ML20197H772
| ML20197H772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/1990 |
| From: | Moeller D NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197H765 | List: |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE, NUDOCS 9011200133 | |
| Download: ML20197H772 (14) | |
Text
-
'I gu4 h
k. n UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLE AR WASTE 8
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565
\\*****/
September 11, 1990 The Honorable James R. Curtiss Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 t
Dear Commissioner Curtiss:
As a. follow-up to my meeting with you two months ago, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste has had ongoing discussions relative to the two suggestions (requests) you made on studies or projects that the Committee might undertake.
Comments on each of these are given below.
Our comments are based on my interpretation of your requests. - If we are in error, please let us know.
t 1.
One of your suggestions was that the Committee conduct an indepth review of the-EPA regulations for the ' disposal of toxic chemical wastes and the NRC regulations for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes and see if we could modify each set of regulations so that they would be compatible in terms of the disposal of mixed wastes.
The Committee plans' to direct its attention to the technical issues that exist in the two sets of regulations, with a view to seeing if we can clearly delineate conflicts so that they can be better understood and perhaps resolved.
We are considering a Working.
Group Feeting on this subject in October.
We will keep. you informed of our progress.
2.
Your second suggestion was that the committee-review the subsystem requirements within 10 CFR Part 60 to determine (a) if they are compatible with the EPA Standards for HLW disposal, (b) if they are more stringent than the quantitative objectives of the EPA Standards and/or NRC regulations, and (c)?if such requirements are desirable and/or necessary, i
l The Committee.'is having ongoing discussions related to this topic D
with a variety of groups, including the staff within the NRC and the CNWRA.
We also believe that newer insights on the matter may
' develop - as a result of the discussions scheduled during the upcoming National Research Council's Board on Radioactive Waste Management symposium on September 17-18, 1990.
As soon as we have l-something definitive to report, we will do so.
In addition to these _ topics, the - Committee is giving cafeful thought to one or more indepth studies that we might condu'ct on L
several of the major issues related to the disposal of radioactive wastes.
A preliminary list of these issues is being provided to 9011200133 900924 L
PDR ADVCM NACNUCLE l'
PNV
The Honorable James R.
Curtiss 2
L
. you and the other Ccmmissioners with our latest Four Month Program i
iPlan.
We trust this provides you with a follow-up to our meeting L
and an update on w'.a t the Committee is doing.
If you have l
comments, we would appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely, I
l.
J Dade W. Moeller Chairman ec:
Chairman Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick J. M. Taylor, EDO S. J. Chilk, SECY t
1.
1; e
i u
i l
l l
l
ATTACHMENT 5 REVISION 1 1
1 l
l COMMENTS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE OF THE U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
General Introduction i
In June 1988, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission established the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW).
The Committee i
reports to and advises the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on aspects of nuclear we.ste management within the purview of NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
The focus of the Committee's work is largely on disposal but also includes other aspects such as handling, processing, transportation, storage, and safeguarding of nuclear wastes including spent fuel, nuclear wastes mixed with other hazardous substances, and uranium mill tailings.
In performing its work, the Committee examines and reports on specific areas of concern referred to it by the Commission.
The Committee is authorized to undertake other studies and activities on its own initiative related to those issues directed by the Commission.
In~its first two years of existence, the Committee held 21 general meetings and several working group sessions and issued 37 letter reports.
In addition, the Committee routinely met with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discuss items of mutual interest and concern.
Currently, the Committee is authorized a maximum of four members.
Members are appointed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l l
The ACNW traces its history back to the Advisory Commit *.ee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).
The first Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the ACNW~(Drs. Moeller and Steindler,-respectively) had served on the ACRS where they participated extensively in the waste management reviews by the ACRS.
They now continue this function with the ACNW..The current members of the ACNW are:
ACNW MEMBERSHIP CHAIRMAN:
Dr. Dade W.
Moeller, Professor of Engineering in-
)
Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts VICE-CHAIRMAN: Dr. Martin J. Steindler, Director, Chemical Technology Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
i
)
i ACIN 2
MEMBERS:
Dr. William J. Hinze, Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana l
Dr. Paul W. Pomeroy, President, Rondout Associates, Incorporated, Stone Ridge, New York Today, we will be providing a summary of the advice given to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on EPA's proposed high-level waste standards and ACNW comments on the NRC staff's review of the DOE Site Characterization Plan (SCP) for the proposed high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
EPA STANDARDS For more than five years the ACIN and its predecessor organization have been concerned that the current set of proposed EPA standards is overly stringent, is wasteful of resources, and. cannot be implemented.
These concerns are based on extensive meetings and-discussions with a wide range of organizations, including relevant
. Federal and State agencies as well as industrial and private One of the highlights of these interactions was a meeting groups.
held at the Committee's conference room in Bethesda, Maryland, on
. March 23, 1990.
The Committee continues to doubt that compliance with the. EPA standards' can be demonstrated for a
specific repository site, even with reasonable application of the caveats included in the currently proposed
- standard, such as the
" reasonable assurance" phrase that allows for certain flexibilities in the interpretation of probabilistic analyses. Regardless of the schemes proposed to resol.'e uncertainties 'in applying probabilistic
^ techniques (e.g., rulemaking), the committee has seen no convincing evidence that the current set of standards will prove to be workable'.
The ACNW has concluded that the EPA standards need to be revised and that now is the time to accomplish this task.
The Committee has-even suggested several organizations whose recommendations for-change should be
- sought, including the National Academy of Sciences.
In such a revision, the Committee recommended that the l
standards should be organized in a hierarchical structure with the higher levels expressing the objectives in a qualitative sense and the lower levels stating the objectives quantitatively.
The Committee stressed that the several levels be consistent and that lower levels not be more stringent or conservative than the higher levels'so that they become sig f acto new standards.
The Committee-believes that the proposed quantitative EPA standards may be internally' inconsistent.
In addition, we believe that secondary-requirements, if expressed in the EPA standards, should be given only.as guidance, with qualifying statements clearly specifying that they are not to be applied in a regulatory sense.-
~,
~
- ;4,.. -.,,,... - _
e ACNW 3
Three principal Committee recommendations for revising the EPA otandards are:
1.
An acceptable risk from a high-level waste repository should be defined and justified, keeping in mind the benefits derived from the activity involved, and other societal risks as well as additional relevant considerations.
Lower-level standards should be expressed in terms of annual risk limits from a disposal f acility in an undisturbed ard a disturbed state.
The critical population group being considered should be clearly defined.
This approach is in accord with recommendations of organizations such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board.
2.
It should be specified that inclusion in the standards of an appropriate probabilistic approach is acceptable to the definition of risk from a repository, only if it is clearly noted that this probabilistic approach is not the single determining f actor in judging the acceptability of a specific site.
Experience has shown that probabilistic risk analyses (PRAs) alone cannot be used to reliably determine the compliance of a single nuclear power plant with a set of standards or as the basis for judging the adequacy of its safety.
A single high-level waste repository, which is to function for thousands of years, is still more difficult to assess quantitatively.
The EPA standards should clearly specify that risk assessments are but one of n;everal tools for the evaluation of a given high-level waste repository site and/or facility and that PRAs should be only one factor in evaluating compliance of such a facility with the EPA standards.
Expert opinion and deterministic criteria are of considerable importance in judging the acceptability of a specific site.
3.
Evaluations ot the anticipated performance of the proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant indicate that, for the disturbed state, human intrusion is the dominant contributor to risk.
Early indications suagested that performance analyses for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository may also show human intrusion to be important.
For these reasons, separate considerations for evaluating the impacts of human intrusion l
should be included.
The Committee suggested that the standards be rewritten to separate the evaluation of anticipated repository performance into three parts:
(a) the undisturbed repository; (b) the disturbed repository, exclusive of human intrusion; and (c) the repository as it might be affected by human intrusion.
This would clearly separate out the issues surrounding human intrusion and permit it to be addressed directly.
1 i
~
ACIN 4
'l Currently, the NRC staf f and the ACIN are moving toward, but are not yet at, a consr.nsus over how the EPA standards must be revised.
The ACIN will concinue its evaluation of the EPA standards.
ACNW Review of tecJBC Analysis of the DOE Sit _e Characterization Plan The stringency of the EDA standards, coupled with their has led LO the need for extensive plans for probabilistic base, conducting studies and for collecting the data necessary for the analyses associated with determining whether a given waste disposal site can be demonstrated to show compliance.
As a result, the ACNW has devoted considerable time and effort in reviewing the DOE SCP and the NRC staff's review of this plan, the Site Characterization Analysis (SCA).
The ACNW review of these documents was, of necessity, less than comprehensive.
Rather, the Committee focused on specific critical topics.
Members and consultants reviewed relevant material in-depth, using an iterative process with the assistance of the NRC and DOE staf f s.
The Committee was in general agreement with the overall content of the SCA.
- However, the Committee had several significant concerns, some of which are summarized below:
Statements are absent in the SCP addressing the systematic and early identification and evaluation of potentially disqualifying features at the Yucca Mountain Site.
Although the SCP is an action plan for site characterization, the Committee believes a much stronger focus should be placed on early detection of potentially disqualifying features. The Committee concluded that the SCA should point to the need in DOE's SCP for an inte-grated section of the plan that explicitly addresses the activities leading to an evaluation of the character-istics of the site directly related to disqualifying features (e.g., groundwater travel time as stated in the NRC regulations).
Insufficient attention is given in the SCP to the limitations and uncertainties in the Yucca Mountain data bases, and the associated difficulties in demonstrating that the repository will comply with EPA's high-level waste standards (40 CFR Part 191).
Here, the key factor is that the standards, as currently written, are probabilistic and therefore the methods for demonstrating comp 31ance must have a probabilistic base.
The approach requi:ed to be used includes the constructior of a complementary cumulative distribution function
'DF) and, through this process, a demonstration t1 the
<~
repository complies with the EPA standards.
.ary concerns of the ACNW are the uncertainties and limitations in the data to be used to construct the CCDF.
1 ACNW 5
Since the ability to resolve these uncertainties experimentally may well be beyond the capability of the site characterization program, increased consideration should be given to the feasibility of developing deterministic criteria for judging-the adequacy of the site relative to the EPA goals.
As stated previously, the Committee considers the demonstration of compliance of the proposed repository with the EPA standcrds to be a major concern.
The ACNW raised its concern over the delays by DOE in e
implementing satisfactory quality assurance (QA) programs.
The Committee urged that this troublesome issue be resolved promptly, since continued absence of approvable QA systems will increase the burden on the participants in the licensing processes when qualification of data is at issue.
In addition to the above, the Committee offered a number of comments. pertaining to other specific aspects of the site characterization program, such as resolving the dilemma of how to determine the characteristics of the Calico Hills Formation, while still maintaining-this structure as a barrier between radioactive wastes placed in the repository and the underlying saturated zone, and the need to define the materials to be used in the waste packages and the manner in. which these packages will be sealed.
-The latter information is essential to the evaluation of-possible interactions _between the waste package and repository materials.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's discussion and'look forward to an interesting exchange of information.
The success of the nation's nuclear energy program will be measured in 1
part by the skill used to manage nuclear waste.
This task clearly requires the participation of people who are expert in a wide range of fields.
This meeting is an important contribution to the process and thereby to the quality of the product.
y m
j j
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PARTIES:- Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW)
ACNW Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff - Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
SUBJECT:
ACNW REVIEW AND COMMENT ON NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT MATTERS DEVELOPED BY THE NRC STAFF PURPOSE:
_ In accordan :e with the Charter of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste "the Committee will report to and advise the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on nuclear waste management as directed by the commission on the basis of periodic reviews of ACNW proposals.
This includes 10 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 72 (as applied to other than the site > of production and utilization facilities) and other applicable regulations and legislative uandates such as the Nuclear
' Waste: Policy Act, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, as amended."
The Committee is charged with-exam!ning and reporting on "those areas of concern referred to it by the Commission or its designated representatives, and will undertake other studies and activities
- on its own initiative related to those issues directed by the Commission."
Recognizing these responsibilities, the NRC staff iwill take those steps necessary to ensure that the ACNW receives material.in a timely fashion for its review.
'The purpose of this memorandum is to:
Specify those nuclear faste-relatsd matters, in addition e
to those related to licensing of waste management facilities, that are within the purview of the ACNW.
Establish. means to keep the ACNW informed of staff actions on matters that are within its purview at the early stages of development of these matters.
Establish procedures for ACNW review of nuclear waste-related matters at a sufficiently early stage to permit constructive interaction.
i MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 2
'l e
Enable the t.:NW and the staff to establish schedules for ACNW review and comment on nuclear waste-related matters that take into account the needs of the ACNW, the NRC staff, and the Commission.
The following have been agreed upon to facilitate the ACNW review I
of nuclear waste-related matters that are within its purview.
i AREAS OF ACNW INTERFSI i
The scope of ACNW interest encompasses matters relating to the following parts of NRC's regulations (found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations):
Part 40 - Appendix ~ A - Criteria Relating to the Operation o
of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily For Their Source Material Content Domestic licensing of production and e
Part 50 utilization facilities, as it applies to decommissioning plans Part 60 - Disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in e
geologic repositoriec e
Part 61 - Licensing requirements for land disposal.of radioactive waste Domestic licensing of special nuclear e
Part 70_
materials, as it applies to decommissioning after possession only license-e Part 71 - Packaging and transportation of radioactive material Licensing requirements for the independent o
part 72 storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste as applied'to off-site storage.
(NOTE:
Although the ACRS has primary respon.A ility regarding 10 i
CFR Part 20, ACNW maintains a continuing int 6rGst with respect to
~ items that impad. on radioactive wasto handling and disposal 1
facilities.
The ACRS/ACNW office will keep ACNW informed of anticipated NRC activities based on material provided for ACRS consideration so as to provide an opportunity for input on waste
-related issues.
Meetings with NRC staff, licensees, etc. will be handled with participation and support by the NRC staff on a case-by-case' basis as needed.)
MEMORANDUM OF. UNDERSTANDING 3
)
i Specific matters of ACNW interest include matters that impact on safety in the following areas:
e Rules, Policy Matters, Regulatory Guidance - Proposed, revised, or withdrawn Rules and Appendices 4
Policy Statements that are intended for publication
.in the' Federal Recister Regulatory Guides Standard Review Plans Branch Technical Positions Technical Guidance to States and Compacts regarding Low-Level Radioactive Waste Issues Licensing' activities for facilities within the purview e
of the ACNW, including ishuance of CP, OL, Amendments and Terminations.
Selected prelicensing activities for HLW and LLW facilities, e.g.,
Site Characterization
- Plan, Site Characterization Analysis, Study plans / procedures, as deemed appropriate in consultation with the NRC staff.
ACNW/NRC STAFF CONTACTS An NRC staff' contact will be established in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) to coordinate the provisions of this memorandum.
A designated ACNW staff member will serve as t
the ACNW contact.
EARLY INTERACTION The EDO will take necessary steps to ensure that matters requiring ACNW. review are identified in the early stages of development and that sufficient time is allowed to permit orderly review by the ACNW.
Accordingly, when a safety-related matter, in an area of ACNW" interest, is under consideration by the NRC staff, the cognizant NRC staff _ office, through the NRC staff contact, will inform the'ACNW of the anticipated staff action (e.g.,
proposed rulemaking, issuance-of a
regulatory guide) when the basic requirements are being formulated.
This may be achieved by adding the title, with an apprupriate scope statement to the six-month list of proposed ACNW agenda items.
The ACNW will inform the
]
cognizant NRC staff office and/or the EDO's office, normally within about 30 days, whether it intends to review a specific matter.
i
k L
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 4
ESTABLISHING A' SCHEDULE FOR THE ACNW REVIEW If the ACNW decides to review a specific matter, the review normally will be performed at the following two stages:
o Prior to submittal to appropriate NRC management for action to publish a proposed position for public comment, consideration at a hearing, or other formal regulatory action, as appropriate, subsequent to the public comment period, and/or after e
completion of a related hearing, and prior to submittal to appropriate NRC management for action to publish the final version for implementation.
There may be circumstances in which the ACNN will prefer to defer its review of a-specific matter until after public comments have been received and addressed by the staff.
In such cases, the cognizant NRC staff office will be notified of this preference.
The cognizant'NRC staff office will ensure that schedules for the development of a specific matter include sufficient time (normally about 60. days) for ACNW review prior to the date by which ACNW comments are desired.
When, for whatever reason, a choice must be made between timely submission to the Commission or submission first for ACNW review, the Secretary of the Commission is to be consulted by the EDO.
RESOLVING ACNW COMMENTS ACNW comments will be forwarded to the Commission or to the EDO, as appropriate, with copies to the cognizant staff office (NRC staff contact).
The NRC staff contact will ensure that copies are provided to other NRC staff offices, as appropriate.
On all-matters except those where Commission priorities or safety concerns demand timely action to the contrary, the EDO will respond to ACNW comments on a specific matter prior-to taking final action on that matter, or submitting it for Commission approval.
In addition, Commission papers, if any, will address ACNW comments, including those not endorsed by the staff.
The EDO may elect to
_ consider ACNW corments on proposed or draft documents (e.g.,
proposed rules, draf t regulatory guides) following the close of the public comment period within the context of resolution of public comments.
l L
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING S
-SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS FOR ACNW REVIEW /INFORMATION Twelve copies of documents related to a specific matter will be provided to the ACNW by the NRC staff contact / project engineer at
. the stages identified above with a memorandum addressed to the ACNW Executive Director requesting appropriate ACNW action.
Wlien sending a specific matter to the ACNW for review, the cognizant staff office (NRC staff contact) wil) ensure that the ACNW is provided with copics of other related documents, public comments and the staff's resolution of these comments, and CRGR comments, as appropriate. The cognizant staf f will also include any directly
.related differing professional opinions and/or differing 3
professional' views.
Five copies of documents related to a specific matter will also be provided to the ACNW for information by the NRC staff contact / project engineer at the following stages, with a memorandum addressed to the ACNW Executive Director, indicating that they are sent for-ACNW information:
When it is sent to the Federal Reaister to be published
~for public comment.
'When it is sent to the Federal Recister to be published as an effective document.
DEALING WITH PREDECISIONAL DOCUMti??9 In those instances in which a safety-related matter is considered predecisional'and is-not otherwise a matter which is exempt from the open meeting requirements of the Federal Advisory Committe'e Act, appropriate NRC staff will participate in open ACNW Working Group or full Committee meetings ~ considered necessary to such reviews.. In those cases where discussion of controlled internal documents, including predecisional documents, is required during f
an. open meeting, approval of the cognizant office director or regional administrator shall be
- obtained, consistent with applicable-procedures (e.g.,
Bulletin No.
3203-25, dated February 9, 1988,_ Section C,
Paragraph 2.b),
by the office i
. transmitting the document to the ACNW.
'To provide'for protection in accordance with the provisions of the i
Freedom of'Information Act, documents transmitted to the ACNW that are considered to be predecisional will be identified as such either ~ by appropriate marking 'or in an accompanying transmittal letter.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 6
DE1'I ATIONS When deviations from procedures of this Memorandum of Understanding
~
are unavoid sle,- 1. hey may be altered consistent with the needs of
.the ACHW/EDO.
Such changes should be mutually agreed upon by the
' EDO and the ACNW Executive Director.
(Date)
. James M. Taylor Executive Director for.
Operations September 18, 1990
/Vs i
(Date)
Dade W. Moeller, Chairman Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
s f
f 1
A; s
c ABSTRACT
~
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE U.
S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-_f--.
Because of its increasing role in regulatory matters pertaining to
'the management and disposal of radioactive wastes, the U.S. Nuclear
.l
.. Regulatory Commission (NRC) in June 1988 established the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste'(ACNW).
During its approximately_three
)
years in operation, the-ACNW has conducted reviews _and-provided 3
cdvice to the'NRC onLa' variety of issues, including expressions'of continuing concern that the proposed Environmental Protection-
- Agency (EPA) standards for a high-level waste' repository may not be< implementable; a lack of statements in the Site Characterization Plan, prepared by.theLU.S.-Department of Energy (DOE), relative:to
'the systematic and early identification and
' evaluation of potentially. disqualifying features for the proposed repository in 3
, Yucca-Mountain; the development of casks for on-site storage and wastes;-
plans for-the Lthe.
transportation of high-level decommissioning of nuclear-power plants. and other nuclear f acilities; problems in the solidification of low-level radioactive 1vastes.being sent;for disposal at commercial sites-in the United
~
States; the development of an NRC policy statement on the exemption of certain practices from regulatory control; and reviews and commentaries on _related aspects. of waste management activities,-
including _ selected rules, Technical Positions and Regulatory Guides
~being' promulgated by_.the NRC, as well-as related Study Plans and reports ' being. developed by the DOE.
The Committee anticipates 1
. continuing activities in_these and related areas.
4
.J g
m