ML20155F085

Minutes from Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 880627-29 Meetings.Attendee List & Future Agenda Encl

ML20155F085
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-0001, NUDOCS 8810130129
Download: ML20155F085 (29)

Text

QWOV-dddl 3ERTIFE TABLE OF CONTENTS FIRST ACNW MEETING HINUTtS

/ 7[)$ /Of JUNE 27-29, 1988

!. Chairman'sReport(0 pen)................................................. 1

!!. Design Basis Accident Guidelines for High level Waste Repository (0 pen).. 2

!!!. Licensing of LLW Treatrrent Processes and the Dry Storage and Consolidation cf Spent Fuel (0 pen)....................................... 3 IV.PreposedRuleChangesto10CFRPart72(0 pen)........................... 4 V. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) High Integrity Containers (HICs) (0 pen). 5 VI. U.S. Department of !nergy Presentation (0 pen)............................ 7 A. Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan (CDSCP)................ 7 l

l

5. Alternative Hydrelogic Models of the Yucca Mountain Site............. 9 l Vll. NRC Review of DOE's Consultation Draf t Site Character 4:ation Plan, NRC Presentation (0 pen)................................................. 12 1

V !!! Exec u t i ve Se s s ion (0 pen /Cl osed ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A. Reports, Letters and Memoranda (0 pen)............................... 12 1

1. Report on Proposed Rule on the Storage of Spent Nuclear fuel in l Ca sks at Nuclea r Pcwer Reactor Si tes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 j

2. Corrents on the Rulemakin Petitien to Establish an Accident ,

Dese Guideline in 10 CFR art 60............................... 12 l

1 B. Other Comi ttee Conclu sions (0 pen / Closed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 l

1. Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (0 pen)............ 13

?. Me e t i n g w i t h Com i s s i o n ( 0 pe n ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 )

3. C om i t t e e P ro c e d u r e s ( 0 pe n ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 l 4 Bel ow Regul a tory Conc e rn (0 pen ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5. Incineration Processes (0 pen).................................. 14 ,

6. ACNW Membership (Closed)....................................... 14 j C. Future Agenda (0 pen)................................................ 14 l

l l

,s.a n D Ch1Glh1L cerurseo Pr_ (ffb'S-tIOh 1

1. 0R sa10no,&,9NACM(g ADy W. 004 f ( )

E-0003  ;

PDC

.t ii APPENDICES IST ACNW MEETING MINUTES JUNE 27-29, 1988

1. Attendees II. Future Agenda Ill. Other Docur.cnts Received l

l l

l l

l 1

N

- *- g t32139 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.114 / Tuesday, June 14. 1988 / Notices -

.g environmental aseeseenant, we cacclude has reviewed the appropriate licensee nce and Engineering. Similar safety evaluations.The staff concluded that tbs w.-a i achan wtll not have a - r

( .lssions will be required annually significant effect on the quality of the '

m*

that the proposed changes do not '

aach succesolve year of support human environment. ' . . . ,

under this program. increase the probability or I-For further detaile with evepect to INa consequences of accidents, no change: .xh.

ne FY 1989 PYI awardees will be action, see the applacauce for expected to begin their research are being made in the iypes of any amendment da ted Fabeuary 4, tees,'.pty activities under this program by October effluents that may be released offsite. which are available for pobhc r ' h.a f  ;

and these la no significant increase in 1.1989 inspectic, at the Commission's Pablic the allowable Individual or cumulative Document Room.1717 li Street, NW, o Inquirles occupational radiadon exposure.

Washington, DC and at the Creely inquiries regarding the awards may be Accordingly, the Commission concludea addressed to the Presidenual Young that this proposed action wodd result in Public Library. City Complex hidiv -

no significant re hological Greely CoJorado. ' '

Investigator Awards. Nadonal Science Foundation. Washington, DC 20550, or environmentalirnpact. Dated at Rockville. Maryland sMs 3rd day '

telephone inquiries to (202) 357-0460. With regard to pctential non- ofJuna.196a. i Chor Werig Tan. radiologicalimpacts, the proposed For the Mar R@ tory Cha m

e change to the TS im olves eystems Program uirector. Presidenhol ycurg

/rnesugator A warus. located within the rettricted area as , a g y ,, g g g y, g g g,cj,j f

defined in 10 CFR Part 20.11 does not -

June 13.198a. affect non. radiological plant effluents Projed,jon,OS ceofNuc/mrReocsor (FR Doc. 6A133n Filed 6-1348. B 45 amj and has no other environmental impact, g,gg

_ Therefore, the Commission concludes [nt oc. cA133ee IWd S.tsaa, H5 arn)

~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ that there are no significant non- * * " " _

radj ological environmental impacts NUCLEAR REGULATORY ed with the proposa,d ,

COMMISSION a g; ,

aste;Weeting Agonda; Revision 1 IDociet No. 50-267) The Notice of Consideration of 1ssuance of Amendment and The Advisory Committee bn Nuclear Publ!c Service Company of Colorado; Gpportunity for llearms in connecuon Waste will hold a meeting on June 27-ErMronmental Assessment and with this action was published in the 29,1988.ne sessions on jens 27-28.

Findings of No SJgnificant impset Federal Register en May 5,1988 (53 FR 1988 will be held in Room 1tM6,171711 1MB1). No request for Seating or petition Street NW., Wa shington. DC. The The U.S Nuclear Regulatory for leave to intervene w - filed ,

sessloos on June 79.1968 will be held in '

mmission (the Commasion)is following this notice. Room 2F-17. One White Ilint North

( sidering issuance of an amendment Buildmg.11555 Rockville Ptker Rockville,

.s Fetility Operating License No. DpR- Alternot/ve to the Proposed Action 34 issued to Public Service Coml>any of Since the Commission concluded that Monday, June 27,1988 Colorado. (the licensee). for eperaten of there are no sigmficant environmental the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generatirig Roorn 1N6.1717 H Street NW.,

effects that would result from the Station. located at Weld County. proposed action, any alternatives with Washlagton. DC.

Colorado. equal or greater environraental irnpacts - 10S0 a.m..f afS o.m.r Comments by need not be evaluated.

. ACNW Chairman (Open)-The ACNW Environmental Assessment Chairman will report briefly reganiira

%e principal ahnnathe wodd W t

/dentifscof/pa of ProposcJ Action deny the requested amendmer.t.This *' f ""##"t i

• t.

I ne proposed amendments would would not reduce environmental A '

u ee a f rIs Lr ced opera ona sa y Op OS c:

their proposed requeet for a rulemaking A/ternofire Use of Resources defining the design be sla accident limit l The proposed action is in accordanc, I with the bcensee's application for Uls action does not involve the use of for the III.W repository.

l amendment dated February 8,1968 any resources not previously considered JW p m.-5W p.m.r Licens/np of Ll D, in the Fmal Endronmental Statements Treatment Pmcesses and the Dry The h.eed for Pmposed Actw. n for the Fort St Vrain Nuclear Stomge and Consolidotlon of Spent Puel

%e proposed Technical Specification Generating Station, dated August 7, (Open)--ne NRR Staff will report on*

flT>) change is required in order to allow 1972 the licensing of waste management the licensee to revue certain setpoints in Agencies andPersons Consulted activities at reactor sites with emphasis the Plant Protecthe System to allow for on the consolidation of spent fuel,11W The NRC staff and it's contractor, the Treatment processes, and dry atorage.

instrumentation errors. Idaho Nauomal Engineering 1.aboratory,

• EprimamentalImpoet of the Pmposed reviewe3 the bcensee a proposed Tuesde y, June 21,1968 .

y Acfjg amendment request.ne staff did not Room 1No.171711 Stmet.NW.,

%e Commission has comp!eted its consult other agencies or persons. Wa shington. DC.

evaluation of the proposed revision to 11ndins of No Significant in pact 8 00 a.m.-fNo oan.r fl.W Porm and Technical specifications.ne proposed Polyethylene High laterrity Cento /ners eesIslens would allow the licensee to ne Commisalon has determined no. /H/Cs](Open}--ns Division of IAw-vise certain setpoints in the F! ant to prepare an environmentalimpact Level Weste and Decommle.afonitrg will 1

I .clective System.nese changes would statement for the proposed license report on recent staff and contracter amendment, actions concerning 11W solidtfied by l t>e in accordance with standards of the Based upon the foregoing i

instrument Society of America ne etaff I

I EE

l .

~

,, j 22240 Federal Regiater / Vol. 53. No.114 / Tuesday, June 14, 1988 / Notices .. ,

nrne'nt, and :tudies regarding the . Background crviceability of polyethylene HlCa. The ' . With respect to pub!!c parucipation in Division of Regulatory Research will Piscedures to be followed wiih . , - ACNW meet s.the following report on the proposed final Rule for the respect to meetings conducted pursuant requhementa a su app @

,f revision to 10 CFR Part 72, l.icensing to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (a) Persons wishing to submit writtea Requirements for the Independent by the Nuclear Regulabry Commission's statements regarding the agends items

[ Advisory Committee on Noclear Waste may do so by providing a readily atorage nf Spent Nuclear Fuel and High.

Level Radioacth e Waste . (ACNW) are published in this notice. reproducible copy at the beginning of These procedures are set forth and may the meeting. When meetings are held at 10'15 a m.-12:00 noone ConsJ/totion: be incorporated by reference in future . I cations other than Wash;ngton, DC, Draft Site Chorecterization Plo" Mvidual meeting notices. The reproduction facilitjes are usually not (Open)-The DOE Staff will review the' . .

content of the CDSCP and describe their Advisory Committee on Nuclear Wc te. ' available. Accordingly,15 additional has been established pursuant to the copies sho'cld be provided for use at plans to address the NR,C Stafps Federal Advisory Committee Act of such meetings. Comments should be commnts on H.

October 6.1972 (Pub. L M-4M,86 Sta t. hmded W s,afety.related areas within the IWp.m.-500p.m.: A/tcenotive Site Committee a punlew.

770-776). The Commission has Afodels of ths Yucco Afountain Site Persons desiring to mad written (Open)-The DOE Staff and contractors determined that the establishment of this Committee is necessary and in the comments may do so by sending a will report on alternative models of the readily reproducible copy addressed to hydrologic structure of the Yucca public interest in order to obtain input,.

advice and recommendations on all . the Office of the Executive Director,in Mountain site. aspects of the management of care of the ACNW, NEC, Washington.

redioactive wastes within the purview DC 20555. Comments postmarked no h WedoesdaI' '29'1

• of NRC regulatory responsibilities. The later than one calendar week prior to a Room 2F-17,11555 Rockville Pike, purpose of the Committee is to provide meeting will normally be received in Rockville, MD. um for reproduction distnbution, and advice and recommendations on topics, itJ0 0 m.-J(100 a.m.:ACAWfuture issues,6nd activities related to the consideration at the meeting.

Activities andPreparolion of ACAW regulation of nuclear wastes. Such (b) persons desiring to make an oral Reports (Open)--The ACNW wdl meet activities encompass: statement at the meeting should make a and continue to discuss anticipated

• Regulation of high.lesel waste, request to do so prior to the beginning of ACNW activities, fvure meeting including the licensing of hig41evel e me i d tr8 lhe to es ard agrnda s, program plans, and waste repositories; g,,d p ume organizational ma tters. appropriate arrangements can be made.

. Ucensing and regulation oflow*

10.W o nt-JJW a.m. Afee!!n,e with level waste disposal repositories; and The Committee will receive oral the NRC Commissioners (Open}-The statements on topics relevant to its

• Handling processing, transportin8- purview at an appropriate time chosen l ACNW wdl meet with the NRC l Commissioners to discuss ACNW future. storing and safeguarding wastes, b' the Chairman.

including but not limited to spent fuel, activities- (c) Further Information regarding nuclear wastes mixed with other topics to be discussed, whether a 100p m.-200p m. NRC's Review of hazardous substances, and uranium m!U Dors Consultation Draft Sete meeting has been cencelled or tallings, Charceteritation Plan (Open)-ThJ rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on The Commi'. tee's reports wiu become requests for the opporturdty to pressat NRC Staff will discuss the;r respense to part of the public record.

ths May.11,1988 memo from R. Fraley to oral statements and the time allotted Although ACVW meetings are therefor can be obta!ned by a prepaid i V. Stello on the NRC Staff s review of ordinarily open to the public and DOE's Consultation Drsft Site telephone call, on the working day prior provide for oral or written statements to the meeting to the Office of the Characterization plan (CDSCP).

from members of the public to be Executive Director (telephone: 202-634-200p m-230p.m.: New Afembers considered as a part of the Committee's 3265) between 7:30 a.m. and 415 p.m.,

(Closed)-The ACNW will discuss !nformation gathering procedure, they Washington. DC time, appointments of proposed members and are not adjudicatory hearings such as the qualifications of individuals to be (d) Questions may be asked only by are conducte3 by the Nuclear ACNW Members, Consultants, and considered for nomination. Reguhtory Commisalon's Atomic Safety Sta ff. -

I have determined in accordance with - and Ucensing Board as part of the (e) ne use of still, motion picture, and subsection 10(d) Pub. L 92-463 that it is Commission's licensing process. television cameras, the physical neccstary to close ortions of this m:eting as noted above to discusa Gennal Rula Regarding ACNTy installation and resence of which will not tnterfere wit the conduct of the I information the release of which would MHung*

• rneeting, will be permitted both befe e "

I represcot a clearly unwarranted

• An agenda is pubilshed in the Fed.aral

' and after the meeting and during any invaston of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. Registee for each full Committee recess.The use of such equipment will l 551b(c)(6)) or involve intemal personnel meeting. Practical considerations may be allowed while the meeting is in j rules and practices of the agency (5 '

dictate some alterations in the agenda. session at the discretion of the l

U.S.C. 65:b(c)(21). . ' - .

ne Chairman of the Committee or Chairman to a degree that is not

r. Procedures for the conduct of and Subcommittee, which is meeting is disruptive to the meeting. When use of

' participation La ACNW meetings are empowered to conduct the meeting in a such equipment is permitted, almilar to those used by ACRS and manner that,in his judgment, will appropriate measures wiu be taken to 1 pubhahed in the Fodseal Registar on . facilitate the orderly conduct of protect proprietary or privileged October g. Imr7 (51 FR 3:24t).The i businesa, including prosisions to carry information which may be in documents, sdurts wMch wiu be used are as over an incomplete session from one folders. etc., being used during the day to the next.

. i meeting. Recordings will be permitted 9

1 .

t -

ANNOTATED AGENDA FIRST MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JUNE 27-29, 1988 Monday June 27, 10:00 a.m. Opening Remarks - Drs. Moeller, Steindler and Smith followed by coments by Hugh Thompson, Director, NMSS 15 10:.19 a.m. The DOE will present background infonnation relative to a proposed rulemaking on the setting of a design basis accider,t limit for the HLW repository. The WM Subcomit-tee has previously heard discussions on this topic between the NRC and DOE staffs. While the NRC staff has relaxed their earlier position, the DOE appears to still desire that a limit, that is consistent with prior Comission practice, be explicitly set. No action is z,d p s . /:3c F.M. requested at this time.

1:kp.m. The Process System Branch of NRR will describe the licensing review procedures used to authorize the use of certain processes in the reactor support facilities.

n.n t  : -. - i t o e f " Specifically, they will describe the authorization of LLW handling processes principally the solidification of LLW using cement binders. In addition, spent fuel handling operations, such as consolidation and dry cask storage g / I' will be reviewed by NMSS. It is expected that a 4scription of recent incidents involving LLW lidification will be included. This is a briefing for bas ~, ound purposes. Further briefings in this general g fy ,, . . / C' 6 N area are expected, including field visits.

Tut:sday June 28 - 8:00 a.m.

• , ,g _ g. g gb RES and NMSS will briefly describe proposed rule changes to Part 72. The changes will permit licensees to use casks liceised for transportation as dry storage units for spent fuel without extension, site specific hearings.

Dr. Siess had planned to hold a subcomittee meeting on the matter, but because of the limited scope of the matter it was proposed that it might be heard by the MNW. If the Comittee agrees that the matter is satis-factorily presented by the staff, a letter to Dr. Siess might be appropriate. Dr. Siess' coments on the matter are attached.

8:15 a.m. (approximately)

The LLW Division has described their concerns over cement

?

• 5"o -ll' 00 A M. based LLW on several occasions, and at least three instances of processing failure have been reported. (See Parry meeting reports attached). The Staff has had some EO lo : 3 7-It:yc A A

I First Meeting of ACNW 2

~

dialoave with vendors in this area and will describe the status of their on-going discussion. (Please note that the August field trip to South Carolina may include visits to the fat.ilities of the two vendors of cement solidificationservices). A second topic to be reviewed by the LLW Division is a recent report by Dr. Silling of Brown University on the stability of polyethylene high integritycontainers(HICs)afternearsurfaceburial.

A request for coment has not yet been made on either of these topics. However, they both hold the possibility of making a serious economic and possibly public impact on the LLW disposal system.

II'00-13 Uf

.10t15 a.m. DOE will provide the ACNW with background infonration on the organization of the SCP conservatism of the testing program, the SCp completion process, and their initial

' 1.'", .v F" responses to the coments of the NRC staff and the ACRS

'"t' WM Subcomittee.

?O 1:00~p.m. DOE and its contractors will outline and then discuss in detail the alternative conceptual models of the hydrogic g g . e :. _ 3 e # + regime at the Yucca Mountain site. Since there is no imediate need for coment by the Comittee, it may be appropriate to request a presentation by the HLW Division staff on their position or, this critical issue, perhaps in early fall.

A /g . . .. , / 6 . :. c 7 ,. ..

Wednesday June 29, 1988 8:30 a.m. White Flint Building - poem 2F-17)

Internal comittee discussions on the topics to be discussed with the Comission at 10:00 a.m. A draft

. .i -

t- >

agenda was circulated on June 23.

10:00 a.m. Meeting with NRC Comissioners 1:00 p.m. HLW Division will respond to the ACRS WM Subcomittee's coments on the sthff's coments to DOE on the Consulta-tive Draft of the SCP. Other topics of mutual interest may be raised, including future agenda items. A copy of the~ subcomittee letter is attached.

R d 4 f,{ w n d .: o v "1-2:00 p.m. .The Comittee will go into Executive Session to discuss (clered)

' new member nominations and other administrative matters.

. Attachments:.

~

1.5 stated

a .

FO m,WW W rt Pm l 5 a, d .~

Y f. W*mf.

MB h il mms;. .; I MINUTES OF THE 1st ACNW MEETING JUNE 27-29, 1988 The 1st meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste was convened by Chairman Dade W. Moeller at 10:00 a.m., Monday, June 27, 1988, at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. [The ACNW met on June 29th at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md.]

[ Note: For a list of attendees, see Appendix I. All ACNW members were present.]

The Chairman said that the agenda for the meeting had been published.

he identified the items to be discussed on Monday. He stated that the meeting was being held in conformance with the Federal Advisory Comit-tee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws92-463 and 94-409, respectively. He also noted that a transcript of some of the public portions of the meeting was being made, and would be available in the hRC Public Dccument Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

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

I. Chairman's Report (0 pen) i

[ Note: Dr. R. Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Moeller, Designated Chaiman, opened the first session of the Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) with general opening remarks, after acknowledging the attendarce of Drs. Steindler and Smith, member, and pending member, respectively. The presence of Dr. Kerr, Chairman of the ACRS, and Dr. Shewmon, ACRS member, and Drs. Orth and Carter as consultants was also acknowledged. Dr. Moeller discussed the role of the ACNW and cited the ACNW's charter as providing the scope for and objectives of the Comittee.

Following Dr. Moeller, Mr. Hugh Thompson, Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), provided some general coments welcoming the creation of the Committee and indicating the support of the NRC Staff for its activities. Mr. Thompson noted hMSS's particular need for support in the area of rulemakings related to the high-level waste repository.

II. Design Basis Accident Guidelines for High-level Waste Repository

, (0 pen) l

[ Note: Dr. R. Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this l portion of the meeting.]

l l Principal Speaker: Mr. E. Regnier, U.S. Departnent of F.nergy (DOE) l l

1

1st ACNW Meeting Minutes 2 The presentation was organized as follows: 1) Mr. Regnier reviewed the backgrcund of the topic and indicated why DOE was planning to request the rulemaking; 2) Dr. L. Jardine discussed the similarities between the proposed guidelines for the repository and existing limits or guidelines for other nuclear facilities; 3) Dr. W. Mills described how the proposed guidelines will provide acceptable protection to the public and why DOE has chosen to recomend changing the units so that all doses will be reported in terms of the effective dose equivalent; and 4) Mr. Regnier sumarized DOE's position end views.

Mr. Regnier requested that the ACNW provide coments on DOE's proposed approt h and then detailed the chronology of events from the issuance of 10 CFR 60 to the current date. It was noted that there was a question

, as to whether a design basis accident dose limit of 0.5 rem might be inferred from the regulation. Based upon this uncertainty DOE is considering requesting a rulemaking on the matter. Dr. Moeller noted that the proposed dose guideline of 5.0 rem would be in terms of effec-tive dose equivalent. Mr. Regnier stressed that any value chosen was not a limit of acceptability out would would be a guideline for acci-dents of low probability. It was pointed out that the numerical limit for defining "important to safety" is still 0.5 rem which will still require the analysis of a wide spectrum of accidents.

Dr. Jardine discussed comparative dose limits from similar operations and concluded that a guideline dose of 5.0 rem would be consistent with limits presently in place for comparable operations. Dr. Shewmon noted that no reference was made to actual experience with real incidents and suggested that it would be helpful to provide a data base from current DOE ar.d comparable civilian operations.

Dr. Mills defined the proposed extent of the guidelines by noting that the prinary guideline would be 5 rem effective dose equivalent, with an 1

additional guideline of 50 ren for the 50-year comitted dose equivalent to any single body organ. The Comittee and consultants discussed this and the relationship of these guidelines with the incidence of latent cancers in detail with Dr. Mills. It was agreed that the use of effec-tive dose equivalent would be consistent with expected modifications to other limits and guidelines, and that its use should be supported.

Subsequently, Mr. Jardine discussed other aspects of the proposed rule, specifically that 1) the definition of "important to safety" could be closely tied to systems that were "essential for the prevention or I

mitigation of an accident," 2) that the proposed rule defined the "nearest boundary of the unrestricted area" and 3) that it considered the "radiation dose for the whole body or any organ." The last of these l points is being addressed by the use of effective dose equivalent. The other two points were discussed in detail. It was noted that, since the probability of an event was not limited, the actual risk to the public was not being controlled. The Comittee also noted that the proposed

1st ACNW Meeting Minutes 3 boundary of the unreM ricted area bore no relationship to any particular topographical featur.r or areas defined by regulatory fiat.

There was an extended discussion on the interrelationship between these guidelines and the "Q" list threshold of 0.5 rem. It was acknowledged that it has not yet been possible to identify any equipment that will be placed on the "Q" list if the 0.5 rem limit is used. Mr. Linehan, NRC Staff, questioned Mr. Regnier on this point, and it was acknowledged that no iten is currently on the "Q" list, regardless of the 0.5 rem limit. Dr. Shewmon commented that the oefinition proposed appears to put no constraints en the repository's design. Mr. Regnier responded that the repository was a very safe, conservative design that will present no appreciable risk to the public.

In closing, Dr. Moeller suggested that it would be helpful if the Department would include in their proposal a description of a full range of accident scenarios, with their probability and consequences, that is, risk, defined. In this way it would be possible to compare current standards with the proposal.

III. Licensing of LLW Treatment Processes and the Dry Storage and Consolidaticn of Spent Fuel (0 pen)

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

Mr. J. Craig of the Process Systems Branch of NRR and members of his staff provided a brief description of the procedure used to license or epprove for use various solidification processes for LLW encapsulation.

In practice, it appears that a vendor submits a topical report to NRR for approval on a generic basis. Prior to NRR's approval, HMSS would also examine the report, but only for operational considerations, not waste performance qualification. Subsequent to NMSS's concurrence the report would be appresed and could then be referenced in a licensee's SAR for use in the plant. It was noted that no preparation has been nade for implementation by forthcoming changes in Appendix B.

Dr. Greeves of HMSS pointed out that there are actually two topical reports that have to be evaluated. NRR reviews one that describes the process itself and its equipment. HMSS concurs in that, but these actions do not guarantee that the resultant waste form will meet the performance criteria of 10 CFR 61 or the Branch Technical Position. The second topical report, which is submitted to NMSS, is solely concerned with the capability of the waste form to meet the various performance specifications. Dr. Kerr indicated some concern with this mode of operation. Dr. Shewmon asked who is responsible if the process does not produce the product specified. This question was not answered.

Mr. J. Lee of NRR briefly described incidents at three plants where the LLW solidification process failed to produce a satisfactory product.

1st ACNW Meeting Minutes 4 These incidents, at TMI-2, Millstone and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plants, have resulted in bulged or split liners or partially solidified wastes. While in some cases the prescribed procedures were not fol-lowed, there was no assurance that use of the pre:cribed procedures would have produced a satisfactory product.

Ms. A. Gill of NRR described the consolidation or repackaging of spent fuel rods to expand the storage capacity of the fuel storage pools. The various concerns with the nucleonics of the repacked rods were discussed but the rechanics of the operation and the configuraticn of the repacked containers were not presented in detail. NRR has only observed one such operation, out of three performed, and NMSS has apparently not been involved in reviewing the packages with respect to acceptability at the geologic repository.

Mr. J. Roberts of NMSS described in detail the recent activities in dry storage of spent fuel. Several vendors of casks have submitted topical safety analysis reports on dry storage casks. Five such designs have been approved and may be used by licensees upon appropriate analysis of the specific situation. Their designs were discussed in some detail, particularly with respect to the maintenance of an inert atmosphere within the cask. The desirability to protect U0 2exposed in defective l

fuel rods from the effects of oxygen was stressea.

IV. Proposed Rule Changes to 10 CFR Part 72 (0 pen)

[ Note: Dr. R. Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)

Dr. J. Roberts of NMSS described the rule changes to 10 CFR 72 being considered and developed by NMSS and PES staffs. He indicated that the purpose of the changes is to allow the certification of a specific cask design on a generic basis. This action was mandated by Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982. Then when the design had been approved it could be referenced by individual plant licensees without requiring a site-specific approval action. It was explained that it was I

likely that a large nurrber, perhaps hundreds, of these casks are expect-ed to be in service in the foreseeable future. Consequently, to avoid

repetitive hearings, it appears that the approval of a generic design j has the potential of reducing staff invc1vement. Further, given a l standard design, it will be possible to apply consistent standards of Quality control to the construction and operational inspection of the l casks. Mr. Roberts noted that this rule applies only to stand-alone casks, and that vaults and/or concrete modular systems would not come under this rule.

it was also noted that the application of this rule was limited to the storage of spent fuel that had been generated at the plant site. That is, spent fuel could not be brought to the site from another plant and placed into the storage casks at the receiving plant. The proposed rule

"l 1st ACNW Meeting Minutes 5 also only allows storage in NRC certified casks, unless a r.ite-specific application were approved. Similarly the creation of an Inderendent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) would not be authorized under the terms of the proposed changes, but would, of course, still be pertaissible under the terms of 10 CFR 72. The rule changes call for registration of the casks and require the maintenance of records on the use, movement and inspection of the individual casks.

Drs. Orth and Smith, and others, raised several questions relative to limiting the use of these casks to the storage of spent fuel indigenous to the site. It appeared to them that this was an artificial restric-tion on the use of this storage option. Mr. L. Rouse of HMSS explained that these restrictions were related to liability under the Price-Andersen Act. He noted that while the Comission has the discretionary authority to extend the Price-Anderson coverage in trans-shipment situations, it was the Staff's purpose to avoid site-specific actions and so the storage option was limited to spent fuel generated at the site. It was indicated that while it might be possible to design storage casks that would be transportable, the added performance re-quirements for transportability are such that the increase in cost of the cask could be prohibitive. In response to a question from Dr.

Poeller, Mr. Roberts indicated that the storage casks would be designed to accomodate spent fuel that had been repackaged in a consolidated configuration. Dr. Steindler again comented upon the limitations to

site-generated fuel.

! In closing, Mr. Roberts requested that the Comittee provide coments on the proposed changes to 10 CFR 72.

! V. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) High Integrity Containers (HICs)

T0 pen)

[ Note: Dr. R. Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this l portionofthemeeting.)

Dr. J. Greeves NMSS, outlined the proposed presentation. First Dr. M.

Tokar was to present background material on this class of HIC. He was to be followed by a presentation by Dr. S. Silling of Brown University I on his stress analysis of NDPE HICs. Dr. Tokar was then to follow with l a discussion of future actions planned by the Staff. These presenta-tions then took place, but an additional discussion of cement-based LLW materials that had been scheduled to follow the HIC presentations did not occur due to time constraints.

Dr. Tokar described the current situation as to HDPE HICs. These items have been used at the Barnwell site for several years, under a certifi-cate of compliance issued by the State of South Carolina. Three topical reports from separate vendors have been submitted to the NRC for review.

During these reviews, the Staff became aware of the concerns about the structural stability of HDPE HICs. One vendor had actually withdrawn an L.

+ .

l 1st ACNW Meeting Minutes 6 earlier topical report and ceased selling the HICs because of data generated through an analysis of their perfomance. The Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) also found that the HICs have questionable long-tem performance characteristics.

Dr. Tokar indicated that the certificate of compliance for the HDPE HICs currently used at Barnwell predata the issuance of 10 CFR 61 and other staff memoranda. Several questions were raised by the members on the review procedures used by South Carolina to determine the suitability of the H W for burial. Dr. Tokar did not know either the criteria used by South Carolina or the procedure used to assess the acceptability of these HICs. However, it was his understanding that soreone from the NRC had reviewed the criteria and determined that they were consistent with 10 CFR 61. Dr. Tokar noted that the NMSS staff performs generic reviews of the designs of HICs and that three non-HDPE designs have been ap-proved, but that no HDPE designs have received NRC approval. Dr.

Hoclier questioned whether the NRC staff reviewed the staffing of Agreement State programs, and Ms. K. Schneider of the Office of State Programs indicated that there was a regular program to do that.

Dr. Snith questioned Dr. Tokar as to the Staff's intent in this continu-ing review of HDPE li!Cs. It was indicated that the NRC has agreed to perform generic reviews of the topical reports describing the HICs and to inform the States of their conclusions as to the suitability of the llICs. The approval of the HDPE HICs is still pending and may not be forthcoming. At that time, the State would have to decide whether to continue to accept the HIC in question. Dr. Smith noted that some reviews have been pending for four years, and Dr. Tokar confirmed that statement.

Dr. Tokar stated that, based upon the BNL report and other papers in the public literature, the Staff had requested that each of the HDPE HIC vendors comment on the BNL report. Responses were received in February of this year. Based on the ouestions that still remained after these responses were analyzed, the Staff arranged for Prof. Silling of Brown University to perform another independent study of the structural stability of the HICs. Dr. Steindler noted the three-year time span J

since this problem evidenced itself, and comented on the delay. Dr.

Tokar noted his limited resources to cover this area. In response to questions by Dr. Kerr, Drs. Greeves and Tokar acknowledged that the Staff's perception of what constitutes important performance criteria has improved since 1983, when 10 CFR 61 was issued.

Prof. Silling then presented the results of his analyses of the struc-tural stability of the HDPE HICs. He described the assumptions and the general mode by which the analyses were made. The physical properties of polyethylene were detailed as was its lack of resistance to defoma-tion by creep processes. Dr. Silling ouestioned the choice of poly-ethylene as a structural material based upon its physical characteris-tics. His analyses indicated that considerabic deformation would occur i

1st ACNW Meeting Minutes 7 in relatively short periods of time. It was noted that the vendors use Young's modulus in their calculations rather than a second modulus which he felt was more appropriate. Dr. Silling also indicated that creep was ignored in the designs.

The members and consultants raised many points with Dr. Silling.

Considerable discussion was held relative to the dose that the poly-ethylene receives. Dr. Shewmon indicated that he would like to see a L copy of the criteria presently preferred by the Staff. The general conclusion of Dr. Sillinc's study was that the use of polyethylene for long-term containers while under a low, but generally constant, stress is to be avoided and that buckling of the HICs will undoubtedly result.

It was pointed cut that polyethylene HICs are only authorized for regular use at Barnwell.

As previously indicated, the scheduled presentation en the performance of cement-bonded LLW materials was deferred because the previous presen-tations exceeded their allotted time.

VI. U.S.DepartmentofEnergyPresentation(0 pen)

[ Note: Dr. R. Savio was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

A. Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan (CDSCP) - E. Regnier, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Mr. Regnier provided an overview of DOE's civilian waste management prcgram at DOE-HQ. Mr. C. Gertz, DOE's project manager in Las Vegas for the civilian waste management program, followed that discussion with a description of his staff and contractor responsi-bilities. Mr. Regnier then indicated that the rest of the presen-tation on the SCP would consist of: 1) an overview sumary and 2) the SCp completion process, which includes reaction to and acknowl-edgment of external comments.

Mr. Regnier noted that the requirements of the SCP are contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 10 CFR 60, with supplementary details being provided in NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.17. It was indicated that it was DOE's belief that they had exceeded all these require-ments, and that the publication of the consultation draft was r.ot required. However, the DOE felt that the availability of such a l document would provide a vehicle for irsproved cc..nunication between the parties involved. This has occurred between DOE and the NRC.

The NRC responded in detail and has subsequently met with the DOE [

to discuss the consultation draft. All cornents have nut been resolved but a continuing dialogue is underway. The first position papers contained in the NRC staff's response were discussed in some detail.

s .

1st ACNW Meeting Minutes 8 Dr. R. Alexander, DOE, described the intent and organization of the SCP in detail. He also described the process whereby issues are identified ard resolution of the issues is proposed. In response to questions by Dr. Kerr, Dr. Alexander indicated that merely fulfilling or meeting the re0ulatory criteria is not the DOE goal.

It is the Department's intent to have reasonable assurance that the criteria and goals are far exceeded. He gave as an example the program designed to meet the limits set in 40 CFR 191, and adopted by NRC in 10 CFR 60. Dr. Steindler questioned how the surination or compilation of a series of physical property measurements with a low probability of absolute accuracy can be used to develop an overall performance figure that has a high degree of confidence associated with it. Dr. Alexander explained that by defining the test procedures and stressing the testing range desired, it is possible to develop a figure in which one has high confidence that the limit is exceeded to a great degree. It was stated that the geologic structure named Calico Hills is expected to provide the Major degree of containtrent or retention of the contents of the repository.

Dr. Alexander's presentation was followed by a description by Mr. .

Brecoun of the process whereby the SCP is going to be completed.

The scheduled completion date is December 1988. Through use of vugraphs, he presented the various milestones and key events culminating in the release cf the final SCP. Dr. Moeller ques-tiened whether the State of Nevada had responded to or commented on the SCP.

Pr. Brocoum stated that no response had yet been received, but that sore corrment was expected within a week. Mr. Gertz indicated that an extensive response was anticipated. Dr. Moeller requested the Comittee be supplied with a copy of the Nevada comments when

, received. Mr. Gertz assured Dr. Moeller that the Committee would receive a copy.

The overall organizations and the specific organizations charged with corrpleting the SCP were detailed. This discussion included references to quality control activities and indicated that upwards of 150 people are assigned to the project. The requirement to '

issue the SCP by a specific date was questioned by Dr. Steindler.

It developed that the December date was one that was internally imposed by DOE, not legislatively mandated. It was acknowledged that accomodation in the final SCP may be necessary to respond to cements by Nevada, USGS and other parties, in closing, Dr. Kerr asked if anything had been found that indicated that the Yucca Mountain site might not be acceptable. Mr. Brocoum indicated that no such inforration had been developed.

- 4 1st ACW Meeting Minutes 9 B. Alternative Hydrologic Models of the Yucca Mountain Site - Dr. M.

Blanchard, U.S. Departnent of Energy (DOE)

Dr. Blanchard opened his presentation with a description of the purpose of a workshop held in Las Vegas on alternative models of the Yucca Mountain groundwater system. It was acknowledged that there were differences of opinion between the NRC and DOE relative to the development of such models. These differences include both the perception of what events or processes might occur and how one might medel them. It was also agreed that the NRC Staff felt that DOE had not included among the alternatives all credible models for various physical phenomena that need to be considered. At the conclusion of the workshop the NRC Staff recomended to DOE that the SCP be revised to include alternative conceptual models that, as opposed to being limited in scope, consider all technical disci-plines.

Several questions were raised by Drs. Steindler, Smith and Kerr as to when DOE, or NRC, will know that enough alternatives have been considered. It was indicated that there will be an expanded discussion of this point in the final SCP. In that discussion the method of closure of the question of sufficient alternatives will be detailed.

Dr. Hoxie of the VSGS followed Dr. Blanchard with a brief descrip-tion of the structure of the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain.

He noted that the thickness of this layer ranges between 500 to 750 meters, and that it consists of various layers or pockets of tuff, a form of volcanic esh. There are broadly two types of tuff, welded and non-welded. Each type of material has markedly differ-ent properties, bcth physical and chemical. The general to)ography of the site and the surrounding area was also described. T 1e location of principal faults and fractured blocks of tuff were also

, noted. In response to questions by Dr. Shemon, it was pointed out that the repository and the water table are tilted somewhat and the distance between them varies.

l Dr. Hoxie discussed the hydrologic features of the vadose or i

unsaturated zcne. It is estimated that the potential annual rate of evaporation of water is some 1600 mm while the average rainfall is 150 m. He indicated that it is possible that the net effective movement of water may be upwards and that there is a net loss by evaporation. The current understanding is that lateral movement is limited by the various faults intersecting the site. It was noted that one fault, the Ghost Dance, does actually transect the proposed site of the repository itself. The movement of the water contained in the pores by capillary action was reviewed in some I

detail, as was the degree of saturation, porosity and permeability of the various formations.

Dr. S. Sinnock discussed the translation of the concepts of the site's physical structure and hydrologic regime to numerical models i

1st ACNW Meeting Minutes 10 that allow one to make cuantitative estimates as to the site's performance. The variation of physical properties and the mathe-matical ways to represent that variation were reviewed. Dr. Moody questioned the usefulness of performing laboratory tests on small specimens as opposed to emphasizing measurements made in the field at in-situ locations. Dr. Sinnock said that he felt the ability to control the boundary conditiens of the specimens in the laboratory was a material advantage in reducing the experimental uncertainty.

Dr. Orth asked whether it was felt that all the material properties needed to define the models had been identified in the SCP for inclusion in the models. Dr. Sinnock indicated that, in his epinion, all parameters important to the first order had been defined.

Mr. Gertz then introduced Mr. J. Syzmanski. Mr. Gertz described the development of Mr. Syzmanski's conceptual model and the Depart-ment's actions to ensure that the work was fairly and openly reviewed, discussed and assessed. The public comments on and the distortions of the work were noted as was the ongoing effort to include the study in the analysis of the suitability of the site.

Mr. Sy:manski's presentation consisted of four principal areas of discussion. They 52re: 1) the conceptual models of the hydrologic system, 2) the current understanding of the site, 3) the attempt to develop a conceptual acdel of the tectonic environment in terms of what is important to the hydrology of the site and 4) the develop-ment of an integrated system of models representing all aspects of the site.

In essence, Mr. Syrmanski's presentation emphasized the need to I develop a realistic, and accurate, set of models of the various regires that interact to produce a geologic system representing the site. The interactive reture of the models was considered of particular importance, not only with one another but also over extended periods of time. The thermal environment was noted to bc of considerable significance since it can provide a direct driving l force for the movement of groundwater. It also reflects the state of the tectonics cl the site which can cause abrupt alterations in

the physical state of the site and the Groundwater. It was noted i that spatial boundaries do not really exist for the systen and that impacts on the system may cone from considerable distances over extended periods of time. These impacts include tectonic stresses that result in deformation, or strain, in the rocks themselves.

Mr. Syzmanski,'on several occasions, stressed the tine dependence of external restraints or events and internal properties.

In his description of the site, Mr. Syzmanski estimated that Yucca Mountain has increased in width by about 250 meters over the past 200,000 years. This is approximately equivalent to a strain of 101. He noted that, within the breccia that constitute these displacements, there is much younger material that appears to be a

4 lst ACNW Meeting Minutes 11 result of hydration of the host rock or deposition within the fractures. These findings sugg;st that considerable water intru-sien has occurred over the past 200,000 years, and that these intrusive events are associatt.1 wi.h m3jor tectonic or seismic events.

Various rock stress and pore pressure data were introduced. It was suggested that some of these data show a periodicity relative to weapons testing at Frenchman's Flat. Dr. Moody questioned whether the properties returned to their base or, initial, values after the perturbation. Mr. Syzmanski indicated that it was erratic as to whether the particular property returned to its original value.

Other examples of thermal, spatial and temporal variations were given to illustrate the basic thesis that it is necessary to consider the interaction of a set uf factors, not focus solely en one paran<eter, such as water table height.

Mr. Syzmanski suggested that the thermal and seismic reflection data approach the values of similar geologic structures near Japan.

It was indicated that these comparisons warrant stress measurements being made at depths of a few kilcmeters to investigate the stabil-ity and conditier of the upper mantle.

Hr. Syzmanski's general conclusion is that it is likely that the general crea is under unequal stress and is being unevenly heated.

Consequently, it is considered possible that this combination will result in a major fault movement in the Yucca Mountain region within near geologic time. Given that possibility Mr. Syzmanski turned to the consideration of the possibility of a major shift in

! the level of the water table, what magnitude of shift might be projected, and its frequency.

It was his general conclusion that a simplistic hydrologic model i involving only the consideration of the influence of gravity would not support a prediction of a major movement of the water table.

However, he did feel that a complex, interactive model would

! support the possibility of a major movement. The two other ques-l tions, as tn magnitude and frequency, were briefly addressed, but

, not quantified. Members and consultants raised a number of ques-I tions but the concept was not addressed in detail.

Mr. Frazier followed with a description of the peer review underway on Mr. Syzmanski's hypothesis. He indicated points of agreement and difference and attenpted to outline the Department's approach to resolve these items of disagreement. Dr. Steindler noted that l

without a careful judgnent of what is important it is likely that the critical questions will not be add essed.

In conclusion Drs. Alexander and Brocoum expanded on the earlier statenents as to how Mr. Syzmanski's and other alternative models i

~ .

1st ACNW Meeting Minutes 12 and/or release scenarios will be taken into account in the final SCP.

VII. NRC Review of DOE's Consultatier draft Site Characterization Plan (CDSCP) (0 pen)

[ Note: Dr. R. Savio was the Designated f deral Official for this portionofthemeeting.]

Dr. K. Stablein, NMSS, reviewed the NRC Staff's response to and acceptance of the letter sent b Managenent (ACNW's predecessor)y concerningthethe ACRS Subcomittee Staff's coments on on Waste DOE's CDSCP. In general, the Staff agreed with the thrust of those coments and used then, in part, in the letter sent to DOE trans-mitting the Staff's comments to DOE. It was the sense of the umbers that, if the Staff accepts and uses the Comittee's com-ments, a detailed, se)arate response to the Comittee is not necessary. On the ot,er hand, if the ACNW coments are not accept-ed in toto, then due notice should be provided to the Comittee and further discussion may occur as warranted.

Mr. Linehan described a set of topics that is being considered for rulemaking. He explained why the Staff was using rulemaking rather than technical positions er regulatory guides, the reason being, if i

rulemaking is resorted to, then further litigation on the matter is obviat".

VIII.ExecutiveSession(0 pen / Closed)

A. Rerorts,LettersandMemoranda(0 pen)

1. The Committee prepared a report on the Pro 30 sed Rule on the Storage of Spent Nuclear fuel in Casks at iuclear Power Reactor Sites. (Letter to Chaiman Zech, dated July 1,1988) l The Comittee erdorsed the development of the proposed rule l changes to 10 CFR Part 72 and offered three specific coments regarding them. Two of the coments relate to the centrali-zation of spent fuel storage at one location by a utility with multiple nuclear power plant sites, and the associated design of casks for safe intersite transportation and subsequent operations. The third coment addressed the division of j responsibilities within the NRC regarding this proposed rule.

l 2. ACNW Coments on the Rulemaking petition to Establish an 7

Accident Dose Guideline in 10 CFR Part 60 (Letter to Chaiman Zech, dated July 1, 1988)

The Committee supported the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) petition to develop design basis accident dose guidelines for

'l 1st ACNW Heeting Minutes 13 the high-level waste repository. The Committee identified several issues that need to be addressed, such as a lower probability limit (cut-off), inclusion of technical informa-tion and a description of the full range of accident scenar-ios. The Comittee also recomended that the values proposed by DOE should be compared, for example, to the Comissions's

Safety Goals for nuclear power plants.

B. Other Cemittee Conclusions (0 pen)

1. CenterforNuclearWasteRegulatoryAnalyses(0 pen)

The Comittee discussed with the NMSS Staff the development of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, a Federally ,

4 Funded Research and Development Center, at the Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex, The Committee was invited to visit the Center, but declined at this time because l of heavy scheduling.

2. Fee ting with Comission (0 pen)

The Committee met with the Comission to discuss the prioriti-zation of issues, future topics for ACNW and other issues of mutual concern. The Comittee and Comission agreed to meet

together at frequent intervals, e.g., every 3-4 months. The 4

Comission agreed in principle to the appointment of a fourth ACNW Member. [The Comittee noted later the desirability for the fourth Member to be an earth scientist.) The Commission i reaffirmed its interest in making the ACNW a statutory comit- l j tee. OGC has the lead on this with ACNW Staff participation, i The Comissicn also requested the Committee to assess the l

! adequacy of HRC resources to regulate nuclear waste and

tra terial s . The Comission would like future input on the Comittee's experience with sharing support staff with ACRS.

3. Comittee Procedures (0 pen) i  !

The Comittee agreed to establish procedures to facilitate the  !

closure of outstanding issues after each ACNW meeting. The I Comittee agreed that:

a. A follow-up remorandum will be sent to the E00 that  !

includes a sumary of the actions, agreements, assign-ments and requests derived from the meeting,

b. In return, the ACNW would appreciate it if the ECO could  !

provide a response memorandum describing actions taken by ,

the NRC Staff. l l

o ist ACNW Peeting Minutes 14

c. If the Committee believes that certain issues have not been satisfactorily resolved, the NRC Staff will be invited to discuss the issues with the ACNW. Portions of ACNW meetings will be set aside for these discussions,

d. Following each ACNW meeting, a letter will be sent to the Commission that includes a summary of the actions, agreements, assigna4nts and requests from the meeting and a sunmary of unresolved outstanding issues, including ACNW comments.

4 BelowRegulatoryConcern(0 pen)

The Committee agreed to continue its review of the Below Regulatory Concern (bRC) issue with the goal of developing a position which could be incorporated in an NRC policy state-nent to be presented at the International Meeting on BRC being

held in Was11ngton, D.C. in October 1988. The Committee agreed to send a representative to the International Meeting on BRC.

5. IncinerationProcesses(0 pen)

Dr. Meeller, Chairman, expressed interest in receiving infor-metion on incineration processes being used for volume reduc-tion in low-level waste managerent.

! 6. ACNW Membership (Closed)

During a closed session, the Committee discussed nominees for ACNW meabership and potential consultants to the Committee, i The ACRS/ACNW Staff will ccreence the process for determining

the availability of the persons identified as desirable consultants and obtaining their services where available. Dr.

Smith agreed to check on one candidate as a potential member, i C. Future Agenda (0 pen) i The Committee agreed to the tentative future agenda shown in l Appendix II.

l The meeting was concluded at 2:20 p.m., June 29, 1988.

i

?

APPENDICES .

IST ACNW MEETING MINUTES JUNE 27-29, 1988 I. Attendees II. Future Agenda III. Other Documents Received

ACNW Meeting i

r . Date 9u . R7-M H??

v Attendees 1st Day 2nd Day 3rd Day Dr. Dade W. Moeller / / / '.

Dr. Martin J. Steindler / / /

Dr. Clifford V. Smith (cLw n.r) / / /

Ce ., : a 14 > }:

p s. f4el, .m 0 wrI" ns. p. J,( Orik ~/_ , _

/._

y, O ddl Moselij - V 5

APPEtiDIX !

ATTENDEES IST ACNW MEETING JUNE 27-29, 1988 P_ublic Attendees NRC Attendees K. M. Cline Weston R. Ballard, NRC Linda Desell, DOE J. Wolf, NRC ,

David Michiewicz, Weston Donna Cook, NRC .

Felix M. Killar, Jr. , U.S. CEA Emmy Booy, RES Bill Wowak, Weston T. J. Nicholson, RES Gerald Frazier, SAIC/ DOE J. Bradbury, NMSS Carl Gertz, USDOE-NV Seth Coplan, HMSS J. B. Baymouth, US00E-NV B. J. Youngblood, NMSS Paula Wade, SAIC R. P. Grill, RES Jeff Kimtell, DOE J. R. Pearring, NMSS Mike Lugo, Weston/Jacobs D. Chery, NMSS Dan Egan, US EPA W. Ford, HMSS Jeff Williams, DOE R. Ballard, NRC Kathy Mitron, DOE J. Wolf, NRC Leslie Jardine, Bechtel, SF R. Neel, NMSS Wm. House, Chem-Nuclear Systems G. Lear, NMSS Howard Eckert, HUS . A. Duncan, NMSS Gerald Brothers, Bechtel R. Browning, NMSS H. Lowenberg, Lowenberg Assoc.Inc. Richard Grill, RES David D. Tillson, NEVADA M. Silberberg, RES T. W. Laub, Sandia Natl. Labs. R. R. Reed, RES Kenneth Singh, PA DER, Div.Nucl. Safety C. Nichols, NRR James Lyons, NY Power Authority J. Greeves, NMSS H. L. Bermanis, Weston, VE&C J. Surmeier, NMSS A. Fujida, JGC Corp. C. Hinson, RBP, DREP Danielle Rodigues, D. Benedetto Assoc. R. Ballard, NMSS E. L. IIelninski, The Radiological Exch. J. Linehan, NMSS Sid Bernsen, Bechtel J. Bunting, NMSS Bryan Roy, Westinghouse Hittman K. Stablein, NMSS Wm. House, Chem-Nelear Systems Darrel Nash, NRR Hughes Kendrick, R. Weston F. N. Brenneman, NRR Wesley C. Patrick, DOE /CNWRA Darrel Nash, NRR John E. Latz. DOE /CNWRA Bob Adler, DOE /CNWRA Elgie Holstein, Nye County, NV Mary Lou Brown, SAIC

~

s f

I-2

• APPENDIX II ACNW TENTATIVE MEETING AGENDA f iST ACNW MEETING MINUTES JUNE 27-29,1988 Below Regulatory Concern - The NRC Staff will present their proposed, policy statement to the ACNW.

Dry Cask Storage Study - The DOE Staff will brief the ACNW on their Dry Cask Storage Stucy. This study is required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 to be submitted to Congress in October 1988. ,

Rulemaking on Anticipated and Unanticipated Events - The NRC Staff will discuss the proposed rulemaking on this topic.

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses - The NRC Staff and repre-sentatives fron The Center will brief the ACNW on the status of this program.

Environmental Monitorii.g of Low-level Waste facilities - The NRC Staff will ciscuss the LRC Draf t Technical Position on this topic.

EPA Star.dards for HLW Geologic Fepository - The EPA will provide a briefing on the status of this topic.

Briefing on Barnweil/ Savannah River / Chem Muclear and LN Technologics -

The hRC Staff arid, if possible, representatives of the above organiza-tions and the State of South Carolina will brief the members of the ACNW to prepare them for their proposed visit to these facilities in early i

August. The Office of State Progrant will aise describe the Agreement States pregram in general and their recent interaction with the State of South Carolire in particular.

J l

1 f

.,.~

e

~

APPENDIX III .

OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED Presentation Handouts at 1st ACNW Meeting, June 27-29, 1988 e

, Design Basis Accident Limits for HLW Repository

1. DOE Briefing to the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, dated June 27, 1988. .

! Licensing Review Procedures in LLW Handling Processes

2. NRP Regulatory Activities on Spent Fuel Storage / Rod Consolidation

Low-level Radioactive Waste, dated June 27, 1988

3. Recent Progress in Dry Spent Fuel Storage Licensing, dated June 27, i 1988(Viewgraphs)

4. Recent 1988 (Briefing Progress in Dry) Spent Fuel Storage Licensing, dated June 27, Sumary Proposed Rule Changes to 10 CFR Part 72

5. Rulemaking: Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Storage  ;

Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites, dated June 28, 1988 Hign Integrity Containers (HIC) Regulatory Issues

6. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) High Integrity Container (HIC)

Regulatory Issues, dated June 28, 1980

7. Review of the Structural Designs of Polyethylene HICs, dated June 28, 1988 1

8. Update on Status of Cement Waste Form Solidification Issues, dated 1 June 28, 1988 DOE Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan (SCP) & Alternate Site Models of Yucca Mountain Presentations

9. Organization and Structure of the SCP, dated June 20, 1988, by Donald H. Alexander

10. Issues Hierarchy for a Mined Geologic Disposal System, DOE /RW-0101,  !

August 1987 l

11. SCP Completion Process, by Stephan Brocoum

)

i

12. Waste Management Organization  !

13. DOE / Nevada Organization; Introductory Remarks - Alternate l Conceptual Models; and Concluding Remarks by Carl Gertz  ;

I- ,

i i l

,v' e

Presentation Handouts at 1st ACNW Meeting 2

14. Overview of Alternate Conceptual Models Meeting, held on April

11-14, 1988, by Maxwell Blanchard

15. Translation of Hydrologic Setting to Performance Modeling Application, by Scott Sinnock

16. Release Scenarios Used in Definition of Testing Needs by Donald Alexander

17. Conceptual Understanding of Heat-Fluid Coupled Flow System Developed in Deforming Fractured Medium, by Jerry Szymanski

18. Hydrologic Characterization of the Unsaturated Zone, Yucca i Mcuntain, Nevada by Dwight Hoxie

19. Translation of Hydrologic Setting to Performance Modeling Application, by Scott Sinnock I

20. Frequency and Duration of the Rise of Water Table for H-T-M System, by Jerry Szymanski

21. Preliminary Synthesis of Draft Report on "Conceptual Considerations of the Death Valley Groundwater...." by Gerald Frazier 4

22. Treatment of Alternative Hypotheses in the SCP, by Stephan Brocoum Meeting with the Comissioners

23. Agenda of Joint Meeting i

DOE Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan - NRC Presentation l

24. Letter for Ralph Stein, OCRWM, from Ralph Browning, dated May 11, 1988, re CDSCP

25. Memo for V. Stello from R. Fraley, dated May 11, 1988, re NRC Staff Coments on Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan

26. NRC Staff Response to the ACRS Coments on the NRC Staff Review of the DOE Consultation Draft Site Characterizatica Plan for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada Site, by King Stablein

27. Future Rulemakings Within the High-Level Waste Management Program, dated June 14, 1988