

TAB ll- - 11.1) Centinue discussion of future ACNW activities (SeeTAB5.1)(0WM/OSM) 11.2) Preparation of ACNW reports, as appropriate (WM/OSM) ly IT i 5:30 P.M. ADJOURN I

4 l

El Ef P1N I

ld k 151 i

MINUTES OF THE 2ND ACNW HEETING JULY 21-22, 1988 The 2nd meeting of the Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Waste was convened by Chairran Dade W. Moeller at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 21, 1988, at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 7

[ Note: For a list of attendees, see Appendix !. All ACNW members were '

present, except that Dr. Smith was not prosent on Thursday. Dr. Paul G.

Shewmon, member of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards also .

I attended. The consultants present were Dr. Pelvin W. Carter Dr.

Richard F. Foster and Mr. Ronald L. Kathren.) l The Chaiman said that the agenda for the meeting had been published.

He identified the items to be discussed on Monday. He stated that the j meeting was being held in conformarce with the Federal Advisory Comit-l tee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws92-463 and  !

1 94-409, respectively. He also noted that a transcript of some of the t

public portions of the meeting was being made, and would te available in the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Wash.ngton, D.C. ,

f J [ Note: Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also avail- l 2 able for purchase frcr the Heritage Reporting Corporation,1220 L l Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.] ,

1. Cha_irr1.n's Report (0 pen)

[hote: Mr. Rayrond F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

l Dr. Moeller introduced Mr. Owen Herrill, the Designated Federal Officiel for the balance of the first day's reeting. Dr. Feeller called for any (

coments from the mer.bers or consultants. There being none, he intro-l

! duced the first speakers Mr. Robert Bernero, Deputy Director of the Office of Nucluar Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), and Mr. Willier  ;

Labs, Chief, Regulatory Development Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory l Research (RES),

i

!!. Proposed Comission Policy Statement on Regulatory Control Fremp-  !

tions for Fractices Whose Public Health ard 5afety Impacts are Below i I Lgulatory Concern (BRC) (0 pen) r

[ Note: Mr. O. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this  ;

j portionofthemeeting.] l Mr. R. Ecrnero NFSS, stated that the Comission, and many other peeple  !

] in our society, share a dream that there is a numerical statement, a (

) sirple threshold of radiation exposure or radioactivity level, that is t j high enough to be of practical use in regulating and separating the 3

darferous from the trivial in all the practices NRC is concerned with.  !

l And that level, although high er.ough to be practical, is also low enough  :

i to be beyond reasonable controversy in terms of ccnstituting an

,I acceptable dose to the general public. As a result, such a level could  !

F

~

• 2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 2 enjoy a consensus support from a broad range of society after due consideration. The NRC staff is developing a policy statement that will approach this goal, but without compromising fundamental philosophic principles.

Mr. Bernero also made the following points:

1. The linear hypothesis for radiation exposure has been and continues to be the basis for NRC policy, even to the lowest level.

2. All radiation exposure should be justified, which entails the possibility that some radiation may be deemed frivolous and without merit and, therefore, never justified.

3. In the context of the linear hypothesis, NRC is seeking a careful, risk-based selection of policy, practice and thresholds of concern, of action, that will serve as a rational basis for regulatory policies over a broad range of practices.

4 The NRC staff is 1 coking for a policy that is robust and rational.

Mr. William R. Labs, RES, stated that the proposed policy stctement is a

! combined effort of not only RES, but also NMSS, NRR, and OGC. He said l that tha purpose of his presentation was to review with the ACNW the

! draft Commission paper and the proposed policy statement. He explained that he would address several of the comments that resulted fron the May 4, 1988 meeting of the ACRS Subconmittee on Waste Management that were transmitted to Mr. Victor Stelle, Jr. from Mr. R. Fraley on May 11, 1988.

Mr. Lahs' presentation discussed the following:

1. Contents and purpose of the Comission paper.

2. Regulatory exemption policy -- perspective on annual individual exposure levels and on expected exempted practices.

3. Conditions applicable to exemption decisions.

4 Sumary of the proposed policy (which provides for upper and lower exemptioncategories).

5. The national and international picture.

6. Major policy considerations.

7. Justification of practice.

8. Practices excluded from exenption policy.

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 3

9. Individual dose cut-off in collective dose calculations.

Important points made during the discussion of these subjects were:

1. Dr. Steindler asked whether the NRC should focus on a population dose as the lowest criterion or on an individual dose. Mr. Lahs replied that you need both. Since you have multiple consumer products, either one of the two conditions (upper or lower catego-ry) must be met.

2. Dr. Steindler also asked about the relationship between the cost-benefit analysis and the collective dose. Mr. Lahs responded that it would be the collective dose that would come out in the cost-benafit w alysis, depending on how it wa.s justified in the cost-benefit or cost-effective analysis.

3. The need for collective dose versus individual dose was / 1 sed.

Dr. Moc11er advocated the use of an individual dose or ris,, mut-off as a basic judgment, followed by the use of the collective dose as a second consideration.

4. Dr. Carter expressed his concern about three aspects of the policy statement, (a) nillirem levels are arbitrary -- the damage is different for different levels, (b) man-made versus natural ra-diation, and (c) equating real deaths with statistical deaths.

5. The NRC wants to retain the concept of Justification of Practice.

Dr. Steindler asked if this approach is justified. The answer was that it must be justified in order for the BRC policy to be socially acce bable.

6. Mr. Cunningham said that justification is are of the three funda-mental principles of radiation protection phuosophy. The threc principles are: a) dose limits, b) ALARA and c) justifying any exposure such that the benefit outweighs the risk.

7. Mr. Bernero added, regarding justification, that deliberate ra- ,

diation exposure, being bad, should be justified. If the justi-fication is so frivolous that the practice can easily be done another way, and if the proposed application has no redeeming

, social merit, then it (deliberate radiation exposure) is not a i permitted practice.

8. Dr. Moell'!r said, in sumary, that once individual risk goals have been set, the next step would be to state comparable dose limits, citing upper and lower categories for exemption on a generic or a case-by-case basis.

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 4 111. The Department of Energy (DOE) Dry Cask Storage Study (0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official of this portion ofthemeeting.]

Mr. Keit> " ~ ., Deputy Associate Director for Systems Integration and Regub*. , vepartment of Energy (DOE), introduced the principal speaker, nr. Charles Head, Acting Chief of the Systems Development Branch. Dr. Moeller asked whether DOE was going to comply with NRC's regulations on this subject. Mr. Head answered in the affirmative. Dr.

Moeller said that he presumed that the NRC Staff would coment on the DOE report. Mr. Klein agreed, and said that the Congressional mandate states that the final report should include the views of the NRC Consnission. The NRC Staff indicated that they would look to the ACNW for halp in reviewing their comments on the report.

Mr. Head made the following observations:

1. A principal objective of the study is to report on the temporary storage of spent fuel at nuclear power plant sites until the repository has been constructed, licensed and is capable of receiving spent fuel.

2. The "Initial Version" of the study will be available about mid-August for external review and comment.

3. The proposed sequence of activitics will result in the submission of thc Final Report to Congress -- Target Date, October 1, 1988.

4. Overall, the study contents deal with projections of cumulative spent-fuel discherges, additional spent-fuel storage requirements, and unit cast estimates.

5. Human health, environmental and transportation impacts of providing additional at-reactor storage are also discussed.

6. Can and should the waste fund be used? The report answers no in both instances.

The main points brought out in the discussion follow:

1. Dr. Moeller asked if at-reactor dry cask storage is being reviewed as a replacement of Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS). Mr. Head replied that they were attempting to keep this study very factual,

! so were intentionally not addressing that issue in the report.

I

2. Dr. Moeller asked if the DOE staff had seen the ACNW letter to Chairman Zech on NRC's Title 10, Part 72 (July 1,1981) , wherein the ACHW corrented (a) that a utility operating multiple power i plants might want to concentrate all of their spent fuel at one i

I

o . .

1 2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 5 site, and (b) that ACNW was concerned about the handling and transfer of the spent fuel, since in all probability, the storage casks would not meet shipping requirements. [ Copies of this letter were distributed to the meeting attendees.]

3. When Dr. Modller asked how long the report is, Mr. Hartkopf an-swered that it was about 120 to 150 pages.

4. Regarding the possibility of substituting dry cask storage for existing fuel stored in pools, the issue being raised by Dr.

Steindler, Mr. Head said that DOE had not identified any advantage to moving fuel from the pools into dry cask storage.

5. Dr. Shewmon cautioned that you don't want to store fuel in dry casks when it is too young, i.e., not sufficiently aged, or you will have to provide some wet cooling or forced air cooling to control the fuel temperature below an acceptable upper limit. Mr.

Klein indicated that the fact that the spent fuel pools are filling up is what is driving the need for additional (dry) storage capacity.

6. Dr. Moeller asked if the oldest fuel is the fuel most likely to be placed in dry cask storage. Mr. Head said it would depend on how the fuel is racked and how the utility wants to move its fuel. Dr.

Moeller then asked what is the least aged fuel that will be placed in dry cask storage. Mr. D. Shelor of DOE said this would be fuel that had been stored for at least five years, which was confirmed by Mr. Roberts of NRC.

7. Mr. R. Kathren asked if the neutron shield in the dry storage casks was needed for criticality control. Mr. Head stated that the shield is used to control the neutron doses outside the cask. Mr.

Rouse, NMSS, explained further that the shield is for neutron flux from spent fuel due to alpha-n reactions.

8. Dr. Carter asked what was the design life of the three storage casks being discussed by Mr. Head. I' , Klein said it was 20 years.

9. Mr. Head said that the botton line of DOE's cost estimate for dry cask storage as given in the report is about $0.5 billion (lower limit)to12 billion (upperlimit). Dr. Moeller asked how this relates to repository and MRS costs. Mr. Klein said the MRS construction costs were estimated in the original proposal at $700 million, with $70 million per year operating costs, including doing waste packaging for the repository, but that the incremental storage costs at the MRS were very small (no figures were given).

Estimated repository construction costs at Yucca Mountain are of the order of $2 to $3 billion. 00E representatives were not able to provide an estimate on the total system life cost, but said they would get back to us on that.

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 6

10. Dr. Foster asked if DOE was taking credit for aging in the casks if you use them, assuming that the age of the fuel when it is trans-ferred from the reactor site to a repository is the same whether or not you're using the casks. Mr. Klein said that the utilities would be inclined to use the supplemental storage for the older fuel.

IV. Status of Generic Technical Position (GPT)/Coments/Rulemaking on Guidance for Determination of Anticipated Processes and Events (APE) and Unanticipated Processes and Events (UPE) (0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Mr. Philip Justus, Geology and Geophysics Section leader in the Techni-cal Review Branch, Division of High-level Waste Management, introduced the subject as a candidate for potential rulemaking. He introduced Dr.

John Trapp, who made the presentation.

Dr. Trapp's presentation referred exclusively to 10 CFR Part 60, specif-ically citing those paragraphs that mention APE and UPE, viz.,

. 1. 60.2, where APE and UPE are defined as follows [ Underlining added for emphasis by Dr. Trapp):

"Anticipated processes and events" means those natural processes and events that are reasonably likely to occur during the period the intended performance objective must be achieved. To the extent reasonable in the light of the geologic record, it shall be assumed that those processes operating in the geologic setting during the Quaternary Period continue to operate but with perturbations caused by the prasence of emplaced radioactive waste superimposed thereon. ,

"Unanticipated processes and events" means those processes and events affecting the geologic setting that are judged not to be reasonably likely to occur during the period the intended perfor-

, mance objective must be achieved, but which are nevertheless sufficiently credible to warrant consideration. Unanticipated processes and events may be either natural processes or events or processes and events initiated by human activities other than those activities licensed under this part...."

2. 60.2(c)(1)(C), regarding the inclusion in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) a post-closure evaluation of the repository, assuming APE and UPE.  ;

! 3. 60.112, regarding the conformance of the engineered barrier system to EPA standards, with respect to APE and UPE.

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 7 4 60.113(a), regarding substantially complete containment of HLW and associated release rates, assuming APE and UPE.

5. 60.113(c). ngarding overall systems performance objectives as they relate to UPE.

6. 60.122(c)(17), regarding the presence of naturally occurring materials in such form that economic extraction is feasible and that such materials have a worthwhile gross valve.

7. The philosophy of the NRC Staff approach discussing both simi-larities and distinctions between APE and UPE.

8. The main categories and nature of public corments (which were not provided at this meeting, but are to be provided subsequently).

9. Statements of several hRC Staff Draft Positions on APE and UPE, each followed by an example, to illustrate whether the event in the example would be considered an "anticipated event" or an "unantici-pated event." The last stated pusition addresses the presence, or absence, of potentially adverse conditions to be considered when evaluating the effects of human-induced processes and events.

There was considerable discussien among ACNW members and consultants with Dr. Trapp on various puints discussed during his presentation.

Ser.e of the highlights of these discussions are presented below:

1. Dr. Moeller asked why it was necessary to know the difference between anticipated and unenticipated events. In response, Dr.

Trapp discussed an example regarding the engineered barrier system and the waste package, which are to be designed assuming anticipat-od processes and events, or the design processes and events, for post-closure. However, there may be additional requirements that come from the lack of reasonable assurance that the design will meet the overall perfomance objectives, which is attributable to unanticipated processes and events.

l 2. Dr. Shewmon asked about volcanism in the neighborhood of a proposed site (obviously Yucca Mountain) during the Quaternary Period (hereafter and throughout the meeting referred to as the Quaternary). Dr. Trapp said that the recurrence of an event that occurred in the Quaternary would be an anticipated event, whereas the occurrence of an event that did not occur during the Quaternary l

would be an unantic Wated event.

, 3. Dr. Steindler asked, since it appears that the NRC is saying that

' what we know about the past will happen in the future, is that distinction present and, if it is, hcw do you justify it? Dr.

Trapp said that the Quaternary is the best record of the pas + and l

1

l 2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 8 l

is our best means of projecting forward (unless there is some geologic evidence that can be presented which shows that something is different).

4. Dr. Steindler then asked whether it really doesn't make much difference whether DOE knows the difference between anticipated and unanticipated events, since they've got to consider all events anyway. Mr. Klein said it's an artificial distinction. Dr. Trapp said he didn't know how great the distinction is and won't know until NRC has done the analysis.

5. Dr. Foster asked if this work was site specific for Yucca Mountain.

Dr. Trapp responded that since there now is only one site, instead of three, he sees no reason why this generic Technical Position (TP) cannot be made site specific, except for the following reasnns: a) they don't know if Yucca Mountain will actually survive the licensir.g process, and b) if it doesn't, and the TP is site specific to Yucca Mountain, it will have to be modified to accommodate another site. Hence, NRC believes the rule should remain generic so it can acconinodate any site. Mr. John Linehan added that many TPs were developed as generic TPs prior to Congress narrowing down the focus to only Yucca Mountain, in the future, in developing TPs and rulemaking the NRC Staff will focus only on the Yucca Mountain site.

6. Dr. Moeller asked about the similarities between anticipated and unanticipated events. Dr. Trapp answered that the similarity is between the things that need to be considered in choosing the processes and events, and categorizing them as anticipated or unanticipated.

7. Dr. Steindler asked what event one might have excluded b selection of the Quaternary rather than the selection of all geolo ic histo-ry. Dr. Trapp answered that in the Quaternary he wouldn t be talking about volcanic events in Texas; but in all geologic histo-ry, he would definitely be looking at volcanism in Texas.

8. Dr. Shewmon and Mr. Kathren asked for a definition of the Quater-nary Period. Dr. Trapp said that the range is normally from 1.6 to 2.5 million years.

9. Regarding human effects, Dr. Trapp said that you can't have them included in APE. And if it isn't possible to put them under the category of anticipated events, the rule needs to be changed to allow them to be.

10. Dr. Steindler comented that, if 2 million years ago a major but

' describable volcanic action occurred somewhere within the reposito-ry site and nothing happened in the interim to the present, the current NRC rule says' that within the next 10,000 years there will

l l

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 9 be a volcanic action of that same magnitude, on the average. Dr.

Trapp said that, in effect, that was correct except for one impor-tant point, which is consideration of the criterion: without geclogic evidence to the contrary. To another question asked by Dr. Steindler as to whether you can get ay site to qualify, Dr.

Trapp said he thought so.

11. Mr. Justus said that whereas the design lifetime of the repository is 10,000 years, and the interval of time of faulting is on the order of 350,000 to 500,000 years, the Quaternary n y not be .

sufficiently conservative. But in the basic tenet of Part 60 there is a justifiable rationale for the beginning of the Quaternary being a workable cutoff.

12. Regarding the public coments that were received by May 1,1988, the end of the coment period, Dr. Trapp said that they had re-viewed roughly 135 comments, but none from the USGS, DOE or EPA, all of whom said they were going to coment, but have not. (Dr.

Steindler later recomended that the Ccmission be encouraged to renind those agencias that have not yet provided coments to the NRC on this subject to do so.) The State of Nevada provided extensive coments and raised several questions that NRC will consider.

13. Dr. Foster asked if e contention made after the rulenaking was completed would have to be considered. Dr. Trapp said that, at the

, present time, there is nothing that would allow that. He added that they might first take a look at the Statement of Considera-tions to see if it contained a statement about an interlocutory review of APE as basically the first thing in the licensing process and, if so, decide what the contentions are, lock them in, get them out of the way quickly, and go on from there.

l

14. Dr. Moeller comented that you cannot say this subject has been brought to closure. Mr. Linehan explained that this topic and several others are what NRC calls regulatory uncertainties and that l they want to clarify any ambiguities in the rule and more clearly state what the elements or proofs are that DOE must demonstrate in order to show compliance with that portion of the regulation.

15. Mr. Browning added that NMSS has not yet decided whether to go to negotiated rulemaking. However, they recognize that rulemaking is

the only way to put an issue to bod so that the subject doesn't become a discussion point and the subject of a prolonged debate within the licensing hearing. But if everyone agrees on it up '

front, you don't have to go to rulemaking.

, 16. Dr. Steindler cautioned Dr. Trapp on the use of the tems "anticipated processes and events" and "unanticipated processes and '

events," especially if NRC is going to redefine them in a way

-___,__..__t ----,_ _, - . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _

- - _ _ _ ____y_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ r.,,. __ . , _ - . .-_- --_-,.____,,_,-._._-_--r .-

2hD ACNW MEETING MINUTES 10 different from their dictionary definitions. Dr. Trapp agreed, saying he would prefer to use the term used by EPA, viz.,

undisturbed perfomance, which is basically the absence of unlikely processes and events.

17. The Committee requested the NRC Staff to provide copies of the public comments on the proposed rulemakings on anticipated and unanticipated events and environmental monitoring of low-level waste, along with the NG Staff's evaluations of the public coments.

V. Environmental Monitorine of low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities (0 pen)

[ Note: Mr. O. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Chairman D. W. Moeller introduced John Sumeier, Chief of the Technical Branch, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning. Mr.

Surmeier provided a brief background on the Draft Branch Technical Position (BTP) cn Environmental Monitoring (EM). He said that its purpose is to provide guidance, not spec'fic instructions, and that thn Standard Review Plan gives more detailed guidance. It was published far public comment in November 1987, but, subsequent to that time, the effort was phased out because of priorities on resources and other activities. He also said that the staff member who had prepared the draft had recently resigned from the NRC, but that Dr. John Starmer, a member of the Technical Branch, would make the presenta+. ion.

Dr. John Starmer, Section Leader of the Siting Section, gave a defini-tion of the term "Environmental Mer.itoring" and discussed proposed EM i Requirements, emphasizing that the EM BTP does not address:

t

1. Monitoring for the protection of workers during site operations.

2. Monitoring waste centainers, equipment, materials, and support facilities.

He identified the principal pathways to be monitored, all of which are part of the natural environment, viz., groundwater, soil, surface water, '

stream sediment, air, and flora and fauna.

Dr. Starmer identified and discussed the major phases of an EH program:

preoperational, operational and postoperational. He also said that, although Part 61 requires the applicant to describa the Ouality Control Program (for a given facility), it does not require a Quality Assurance Program--thet is the applicant's responsibility.

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 11 Dr. Starmer said that the 124 coments received had been grouped into 6 categories (plus a miscellaneous category), each of which he discussed briefly. The proposed modifications to the EM BTP resulting from the public comments are to:

1. Incorporate the comments in the final version of the BTP to the extent possible.

2. Include references and bibliographies from NUREG/CR-5054 to be used by applicants / licensees as additional guidance.

3. Discuss EM at disposal facilities using alternative disposal technologies.

4 Include specific definitions for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.

Dr. Starmer sumarized by stating that the EM BTP developed by the staff is adequate to meet the requirements of Part 61, and that it provides general guidance on concepts that should be considered when designing and implementing the monitoring program. However, there are no current plans (for reasons mentioned above by J. Surmeier) to finalize the draft.

Highlights of the discussion on this subject follow:

1. In answer to a question by Dr. Foster regarding the purpose of this P,TP, Dr. Starrer explained that the NRC regulations (10 CFR Part

61) en low-level waste disposal, which were promulgated in 1981, provide non-binding guidance in the form of license conditions (not technical specifications) for Agreement States that license and regulate the LLW sites in their States. The three currently operating sites are licensed by their respective States, e.g.,

Barnwell in South Carolina.

2. Dr. Smith asked, if it's an Agreement State, who at NRC evaluates the State's program to ensure that it is compatible with NRC? Dr.

Starmer said it is the Office of State Progra:ns (OSP). J. Surmeier added that NMSS provides the necessary technical input and techni-cal assistance to OSP as required.

3. Dr. Moeller said that one of the ACNW consultants (referring to J.

Till, but without mentioning him by name) was working on and had some ideas for monitoring which would not only give early warning of a release, but also procedures which would help snticipate a release before it occurred. Dr. Stamer said that sounded like a very good idea.

4 Regarding the pathways that are being monitored, Dr. Steindler asked if there are any principal pathways that are not being

l e

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 12 monitored, his point being that NRC is defining a philosophy that is not very useful, but also is not very selective. Dr. Stamer agreed that it is not prescriptive, but that the licensee is expected to provide a basis for those pathways which he chooses to analyze, and a basis for not analyzing pathways ho chooses not to analyze.

5. Dr. Steindler asked if somewhere in the BTP a rationale is giyan by NRC that defines why the licensee should analyze a particular pathway. Dr. Starmer said that was ce"ered for each pathway, as one would expect.

6. Dr. Foster raised the issue as to whether a particular pathway reed be monitored if an applicant could show that some pathways would never result in a dose that was greater than below regulatory concern (BRC). Dr. Starmer answered that the purpose of a monitor-ing program is to provide an indication of the performance of the facility. Monitoring a BRC pathway would not provide any useful infomation on the perfomance of the facility. ,

7. R. Kathren asked if one of the purposes of monitoring is to be a predictor of noncompliance later on and not just to verify compli-ance. Dr. Star er seid that monitoring is done to give an indica-tien of performance as well as to find out early on if there is '

some indication that something is going wrong--preferably before someone receives a dose that is in excess of a regulatory requirement.

8. Mr. Kathren said that there were two pathways that the NRC Staff was apparently not considering, viz., population and land use in the vicinity of the facility, both of which the NRC Staff ought to include and consider.

9. Mr. Kathren also pointed out that, in his opinion, the document is very specific and prescriptive in some areas. Dr. Starmer said that, compared to what it used to be, it is now relatively nonpre- ,

scriptive.  ;

10. A third point made by Mr. Kathren was that there em some excellent regulatory guides that deal with EM. He said that he doesn't get the same flavor in reading this document as he does from the others.

11. Dr. Moeller asked, what are the performance objectives that must be met to achieve compliance? Dr. Stamer answered that they are basically the performance objectives for release of radioactive -

materials.

12. Dr. Moeller requested that the ACNW be provided with a complete set of the public comments. Dr. Starmer said he would be willing to i

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 13 provide them; however, he would prefer that the ACFW comment on the summary of the comments he was discussing and then look at the public's comments--that to do so would be more effective.

13. Drs. Smith anc Steindler asked questions regarding the nature of the public comments. Dr. Starmer responded that he had capsulized them and was trying to give the ACNW the flavor of the comments, to verbalize some of the nuances, and to point out that there is variability in the comments.

14 Dr. Smith also asked if more work needs to be done. Mr. Surmeier said that monitoring, from the perspective of both public health and safety and of "comfortableness" of the public's accepting the site, is an important area to pursue, provided the NRC Staff has the resources to do it.

15. Regarding a question raised by Dr. Steindler as to why the NRC believes guidance is required for the States which have people who are sufficiently technically competent to administer such a pro-gram, Dr. Starrer pointed oat that the States are looking for guidance to help them be responsive to Congressionally mandated requirements to develop disposal facilities. Dr. Snith asked if the guidance tells the States what the minimum requirements are.

Dr. Starmer said no, it is to provide guidance--a conceptual framework--ard to give people an idea of how their progran should be structured.

16. Dr. Steindler asked if there are any regulatory guides in existence that have a bearing on EM for LLW sites. (In this regard, see item 10above.) Dr. Starrer said that there were some, but that they have been reluctant to cite then because they are not altogether appropriate for LLW facilities. Dr. Steindler asked if they planned to put out a reaulatory guide for the EM of LLW sites. Dr.

Starmer said they haven t finalized their BTp yet and that no i

decision has been made as to whether it will become a regulatory guide.

17. Dr. Smith said that there's nothing more important than making sure that it is explicitly clear what is going to be required in EM, either at an LLW site or a HLW site. Therefore, it's an agency resource problem to do the job right; it's too important not to do I it right, and as detailed as necessary,

18. Dr. Foster commented that there ought to be a prescription that monitoring data should be explicitly displayed in a manner that shows what the situation was that existed before, what it is now, and what it might be in the future if certain trends are apparent and continue.

I i

c ..

N 2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 14

19. Regarding Mr. Kathren's comments in item 8 above, Dr. Moeller asked if the BTP included alerting the licensee of the importance of knowing the habits of the people near the site. Dr. Starmer answered no, it is not in the document specifically.

20. Dr. Moeller also commented that no mention was made ofthe use of nonindigenous media for monitoring the site, but it might be worthy

, of consideration to include it. Dr. Starmer said that it was not in the document and that he would see if something like that might be included.

21. Dr. Steindler asked if the NRC or the licensing bodies in the States require monitoring for nonradiological constituents. Dr. ,

Starrer said no, that the NRC only regulates source by-products, i special nuclear material, etc., and therefore they can't require licensees to look at the impact of nonradiological constituents.

22. Mr. Kathren commented that rather than use gross alpha and beta monitors as is "prascriptively" mentioned in the document (which are sometimes inadequate for the task) one mignt use other means, such as garra soectroscopy, to better evaluate the environrental radioactivity.

23. Dr. Moeller pointed out that, with the revision now underway of 10 CFR Part 20. Part 61 will need to be rewritten or modified to make it compatible with the new Part 20, particularly in terms of the new release rater; and population dose limits.

VI. Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory _ Analyses,(0 pen) ,

[ Note: Dr. Sidney J. S. Parr this portion of the meeting.]y was the Designated Federal Official for l Mr. J. Bunting, NMSS, opened his presentation with a discussion of why the Center was sought by the staff. It was noted that the Center is a Federally Funded Re!,earch and Development Center (FFRDC) whose activities are directed by and controlled by the NRC staff. In this manner, it is possiole tc develop a research support function that is ,

dedicated solely to the needs of the NRC staff and which is untainted by conflict of interett concerns. Certain of the unique aspects of the '

contractual arrangements with the Center's parent organization, the Southwest Research Institute (SRI) in San Antonio, Tex., were described.

Most significant among these was the veto power that the NRC has over SRI't, ability to take on additional contracts. The semiannual review of  ;

the Center's performance by the NRC staff was described as were the various financial arrangements for awarding an incentive fee. The fee may be awarded on a semiannual basis. It may range from zero to eight percent of the contract expenditures, depending on the contractor's perv ormance. A portion of the fee is allowed to be set aside for the initiation of independent' studies by the Center's staff. The fractional f

f

,, ~ -.. _ . _ _ .-,-.-.------_ __ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . - , - - . _ _ __- . _ _ . _ - _ - - .

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 15 dmount that may be set aside is a variable which depends on the percentage of the fee itself. In the case of an eight percent fee the set aside reaches its maximum of 33%. Mr. Bunting also described the application of NRC's conflict-of-interest rules to the Center.

The procedure whereby the Center was set up was described in some detail. This included publishing a request for coments on the intent to proceed with a FFRDC, advertising for bidders, evaluation of the bids and so forth until the contract was awarded. It is estimated that the Center will remain in existence through the initial licensing of the repository--that is, us to 20 years. Also, the Center is currently limited to working on ligh-level waste matters. However, authorization for it to work in other areas may be sought from OMB.

Mr. Bunting described the "phasing in" or gradual buildup in the Center's activities. He noted that the first year's expenditures were scheduled to reach $3.6 million and $11 million in year five. Full effort is scheduled to be reached in aoout three years. The Center's current activities were described and the existence of four technical projects was stressed. Two of these projects had been specified in the original statement of work and the other two were defined after the a

contract was signed. While the hMSS staff serve as the imediate contact or provide direction for the Center, it was clearly indicated ,

that the Office of Research is a full participant in the definition of research topics. Of the $4.7 million to be allocated to the Center in i FY 1988, some $1.2 million is for the four research projects previously mentioned.

It was specifically stated that while the Center may recomend policy options to the NMSS staff it is not the Center's responsibility to define policy, only the options.

Mr. Latz, President of the Center, followed Mr. Bunting with a 4

presentation describing the organizational structure of the Center and its relationship to the Southwest Research Institute. It was indicated that Institute employees could be, and have, moved to the Center, but that it was unlikely that Center empuyees would be shifted to the Institute. The backgrounds of the senior or key personnel were described.

i The principal initial prograrratic responsibility for the Center is the development, completion and maintenance of the program architecture for the entire licensing process. Besides assisting the NRC staff, this i activity will serve the additional purpose of familiarizing the Center's staff with the licensing process. Program architecture is a systems

' description, which attempts to present a systems approach to a "soV 1 system, as opposed to a hardware system. Mr. Latz and Mr. Brownifig agreed to provide the Committee with the Center's overall research plan, which is scheduled to be available shortly. It was noted by Dr.

I Steindler that no 0A plar vos listed on the list of nilestones. Mr.

l l

. . . 1 2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 16 Latz acknowledged its absence and indicated that it would be finalized shortly.

In conclusion, Mr. Latz described the Center's progress in staffing and the Center's relationship with the institute in terms of utilizing '

Institute equipment.

VII. EPA Standards for the HLW Geologic Repository (40 CFR 191) (0 pen)

[ Note: Dr. Parr of the meeting.]y was the Designated Federal Official for this portion Mr. D. Egan, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), outlined the general structure of the rule and its development. The legislative mandate for the rule, which dates back to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1922, was described as were the events preceding the issuance of the rule in 1985.

The rule is to be irplemented by the NRC for facilities licensed by the NRC, but in the case of the WIPP site DOE itself will implement the rule. This latter situation is beit.g addressed by a draft Senate bil: ,

that cells for the EPA to implement the rule for the WIPP site. '

The Federal Appeals Court in Boston remanded, that is, voided, Section L

of the rule, in response to a suit by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1987. Mr. Egan described the court's decision and explained that the decision was based upon a misinterpretation of and some lack of clarity in the rule and the misapplication of the considerations of the 56fe Water Drinking Act to what constitutes undarground liquid injcction.

Mr. Egan indicated that, at the present time, firm plans have not been made for initiating work on reissuing the rule. But he expects that 1,

such efforts would start in the near term, largely in response to the pending Senate bill. It was estimated that it would take between 2-3 years to complete that effort. It is not expected that there will be any substantive changes in the limits themselves. Although it is likely that the form of the limits will change, Mr. Egan expects that certain

draft standards from the IAEA will be taken into account during the

! development of the new standard. For example, it is likely that the i standard may focus on the individual dose to a critical group as opposed to a cross curie release. Further, the current limitation to a .

10,000-year period may be eliminated. It appears that recomendations 2

made in a NAS report prepared by Dr. T. Pigford and other suggestiens ,

i made by the Waste Management Subcomittee of the EPA's Science Advisory doard will also receive more attention.

l VIII. Briefing on the Barnwell/ Savannah River / Chem-Nuclear and LN ,

Technologies Facilities (0 pen)

[ Note:

of Dr. Parr the meeting.)y was the Designated Federal Official far this portion I

l

~

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 17 ACNW members were briefed about the facilities will be visiting on August 3-5, 1988. There were five presenters: D. Nussbaumer, OSP, H.

Shesly, South Carolina Bureau of Radiological Health, T. Hindman, USDUE, W. House, Chem-Nuclear and R. Voit, LN Technologies. Mr. Nussbaumer ,

described the NRC's Agreement States Program and his Office's interactions with South Carolina officials. Mr. H. Shealy recounted the development of South Carolina's radiological control program. Mr. T.

Hindman gave a brief overview of DOE's Defense Waste Program with emphasis on those activities underway at Savannah River. Messrs. House and Voit provided background material on their facilities and operations that the Comittee will observe on August 3 and 5, respectively.

Mr. Nussbaumer described the origins of the Agreement States Progran from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the modifications made in 1978.

The basic purpose is to allow the individual States the opportunity to assume responsibility for specified activities involving radioactive naterials or equipment. This serves the dual purpose of permitting local governments to control operations within their own jurisdictions and reduces the cost to the Federal Government. The original provisions were modified in 1978 to require that the NRC periodically raview the individual State programs for adequacy in protecting the public's health and safety. He noted that the NRC has the authority to suspend a State's authority either in part or entirely on either an erergency basis or permanently. No actions of this nature have ever occurred although one State withdrew from the program, in part because of

. budgetary considerations.

In response to questions by Dr. Moeller, it was noted that Kentucky was the first State to enter into such an agreement, in 1962. The advantages of the program were noted, that is, local control and the development of trained personnel. The principal disadvantage, to the State, was cited to be the added costs of the program. A discussion of the fees charged by the various States followed. It was noted that in non-agreement States the NRC does charge fees for perfortning inspections. The principal reasons for States not electing to become an Agrecrent State appear to be related to a lack of initiative on the part of either the executive or legislative branches of the State Goverr, ment.

Recently there appears to be a movement by States toward attaining at least a partial agreement status, because of the expansion of the number of LLW disposal sites. The procedure to be followed in becoming an Agreement State was briefly discussed.

, Mr. Nussbaumer described those activities that the States can assume responsibility for, such as radiation sources, milling operations, effluent monitoring and so forth. Also described were some other i operations which the States do not regulate, such as Federal agencies, i production and utilization facilities, etc. He noted that the States serve a data collection function in reporting abnormal events to the NRC.

1 2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 18 I

There are 29 Agreement States, representing approximately 60 percent of the States. Each State undergoes a periodic review of its program. The tinie between reviews is between 18 and 24 months. The general qualifications of the reviewers were discussed. It was pointed out that the NRC staff will provide technical assistance to any State whether it is a menber of the agreement program or not. The availability of training programs was also described.

Mr. H. Shealy, Director of the Bureau of Radiological Health for the State of South Carolina, described the development and current capabilities of his organization. He detailed the extent of the nuclear industry within the State. This includes two major Federal facilities, the Savannah River Plant and the Charleston Navy Yard, seven concercial ,

nuclear power plants, an LLW disposal site, three irradiators and so '

forth.

The State of South Carolina joined the Agreement State Program in 1969.

The 8 reau has son.e 27 professionals who perform a variety of inspection and technical advisory functions. The Bureau obtains its financial support from a variety of sources. These include fees charged for licenses and inspections, performing environmental nonitoring on a contract basis for the NRC and direct funding from the State budget.

. Some of their personnel are professionally accredited and their laboratory and calibration facilities are either monitored or certified by agencies such as the EPA or the Bureau of Standards.

The Bureau's activities started in 1956 with a program to monitor fallout from nuclear weapons tests, it was expanded to include

, nonitoring of the Savannah River Plant's effluents in the early 1960s.

The initiative for this operation came from the State government and it appears that this support has been a crucial factor in the developmert i of the Bureau. The Bureau only works with radioactive materials, not j hazardous materials.

Mr. Shealy indicated that monitoring the Barnwell LLW disposal site involves sore 6 FTEs. The Bureau's laboratory analyzes some 10,000

' samples a year. They have a central lab and a mobile lab that can be taken to the site of an incident to provide on-site analyses. All personnel are trLined to respond to emergencies, and exercises are held once or twice a year tc mainte,tn proficiency.

The inspection and monitoring of the transportation of LLW was discussed in detail. It was noted that strict enforcement of the DOE and NRC

[ regulations has resulted in a noticeable reduction in the number of i

incidents involving improperly packaged or prepared waste. The Barnwell site receives waste from all over the country, but only by truck. All

! shipments are individually inspected and pertinent data, including l location in a trench, is tabulated and stored in a computer for

! compilation or retrieval, if desired.

1 1

f

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 19 In conclusion, Mr. Shealy described the financial arrangements for closing the site in 1993. There exist both a fund for decomissioning the site, some $3.6 million, and a fund for perpetual care of the site, 1 currently $32 million. A program for developing a long-term use for the -

site is currently in progress. One of the more attractive options appears to be the growing of shallow-rooted Christmas trees.

Mr. T. Hindman, DOE-HQ, provided a brief overview of the DOE defense waste program. The types and volumes of wastes currently stored were indicated. It was noted tnat this program is not limited to one or two sites but includes the entire production complex, both active and inactive sites. The program is required to meet a range of regulatory requirements including the Atomic Energy Act and RCRA, CERCLA, and SARA.

Virtually all aspects of this program are present at the Savannah River Plant and it is expected that the Comittee will have an opportunity to view them during its visit.

Mr. W. House of Chem-Nuclear briefly describcd Chem-Nuclear's activities at Barnwell. He noted that about 3.0 million curies of radioactive naterials had been buried at the site. The most comron materials are

. Cobalt-60, Cesium-137 and Strontium-90. All waste entering the site is checked by both Chem-Nuclear and South Carolina personnel. Their extensive environmental monitoring program was described. Chem-Nuclear performs its own testing in its laboratory. Mr. House also comented on Chem-Nuclear's other activities, such as providing packaging for LLW and spent fuel, transportation of packaged LLW and solidifying LLW in power plants on a contract basis.

All m6terials used in the closure of the trenches are native to the i site. Chem-Nuclear is currently developing a three-dimensional model of the groun6 ater flow patterns. It was noted that the entire site will l not be completely utilized upon closure in 1993. (The Comittee viewed i

a videotape of Chem-Nuclear's activities on July 21 during an intermission.)

Mr. R. Voit of LN Technologies spoke to the Comittee and briefly described the schedule and topics to be discussed during the Comittee's visit on August 5, 1986.

IX.ExecutiveSession(0 pen)

A. Reports, letters and Meroranda

1. ACNW Coments on Response to Questions on Proposed Yucca i

Mountain High-level Waste Resository (Letter to V. 5tello from R. Fraley dated July 27, 1983)

After reviewing the consultant's coments on the DOE responses, the Comittee found the DOE responses adequate.

Several issued raised by ACNW consultants were brought to the 1

2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES 20 '

attention of the NRC Staff. No additional responses are requested from the DOE or NRC Staff.

2. ACNW Comments on Draft Generic Technical Position: Guidance for Determination of Anticipated Processes and Evants, and Unanticipated Processes and Events (Letter to Chairman Zech dated August 1, 1958)

The Committee recommended that other appropriate federal agencies be encouraged to give the NRC Staff the benefit of .

their views on this subject.

B. Future Agenda The Committee agreed to the tentative future agenda shown in Appendix II.

The 2nd ACNW meeting was concluded at 5

15 p.m. on July 22, 1988.

4 4

4 I

I 4

i

! I I

i  !

i i

l l

APPENDICES 2ND ACNh' MEETING MINUTES JULY 21-22, 1988

!. Attendees

!!. Future Agenda 111. Other Documents Received

c- .. .

T L l ACNW Meeting Date % $a 2.1-sl % , f1(? .

O G Attendees 1st Day 2nd Day Dr. Dade W. Moeller / v/

j Dr. Martin J. Steindler / /

Dr. Clifford Y. Smith /_

ACRS Attendee:

P. G. Shewmon / /

ACNW Consultants:

M. Carter /

R. Foster  !

R. Kathren /

APPENDIX !

4 . .

)

l l

APPENDIX I ATTENDEES 2ND ACNW MEETING JULY 21-22, 1988 JULY 21, 1988 ,

Public Attendees NRC Attendees Joan Murphy, EPI George Lear, NMSS '

Alan Friedtran, Heritage Stan Neuder, NRC Wm. B. House, Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. Elaine Hemby, GPA Donald Silverman, UNKMG Kitty Dragonette Diana D'Arrigo. NIRS Stephanie Sharron, SERCH i Glenn Bradley, Weston L. C. Rouse, NRC Charles Head. USDOE R. E. Browning, NMSS Edward Regnier, USDOE John Surmeier, NMSS ,

Dwight Shelor, USDOE J. M. Wolf, 0GC Angus Kimini, Weston Joel Grim, NMSS

Phil Contes, Coub, Muntring, & Glasgow Philip Justus, NMSS Peter B. Myers, NAS F. Brenneman, NRR John S. Sieg, NAS 0. Hopkins, RES Lynn Fairobent, NUMARC C. Mattsen, RES .

Lorraine V. Forte, Oak _Ridger '

W. Lahs, RES ^

E. Helminsky, The Radioactive Exchange R. E. Cunningham, NMSS '

i Gregory Hartkopf. DOE Donald Cool, NMSS >

Linda Desell, DOE R. Bernero, NMSS Kevin Tyne U.S.C.E.A. John Austin, NMSS ,

Davis Siefken, Weston Z. Ros2toczy, RES 1 Caroline Petti, SRIC Kathleen McDarby, ARM W. Eddleman, Self, CASH, CCNC, Sierra Club, etc. D. Persinko, NRR i K. Howard, En3rgetics, Inc. J. P. Roberts NMSS E. Len, Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds Seth Coplan, NMSS  :

M. Bauser, h&H P.C. John Linehan, NMSS -

M. Lugo, Weston/Jacobs 1

D. Michiewic:, Weston i

C. Dell, Westen P. D. Wade, SAID 4 Larry Rickertser, Weston

J. Murphy, Nuclear Waste News i Susan Goblin, BDM Paul M. Krishna, Battelle Stepha.se Sharron, SERCH Angus Kimming Weston L. Fairbent, NUMARC Chris Nil, Weston i

s

l-2

o- .-

1 Appendix I, Attendees, 2nd ACNW Meeting j 1

JULY 22, 1988 Public Attendees NRC Attendees ,

Alan Friedman, Heritage Reporting J. Sumeier, NMSS i Marvin Gaske, SRA R. E. Browning, CHLWM H. Minwalla, Weston M. Silberberg, RES l Y. Mikopula, NUS G. Lear, HMSS ,

S. Poltorak, SERCH M. Mace, DCPM i' M. Meingling, BPI D. Fehringer W. P. House T. Mo, NMSS  !

K. Hopward, Energetics, Inc. John S. Trapp NMSS i Dave Darrizo NIRS Don Nussbaumer, GPA Sandra Fucigna, BDM Richard Woodruff, R 11 Larry Rickester, Weston Seth Coplan, NMSS N. k. Brown, SWR 1 C. H. Peterson, NMSS  ;

Kevin Tyne, USCEA ,

P. M. Krisberg. USCEA

• David Michiwicz, Weston r Robert Adler, CNWRA Elizabeth Len, Bishop Cook Paula Wade, SAID D. Fitzgerald, USGA0 Dan Egan, USEPA Floyd Galpin, EPA Ray Clark, US EPA M. 0/Foabia, DSP Dan Reicher, NRCC Linda Desew, DOE Carolina Petti, SPIC Peter B. Myers, NAS Phil Contes, Doub, Muntzing, & Glasgow Lorraine V. Forte, Oak Ridger D. S. O'Neill, Concord Monitor E. Helminski, The Radioactive Exchan]e Virgil R. Autry SC/DHEC Heyward G. Shtt.ly, SC/CHEC Elgte Holstein, Nye County NV R. E. Voit LN Technologies T. B. Hindman, DOE H. i.. Bemanis, DOE /Weston J. E. Latz, CNWRA 1-3

.~ ..

A 2ND ACNW MEETING MINUTES I f

APPENDIX 11 '

FUTURE AGENDA l l

August 3-5, 1988  !

LLW Oisresal Facility (0 pen) Estimated time: 3 hrs. - The Comittee will aiscuss their visits to the LLW disposal facility at Barnwell, SC and the  ;

Chem-fluclear operations center i DOE's Savar.nah River Plant ~ (0 pen) Estimated time: 3 hrs. - The Comittee I will discuss their visit to the waste handling and storage facilities at  !

DOE's Savannah River Plant '

t State of South Carolina (0 pen) Estimated tire: 3 hrs. - The Comittee will  !

discuss their visit to the facilities of LN Technologies and meet with I representatives of the South Curolina Bureau of Radiological Health I t

Below Fegulatory Concern (0 pen) Estimated time: 1/2hr.-TheComditteewill I cenclude discussions and prepare recomendations r

i Later Meetings (tentative) l l

Low-level Waste Pandling Processes (0 pen) - The Comittee will be briefed by l the isC 5taff on cement waste foW solidification DOE's Perfornance Assessment Program (0 pen) - The Comittee will be briefed I by the DOE Staff on their Ferformance Assessment Prograr  :

i NRC Staff Actiens on AChW Recoreendations (0 pen) - The Comittee will discuss l with the ARC Staff the actions that the NRC Staff has taken on AChW selected  !

recorrendations

_Decomissioning (0 pen) - The Ccen,ittee will discuss rulemaking for decomis-sioning.

Regula_ tory Uncertainties (0 pen) - The Comittee will discuss rulemaking to resolve regulatory uncertainties, i F_uture Activities (0 pen) - The Comittee will discuss anticipated and pro- ,

posed Comittee activities, future agenda meetings, and organizational  ;

matters as appropriate. l I

i i

i l

APPENDIX III OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED 2ND AChW MEETING  !

JULY 21-22, 1988 ,

PRESEhTATION HANDOUTS ,

Ager.ca  :

Item

2. Below Reculatory Concern [

1. Proposed Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control, by W. Lahs, l July 21, 1988

2. Article frcr The Washington Post on EPA Offers Options on Benzene, byline C. Peterson, July 21, 1988

3. DOE's Dry Cask Storage Study

3. Dry Cask Storage Study Eriefing Package - Status and Content, by  !

Keith Klein, July 21, 1988 4 AChW Letter for L. Zech, dated July 1.1988 re P.oposed Rule on l Storage of Spent Fuel in Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites

4. Rulemakine on Anticipated and Uranticipated Events -

5. Statut of GTP/corrtrents/Ruleraking on Guidance for Detennination of I Anticipated Processes and Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events, by J. Trapp, Jaly 21, 1988

6. Environmental Monitoring of LLW Facilities [

6. Environrental Vanitoring of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal  ;

Facilities: Draf t Branch Technical Position, by J. Starmer, July  ;

22, 2988

7. Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis

7. Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis, by J. Bunting, July 22, 198P. ,

I

8. EPA Standards for HLW Geologic Repository  ;

8. Fepromulgation of 40 CFF. Part 191 Subpart B ,, Briefing for ACNW, l by D. Egan and R. Clark, July 22, 1988

9. Federal Register, Part II, Envirerrrental Protection Agency, dated Thursday. Septenber 19, 1985

10. lAEA Safety Standards for Underground Disposal of High-level i Radioactive Westes, November 1987 l

9. Site Visit to South Carolina f

11. D. Nussbaumer, July 22, 1988  !

12. NRC South 5 tate Agreement Carolina Dept. of Program, Health by& Environmental Control, Bureau of f Radiological He'alth Regulatory Activities  :

13. CNS! Presentation Topics, July 22, 1988 ,

14. Defense Radioactive Waste Management: Status and Challenges, by T. Hindman, July 22, 1988 l l NEETING NOTEBOOK DOCUMENTS  ;

! TABS 2 THROUGH 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES FOLLOW, I

TAB 2 SECOND MEETlhG 0F THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JULY 21-22, 1988 TOPIC: BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

2. PRESENTATION AGENDA 2

3. STATUS REFORT AND ANTICIPATED ACNW ACTION 3 4 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

a. Me 0randun from R. Fraley to V. Stello, Jr.,

"Below Regulatory Concern," and De Mininis Corcepts, dtd. May 11, 1988 4-12

b. Merorar, dun froN V. Stello, Jr. to R. Fraley, ACRS Subco nittee Report on "Below Regulatory Concern" and De Mininis Concepts 4td. June 27, 1988 13-16

c. Percrardum from B. Morris to R. Fraley, Trantritt31 of Docurentation for AChW Review (with "Proposed Cen,ission Policy Statement on Pegulatory Control Exemptions for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts are Below Regulatory Co n c e r r, (ERC)" and Enclosure 1, SPM from S. Chilk to V. Stello, Jr., "Briefinc on the Status of Efferts te Develep a De Mininis Policy,dtd. March 30,1988),

dtd. July 14, 1998 17-27 h3iE: All cf the above background papers were previously provided to you.

They are provided here for your convenience.

COGN!ZANT AChW PEMEER: D. W. Meeller, Chairnan COGN!?_A_ST AchW STAFF:

0. 5. Merrill, Sr. Staff Engineer 111-2

[ .

) .- .-

. ~

TAB 3 SECOND MEETING OF THE

.1V150RY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JULY 21-22, 1988 TOPIC: DOE'S DRY CASK STORAGE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

1. Table of Contents 2

?. Presentation Agenda 3

3. Status Report and Anticipated ACNW Action 4 Beckground Documents Letter sepert from D. Moe11

• to Chairman Zech, 4 a.

Freposed Rule on Storage of Spent Nuclear fuel in Casks at Nuclear Power Keactor Sites,"

July 1. 1988 h0TE: This and cther backgrour.d docuncnts were previously proviced to you. The above docueent is provided here for your convenience.

Cogri: ant ACtN Mecber: D. W. Moeller, Chairman Cognizant Att:W staff: C. 5. Merrill, Senior Staff Engineer

!!!-3

)

• TAB 4 SECOND MEETING 0F THE ADVISORY CCMFITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JULY 21-22, 1988 TOPIC: RULEMAKING CN ANTICIPATED AND UNANTICIPATED EVENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

1. Table of Contents 2

2. Presentation Agenda 3

3. Status Report anc Anticipated ACNW Actions

4. Background Docu ents e) Draft Generic Technical Position, Guidance for Deterrir.ation of Anticipated Processes and _

Events and Unsnticipated Processes and Events (Notice of Availability of this document wc5 published in the Federal Re9 1ster, 39FR6040, 4-27 on February 29, 19Cf.)

!!!-4

TAB 5 SECOND MEET! fig OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JULY 21-22, 1988 TOPIC: ACNW ACTIVITIES AND PREPARATION OF ACNW REPORTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

2. 1 ENDA 2

3. STATUS REFORT AND ANTICIFATED ACNW ACTIONS 3 4 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

a. Schedule of ACNW Comittee Meetings 4 COGNIZANT ACNW MEMBER: D. W. Moeller, Chairman COGNIZANT ACNW STAFF: 0. 5. Merrill, Sr. Staff Engineer III-5

TAB 6 ,

SECOND MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JULY 21-22, 1988 T0rlC: EhVIRGhFEhTAL PONITORING OF LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES TAELE OF CONTENTS Page 1

1. Tot.le of Contents 2

2. Presentaticr: Agenda 3

3. Status Report erc Anticipated ACNW Action 4-34

4. Ecckgrcund Docu ents a) 10CFF. Part 61, Lev:-Level Waste Disposal Facility; Notice of Availability and Fecuest for Public Corrent on a Branch Technicai Position Parer Concerning Environmental Penitoring dated September 1957 111-6

. . Tab 7 I

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 2ND PEETil1G CENTER FOR t.UCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSE 5

- JULY 22, 1908 Pace

1. Tar 1c of Contents 1 Aget' s 2 2.

3. Status Pe: r- 3 4 Ea 6 greurc refers (previously circulated) l

!!!-7

Tab 8 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAP WASTE 2ND MEETING EPA STM.DAFD FOR HLW GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY JULY 22, 1908 Page

1. Table cf Ctntenu. I

2. L;ena :to N ;'teviced t) D. Egan, EPA) 2

3. Status Et;ert witn referenced 6rticle. 3

!!!-8

s . ..

' * - TAB 9

(

ADv!SORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 2ND PEETING ERIEFING ON SITE VISITS IN SOUTH CAROLINA AUGUST 3-5, 1988 Page

1. Tabic of Contents 1

7. A r,s t d 5 2

a. Cner.-Nuclear Presentation 2a

3. Status Report 3_

4 Itinerary anc Agenda - 3rd ACNN Meeting 4-7 August 3-5, 1988

a. Agenda 'or Chen-Nuclear Visit 8

b. t'ap - Aiken to Barnwell 9

c. Che.ii-Nuclear Brochure

d. Agenda for LN Technolcgies Visit 10 - 11

e. LN Techr.ulogies Brochure ,"Radwaste Patiagement and Pisposal Services" I

III-9 l

o *. .. .

. ~ .

TAB 10 SECONO MEETING 0F THE ACVISORY COP.MITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JULY 21-22, 1986 TOPIC: hRC STAFF ACTIONS ON ACNW RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace

1. Table of Contents 1

2. Agehda 2

3. Status Report and Anticipated ACNW Actions 3 4 Background Cocurents a) ACTU Letter, D. Poeller to Chairman Zech 4-5 Rulerating Fetition to Establish an Accident Oose Guideline in 10 CFR Part 60, cated July 1, 1983 b) ACNW Letters, D. Poeller to Chairman Zech, 6 Proposed Rule en Storege of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Casks et Nuclear Power Reactor Sites, dated July 1, 1988 c) Staf f Recuirements Memorandur from 7-9 S. Chill to Chairre.n 2ech and the Corrissioners on the subject of

• !nitial Briefing by the Advisory

COTmittee on Nuclear Waste," dated July S 1988 t .

c) Note fren S. Schofer to ACNW Menbers 10-14 and AChW 5teff transmitting a Copy of the proposed Actions, Agreements.

Assignments and Requests made during the 1st reeting of the ACNW held June 27-29, 1938, dated July 6, 19C8 Cognizant ACNW Member: D. W. Moeller, Chairman Cognizant AChW Staff: 0. 5. Merrill, Senior Staff Engineer '

i III-10 F

\ s 'o. a~

TAB 11 SEC0hD MEETING OF THE ADVISORY C0FJ4!TTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JULY 21-22, 1988 TOPIC: ACNW ACTIVITIES AND PREPARATION OF ACNW REFORTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace

1. Table of Centents 1

2. Agenda 2 l

2. Status Repc,rt and Anticipated ACMl Actions 3 4 Pec1 ground Docurents (5(e TAB 5)

I III-11