ML20198D147
| ML20198D147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/21/1991 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-0044, NACNUCLE-44, NUDOCS 9205180158 | |
| Download: ML20198D147 (28) | |
Text
__
OdNW-0044 N
fog slis/p-MINUTES OF THE 36TH ACNW MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1991
- TABLE OF CONTENTS -
Pace I.
Chairman's Report (Open) 1-2 II. Performance Assessment Program (Open)
...3-6 III. Probability Limits for Distinguishing Between 6-9 Unlikely and Very Unlikely Events (Open)
IV. Meeting with the Director, Of fice of Nuclear.
. 9-13 Material Safety and Safeguards (Open)
^
V.
Executive Session (Open)
. 13-14 A.
Memorandum Reaulatory Guides Beina Developed in Support of the Revised 10 CFR Part 20, "Standands for Protection Acainst Radiation" (Memorandum to James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, dated October 23, 1991.)
B.
ACNW Bylaws C.
ACNW Future Activities D.
Future Meeting Agenda
- APPENDICES -
I. Federal Register Notice II. Meeting Schedule and Outline III. Meeting Attendees IV. Future Agenda V. Documents Received WGWAL
-g, c
~~
Certi'i
')
g 9205180158 911121
{I PDR ADVCM NACNUCLE 0044 PDR
C d
- l ty ]
\\
Issued: November 21, 1991 MINUTES OF THE 36TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTE1; ON NUCLEAR U _STE OCTOBER 18, 1991 BETHESDA, MARYLAND l
The 36th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste was held Friday, October 18, 1991, at 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland.
Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Committee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m.-and briefly reviewed the schedule for the meeting.
He stated that the meeting was being conducted in conformance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
He announced that a transcript of some open portions of the meeting was being made, and would be available in the NRC Public Document Room at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
[ Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting may be purchased from Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd., 1612 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.
C. 20006.]
ACNW members, Drs. William J.
Hinze, Dade W.
Moeller, Paul W.
Pomeroy, and Martin J.
Steindler were present.
[For a list of attendees, see Appendix III.)
I.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT (Open)
[ Note:
Mr. Richard K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)
Dr. Moeller identified a number of items that he believed to be of interest to the Committee, including:
The House Committee on Interior and Insular Af fairs held a markup on October 2, 1991, on H.R. 645, "The Radiation Protection Act of 1991.
The bill, which was passed unanimously by the Committee, would revoke the NRC's Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policy statement, adopted July 3, 1990.
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee's version of the National Energy Strategy Act contains a preemption of the State of Nevada's authority over environmental permits.
If implemented, this would permit the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct characterization studies at the proposed Yucca Mountain site.
I
36th ACNW Meeting 2
October 18, 1991 Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) generators in Michigan e
have begun reporting storage capacity problems that are forcing some to suspend or relocate certain activities, according to Mr. William Lukens, Executive Director of Michigan's Coalition of Radioactive Waste Generators.
i e
The NRC Commissioners met with Mr.
Robert Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safe-guards (NMSS), and representatives of the Division of Migh-Level Waste Management (HLWM), on October 1,
- 1991, to discuss the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.
A transcript of this meeting has been provided to the Committee members.
Dr. Moeller noted that Chairman Selin expressed the opinion that, although radionuclide release limits are acceptable in a generic sense, once a site has been identified an estimate should be made of the population doses that will occur under the specific set of circumstances that apply at that site.
o On October 7,
- 1991, Scientific Committee 87 of the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) held its second meeting to plan the development of two reports pertaining to the management and disposal of LLW:
Waste Avoidance and Volume Reduction Waste Classification Based on Risk The Scientific Committee also voted to proceed with the development of a third report on Performance Assessment, the goal being to provide a broad overview of the subject, including a conceptual framework on how, when, and where this technique should be applied.
Committee members should note the summary, prepared by e
Ms. Charlotte Abrams, ACNW staf f, of DOE's comments on an EPA proposed rule,
" Environmental Standard.s for the Management,
- Storage, and Land Disposal of LLW and Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Waste."
The Conference of State Radiation Control Program Directors - has requested that the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT)- grant an exemption so that the states can establish a national process for authorizing the prompt return to origin of metal and scrap.!ound contaminated with radioactive materials.
Immediate return would avoid unnecessarily tying up the transporta-tion vehicle and long delays in handling such metal and scrap.
., ~
36th ACNW Meeting 3
October 18, 1991 II.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (Open)
(Note: Mr. Giorgio N. Gnugnoli was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)
As a follow-up to the ACNW Working Group meeting (October 16-17, 1991), Dr. Pomeroy complimented the NMSS and RES staffs on their major effort in providing a complete picture of the staff's capabilities on computer modeling and performance assessment.
Dr.
Pomeroy also acknowledged the high quality participation of the invited experts who supported the Working Group in its review of this matter.
HLW Capabilities Dr.
Pomeroy indicated that, in his opinion, the Committee's response to whether the HLWM staff is capable of conducting a performance assessment (PA) in response to a license application would be in the affirmative.
He cautioned, h Wever, that such an assessment would be rudimentary; the NRC st.c !T would mt be able to do a full-blown performance assessment without having increased resources.
Dr. Steindler raised a concern that there may not be sufficient evidence to demonstrate to the Commission that the NRC staff has adequate expertise to recognize a f aulty. DOE PA analysis.
In
- response, it was pointed out that, although the staff has not performed such an exercise, the staff has identified weaknesses in the DOE's PA assumptions and mathematical constructs, as part of its site characterization plan (SCP) review.
There was also some concern that the staff did not have sufficient PA staff resources in certain disciplines either at headquarters or at the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (Center),
nor did it have sufficient computer equipment and peripherals.
Furthermore, the overall Committee judgment of the HLW PA strategy document was that it needed to explicitly describe in detail the overall goal and approach of PA.
Dr. Okrent suggested that the staff should do a PA review exercise on a complex problem, by performing an indepth PA on a relevant scenario.
The staff should iterate this exercise to learn from the problems of the first iteration.
The Committee questioned whether the Iterative Performance Assessment (IPA) of the Phase 2 effort would address such a concern.
The NRC staff indicated that the
-License Application Review Plan (LARP) would address some concerns of the Committee, but they acknowledged a problem of limited resources specifically in the trade-offs between preparing strate-gles to accomplish assessments versus actually perforr.ing assess-ments.
Dr. Pomeroy was concerned that these resource limitations would compromise the " independence" of the NRC staff'n assessment; i.e., require too much reliance on DOE's data, codes a id rationale.
36th ACNW Meeting 4
October 18, 1991 There was a discussion on NRC ef forts to upgrade the overall agency capabilities in computer modeling.
There was some skepticism regarding a $400,000 pilot program to determine what is needed to improve the HLW modeling capability; Mr.
Stewart Long, ACRS Fellow, suggested that the money might better be spent on acquiring hardware, software and in-house training.
He indicated a willing-ness to share experiences in the ACRS work station acquisition effort with the NMSS and RES staff in such acquisition.
Dr. Hinze observed that enhancing the modeling capabilities also would result in helping to maintain the staff's morale by providing the equipment and peripherals, without which the PA review ef fort would be very frustrating.
He also pointed out that there was a need for data handling software (data digitizers), plotter / printers, and desktop publishing and presentation aids to assure effective use of the limited time of the staff.
The Committee expressed some bewilderment at the apparent inconsis-tency between the software / hardware needs expressed by the HLW and the LLW staff.
LLW staff indicated that their needs had been identifled and approved; however, the requested equipmen' a r.d software had not yet arrived.
Additional delays would signiff-cantly and adversely impact the LLW staff's assessment capabili-ties.
Mr. Paul Lohaus, NMSS/LLWM, indicated that the ordered equipment and software would be adequate for the next few years, and would still be useful as the NRC staff moved into Phase 2 of the LLW planning process.
Mr. Melvin Silberberg, RES, observed that most of the LLW computer codes are configured for a PC platform.
Mr. Seth Coplan indicated that the HLWM has an in-house PA training mechanism that is available to NRC staff, as Vell as to the contractor staff at the Center.
The Center also runs informal seminars to keep the contractor and NRC staff personnel up-to-date on the evolution of the PA capability developments.
Likewise the LLW program has a SANDIA-supported one-week, hands-on, PC-based PA training course, that is also available at NRC Headquarters.
Dr.
Okrent questioned whether PA information needs would influence the research effort.
Mr.
Coplan indicated that the Phase 2 and Systematic Regulatory Analyses (SRA) being performed at the Center had that as a goal.
4 LLW Capabilities The LLW review began with a discussion of the uncertainty relative to the duration of the post-closure period over which performance of a LLW disposal facility LLW staff indicated that periods up to I
10,000 years are being considered as part of the LLW Phase 2 PA enhancement effort.
The Committee acknowledged some areas, unique to the LLW situation, l
that were cause for concern:
l l
36th ACNW Meeting 5
October 18, 1991 States are already in the license review mode for their e
LLW disposal' facilities.
Will the timing of the Phase 1/ Phase 2 PA and guidance development efforts be ccmpati-ble with the States' regulatory needs?
e Will the inadequacy of source term modeling severely impact in part or in whole the credibility and defensi-bility of licensing decisions?
Will the inadequacy in modeling the geochemical process e
compromise the usefulness of the guidance for performing pas?
e Will the multiple responsibilities of the LLW staff dilute the resources available for maintaining and enhancing the LLW PA and computer modeling capabilities.
In response to Dr. Okrent's concern regarding the apparent absence of an overall safety philosophy in the LLW arena, Mr.
Lohaus pointed out that the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives, vaste classification system and technical and siting criteria are all directed to the inadvertent intruder (this is not an issue in the HLW regulations).
Mr.
Lohaus also indicated that S61.41 is directed to protecting the general population.
Mr. Silberberg informed the Committee that there is a well estab-lished dialogue among the national and international community in LLW PA.
Some code comparison efforts may help to defuse the "my code versus your code" _ debates between the applicant and the regulatory that are likely to happen in computer modeling-based regulatory decisions. He cautioned that there is an ongoing review of LLW resources in RES; if the resource request is approved, there should-be no deleterious impact on the PA program.
In response to Dr. Steindler's concern regarding overseas efforts in LLW and their apparent lack of inclusion in both the PA development strategy as well as the guidance and data /information development, Messrs. Lohaus and Silberberg recounted examples such 1
as the PLASAR use of IAEA test cases, NRC involvement in the INTRAVAL international effort, cooperative exchanges with the Swedish SKI Nuclear Power Directorate, etc.
Mr. Lohaus also pointed out that the LLW staff, through a PNL contract, had reviewed PA methodologies used at the Sheffield and West Valley facilities, as well as the PA approach taken by the State of Utah.
IPrototype License Application: Safety Analysis Report.
='
n
{
1
'36th ACNW Meeting 6
October 18, 1991 There was a discussion of the DOE commercial LLW technical assistance effort which provides developmental assistance to the states in the area of LLW PA.
This DOE group participated in the NRC PLASAR exercise.
The Committee suggested that the NRC staff should explore possible beneficial uses of this group in future PA enhancement exercises.
Two draft reports, one on HLW PA capaoilities and one on LLW PA capabilities, were prepared and distributed to ACNW members for their consideration.
Dr. Pomeroy recommended that members submit their coraents to Mr. Giorgio Gnugnoli before the next meeting.
Revisions to the draft reports, based on the members' comments, will be made available to the Committee along with the summary reports from the invited experts who attended the Working Group meeting.
III. PROBABILITY LIMITS FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN UNLIKELY AND VERY UNLIKELY EVENTS (Open)
[ Note: Mr. Howard J. Larson was the Designated Federal Of ficial for this part of the meeting.]
Dr. Moeller introduced Mr.
Seth Coplan and Mr. Dan Fehringer, Division of High-Level Waste Management, and explained that this briefing will pertain to the probability limits of distinguishing between unlikely and very likely events.
Mr. Coplan stated that he would suraarize the 1985 EPA standards, explain a staf f alternative to the standard, describe the similari-ties and differences between the standard and the staff's alterna-tive, and discuss how 10 CFR Part 60 addresses human intrusion and the associated implications with respect to the staff's alterna-tive.
The 1985 EPA standards include dose, ground. water protection and containment requirements.
Mr. Coplan stated that the briefing will focus on the containment requirements.
The staff's alterna-tive will require a Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function (CCDF) only for releases having a prchability Of occurrence greater than one chance in ten over ten thousand years.
Less likely scenarios would be limited to ten times the EPA release limit, and probabilities would be estimated and releases judged scenario by scenario as distinguished by processes or events that are consid-cred more likely to occur.
The EPA standards would require identification and screening of disruptive events with probabili-ties of occurrence of one in ten thousand (10-4) over a ten thousand year period.
The staff's alternative also would screen the scenarios because the combination of events and processes would result in probabilities lower than the magnitude of the original Dr. Okrent asked if the staff expected to processes and events.
find as many as ten scenarios having a probability of 10-8 and if I
i 5
i I
36th AChn Meeting 7
October 18, 1991 they envisioned adding All the releases that have a probability in this range?
Because there are not likel to be ten scenarios having an occurrence probability of 10'8,y Dr. Okrent believes that the staff should draw the line between unlikely and very unlikely events at 10-7 The staff agreed and stated that they envision that scenarios having a probability of 10'8 are of interest only if there are at least ten scencrios in this probability range.
Mr. Coplan explained the process for identifying and screening disruptive processes and events and for developing scenarios for screening under the staff's alternative.
From the releases estimated for each scenario, one would determine if any release was ten times the Table 1 limits.
If so, this would constitute a violation of the EPA standards.
Dr. Steindler requested an explanation of the screening criteria for items two and four of the staff's alternative.
Mr. Coplan stated that the staf f would rather stick to qualitative criteria to avoid the problem that would develop from the lack of precision in stating probabilities for events that have a chance of 10-2 of affeccing the repository.
The other problem with quantitative criteria is that a cenario on the edge of the criteria, that otherwise might be investigated, ray not be considered credible.
Dr. Steindler asked how a licensing board would resolve an issue for or against an intervenor, the staff, or a licensee when there was a disagreevnt about interpretation of qualitative criteria.
Mr. Coplan stated that the cutoff for probability of occurrence should be on the ord'ar of 10-3 or 10-7 per 10,000 years of reposito-ry operation.
The staff, however, would issue guidance to help explain any proposed qualitr' 've criteria.
Dr. Okrent stated that criteria would be just as much a using the staff's qualita' pro 51em as using quantitat.
criteria inasmuch as there could be disacreements about the m 11tude of the quantitative criteria.
Dr. Steindler stated that this was the same dilemma that he raised.
Dr. Okrent suggested that an acceptable departure may be that, instead of asking that there be only a 1 in one 1000 chance of exceeding 10 times the Table 1 limits, this might be changed to ask that there be only a chance of one in a hundred to exceed the Table 1 limit; this would still represent a high degree of confidence.
This level of confidence would at least get down toward the area where there would be no questions on probabilities.
Mr. Coplan described the last step of the process which would be to form a CCDP with "likely releases" on the order of 10-2 or greater (which provides an approximate order of magnitude measure of conservatism).
36th ACIN Meeting 8
October 18, 1991 Mr. Coplan explained the differences and similarities between the two approaches.
The similarities of the approaches are: 1) both i
require identification of processes and events; 2) one goes through a screening procedure with both the 1985 containment requirement and the staff's alternative; 3) both form a mutually exclusive not of scenarios; 4) the scenarios are scretned and a release is calculated; and 5) each approach leads 8.o the formation of a CCDP.
The points of differences are: 1) the staff's alternative does not require precision in estimating unlikely events and one can work with estimates that the probability is less than 10-2 by developing the scenarios and doing the screening; 2) the implicit testing of each scenario as in the 1985 standard in done explicitly in the scenarios with release probabilities greater than about 10'y for staff's alternative and; 3)
CCDFs would be formed onl d
d Mr. Coplan also explained that, in the staff's alternative, the limit of ten times Table 1 would apply to each scenario and that scenarios that involved the same event would be analyzed such that each would be natually exclusive (for example, if a tornado is included in one scenario all other tornado events are excluded).
The probability of unlike'y scenarios would be bounded by saying their probability is less than 10-2 and estimates of these would not be given in the staff's alternative.
One would still have the assuran:o that releases from the repository would not exceed ten times the Table 1 limits.
Dr. Okrent asked if it were possible to have a standard where there was reasonable assurance that for anticipated events the Table 1 limits vould be met and that unanticipated events would not exceed ten tins the Table 1 limits.
This would be equivalent to EPA's reasonable expectation of one in ten.
Mr. Coplan stated that the staff had been interpreting reasonable assurance and reasonable expectation as being the same.
Mr. Coplan stated that human intrusion undcr the staff's alterna-tive would be classified as an unlikely event, that only release estimates would be needed, and that probabilities would not have to be estimatad. This places more reliance on instituticnal controls than assumed by EPA and assigns a probability of less than 0.01.
Dr. Steindler suggested that this differs from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) expert judgement panel that estimated probabil-ities for human intrusion that ranged from 0.08 to 0.21.
Mr.
Caplan noted that in the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 60 the f
Commission considered human intrusion unlikely ror several hundred years based on the unattractivenass of the site and its character-istics.
The Commission did not rule out the possibility of human intrusion but did not want it to drive the licensing process.
Dr.
Pomeroy stated that h m ' intrusion belongs at least in the second bin.
He urged that le 4 age should be add d to keep it out of the first bin.
vnw_.
~
r 36th ACN% Meeting 9
October 18, 1991 Dr. Hinze noted that guidance provided with the EPA standards on the suggested frequency (density) of drill holes, unless removed as support fer the standard, could easily force people to consider human intrusion in the first bin.
In summary, Mr. Coplan stated that probabilities of 10-3 to 10~4 cannot easily be predicted with accuracy and that this could be troublesome in licensing.
He also pointed out that the stringency of the staf f's alternative is site specific and is not significant-ly different from EPA's 1985 standards.
Finally he suggested that human intrusion is a separable issue depending on what you do about institutional controls.
Dr. Moeller asked if the staf f expected a letter from the Committee regarding the staff's proposal.
Mr. Coplan responded that thr earlier ACNW letter addresses thia subject in an adequate manner.
IV.
MEETI!!G WITH THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS (Open)
[ Note:
Ms. Charlotte E. Abrams was the Designated Federal Of ficial for this part o* the meeting.)
Mr. Robert Bernero, Director of the office of Nuclear Material Saf ety and Saf eguards, addrere the Committee on the subject of a systems approach to high-20
-aste storage, transportation and dieposal.
The presentatie-m part of the Committee's delibera-tions on a response to a re. '
staf f requirements memorandum (SRM) from Chairman Selin.
Mr. Bernero stated that a systems analysis can help to identify issues and problems that are critical to successful development of a system.
The first step in this process is to define the system.
He used the Systematic Regulatory Analysis being conducted by the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Ana2yses as an analysis of what the reg"^ tory system requires.
Mr.1 r.new suggested that the Committee look at information f rom recent briefing by DOE to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review aBoard on some system analysis activities of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM).
He urged that the Committee examine the entire system from vaste generation to disposal, and not just NRC responsibilities.
He characterized HLW as waste so radiotoxic that it merits very remote disposal and included greater-than-class-C (GTCC) waste in that category.
Beginning with the generation of waste, Mr. Bernero stated that there are now 20,000 metric tons of civilian reactor spent wa' ate in
l l
36th ACNW Meeting 10 October 18, 1991 storage.
The generation of that vaste is continuing at 2,000 netric tons per year, and the quantity will total approximately 80,000 tons at the end of the life of the current generation of nuclear power plants, He said that there is much vaste that could be reprocessed and vitrified, but there is little incentive to do so, because there is a surplus of plutonium-239 in the United States.
In addition there is auditional liquid waste held in tanks at places like Hanford, Savannah River, Idaho, West Valley (NY),
and Oak Ridge (TN).
Dr. Moeller noted that the DOE Mission Plan discusses the entire system, but fails to include many sources of HLW that Mr. Bernero mentioned.
This is a result of the fact that the Mission Plan addresses only commercial spent fuel.
Mr. Bernero noted that Mr. Dwight Sholor, DOE HLW office, has been selected to head a task force to organize a systematic study of spent fuel, reprocessing waste, and waste from other sources.
He stated that DOE is focusing on this topic and the Committee may wish to hear the results when that study is complete.
Mr. Bernero stated that the amount of civilian vaste is well understood, however the estimated amount of other inventories is r.ot clear.
The 1985 Low Level Waste Policy and Amendments Act states that DOE must accept GTCC waste and dispose of it under an NRC license.
Disposal does not have to be in a deep geologic repository and DOE could decide to have a separate licensing program for that waste.
NRC has the responsibility of determining the disponal method. Mr.
Bernero stated that in 1989 NRC did a rulemaking on Part 61 that was similar to a negative declaration.
That rulemaking said that it was not necessary to devise a unique set of criteria for GTCC waste.
He also stated that the NRC staff believes that it is sensible to dispose of GTCC waste in a deep repository.
GTCC waste couk be disposed of in drif ts af ter the HLW is emplaced and prior to backfilling of the repository.
Mr. Bernero added that DOE is conducting a survey to determine the amounts of GTCC and The results of that survey should be available soon.
sources.
Mr. Bornero said thst it is estimated that 80 per cent of thn spent f uel will be shipped to the monitored retrievable storege f acility (MRS) from storege pools; less than 20 percent will come from dry cask storage.
He also noted that fuel reprocessing waste is being stored in a variety of forms, including calcined, liquid alkaline, and a liquid acid wastes.
The first line of defense against release is the waste form, the second is the engineered barrier system, and the third is the repository.
For vitrified waste there probably should be some sort
36th ACliW Meeting 11 October 18, 1991 of specification on the waste f orm.
The waste form will need to be factored into a performance asst.sment.
There is a dual purpose for the MRS, Mr. Bernero stated.
The MRS is principally for commercial spent fuel storage and repackaging prior to transporting it to a repository, for these reasons the MRS is an important prrt of the system.
Mr.
Bernero stated that the Mescalaro Apache Reservation in southern New Mexico is a possible site f or the MRC.
That group has contacted the Waste Negotiator to study the possibility of locating the MRS on the reservation.
Dr. Eteindler commented that there was an experimental exercise at Hanford where long-lived radionuclides were removed from reprocess-ing vastes to reduce the heat load in the tanks.
The extracted radionuclides were solidified as glass, and a*:e being stored in canisters at the Hanford site.
These packages could provide an opportunity to examine the long-term stability (approximately 20 years) of that particular glass vaste form.
Mr. Bernero discussed the transportation of waste.
Under Part 71 radioactive material is shipped under packaging constraints by general license for a specific type of waste.
Some waste is shipped under NRC review and certification; other waste will be reviewed by DOE and shipped under their certificate.
Mr. Bernero discussed the dimensions and range of spent fuel.
Because there is no standard fuel and/or waste container size, the DOE transportation fleet must be able to adapt to c11 sizes.
He also discussed the various sizes of casks.
He noted that the casks were certified in an era when fuel was expected to be reprocessed and some problems remain because of the constraint on reprocessing.
Mr. Bernero discussed the DOE OCRWM casks.
Some of these have higher capacities and are being designed for old fuel that does not need the shielding or have the thermal constraintia of newly generated fuel.
Regulations that apply include 10 CFR Part 50 for generation and storage; Part 72 and DOE regulations for storage; Part 71 and a DOE equivalent rule for transportation; Part 960, DOE'h regulations for HLW disposal; Part 60; and 40 CFR Part 191, EPA's regulations.
Mr. Bernero also discussed some issues that the Committee might consider.
These are:
1.
Adequacy of licensed storage of spent fuc1 and, 2.
Waste form requirements
36th ACNW Meeting 12 October 18, 1991 He noted that the waste confidence decision addressed the issue of whether HLW could be safely handled and disposed.
In the reissue
' that decision, it was concluded that interim storage, wet or cry, of spent fuel would be safe for at least 100 years.
The 100 years will allow ample time to assess the Yucca Mountain site and if that site is found unacceptable, sufficient time will still be available to select, characterize, and license another site.
He believes that the technical corzunity would agree with the decision on vaste confidence and stated that the only principal doubt was prograraatic confidence.
Mr.
Bernero suggested that the Committee may wish to examine whether the licensing requirements for spent fuel storage in Part 72 are too lax, toc stringent, or too impractical.
The issue related to waste form requirements relates to whether those requirements need to be defined.
The original repository concept was that reprocessed waste would be emplaced in the repository and the vaste f orm would be a principal barrier to radionuclide release.
NRC is attempting to determine what type of waate l'orra req'airements should be imposed, but no decision has been made on what chould be done.
Mr. Bernero also stated that there ir a concern whether the Part 71 requirements are appropriate for application to the very large spent fuel shipping casks.
Does the change in cask design warrant reconsideration of the requirements?
Another area of concern cited by Mr. Bernero is the question of waste disposal comparisons.
Should performance analyses compare waste based on burn-up?
And how can the different waste forms be treated in the regulations?
Should standards be based on release per metric ton of heavy metal?
The last issue that Mr.
Bernero discussed in detail is the question, should GTCC waste be disposed in an HLW repository?
NRC action on Part 61 states that GTCC waste disposal in an HLW repository is acceptable.
NMSS has told DOE OCRWM that the residual capacity of the repository should be used for disposal of GTCC waste.
What standards should apply to GTCC wastes?
Dr. Pomeroy stated that the task assigned by the Chairman could take a systems analysis company of ten persons at least two years to acco.~.plish.
He asked Mr. Bernero what he believed the Cormittee should attempt to accomplish.
Mr.
Bernero emphasized that the Chairman does not expect the Committee to carry out the work, but to lay out what should be done and suggest how it should be done.
He stated that his presentation did not represent all of the issues, but those issues he t.1d presented could be likely candidates for a systems analysin 1
t i
l 36th ACHW Meeting 13 October 18, 1991 approach.
He noted that the Chairman is not looking for a complete set of issues, but he: is looking for an audit.
DOE should be looking at the complete set.
Dr. Hinze asked if there are examples of systems analysis approach-from other countries that might be useful to the Committee.
es Mr.
Bernero replied that everyone is pursuing deep geologic disporal, however, he Knew of no formal systematic analysis.
Mr. Bernero stated that he believes the mixed waste aspects of HLW will be handled by the adequacy of deep geologic disposal.
WIpp probably will be the pilot case for that question.
Dr. Steindler noted that although there are logistics problems related to HLW disposal, he has not seen "significant and glaring" holes an the types of information that would be necessary to go through a complete licensing process of a system.
If the question from the Chairman is, are thoro my major problems to be uncovere' or that are not being examined' when the answer is "no."
Mr.
Bernero stated that the Chairman wants the Committee to
" discover" system
- analysis, use its scientific knowledge to identify key issues, and provide scientific advice on those issues.
This should be done as a scientific audit with some bias to issues for which HRC is responsible, not as a complete identification of all scientific issues.
He also stated that the Chairman does not expect the committee to accomplish the task in a short time and that the Committee has more than 90 days to complete the task.
The systems analysis discussion was followed by a brief discussion by Mr. Bernero on NMSS resources being expended to participate in ACNW meetings.
He stated that it is casier for the staff to come to the Committee to discuss items on which they are working.
That takes fewer additional resources than items on which there is currently no activity.
He also stated that besides responding to ACNW requests, he responds to briefing requests from the EDO and the Commission.
He provided some data on amounts of time for ACNW related items for the last year.
The total during that period was 2317 hours0.0268 days <br />0.644 hours <br />0.00383 weeks <br />8.816185e-4 months <br /> or greater than one FTE.
Dr. Moeller encouraged Mr. Bernero and his managers to communicate their concerns to the Committee.
Dr. Steindler commented that the staff also may be spending unnecessary time and energy in prepara-tion for ACNW presentations.
He also stated that he believen that the Committee would be remiss if they failed to look at important items due to the potential time impacts on the staff.
Mr. Bernero stressed that what he was asking was a sensitivity on the part of the ACNW rather than preclusion of addressing issues that are not being worked on by the staff.
He stated that the staff does place a large effort or emphasis on preparation for presentations to the Committee.
l
_.____m_._
4 l
36th ACNW Meeting 14 October 18, 1991 V.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Open)
(Note:
Mr. Richard K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)
A.
Memorandum Regulatory cuides Beina Develooed in support of the Rey _ised 10 ffER_Egrt 20.
" Standards for Protection Acainst Radiation" (Memorandum to James M.
- Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, dated October 23, 1991.)
This memorandum summari.:es the Committee's general comments on the twelve regulatory guides related to the implementation of the revised 10 CFR Part 20.
B.
ACIN Ry. laws The Committee agreed to consider a revision to the ACNW Bylaws that provides for the election of officers (Part VIII).
Mr.
Fraley will distribute a draft revision for consideration by the nembers.
The draft will be discussed during the next meeting.
C.
ACIN Future Activities The members were asked to indicate their availability to attend Committee meetings during the next calendar year.
The members were asked to return this information to Mr.
Richard Major.
Dr. Moeller requested that a represcatative from the DOE be invited to brief the Committee on the DOE Mission Plan.
The members discussed the proposed meeting with the Commission that has been scheduled during the 38th ACNW meeting on December 18-19, 1991.
Proposed items for discussion may include:
Copputer modeling and performance assessment Systems approach for LLW Status on response to Chairman Selin's request D.
Future Meetina Acenda Appendix III summarizes the proposed items for future meetings of the Committes and related Working Groups.
This list t
'36th ACIN Meeting 15 October 18, 1991 includes items proposed by the Commissioners and NRC staff as well as ACIN men.bers.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
f a
9
APPEND 1X I
~ 50735 Fedrent Replater / Vol. 50. No.105 / Tuesday. October a. tini / Notices i
Status Report on the INpansion of of 195L as amended (primarily section advance as is practicable so that AChtUI 161a). the Federal Advisory Act (5 appropriate arrangements can be made.
Calls for nomination were publishett U.S C. App.) and the Commission's During the initial portion of the in the Federal Register. December 24.
regulations in title 10. Code of Federal meeting, the ACNW Workins Group.
ttm and April:6.1991. NRC solicited Regulatior.s. part 7 along with any of their consultants who nominations fon An indnidual quahhed Dated at Washington. DC this 1st day of me be present, may exchange to address patient's rights and care a
' October.1991.
re iminary views regarding matters to person with broad experience in For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission e considered during the balance of the medical reFulaM as ronducted by Icho C. llo>lt.
'"*
- U"8 -
The ACNW Working Croup will bear Individual States: and a brachytherapy A drinry Ccmm/rtee. Macpment Offwer.
presentations by and hold discussions physician The Comm!ssica has selected [m noc. 94-241to riled to-7.ot; e 4s am) with the NRC staff and their had;viduals to fill these positions.
s w.o cops n e i-u consultants, National baboratories, and Conduct of Meeting other interested parties, as appropriate.
Darry Siegel. M D will chair the ACNW Working Group on the NRC Further information regarding the meeting. Dr. Siegel will conduct the Staff Computer Modeling and agenda for this rnectirig. whether the meeting in a manner that will facilitate Performance Assessment Capabilities meeting has been cancelled or the orderly conduct of business. The in the High and Low Level Waste rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on i
lo' lowing procedures apply to public Programs; Meeting requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted participation in the rneetinF:
The ACNW Working Croup on the therefore can be obtained by a repaid
- 1. Persons may submit written NRC Staff Computer Modeling and telephone call to the Designate Federal l
comments by sending a reproducible Perf rmance Assessment Capabilities in Official. Mr. Giorgia Gnugnoli. ACNW copy to the Secretary of the Commission the High-and bow level % aste (telephone 301/492-9651) between 8:15 (see "COMMENTF' headin ).
Pr grams will bold a meeting on a.m. and 6 ttm. Persons planning to -
Comments must be receive by October October 16-17.1991, room P-110,79:0 attend this.necting are urged to contact 15.1971. to ensure consideration at the Norfolk Avenue, Dethesda. Maryland-the above named individual one or two meet.ng.The transcript of the meeting The entire meeting will be open to days before the scheduled meetin to be j-wtll be kept open untd November 33.
public attendance.
advised of any changes in scheda e. etc 1991, for inclusion of written comments.
' 8 e @ t meeting that may have occurred.
It is not necessary to resubmit written a
be s f I o
{
comments that were submitted in Wednesday. October 10,1991--8.30 Dated September 30, mt.
response to the Federal Register notices a.m. until the conclusion of bustrass.
RX Major.
mentioned in this meeting notice.
Thursday. October 17.1991-8.30 a m.
Chief. Nuclear Weste Bronch.
- 2. Persons who wish to make oral until the conclusion of business.
(FR Doc. 91-24toB pded 10 ~-41; 8 45 arnl statements should inform Mr. Camper in The purpose of the meeting will be to em,o caos nu.
writing by October ?.5.1991. Statements review whether or not the NRC siaff has must pertain to topics at hand. The developed a suitable performance Chairman will rule on tequests to make assessmem program and whether the Advisory Committee on Nuclear j.
oral statements. O ortunity for NRC staff has adequate equipment.
Waste; Meeting members of the u ic to make nrol expertise and training to conduct high-i statements will >e based on the order in und low level ta6 sective waste The Advisory Committee on Nuclear which requests are received. In general, computer modeling Furthermore, the Waste (ACNW) will hold its 30th
. oral statements should be limited to ACNW Worki Group will examine the meeting on OctoW: 18 mimaan-approximately 5 minutes. Oral NRC staffs mo cling capability 5 p.m toom P-110,79:0 Norfolk staternents may be supplemented by available in. house as opposed to the Avenue, Bethesda. MD.The entire detailed written statements for the capability available through the Center meeting will be open to the public.
record. Rulings on who may speak, the for Nuclear Weste Re lato Analysis The agenda for the subject meeting i
order of presentations, and time or its other high-and w-le Iwaste shcIl be as follows:
allotments may be obtained by calling contractors.The NRC staff willbe A. Continue deliberations on a request Mr. Camper. 301-492-3417 between 9 requested to characterise what they from the Commission regarding a a.m. and 5 p.m. E S.T. or. November 4, consider these performance assessment systems ana!yses approach to the 1991.
capabilities to be and how they expect storage of spent fuel,
- 3. At the meeting. questions frorn these performance assessment and D. Begin debberations on a request atten es other than committee modeling needs will chhnge.
from Cammissioner Rogers regarding memoers, NRC consultants. and NRC Oral statements may be praented by whether the NRC staff has deseloped a staff will be permitted at the discretion rnembers of the public with the suitable performance assessment of the Chairman.
ct,ncurrence of the ACNW Working program and whether the NRC staff has
- 4.The transcript, minutes of the Group Chairman: written statements adequate equipment, expertise, and meeting. and written comments will be will be accepted and n..de available to tr aining to conduct high-and low-level available for inspection, and copying for the Working Group. Recordi.ags will be w aste computer modeling.
a fee, at the NRC Public Document permitted only during those sessions of C.11riefing by NRC's Division of High Room 2120 L Street NW., Lower level, the meeting when a transcript is being Level Waste Management staff on their Washington, DC 20555. on or about kept, and questions may be asked only basis for establishing a probability limit December B,1991.
by members of the ACNW Working for distinguishing between unlikely and
- 5. Seating for the public will be on a Group, their consultants. and staff.
very enhkely events.This relates to the first come, first served basis.
Persons desiring to make oral alternative approach to the probabilistic i
This meeting will be held in statements should notify the ACNW section of the containment regulrements accordance with the Atomic Energy Act staff member named below as far in in 40 CFR 191.
l l
.. _. _. _ ~
rederal Register / Vol. $6 No.195 / Tuesday, October 8,1991 / Notices 60735 D. Discuss anticipated and proposed Friday, October 25.1991 -4.30 a.m.
public transportation costs of NRC Committec activities, future meeting until the cor.dusion of business.
employees.The use of appropriated agenda, administrative, and The Subcommittee will discuss funds for this program is pertnitted organiration matters, as appropriate, elements of the Severe Accidem under new authority provided by section Also, discuss matters and speche issues Research program.
629(a) of public Law 101409 that allows that were not completed during previous Oral statements may be praented by Federal agencies to parucipate in a meetings as time and availabihty of snembt to of the public with the State or local program that encourages information permit, concurrence of the Subcommittee employees to use public transportation, procedures for the conduct of and Chaf tman; written statements willit it is anticipated that use of public participationin ANCW meetings were accepted and made available to the transportauon by NRC employees will published in the Federal Register on Committee. Recordings will be rwr.t'ed result in lighter traffic patterns in the June 6.1988 (53 TR 20099). Iri accordance only during those sessions of the vicinity of the NRt./s headquarters with these procedures, oral or wri. ten meeung when a transcript is being k,nt, buildings located in Montgomery statements may be presented by and questions may be asked only by County. Ma ryland.
members of the ublic, recorditys will members of the Subcommittee.its be permitteJ on y during those portions consultants, and staff. persons desiring ogg,. ne system of records will take affect without further notice on of the meeting wben a transcriptis being to make oral statements should notify kept, and questinns may be asked ordy the ACRS staff member named below as November 7.1991, unless comments by rnembers of the Committee,its far in advance as is piscticable so that received on or before that date cause a contra'I ecision. lf, based on NRC's d
consultants.and staff.The office of the appropriate arrangements can be rnade.
ACRS is providin staff support for the During the meeting, the Subcommittee,
VI'* 'I C ***" ''I"d'new"" final h
are made, NRC will publish a ACNW. persons estring to make oral along with any of its consultants who
" " C '-
statements should notify the Executive may be present, may en change director of the office of the ACRS as far preliminary views regarding matters to ADont ssts: Send cornments to the in advance as practical so that be considered durity; the balance of the Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory appropriate arrangements can be made meeting.
Commission, Washington DC 20555, to allow the necessary time during the The Subcommittee will hear Attention: Dockedng and Service tree.Ing for such statements. Use of still, presentauons by and hold discussions Branch. Comments may be hand-motion pictura, and television cameras with representatives of NRC staff, thee delivered to the Gelman Building. 2120 L during this n :eting may be limited to consultants, and other interested Street NW. (lower level). Washington, selected portions of the meeting as persons regarding this review.
DC, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:16 p.m.
determined by the ACNW Chairman, Further informadon regarding top-ron runTucn tNronMAMON C0strACT.
Information regarding the time to be set to be discussed, the scheduling of '
Donnie !!. Grimsley, Director. Division aside for this purpose snay be obtained sessions open to the public, whether the of Freedom of Information and by a prepaid telephone call to the meeting hee been cancelled or Publications Services, Office of Execuuve Director of the office of the tercheduled, the Chairman's ruling on Administradon, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ACRS, Mr. Raymond F. Fraley requests for the opportunity to present Commission, Washington. DC 20555, (telephone 301/492-4516), prior to the oral statements and the time allotted Telephone: 301-492-7211.
meeting. !n view of the possibility that therefore can be obtained by a prepaid -
the schedule for ACNW meetings may telephone call to the Designated Federal sVPPt.NENTARY INroRW sMCsc 'Ude new NRC.m of records will be used by the be adjusted b the Chairman as Official Mr. Dean Houston (telephona
'F
s Office of Administration to necessary to f acilitate the conduct of the 301/4924521) between 7:30 a.m. end 4:15 p.m. persons 1 anning to attend this manage the Nhc Full SilARE program meeting persons planning to attend 51 should check with the ACRS Executive r secting are urged to contact the above that includes the receipt and distribution Director of call the recording (301/496-named individual one or two days of employee applications, monitoring the 4000) for.the current schedule if such before the scheduled meeting to be
$21.00 n.onthly de minimis fringe benefit rescheduling would result in major advised of any changes in schedule, etc., ((lf 0,]I y'h*j inconvenience, that may have occurred.
g g
M O M Uh MO b Dated. October 1,19n.
Dated. September 30,1971*
ticketa, and Ride-On passes) to be John C. Ho318,,
Gary R. Qulttschreiber.
purchased by employees through the Mvisory Commluce Monogement Offker.
Chief,NuclearReactws DmcA Cnergy Tederal Credit Union (EYCU).
[FR Doc. 9144109 Filed to-M1: 8 45 am)
[rR Doc. 9144107 Filed 10-7-t1: e 45 arn)
De records in this system of records aumo coce roo**u '
aumo cooe tsao*a willinclude employee applications for Full SIIARE media.This applicauon i
includes the employee's name, home Advisory Committee on Reactor Privacy Act of 1974; Estabilshment of address, NRC badge number, commuting Safeguards; Subcommittee on Severe a New System of Records
%ccidents; Meeting schedule, and mass transit system (s) used by the ernployee. Other records in otNcy Nuclear Regulstory s
- ne Subcommittee on Severe Commission.
this system of records willinclude Accidents will hold a meeting on AcTiow: Establishment of a new system reports from the EFCU on employee Oc;ober 24-25,1991, room p-110,7920 of records' purchases of subsidized mass transit Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MD.
tickets and reports from the NRC's
- The entire meeting will be open to suuuAny:The Nuclear Regulatory Division of Accounting and Finance, public attendance.
Commission (NRC)is proposing to Office of the Controller.on use of,
We egenda for the subject meeting establish a'new system of. records, appropriated funds to subsidize the,
shall be as follows; entitled NRC-20, " Administrative purchase of fare media.
Thursday October 24,1991.-4:30 a.m.
Services Files."in order to track A report of this system of re9 oms,'
. uniti the conclusion of businers.
appropriated funds used to sub' idize the required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), as * '
s
APPENDIX 11
/,,..,', g* \\
UNITED STATES
[ ',, # </(,g NUCLEAR RIGULATORY COMMISSION s#. I ADV150W COMMIT 1Et ON NUCLE AR WA&TE k,egs.,p *e/
WASHINGTON, D C. 20%5
....a SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 36TH ACIN HEETING OCTOBER 18, 1991 Friday.
October 19, 1991.
Room P-110.
7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MaryJ M 1) 8:30 - B:45 a.m.
Openina Rqrarks by ACNW Chairman (Open) 1.1) Opening Remarks (DWM/RKM) 1.2) Items of Current Interest (DWM/RKM) 45 2) 8:45 - 10: M a.m.
NRC Staff Performance Assessment Procram
- Hiah-and l,Qw-Level Waste Computer Modelina Car > abilities (Open) (PWP/GNG) 2.1) High-Level Waste Capabilities 2.2) Low-Level Waste Capabilities 2.3) Discuss ACNW Report s
45 n :oo 10 : 15 - 1st-39 a. m.
BREAK 11:0 0 30 3) 1+t 12 : E+0 b.m Probability Lirits for Disti'1cuishina Between Unlikelv and Verv Unlikelv Events (Open) (MJS/HJL) 3.1) NRC Staff Briefing 3..\\ General Discussion 30 3o LUNCH 12:00 - 1:00 p.m.
So 40 s
4) 1:00 - 3:90 p.m.
Meetina with the Director. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeauards (Open) (DWM/CEA)
The Committee will meet with Mr. Bernero to discuss items of mutual interest including 4.1) System Analysis Approach to the Storage of Spent Fuel 4.2) NMSS workload / resources used in support of ACim activities s
40 SO 3:00 - 3:15 p.m.
BREAK
( = Tyct,n s cr i'< ccl Pod on J Hed sg
.. - _ -.... -.. -. ~. - -... -..
4 36Til ACIN MEETING AGENDA 2
30 5) 3 : M - 4 : 15 p.n. -
Anticinated ACNW Activities (0 pen)
(DWM/RKM) 5.1) The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, e
and organizational matters as appropriate 5.1.1) Set November Agenda 5.1,2) Discuss Anticipated Activ-ities through February 5.1.3) Select CY-92 ACNW Meeting-Dates 5.1.4) Review ACNW " Fellows" Projects 6) 4:15 - 5:00 p.n'.
Additional Tir.e to Consider AC11H Reports Discussed Durina this Meetina (open) 5:00 p.m.
ADJOURN i
A-l t
L
[.
+
e
APPEhDIX II*t:
MEETING ATTENDEES 36'fH ACNW MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1991 ACNW MEMBERS ist Day Dr. William J. Hinze X
Dr. Dade W.
Moeller X
Dr. Paul W.
Poneroy X
Dr. Martin J.
Steindler X
d
^
CONSULTANT Dr. David Okrent M
NRC STAFF ist Day Robert Bornero HMSS X
Seth Coplan NMSS X
Clare Detino NMSS X
Abraham Eiss NMSS X
Paul Lohaus NMSS X
Peter McLatghlin NMSS X
Robert Neel NMSS X
Melvin Silberberg RES X
James Wolf OGC X
B.J. Youngblood HMSS X
ATTENDEES FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND GENERAL PUBLIC Jeanne Beard DOE Ray Clark EPA Linda Desell DOE Jim Duguid INTERA/M&O John Harris ANSTO Andrea R. Jennetta SAIC V.
Lewis Killpack Weston Paul Krishna TRW Jay Maisler NUMARC i
i 1._-_--_----________________-____
4
- Terry McLaughlin EPA Homi Minwalla Weston/Jacobs Cliff Noronha Weston Roles DOE Raymond Wallace Geological Survey nu
APPENDIX IV:
FUTURE AGENDA 37th ACNW committee Meeting November 20-21, 1991 (Tentative Schedule)
Systems Analysis Approach to the Transnortation. Interim Storace, The Committer will and Final Disposal of Hich-Level Waste continue work on a response to Chairman Selin on a system arilysis approach to the transportation, interim storage, and final disposal of high-level waste.
The Cornuter Modelina and Performance Assessment Canabilities Committee will cornplete a response to a request from Commissioner Rogers regarding whether the NRC staff has developed a suitable computer modeling and performance assessment program and whether the NRC staff has adequate equipment, expertise and training to perform such an analysis for the disposal of high-and low-level wastes.
Geoloaic Datina The Working Group on Geologic Dating will report to the Committee on problems and limitations with respect to various Quaternary dating methods proposed for use in the assessment of volcanic features for site characterizaticn of the proposed high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain.
The Committee will hear a Low-Level Waste Disposal Issues presentation and consider commenting on a number of issues in the field of low-level waste disposal including:
steps to decrease low-level radioactive waste production, reporting mishaps in the handling and management of low-level wastes, and protection of groundwater from low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities.
The Committee will discuss anticipated and Committee Activities proposed Committee activities, future neeting agenda (including the meeting schedule for next year),
and organizational matters (changes to the bylaws and nomination of officers for next year),
as appropriate.
The members vill also discuss matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings.
Working Group Meetings Geolocic Datina, November 19, 1991, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, The Working Group will discuss problems and MD (Abrams) limitations of various Quaternary dating methods that are proposed for use in the assessment of volcanic features for rite characterization of the proposed high-level waste repository at l
Yucca Mountain.
i l
Seismic and Faultina Investications for Cha_racterization of a Hiah-l Level Waste Reposito.ry Site, December 17,
- 1991, 7920 Norfolk The Working Group will be briefed Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Abrams) by representatives of DOE, State of Nevada, American Society of l
~ -
Appendix IV 2
36th ACNW Meeting Civil Engineers, Association of Encineering Geologists, U.S.
Geologic
- Survey, and Edison Elech c Institute, on seismic inv -tigations of the proposed Yucca Mountain HLW site.
The Impact of Lona-Term Climate Chance in the Area of the Southern Basin and Rana 2, January 15, 1992, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, The Working Group will discuss the historical MD (Abrams) evidence and the potential for clinate changes in the Southern Basin and Range and their associated impact on performance assessment for the proposed high-level radioactiv waste repository at Yucca Mountain.
Residual Contami.Dation Clean-un Criteria, (Date to be determined),
The Working Group 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Gnugnoli) will review the guidelines for radionuclide contamination limits for unrestricted use of sites and facilities that are or have been under NRC license, or were at one time, under AEC license.
This effort will be coordinated with a proposed effort by the ACRS to incorporate a land contamination limit into the nuclear power plant safety goals.
Methods for Assessina the Presence of Natural Resources at the Proposed HLW Repository Sit _q, (Date to be determined), 7920 Norfolk The Working Group w.ill discuss Avenue, Bethesda, MD (Abrams) methodologies for the issessment of the potential for natural resources at the proposed high-level waste repository site at Yucca
-Mountain. The relationship between resources and the potential for human intrusion will be emphasized.
l J
f APPENDIX V:
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED i
A.
Documents Received from Presenters and ACNW Staff AGENDA DOCUMENTS ITEM NO.
1 Chairman's Report 1.
Items of Possible Interest to ACNW Members and i
Staff, dated October 13, 1991, by Dade W.
Moeller
[ Official Use Only) 2 NRC Announcement 119, dated September 13, 1991, re Realignment of Branches within the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 2
NRC Staf f Performance Assessment Proaram: HLW and LLW Computer liqdelina Canabilities 3.
Handout 1:
Portion of transcript from Commission meeting held on October 7, 1991, Briefing on Use of Advanced Computers in AEOD and Status of Upgrading NRC Operations Center's Emergency-Tele-communications
- Systems, with AEOD presentation slides 3
Probak lity Limits for Distinnuishing_Between Unlikelv and Verv Unlikelv Events 4.
The NRC Staff's Alternative to EPA's High-Level Waste Standards, dated October 18,
- 1991, Presentation by S.
Coplan and D.
Fehringer
[Viewgraphs) 4 Meetina with-the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safecuards 5.
High-Level Waste System Analysis and Resources, dated October 18, 1991 (Viewgraphs) g
'S-y~'
4 n e -
e-Vy-ir v e'agvy w w w
'-r - r en g y myy W
me- - s W-c t w eve-ww w-N*
w'meer ew w e-oawe-wrow*wevpN-t art --e w - w earw+-'r,wvm eN arw'?
ev
{
Appendix V 2
36th ACNW Meeting B.
Meetina Notebook Contents Listed by Tab _Uumber TAB Col [TIl[IS 1
Chajyman's Report 1.
Introductory Statements by ACHW Chairman for the 36th Meeting, dated October 18, 1991 2.
Items of Current Interest, undated 2
@C Staf f Perf ormance Assessent Procram: HLW and LLW Computer Madelina capabilities 3.
Status Report 4.
Memorandum to Dade Moeller from Kenneth Rogers, dated April 29, 1991, re General Questions Not Addressed at the ACNW Meeting with the Commission on March 22, 1991 3
Probgbility Ljmits for Distinauishina Between Unlikelv and Verv Unlikelv Eventp.
5.
Status Report 6.
Attachment to EPA's Working Draft 3,
" The Potential Change to the Probabilistic Approach, as Suggested by the NRC Staff,"(Enclosure 2a) 7.
Letter to Kenneth Carr from Dade Moeller, dated April 29, 1991, re Consideration of Human Intrusion in the Licensing of a High-Level Waste Repository, with encloveres 8.
Letter to Kenneth Co.rr from Dade Moeller, dated May 30,
- 1991, re Alternative Approach to tP9 Probabilistic Section of the Containment Requirements in 40 CFR part 191 ("The Three-Bucket Approach")
9.
Pages A-10 through A-12, Appendix A to SECY-91-242 10.
Viewgraphs 11, 12, and 13 11.
Pages 27-29 from the Minutes of the 34th ACNW Meeting, August 27-29, 19P1 4
Meetina with the Director. Offige of Nuclear Material Safctv and Safeauards 12.
Status Report 13.
Letter to John Ahearne from Milton Plesset, dated December 10, 1980, re Waste Confidence Rulemaking Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste 14.
Letter to Lando Zech from Dade Moeller, dated May 3, 1989, re Proposed Waste Confidence Decision by the Waste Confidence Review Group
'I = - -
~ _.
- Appendix V 3
36th ACNW Meeting.
15.
Letter to Kenneth Carr from Dade Moeller, dated May 1, 1990, re Waste Confidence Decision Review 16.
Transcript of briefing on Waste Confidence Review, 19th ACNW, Meeting April 26-27 1990 17.
Memorandum to ACNW Members from Charlotte Abrams, dated June 11, 1990, re Response to ACNW Letter on the Waste Confidence Decision Review 18.
Memorandum-to Dade Moeller from James Taylor, dated May 25, 1990, re Criteria for Reevaluating Waste Confidence Findings Sooner Than Planned 10-Year Review Cycle 19.
10 CFR Part 51, Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation; and Waste Confidence Decision Review; Final Rules, September 18, 1990 20.
Memorandum to Dade Moeller from Samuel Chilk, dated August 21, 1991, re Staff Requirements, refer to:
M910725A 21.
SECY-88-343, Plan for Five-Year Review of Waste Confidence Findings, dated December 15, 1988 22.
Summary of Meetings on Systems Analysis Project Assigned to the ACNW by Chairman Selin (Prepared for Internal Committed Use Only) dated 9/17/91 23.
Memorandum to ACNW Members from Charlotte Abrams, dated October 7, 1991, re DOE Position Statement on the Waste Confidence Rulemeking, April 1980 24.
DOE, Statement of Position of the U.S.
Department of Energy in the Matter of Proposed Rulemaking on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste, PR-50,51 (44 FR61372) dated April 15, 1980 25.
Appendix A, (for immediate release) Office of the White House Press Secretary, undated 26.
Errata, Correction Proposed Rulemaking Statement of Position, DOE /NE-0007 5/14/80 27.
Memorandum to ACNW Members and Consultants from Howard Larson, dated July 24, 1990, re " Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal," National Research Council, July 1990, with enclosures 5
Anticipated ACNW Activities 28.
37th ACNW Meeting, November 20-21, 1991 29.
38th ACNW Meeting, December 18-19, 1991 30.
39th ACNW Meeting, January 1992 31.
40th ACHW Meeting, February 1992 32.
Other Possible Conaittee Meeting Topics j
33.
Working Group Meetings 34.
Memorandum to Fraley from James
~
~.
g Appendix V 4
36th ACliW Meeting 35.
Select CY-92 ACliW Meeting Dates (note included calendur has Dr. Moeller's availability) 36.
Letter to Selin from Dade Moeller, dated October 5, 1991, re Revisions to 10 CFR Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (Draft #1) 37.
ACliW Fellows Current Work Assignments t'
l l
--. u - : -..-
, _,