ML20205E183
| ML20205E183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/06/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2444, NUDOCS 8703300568 | |
| Download: ML20205E183 (41) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:w f ff'~ 5f hN 7
. R ff CERTIFIED MINUTES
' c3 .11 ' ISSUED: October 6, 1986
" W l / 1 ?.f f l i[f gkW
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE MEETING 0F THE 9
ACRS SUSCOMMITTEE OH WASTE MANAGEMENT JULY 21-23,1986 Time and Place: The meeting was held Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, July 21-23, 1986 in Room The meeting commenced each day 1046 at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. at 8:3D a.m; the meeting recessed at approaimately 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday, and at 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday.
Purpose:
' The purpose of this meeting was to review:
- 1. EPA's development (with NRC's support) of residual radiation limits and the disposition of land, buildings, equipment and metals (including the salvaging of contaminated smelted alloys -- NUREG-0518, Final Environ-mental Statement) resulting from the decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and fuel facilities.
- 2. The following topics being investigated under the Division of Waste Management's Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) Program:
- a. Alternati c5 to shallow land burial
- b. Radioactive wat. a that are below regulatory ccncern
- c. Mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes.
- r ;gg 3.
The following High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) topics being addressed l by the Division of Waste Management Staff:
- a. Sorption and solubility Generic Technical Positions and draft l letter report on Sorption Workshop l
- b. , ,Ihe Division of Waste Management's five-year plan
- c. IRC-proposedFederallyFundedR&DCenter(FFRDC)
- d. itatusoftheDivisionof.WasteManagement'sreviewofDOE'sFinal Assessments (EAs) for the five candidate repos' tory Environmental l sites nominated for consideration .
QN i ? s[] . 8703300568 861006 DESIGNATED ORIGINAL i j ,i PDR ACRS sj 9 "C" hCRS-2AAA PDR Certified By M/O l
, a n
4 WAS'IE i'.ANAGEMENT 2 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 4. The following waste management research topics under consideration by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES):
- a. Development of field data on the movement of radionuclides within the environment and the associated impact of heat-water-rock interactions
- b. Predictedperformanceofrepositorysystemsunder"realisbc" field conditions
- c. Setting priorities for waste management issues subject to rulemaking.
- 5. The Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and Nevada Test Site (NTS) in preparation for the subcommittee's July 29-30 visit to the WIPP site. The planned visit to NTS on July 31-August I was car. celled.
The Federal Register Notice for this meeting is Attachment 1, the Schedule is Attachment 2, and a list of documents distributed at the meeting is Attachment 3. ATTENDANCE Mon. Tues. Wed. 7/21 7/22 7/23 ACRS Men.bers X X D. Moeller X X W. Kerr X X X C. Mark X X F. Recick ACRS Consultants X X M. Carter X X X D. Orth X X X M. Steindler X ACRS Staff X
- 0. Merrill X X R. Savio X
. s WASTE MANAGEMENT 3 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting ACRS Fellows S. Farry X X X G. Brcwn ,
X NRC Staff 16 14 10 EPA S. Lichtman X W. Polconb X State of New Mexice - J. Channell X X Others 12 9 3 Daily Total 40 33 21 First Day, July 21, 1986
!a. EPA's Development of Pesidual Radioactivity Criteria - Dr. Stanley Lichtr.an, EPA Dr. Lichtman discussed the responsibilities of the several Federal Agencies for Radiation Protection -- EPA, NRC, and DOE, also giving a historical background leading up to EPA's. development of its radiation protection criteria for: (1) Occupational Radiation Exposure, (2) Air Emissior. Standards for Radon from Operating tiranium Mill Tailings Piles (Aug. 1986), and (3) Standards for Low-Level Wastes, Including Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) Criteria (1981 Proposal).
He said that the EPA's ob,iective is to develop criteria for use of sites and facilities with no restrictions based on residual radioactivity. He defined the decommissioning entities as fixed, i.e., land and buildings, l l
WASTE MANAGEMENT 4 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting and removable, i.e., reusable equipment and materials, and indicated that radioactive wastes from cleanup are not included. He further discussed implementation of the criteria, coverage under other programs, applicable EPA authorities, radioactive material sites, NF.C-licensed facilities and other government and nongovernment sites. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) was approved by an EPA working group on this matter and was issued in the Federal Register on June 16, 1986. The proposed criteria are scheduled to be issued in May, 1988, and , the final criteria in May, 1990. Some of the highlights of the discussion were:
- 1. A major factor is what is technically feasible at reasonable cost.
- 2. The EPA would appreciate ACRS comments on the ANPR, particularly on: (a) basis for criteria, (b) general or categorical, (c) guidance on standards, (d) information for evaluating alternatives, (e) time limit for planned institutional controls, and (f) fixed entity criteria first, then for recycled materials.
- 3. Source to dose relationship is needed, i.e., pathway models.
i
d' WASTE MANAGEMENT 5 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 4. Regarding the EPA Development Plan, a systematic summary is needed of the limits or guidance prescribed by other related EPA Radiation Standards.
Ib. NRC Staff Discussion of Residual Radiation Limits - Mr. R. Alexander, RES Mr. Alexander made the following major points:
- 1. The fixed entities, land and structures, are less difficult to deal . i, with than the removable entities -- materials and equipment. #
- 2. Whether models should be realistic or conservative is not the real issue regarding them. Rather, the goal should be to avoid large expenditures to prevent trivial risks.
- 3. Only EPA can promulgate guidance and standards which generally result from interagency cooperation.
- 4. Reg. Guide 1.86, a table of contamination limits for facilities and equipment, is being improperly used to apply to the release of
- 5 gaterialsandcomponents.
t : II. Salvaging of C'ontaminated Smelted Alloys - D. Hopkins, RES e
WASTE MANAGEMENT 6 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting Dr. Hopkins reviewed the chronology of the smelted alloys issues and discussed the changes in the Draft Final Environmental Assessment (NUREG-0518) which were made in response to public and EPA comments. He said that the major issues and their resolution were:
- 1. Broad rule -- narrow EIS. Resolution: Restrict final rule
- 2. Some individual doses are too high (not ALARA) for consumer products. Resolution: Restrict initial recycle
- 3. Use of materials in radiation sensitive products. Resolution:
Restrict initial recycle
- 4. Informing the initial buyer of contamination. Resolution: Re-strict initial recycle
- 5. Only no radiation is acceptable. Resolution. Restrict initial recycle Some of the highlights of the discussion on this topic were:
l
- 1. ,,[IherequestfromDOEhasbeendenied--areversalofpreviousNRC l Ipproval. '
l l l .
.; ,~
7 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting , WASTE MANAGEMENT
- 2. Technitium (and neptunium and plutonium) have volatile fluorides that follow uranium in the gaseous diffusion process. This could j be a problem if the depleted uranium is ever put into connercial use.
- 3. The Draft Final ES has a number of problems to be resolved before it could be published. However, NRC does not plan to publish it, at least not until the EPA standards (final criteria) discussed above are issued in 1990.
III.. Mixed Wastes - S. Bahadur, Division of Waste Management Dr. Bahadur discussed this topic, which is an unresolved issue, by addressing the following aspects of the issue: a waste stream consisting
- 1. The working definition of mixed waste:
of low-level radioactive waste licensed under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA--10CFR61) combined with chemical waste considered ha under RCRA.
- 2. The problem issue is that there are differences between 10CFR Part 61 and RCRA regulations in the areas of performance and design requirements, and the schedule is inconsistent for implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) l _as it pertains to facility siting and to identification and listing jfwastes.
N :
- 3. Dr. Bahadur reviewed the NRC Staff accomplishments to date and discussed landfill design standards, land disposal restrictions, l
'o '
WASTE MANAGEMENT 8 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting tanks and containers, mainfests, burning and blending, groundwater standards, general facility standards, and location standards.
- 4. He indicated that the Staff's future work is to continue to develop joint guidance with EPA for resolvable differences, and to report to the Commission the differences requiring Congressional resolu-tion by September 1986.
Some of the important points brought out during discussion on the various facets of tfie issue follow:
- 1. Based upon an NRC survey, 3% of total mixed waste was from nuclear power plants. Three streams of this waste have been identified: a) Organic scintillation fluids, b) Chromium (as Chromate), and c) Lead
- 2. The commercial burial sites do not want any toxic chemicals since if they had them they would have to comply with EPA standards.
- 3. The goal is to minimize non-radioactive hazardous wastes 7
associated with LLW so as to keep the LLW burial grounds open for use.
- 4. EPA may set a concentration limit for mixed wastes in order i
for them to be so called. They currently have a "no release" standard, i.e., no release for the total life of the hazard and no release during the active life of a burial site.
'f Treated waste can be put in a land fill if the land fill has two liners.
f .
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ i
, o-WASTE MANAGEMENT 9 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 5. The definition of mixed wastes needs to be quantified regarding what constitutes enough hazardous material to make it a mixed waste.
IV. Radioactive Wastes Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) -- Dan Goode, Division of Waste Management Mr. Goode said that the computer code developed by the NRC Staff for de minimis calculations has been adapted for use in estimating the impact of potential exposures from radioactive waste streams below regulatory concern. He discussed this code's application for the following treatment and disposal scenarios and exposure pathways: onsite incineration / treatment / disposal onsite incineration / treatment; offsite disposal onsite disposal offsite incineration / treatment / disposal offsite disposal He also discussed several sorting options for the offsite treat-ment / disposal of mixed waste as a municipal waste, as well as several pre-disposal impacts, disposal operation impacts and
" post-disposal impacts.
l ! A discussion of an application of the code to waste oil from a ! nuclear power plant indicated the total unacceptability of the results, and therefore of the input parameters, and also illustrated the impor-tance.of having realistic data -- hence the need for a policy document defining the input parameters necessary to achieve realistic computer resulks. He stressed that this example was a first-cut demonstration of the BRC computer code. Its aim was to predict how the model works and its application to the computer code. i -
~-
WASTE MANAGEMENT 10 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting Some of the important points brought out during discussion of this topic follow.
- 1. The NRC Staf f plans to encourage petitioners to use a computer code (developed by Dames and Moore and validated) for estimating doses from LLW disposal. This code gives a conservative answer which according to W. Kerr, may not be good, as it may be too conser-vative and therefore unrealistic. The target date for the decision regarding the use of this code is the end of July,1986.
- 2. Mr. Goode stated that this code is applicable to any radioactive waste in the "real world".
- 3. The Ford, Bacon and Davis code is not planned to be used because it does not use an effective dose equivalent.
V. Alternatives to Shallow Land Burial (SLB) - Malcomb Knapp, LLW Branch Chief Because of insufficient time for the presentation and discussion of this subject, it was postponed until the next Waste Management Subcom-mittee Meeting. Dr. Knapp gave a brief overview of the subject in the following statements:
- 1. The objective of the program is to reduce the alternatives to a I reasonable number.
- 2. . The alternatives are not essential to protect the public health and
' lafety but the States want alternatives for their consideration.
- 3. The Staff is attempting to determine what the States need and what are the attributes of an acceptable LLW facility.
WASTE MANAGEMENT 11 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting VI. ExecutiveSession-(FirstDay) During this Executive Session, the Subcommittee and consultants discussed and prepared comments for ACRS consideration on the above topics, except for Item V, Alternatives to Shallow Land Burial. Second Day, July 22, 1986 VII. Sorption and Solubility Generic Technical Positions (GTP) - J. Linehan, P. Justus and J. Bradbury, Waste Management Repository Branch Mr. Linehan introduced the topic and gave an overview of the Division of Waste Management's High-Level Waste (HLW) organization and percentage of effort on the various HLW Projects. He said that the geochemistry section has Technical Assistance programs at ORNL and Sandia. He indicated that there are two principal areas of investigation being pursued, geochemical environment, which includes rock-water interactions and redox conditions; and radionuclide mobility, which includes the sorption and solubility studies and transport processes. He stated that the principal geochemical issues are: c: am
- 1. The site geochemical conditions / processes.
- 2. Thechangesin(1)duetowasteemplacement.
- 3. The site geochemical conditions / processes that will affect the release and transport of radionuclides.
Br. Justus discussed the status and programmatic approach being takedEby the NRC Staff regarding the two GTPs. He stated that the NRC will: l l
. 2 WASTE MANAGEMENT 12 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 1. Develop a matrix of experiments for the purpose of identifying and demonstrating crucial experiments, eliminating non-essential effort and instilling confidence in the quality of data,
- 2. Characterize starting materials and products for the purposes of: (1) identifying the effects of experimental protocol, and of bound geochemical and physical conditions, (2) deriving retardation mechanisms, and (3) demonstrating that data are realistic and conservative,
- 3. Determine sorption isotherms,
- 4. Determine solubilities from both undersaturation and oversaturation,
- 5. Determine sorption parameters using multiple approaches,
- 6. Use geochemical modeling for interpreting experimental results and for planning experiments, and
- 7. Characterize all sources of uncertainty, both conceptual and experimental, to demonstrate that data are realistic and conservative.
The highlights of the discussion of Mr. Justus' presentation were:
. 1. Solubility is important in near range, sorption in far range.
} (Seecommentnumber3underMr.Bradbury'sdiscussionbelow.)
5 :
- 2. The NRC Staff is investigating the usefulness to their effort of the geochemical aspects of the Nevada Test Site bomb-test
! data. .
WASTE MANAGEMENT 13 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 3. Some waste radionuclides, e.g., Pu, Am, Np, have no stable counterparts.
- 4. Salt and tuff programs assume no fluid, so solubility data are not needed for these media.
- 5. The trace element solubility field is only 40 years old, at best.
Mr. Bradbury discussed the content of the Solubility and Sorption GTPs. The Solubility GTP was finalized in November, 1984 but is still subject to revision as necessary. The draft Sorption GTP was issued in January, 1986; public comments to date have been minimal. They expect to finalize this GTP by September, 1986. The main points made during the discussion of the presentation by Mr. Bradbury were:
- 1. The NRC Staff is responding to what DOE indicates it is doing in this area.
- 2. The two GTPs are best handled in combination because of their close relationship.
- 3. Sorption and Solubility must be considered in both the near and far fields, to which Dr. Steindler responded that sorption is more important in the far field since,
'[ (a) the concentrations of radionuclides are very dilute there, so solub,ility is less of a problem, and (b) sorption is the last barrier to release.
e
~
WASTE NANAGEMENT 14 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 4. The NRC should be interested in DOE's final product, not in what the DOE does in the interim.
- 5. The h?I should tell DOE what it wants, not how to gather the data -- except to tell those conducting the tests what to be aware of.
- 6. The NRC Staff is seeking to lay out a broad strategy (and thereby provide guidelines with which the DOE is expected to comply in ' order to minimize the subsequent licensing effort).
- 7. The NRC Staff may be asking for data from the DOE without regard to the complexity of the system, e.g., solubility experiments at both over- and under-saturated conditions.
- 8. C. Mark commented that the water flow rate is the key; that solubility and sorption are secondary.
- 9. Validation is being done generically.
Some of the more specific comments made by Subcomittee members during review of the Solubility GTP were:
- 1. In regard to the stated purpose that methods will not be prescribed, the following questions were asked the Staff by members of the Subcommittee:
(a) Has the NRC told the DOE the degree of precision needed for a given set of data?
? a (b) What will NRC accept as proving the DOE case?
i
. . WASTE MANAGEMENT 15 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting (c) Is groundwater travel time of 1,000 plus or minus 300 years acceptable?
(d) For what parameters must the data be the most precise? The Staff responded in the affirmative to question (a) and said that question (c) was answered in the GTPs. They also said that some of these questions are policy questions which are either answered in the GTPs or that the GTP provides guidance for their answers.
- 2. Having written the GTP, NRC should now discard it and prepare a document stating what is needed, because DOE wants NRC's technical position on the important issues.
- 3. DOE should be given more flexibility, not have constraints prescribing when and how they are to function.
- 4. The NRC position on solubility is stated in part 3.0, page 3 of the GTP (handout document number 15), wherein is outlined an approach for the experimental determination of solubility.
l
=-* The discussion of the Sorption GTP was primarily one of reviewing the document and asking for comments and clarification of specific portions of the document. The consensus of the Subcommittee and consul-tants was that the Sorption GTP is also overly prescriptive, and that a more definitive statement of the desired end products is needed.
t Federal Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) -- VIli.f 9 P. Wade, Waste Management Policy and Control Branch l i s
WASTE MANAGEMENT 16 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting Ms. Wade discussed the purpose, proposed role, and the status of - the FFRDC. The principal points of the presentation and accompanying discussion follow.
- 1. Purpose -- There are two principal motivating factors for the establishment of an NRC-sponsored FFRDC, a) To preclude conflict of interest situations from arising due to the limited number of expert contractors and consultants in pertinent fields in demand by DOE, NRC, States and Indian Tribes, and b) To maintain objective and unbiased long-term continuity throughout the duration of NRC's participation in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) Program.
- 2. Proposed Role -- The role of the FFRDC throughout its duration will be to perform technical assistance and research in all key waste management areas; to provide systems engineering and integration support to NRC; and to serve as NRC's primary contractor expert witness during the licensing hearings. The FFRDC will provide recommendations to the NRC, but the NRC will retain management and decision-making responsibilities.
- 3. Status -- A paper is currently before the Comission request-l ing approval to contract for an FFRDC to provide technical assistance and research throughout the duration of the NWPA program. If and when approved, a solicitation package will be l ' released calling for the submission of proposals by interested l
I parties. A revised ptatement of work is currently being f ! prepared, reflecting public coments.
- Pertinent comments and observations made regarding the FFRDC were:
WASTE MANAGEMENT 17 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 1. Since the FFRDC must be a not-for-profit organization to be operating under a renewable 5-year contract, incentives must be developed to maintain quality performance.
- 2. Systems engineering is to be a key role; the work of the FFRDC will also cover socio-political matters.
- 3. When issued for public coment, responses were received from 21 groups, 19 of which want to compete for the FFRDC.
- 4. NRC is evaluating procedures for performance evaluations of the FFRDC.
IX. Briefing on Yucca Mountain Site -- K. Stablein and C. Abrams, Division of Waste Management This briefing was for information only and followed the material presented in handout document number 18. The principal points of discussion were:
- 1. Where should the surface facilities be placed, considering the l
n .aus role of faults and the fact that the repository may be entered by way of an almost horizontal shaft through the side of the l mountain? j 2. The presence of calcite-silica vein deposits is indicative of earlier flows, the origin of which is uncertain, i.e., it l .; l 2 could be either from above ground with rain, from below ground I & t via high-temperatures, hot water, or from springs. l l l
WASTE MANAGEMENT 18 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 3. The acceptability in licensing of core borings from the site may be suspect and inconclusive because of poor re-cords / documentation, poor QA and poor control of samples.
- 4. The effects of fault movement and fractures may decrease groundwater flow path and travel time by as much as a factor of ten, and therefore need to be considered.
- 5. Laboratory experiments regarding the retardation of radionuclide flow should mirror the "real world" situation in order to be meaningful.
- 6. The method for sinking the 12 foot diameter exploratory shaft has been agreed upon by both DOE and NRC -- conventional drill and blasting, as against blind boring (mud drilling), the use of which NRC was against as it would have introduced fluid into the different horizons and possibly " messed up" any possibility of subsequently doing hydrological testing.
However, even with the method selected there is still some concern that it will introduce fractures and hence compromise the " disturbed zone" for an unspecified distance around the shaft. The objective of the shaft is to go to a 1200-foot depth to do exploratory work at that horizon.
- 7. The corrosion of the waste package is of concern, especially as pertaining to the effects on austenitic stainless steel cladding of steam from groundwater, where the system is open to the atmosphere.
i X. GRC Review of DOE's Final, Environmental Assessments (EA) for 5 Nomir.ated Sites -- R. Johnson, Division of Waste Management
?
19 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting k'ASTE MANAGEMENT Mr. Johnson discussed the plan and methodology used by the NRC in its review of both the draft and the final EA's as follows:
- 1. Overview of draft EA review,
- 2. Review plan for final EAs (which DOE revised on the basis of NRC's comments on the draft EAs). _
- 3. Review preparations for final EA review, and
- 4. Current status of fina! EA review.
All of the above is contained in handout document number 19, the Current Status portion of which is repeated here.
- 1. NRC started its review on June 23, 1986.
- 2. The technical review and first draft of comments has been completed.
- 3. They are currently beginning a quality review of the first draft of comments.
4 They are not in a position to discuss comments.
- 5. They proposed a briefing on the results of their review at the next Waste Management Subcommittee meeting. This was agreed
.. to by the Subcommittee.
XI. kivision of Waste Management's High-Level Waste Program Five-Year Plan (FY86-FY90) -- J. Linehan, Repository Projects Branch e
~
~
20 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting WASTE MANAGEMENT The Five-Year Plan is included with these minutes as handout document number 20. As stated in the plan, "As part of its mission to license the repository, NRC's activities in the next five years will be based on developing licensing guidance for DOE; resolving, to the extent practicable, licensing issues prior to the licensing hearing; developing the staff's independent licensing assessment capability; and identifying and implementing ways to make the licensing process more efficient." In addition to defining NRC's mission in the National High-level Waste Program (as required by the NWPA), the plan identifies four major goals, the overall strategy for achieving these goals, and detailed action plans for each goal. It further identifies the assumptions and major licensing issues to be addressed during the five-year period. (Seealso handout document number 21 -- Early Identification and Closure of Licensing Open Items). The major poi.nts of discussion resulting from Mr. Linehan's presentation were:
- 1. The plan has already been approved by the NMSS Management.
- 2. The purpose of the plan is to try to avoid new or unexpected issues.
- 3. All data and documents related to the NRC program will be in electronic storage for ready access by all, including the States and Indian Tribes.
A key effort currently under development is a new Technical i Position on how to 1,mplement the EPA standard for geologic repositories.
. WASTE MANAGEMENT 21 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 5. The use of rulemaking is being considered as an approach to settling issues of a fundamental character which need to have the principles laid down and thereby made not subject to subsequent challenge. The implementation of the EPA standard for geologic repositories is an example of such an issue.
- 6. M. Steindler made the following comments regarding rulemaking.
a) Both States and Indian Tribes should realize that the rulemaking process must be open to everyone and is therefore a process in which they can participate. b) Rulemaking on key issues prior to reviewing the licensing application is an important path to follow, c) The Staff's approach is "first rate" as they are now doing what they should be doing -- proactive vs. reactive. This demands that they be on solid technical footing, which changes the approach on Generic Technical Positions. XII. Executive Session -- (First Day)
- =m During this Executive Session the Subcommittee and consultants discussed and prepared comments on all the above topics except the briefing on the Yucca Mountain Site and the NRC review of DOE's final Environmental Assessment.
Third Day, July 23, 1986
*i 5
XIII.IRadionuclide Movement and Heat-Water-Rock Interactions in the Natural Environment - F. Costanzi and L. Kovach, RES s
WASTE MANAGEMENT 22 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting This topic and the two topics following are part of the effort being conducted by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) in support of the NMSS Division of Waste Management's High-level Waste Program. Mr. Costanzi introduced the subject and stated that the program for next year will be somewhat constricted due to budgetary constraints. Ms. Kovach followed the material in handout document number 22, discussing why heat-water-rock interactions are important to be studied, their importance to the repository performance, and the two-fold approach, laboratory experiments and natural systems experiments, to better understand these interactions and predict performance. The natural systems studies are deemed important because the natural occurrence of materials and processes are analogous to materials and processes of some portion of a waste repository. Thus one hopes to obtain data from natural systems studies to compare with short-term laboratory studies, which, in turn, will be used to predict long-term repository processes. The data will also be used to evaluate the combined thermal-hydrological-mechanical-chemical (THMC) effects on the [ host rock. The ultimate objective of this effort is to assist the Division of Waste Management in performing an independent performance ! assessment of the geologic repository. l l After delineating the factors to be considered in selecting a natural system, Ms. Kovach said that the natural system chosen for studying radionuclide migration was the uranium deposit at Cigar Lake, Canadj,andtheoneforstudyingcoupledTHMCinteractionwastheInyo DikeIystematLongValley,Cajifornia. A discussion of these two systems and the geochemical modeling and experimental work being done and proposed to be done at each location followed.
~
l WASTE MANAGEMENT - 23 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting In summarizing this work, Ms. Kovach stated that natural systems:
- 1. Provide means to evaluate uncertainties in extrapolations from short term studies, and
- 2. Identify the important processes affecting radionuclide mobility in the field.
The highlights of the discussion and questions and answers regard-ing this topic were:
- 1. Laboratory experiments are short term and therefore not good in providing data on kinetic effects over long periods of time, whereas natural systems are a good source of field data.
- 2. Over the next year RES will be examining a range of natural systems for possible study, with the two above-mentioned systems currently appearing to have the best potential for providing good field data which can be used to confirm exist-ing migration models. The Subcommittee believes that this work merits support and encouragement.
.m g. XIV. Repository Performance Predictions Under " Realistic" Field Con-l ditions -- T. McCartin, RES Mr. McCartin's presentation followed the material in handout document number 23. He said there are two systems to consider:
I. Engineered system, which considers the waste fonn/ waste
$ package, backfill argd borehole seals, and
-,, ----- - w
,, - ,, ,,-,-em,- --_-------4.,-- p,w+-e--, -
,-_a--g. - --+_.ner-,,., ,
--, g,,,.p,-, -- -----m-
WASTE MANAGEMENT 24 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting
- 2. Natural system, which considers groundwater flow, local geochemistry and amenability to being characterized and modeled.
He discussed " realistic" field conditions as including consid-eration of phenomena (e.g., unsaturated flow through a fractured media), hydrogeologicalcharacteristics(e.g.,parametricandboundaryvalues), and time scale. He identified aiid discussed the various issues and corresponding NRC studies pertaining to each of the " realistic" field conditions, including the problems of simulating these conditions by computer modeling and validation, and the collection of reliable, realistic data. The principal comments made regarding this effort were:
- 1. They simply assumed that the modeling and its validation were done correctly, or were done according to a previous-ly-developed plan (which may have been incorrect).
- 2. Whether the given procedure and the resulting data are appli-cable to a repository will not be answered by the above approach.
- 3. To help resolve this problem, the Staff should consider going to professional societies or others for peer review for assistance.
s The review of both test methods and data should be done by an f.
# independent unbiased,. group outside of NRC (to provide credibility). Other possible methods of achieving an objective review outside of NRC might be public meetings or
1 25 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting WASTE MANAGEMENT workshops; for inside NRC -- Reg. Guides or Branch Technical Positions. XV. Setting Priorities for Waste Management Issues Subject to Rulemaking-- F. Costanzi, RES Although this topic was originally scheduled to be discussed by RES, it was discussed earlier in a preliminary way by NMSS (See Section XIabove). XVI. The State of New Mexico's Experience in Their Technical Evaluation of the WIPP Project -- J. K. Channell, N.M. Environmental Eval-uation Group In preparation for the Waste Management Subcommittee's tour of DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site near Carlsbad, N. M. on July 30, 1986, arrangements were made with Mr. Robert H. Neill, Director of New Mexico's Environmental Evaluation Group (EEG) for Dr. James K. Channell to brief the Subcommittee on their experience with regard to that site. Dr. Channell's presentation followed the material provided in handout document number 25. Highlights of his presentation and the ) more important aspects of items discussed follow.
- 1. The role of the EEG is to evaluate the radiological health and l
safety aspects of WIPP for the State of New Mexico. They are f funded by DOE at a level of $750,000 per year. They use primarily in-house expertise and a few consultants to perform
.. their studies.
I -{
- h. According to Dr. Cha,nnell, the DOE has not kept them fully l informed on some problems at WIPP, so they monitor what the l
l National Labs are doing as a guide to these problems. He said
- e
.O WASTE MANAGEMENT 26 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting that the N.M. Attorney General sued DOE for access to data. DOE won't let them see draft reports.
- 3. Regarding compliance with EPA Standard for Geologic Reposito-ry, he said that DOE agrees to 5 years of retrievability, but says that WIPP need not comply with the EPA Standard because it is an R&D facility.
- 4. WIPP will start receiving some contact handling (CH) and some remote handling (RH) Transuranic (TRU) wastes in 1988 and some canisters of Defense High-Level Wastes in 1990 (for experi-mental purposes, not permanent storage).
- 5. There are oil, gas and potash deposits nearby (within 2 miles of the site) and potash above the repository location. Hence, the site might not be acceptable by EPA standards.
- 6. Some of the State EEG's claimed accomplishments are:
(1) Caused DOE to: a) Relocate the repository one mile south of original planned site because of brine reservoirs to the north. b) Change waste acceptance criteria c) Conduct studies to resolve site concerns d) ChangeTRUPACT(transportationpackage) design e) ChangeUndergroundVentilationSystem(*) (2) Performed original studies to identify and/or resolve issues
' (3) Se,t upper limit on type and amount of waste
a WASTE MANAGEMENT 27 July 21-23, 1986 Meeting XVII. Executive Session -- (Third Day) During this Executive Session the Subcommittee and consultants discussed and prepared comments on the above topics except for the briefing on the WIPP Project which was for information only. (*) A July 9, 1986 letter from A. C. Schmidt, to W. R. Cooper, DOE WIPP Project Manager regarding " Exhaust Air Monitoring Plans for WIPP" was distributed during the meeting but not discussed (handout document number 26). NOTE: All documents listed in Attachment 3 are available in the ACRS files. A transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. or can be purchased from ACE Federal Reporters, 444 N. Capitol Street, Washington, D. C. 20001 347-3700.
=r as
'g I
1 1 . Federal Register / Vol 51. No.'131/ Wednesday; July 9.1988 / Notices
$1954 PVNGS system. As a basis for the
= Chairman; written statements wi!! be Petition, the Patitioner alleged that there UCLEAR REGULATORY accepted and made available to the has been a continuing pattern of i COMMISSION Committee. Recordings wiIl be permitted managerial and administrative failures only during those portions of the .
P isory Committee on Reactor meeting when a transcript is being kept, at PVNGS and that current schedular and economic pressures there are likely
.eguards Subcommittee on Waste and questions may be asked only by to exacerbate these problems.
Manag: ment; Meeting members of the Subcommittee.its . The Staff has considered the The ACRS Subcommittee on Waste consultants. and Staff. Pereons desirin8 Petitioner a allegations and has Mansg: ment will hold a meeting on July to make oral statements should notify determined that they do not provide an . 21.12 and 23.1986. Room 1046.1717the ACRS staff Jnember named below as H far in advance as is practicable so that adequate basis for the relief requested. Stre:t. NW., Washington. DC. he reasons are fully described in a The entire meeting will be open to appropnate arrangements can be made. During the initial portion of the TDirector's Decision Under 10 CFR public attendance.The agenda formeeting, the subject meeting may the Subcommittee 2.206" (DD-8648) which is available for Exchange preliminary views regardm. g public inspection at the Commission's shallbe as follows: matters to be considered dunng the Public Document Roomlocated at 1717 Afonday fuly 21.1986-6 JO A.Af until H Street. NW., Washington.DC 20555, balance of the meeting.The the conclusion of business and at the Phoenix Pubhc Library. TuesdayJuly 22.1955-4Ja A.Af until Subcommittee will then hear Bus! ness. Science andTechnology the conclusion of business presentations by and hold discussions Department.12 East McDowell Road. ' irednmiuy fuly JJ.1966--a JO A.Af. %th apnsentatives of the t'RC Staff and other interested persons regarding Phoenix Arizona 85004. untilthe conclusion of business A copy of the decision willbe filed ne Subcommittee will review:(1)
- I' T'** wie de Secutary for the Commission's EPA's deselopment (with NRC's . ether $e m!e i support) of residual radiation limits and to be di e review in accordance with 10 CFR ,
has been cancelled or rescheduled. theWCb the disposition of land, build ngs, Chairman's ruling on requests for the Dated at Bethesda. Maryland this tet day equipment and metals (incluang contaminated smelted alloys-NL* REG- opportunity to present oral statements olluly.tsee. and the time allotted therefor car. be For the Nuclear Regulatory Contmfulon.
- g. 05ta. Final Environmental Statement) " obtained by d a prepaid telephone call to Harold R. Denton,
' hec 'niss oni g of les po e the cor;nizant ACRS staff members.Mr. pj,,,,,,, off,ce of Nuclear iteactor plan?s and fuel facilities:(2) the Owen S. Merrill(telephone 202/634-Regulation. f;11owing High Level Radioactive Waste 1413) between 8.15 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. (HLW) topics being addressed by the Persons planning to atiend this meeting (FR Doc. 8645478 Filed 7-4-a6. 8.45 am) NRC Division of Waste Management are urged to contact the above named --
'WM) Staff. (a) Sorption and solubility individual one or two days before the -
scheduled meeting to be advised of any ,, g trirrie Technical PoWors. (b) their 5-changes in schedule, etc.,which may g,g g est plan, fc) the N9C. prop? sed Federall Funded R&D Center (FFRDC). have occurred. Virginia Electric and Power Coa l cnd(d)t e status of their review of Dated: July 3.1988. i ~ lasuance of Materlats License SNM-DOE's Final Environmental Morton W. IJba:Lin. 2501 for the Surry Dry Cask Assessments (EAs) fo,r the candidate Assistant Executive Directorfor Project frdependent Spent Fuel Storage repository sties nominated for site Review. instaHation at the Surry Power Station char 2cterization;(3) the following topics herr irmtigated under DWM's 14w. (TR Doc. 88-15490 Fded 7-4-86. 8.45 'Iheam] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I amo coos vs c.u leve! Rad oactive Waste (LLW) Commission (the Commission) has alternatives to aha!!ow land issued a materiels license under the Program:(a)dioactive wastes that are [ Docket No.50-5291 burial. (b) ra requirements of to CFR Part 72 to f halow 'eculatory concern. and (c) mixed Virginia Electric and Power Company radioactive and hazardous wastes;(4) z na PubHc Suvice Co. et sta Palo (VEPCO or the licensee) authorizing the the fo!!owing waste management ' ' " " *""8 8 # "' receipt and storage of spent fuelin dry resrarch topics under consideration by Uni 2 casks at anIndependent Spent Fuel ( the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Notice is hereby given that the Storage Installation (ISFSI) located L Kwash (RES). (a)The development of Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor onsite at the Surry Power Station in g field data on the movement of Regulation.has denied a Petition filed Surry County, Virginia. under 10 CFR 2.24.by Barbara S. Bush The function on the dry cask ISTSlis
)3 radionuclides within the environment-cnd the associated impact of heat- and Myron1. Scott 6n beiJ of the to provide interim storage of spent fuel
( water. rock interactions.(p) the Coalition for Responsible Enerss from Surry Power Station Unita 1 and 2. j predicted performance of' repository Education regarding the Palo Verde Spend fuellosding and cask preparation I aystems under realistic field conditions. Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS). takes place within the Suny Power and (c) setdng priorities (pr waste Unit 2.ne Petitioner requested further Station fuel handlingbuilding.The caska fg maagement issues subject to ' licensing activity for Unit 2 be deferred are them moved to the onsite ISFSI rulemaking.The Subcorr.mittee will also pending completion of hearings on thewhere they are placed ou concrete Le boeled on the Depa.-tment of issues raised in the Petition and thatslabs.The a sp~end fuelis stored in an
- Energy's Nevada Test Site (NTS)in Special Management Inspection Ineri stmosphere inside massive metal' e
preparation for its jaly 31-August i visit Oversight Team and a systems- casks which provide confinement. 9 t) that site. interaction ar.d reliability study be shielding. criticahty control and passive Oral statements may be presented by constituted to insure management heat removal. lI
'A r-embers of the public with the ,
incurrence of the Subcommittee competence and the reliability of the !W - Armcew wr/ . u .
( !( PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION ACRS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE JULY 21-23, 1986 ROOM 1046, 1717 H STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. MONDAY, JULY 21, 1986 Opening Remarks D. Moeller, Chairman
- 1. 8:30-8:45 AM S. Lichtman, EPA and
- 2. 8:45-10:45 AM Residual Radiation Limits and R. Alexander, RES the Disposition of Land, Buildings, Equipment and Metals Resulting from the Decontamina-tion and Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Facilities 10:45-11:00 AM B R E A K 11:00-12:00 N Salvaging of Contaminated D. Hopkins, RES 3.
Smelted Alloys--Review of Draft Final invironmental ( Assessment (NUREG-0518) 12:00-1:00 PM LUNCH Low-Level Waste Topics M. Knapp.
- 4. 1:00-4:00 PM K. Dragonette, S. Bahadur, DWM 4.1 Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous Wastes 4.2 Radioactive Wastes Below Regulatory Concern BREAK 4.3 Alternatives to Shallow Land Burial Executive Session D. Moeller
- 5. .4:00-5:00 PM Y .
(.
t TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1986 Recap and Introduction D. Moeller, Chairman
- 6. 8:30-8:45 AM 8:45-12:00 N High-level Waste Topics DWM Staff 7.
7.1 Sorption and Solubility GTPs and J. Bradbury Draft Letter Report on the Sorption Workshop BREAK , 7.2 DWM's Five-Year Plan J. Linehan 7.3 Briefing on Nevada Test Site J. Linehan and K. Stablein 12:00-1:00 PM LUNCH
- 7. (Continued) 1:00-3:45 PM 7.4 Federally Funded R&D Center P. 5:inde (FFRDC)
(, BREAK 7.5 Status Report on NRC Review of J. Linehan DOE's Final Environmental Assessments (EAs) .
- 8. 3:45-5:00 PM Executive Session ,
O T .
~
(
w . 8 WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1986 $ D. Moeller, Chairman
- 9. 8:30-8:45 AM Recap and Introduction
- 10. 8:45-10:45 AM Waste Management Research ~F. Costanzi and Topics Staff (RES) 10.1 The development of field data on radionuclide movement within the environment and associated impact of heat-water-rock interactions 10.2 Predicted performance of repository systems under predicted field conditions 10.3 Preview of setting priorities for waste management issues subject to ruiemaking 10:45-11:00 AM BREAK J. Channell, Envir-
- 11. 11:00-12:00 F The State of New Mexico's mental Evaluation Experience in their Technical Group, State of Evaluation of the WIPP Project New Mexico
( 12:00-1:00 PM LUNCH Executive Session D. Moeller
- 12. 1:00-2:30 PM 2:30 PM ADJOURN
= . as m.
*A T .
ATTACHMENT 3 s DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED DURING THE ACRS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING -( JULY 21-23, 1986 c
- 1. Letter from ACRS to N. J. Palladino, Chairman,
Subject:
ACRS Connents on the Definition of Low-level Radioactive Waste, May 13, 1986, with response to this letter attached, i.e., Letter from V. Ste110. EDO, to D. A. Ward, ACRS, Chairman, June 30, 1986
- 2. Letter from ACRS to N. J. Palladino, Chairman,
Subject:
ACRS Coments on Salvaging of Contaminated Smelted Alloys, May 13, 1986
- 3. Presentation Handout, EPA's Development of Residual Radioactive Crite-ria, Dr. Stanley Lichtman, EPA, July 21, 1986
- 4. Federal Register Notice, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 194, Radiation Protection Criteria for Cleanup of Land and Facilities Contaminated with Residual Radioactive Materials; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Vol. 51, No.117, pp. 22264-22266, June 18,1986
- 5. Letter from ACRS to W.J. Dircks, EDO,
Subject:
ACRS Coments on Pro-posed Amendments to 10 CFR 20 to Specify Residual Radioactive Contamina-tion Limits, May 14, 1984
- 6. Presentation Handout, Smelted Alloys Chronology, D. Hopkins, RES,
,( July 21, 1986
- 7. Presentation Handout, Summary of NRC's Work on Regulation of Mixed Waste, Sher Bahadur, July 21, 1986
- 8. Presentation Handout, Below Regulatory Concern Radioactive Waste -- DANG BRC, ACRS Talk (86/0-/14), July 21,1986
- 9. Presentation Handout, Sumary of NRC's Work on Alternative Disposal Methods to Shallow Land Burial, (no author identification), July 21, e 1986
- 10. NESP - National Environmental Studies Project -- Program Plan, FY 86/87,
Subject:
Item 2, Guidelines for Obtaining Regulatory Approval to Dispose of Mixed Wastes, Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF), undated
- 11. AIF Press Release, NESP, New NESP Study Finds Certain Radwaste "Beneath Regulatory Concern," May 20, 1986
- 12. SECY-85-204,
Subject:
Policy Statement on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern, July 11, 1986
- 13. Presentation Handout, Geochemistry Generic Technical Positions, J.
Linehan, P. S. Justus, J. W. Bradbury, July 22, 1986
- 14. Presentation Handout, Sorption and Solubility Generic Technical Posi-tion, Geotechnical Branch, Division of Waste Management, July 22, 1986
(
- 15. Technical Position, Detennination of Radionuclide Solubility in Ground-water for Assessment of High-Level Waste Isolation, Geotechnical Branch, h k NEvGmber 1984
s w 2-l
- 16. Technical Position, Determination of Radionuclide Sorption for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories, Geotechnical Branch, Division of Waste l
Management, January 1986
- 17. Draft Letter Report, Proceedings of the NRC/0RNL Workshop: Radionuclide Sorption Modeling Related to High-level Nuclear Waste Repository Perfor-mance Assessment held May 13-15, 1986, A.D. Kelmers, Chemical Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, June 30, 1986
- 18. Presentation Handout, Briefing on the Yucca Mountain Site, King Sta-blein, Division of Waste Management, July 22, 1986
- 19. Presentation Handout, Briefing on NRC's Review of DOE's Final Environ-mental Assessments, Robert L. Johnson, July 22, 1986
- 20. Division of Waste Management, High-Level Waste Program, Five Year Plan, FY 1966 - FY 1990, undated
- 21. Presentation Handout, Early Identification and Closure of Licensing Open I'tems John Linehan, July ?2, 1986
- 22. Presentation Handout, Radionuclide Movement and Heat-Water-Rock Inter-actions in the Natural Environment, Linda Korach, Waste Management
( Branch, RES, July 23, 1986
- 23. Presentation Handout, Repository Performance Prediction Under "Realis-tic" Field Conditions, Tim McCartin, Waste Management Branch, RES, July 23, 1986
- 24. Presentation Handout, Long-Term Performance Demonstration, F. Constanzi, Chief, Waste Management Branch, RES, July 23, 1986
- 25. Presentation Handout, New Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group Experi-ence in Technical Evaluation of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP),
James K. Channell, July 23, 1986
- 26. Letter from A. Schmidt, Schmidt Instrument Canpany, to William R.
Cooper, Project Manager, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Re: Exhaust Air Monitoring Plans for WIPP, July 9,1986 T .
, ACRS, SUBCOMMITTEE HEETING ON ///h37 /[)A-n/M g fff f--
LOCAT10:t: 00/7) /n4h
.%TE: It[4M43)
- VI l ggf ATTENDANCE LIST s .
PLEASE PRINT: NME AFFILIATION
) W. M erlb y _
CES Mem y J. C . Jh A R K _ Nt. car M ' Cansulwk
*), O yQ / 81 l' h.$ Lim e iN_ v_
l R , Factsrw
.5 D l
NA M A> v 6.6. N1ere; l < n Sravv R rT A le ra n de <
' NH /Aff
$+1ta l.'fcyinigs/ ~ ' EPk,offa4fna PKacs. '
02 HakJs < onc/ess C$ YaNsen / A/RC lK ES T2. SA vr o _
< Ac res S rA rr
$. $It ow!W f bi!. k=8 l I W H, YWAPP / Ai'PC/ A/MLS /tdH1' ,
e, / i. / ,,
$, =; 4 h , . <
J/hawat L]arAL _ N# C-lNMLS/tJM GT I bow b code _ NAC f NM$5/binL4T l ~ N t s- $ke (& a _ Asie c l/f/h rr lovin L l/ t anu A h < / :> - ' hp t /+A rrkna d
%/ b4 err V
/-C (2 5 S e m l>.c r 42 O ,
47779cettE#r 4 l
,ACRS, SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON Y/h37# [ M 7t/ M I: fp>A-A f[ ~ ' tocpIou:- & com /n4h
- om: ~Toa "1 a,l 22 23) Mfb rf,MY )
l ATTENDANCE LIST
'fL_E b- A 5 E
- = ~
PLEASE PRINT: NM AFFILIATION N $ iM e n.3 [} w Fe d Dhv6 $M on A GT> ' &,y
' ~
1Ad / TM1 - A. $. Leoret V Aun /Ms e C R Mosu9cd _ / N NS
/JeeEX) Enobsscy ~ v &M$25$ ANT-i- P&'Tw.)
LtAou NS & _ d IIAC blNFriek od daAL lurwd kob, fawn d / 6Att U YAb6W S A%7E% V b8A163 OkMf ('auleh mauen n / NRC ( SMe hvad ' r%- ~ fbrelt
t. c 1 /uww e C,
% s.vCYn &WEm v N& C- A/hfS,5lWA46T
~llew dau ! Mf C - tJwir NMHm 6L% mmm / mc o n o w, , -
Knrv DLaw v ww o '. H k. YM n h _ I x1 h.L /A) mss /Wr1
? C hlnfe 'I LL ry bah k o ll,.
/97CUMP4 AY^/WM AIF/A/Est'
/M.xoa -
v' ukc/oec=s. Am J e 6 --
----------.___-______l
{AC'RSSUBCOMMITTEEMEETINGON ((676 g/Mfy-g g;gy7-
; LOC'ATION: CO/M) /Chd DATE: 70L'l 23 /fb .I ATTENBANCE LIST _
PLEASE PRINT: NAME BADGE ii0. AFFILIATION sN n (5*09E9 LP - TwQewho 't= oc 71 aamstixif u omt < S ofW %4J < ' - R4,o. ora - sagic o ,-in nir k T de,w13/ f bOkO
^
E!L /iJLI<' ,e w-osi GPR I
%d L+ o n w Alus
/$tO10L~) k w n
' E02VP A/f wands &N' <
lEM49 E 09W 01F
%Lh2
((kik A k oen 5 .ltrL W V G- 09<. t nif /scs,- fa/0
\/arr)G (Arrehr f ~ $/ 0 Ad/ 2 V OM E l d d'tfN C se k V ~ 0&^ / 2 00 / E - o9 ac E6I f6 r . P.Fmece if (A>/ 1 L./ 4 F1 f h L C o m 13 I-O944 6 M
&me We L '
E 097r CA%wles i co ygg & r fd 6 *O e eGB4g O
- xcRs susc0mITTEE MEETING oN J M 6,r /5 ///A///Ar, pagg- [
, LOC'AIION: 00 /Ch[ I DATE: [UL'l 4 I N 23 /[
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT: NAME BADGE ii0. AFFILIATION RbC Ace. GJ ,
%G nu
%.Wca & < w0% c J aJ. Qan M Ch&{ v g o'16 Maft of Wu' Mndo Fn ax (lrow 90 M < E o /7(s AJ u's em;rs
' E -b9 20 h A l r-L n u e- Pa cs
')A d87W G 0/ft GewAM b1, tAl. (L A- L-r5 A t TE 0970 eto 6 9 &ls T A N 'Y '
1,0cbk - Oddfr Sci b i, d> L= nct/6 {&u2d >
/06w;d '~ 1 ' 0 9$1 n f~et T T B.Ju '
co w 1xf/If
,/ [n ow le % J 9,,9cc Mf
- - - - + , -,_n
.ACRS* 5UBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON //A-6TF /[)/3-n/ A S- g ffj p g 0 0 / 91 /c4h L0CATID3:
TE: b> L9 8 f 3) ,/{((
~
lW ATTENDANCE LIST ,
\
PLEASE PRINT: NM AFFILIATION .
' Dnt. JUM , Mss (blet.,p 5 3vsras usGRG
' a ir c - h w m 75ha usraw _
D. m w% < A-c 2 S A1e w k F. R e n ie k ' '. W. 4ee< < M. s+s a w < Cem s al+3 "
- 3. ord " "
/
N . C4 r te r O. M ePe lll _
# " bb '
W. >A nny / S te. FE llbtv - vJ , W Cw < Al t c. - h u) m h T rk't inrk v _ NR( WMPC
/ M 2 #::- - PiAlM H o au a c m.hk -
un w m cm
/ NRt t.0 %T hAet (3EmaiA
/ MIt.c WM &7
hr8 0 YAclCCon bu GALSOL/
' Al RC - w M R p C . A4e rK _
f A Cft S / H r M B F/E Ro5cv+ L. Jahnsavu / NRC WMRP eme e m 6 8 _,
. ACR9 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON A137# NB7t//96'- E f/7/rg tocnlou:
S oo#> /n4h pugg5p krE: J o esDl a I (Ra s 3) 19 76 }z isi 7
' {
ATTENDANCE LIST . PLEASE PRINT: NME AFFILIATION D Wid 3Pe ok '
./ W 9.,c., / \,o m g.t P60L J. DEM51A / NILL / W MGT
$h]A C. MMse v v Afg c./ WHST' .
SeN OU*y ' AJAc./uNsT Je=& K C/== a'l _ < s+d .y W*.a N w 4-
/
/ '
Lest: L Mkc-s .3 A l C F.R. r.. u u n - Ju u s c. ar. k) a.l4- M < a a c/wm c.,b d 4 d A' b~ " NMc. /h)A&r A % T JaL /t m Asn!nMef Pakun sek!wJ v Road
'M e
O __ h
ACAS SUSCONHITTEE HEETING ON $A16TC //)}}n/fFg.p ,yygg LOCATIO:t: OO/h /n N
' o^TE:
. J DL98/, A7)3 '
/'
/ff[
ATTENDANCE LIST , i PLEASE PRINT: NM AFFILIATION
). Met. IIn v AC4tS M sW "
C.M wJs " is M . Cet rier
" Oensai M
- b. Or%
s M. S -esns k . C. Mo re i lI ' " ShO
- a. w n.n,3 < ,, .)n.ihlok W. WelK*v v N RC - DWM
% G.I Lso Al J AIRC - Wk EP to haald 1. 0), ara" c a. < Alre - 3rss- 8)nta ?
-r7m M c ce Jin ' AllC - 1Es - oss - cau8
~
& NicMotreel _
v rJ12 c - 12ET- i>ET-k>mS fws l' mbt 1 / wRc M E%\ MVOis NRC.l RES>*tB
/
lh$ Wovael ir Sa.+k M. G ' eln. i ac/wn Ios\;o Peek,rs / SA s c'f - Omn /< d la,i,1i// < SX6 4 Ab~ n' nice ffAWK Crotasof - v ^' A) LL 5 Cars '
-L %dLs+v' _
F W c. w C. Kinx - A CRS n)e m ba > F Cov % x/ ' #RC/PE9//A41f5
$&RSSUBCOMMITTEEMEETINGON )l4STF E'A#4V;-sms s-
, . LOCATION: COM /Oh DATE: IULY d I, 2- ' 3T /fb
' ATTENDANCE LIST _
I l . PLEASE PRINT: l NAME BADGE NO. AFFILIATION h LLA.( W WClLV
~
Cs u ka$) Y '
*1702+2 NR S (%,o.
F Y. Cro.oson QanwK 0$ml l{ ' Conr 5%6 n Jb Wrub "D)-0l$ ' & m% 60Ak?vt-rAtM7 il/l, Gt[i AM 7FR ' 5 6978 // Ac e Fc) (/ Crow (es f6054 Aesu e Pecher s
/ FtrMl SA1 C f
i
e LIST OF HAND 0UTS
- 1. Memo to N. Palladino from D. Ward, Subj: ACRS Comments on the Definition of Low-Level Radioactive Waste , dated May 13, 1986
- 2. Memo to N.J. Palladino from D. Ward,
Subject:
ACRS Comments on Salvaging of Contaminated Smelted Alloys, dated May 13, 1986.
- 3. EPA's Development of Residual Radioactivity Criteria by Dr. Stanley Lichtman, Guides and Criteria Branch (ANR-460) Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460
- 4. -Federal Register, June 18, 1986 , Part V, Environmental Protection Agency
- 5. Memo to W. Dircks from J. C. Ebersole,
Subject:
ACRS Comments on Proposed Amendments to ]0 CFR 20 to Specify Residual Radioactive Contamination Limits, dated May 14, ]984
- 6. Smelted Alloys Chronology (slides)
- 7. Summary of NRC's Work on Regulation of Mixed Waste presented by Sher Bahadur, July 21, 1986
- 8. Below Regulatory Concern Radioactive Waste. Impacts-BRC Computer Program for Estimating Potential Exposures
- 9. Summary of NRC's Work on Alternative Disposal Methods to Shallow Land Burial
- 10. NESP National Environmental Studies Project Program Plan - FY 86/87
- 11. Press Release, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
- 12. SECY-86-204, For Commissioners from V. Stello, Jr.
Subject:
Policy Statement on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern dated July 11, 1986
- 13. ACRS Subcommittee on Waste Management Briefing, July 22, 1986
- 14. Briefing on the Sorption and Solubility Generic Gechnical Positions
- 15. Determination of Radionuclide Solubility in Groundwater for Assessment of High-level Waste Isolation - Technical Position, November 1984
- 16. Determination of Radionuclide Sorption for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories, Technical Position, January,1986
- 17. Letter Report, Draft 6/30/86, Proceedings of the NRC/0RNL Workshop, Radionuclide Sorption Modeling Related to High-Level Nuclear Waste.
Repository Performance Assessment'
- 18. Briefing on the Yucca Mountain Site, King Stablein and Charlotte Abram, NRC, July 22, 1986
- 19. Briefing on NRC's Review of DOE's Final Environmental Assessments to ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee, July 22, 1986, Robert L. Johnson
- 20. Division of Waste Management High-Level Waste Program Five-Year Plan, FY86-FY90
- 21. Reason for 5-Year Plan - Early Identification and Closure of Licensing Open Items - July 22, 1986, John Linehan
- 22. Radionuclide Movement and Heat-Water-Rock Interactions in the Natural Environment
- 23. Repository Performance Prediction under " Realistic" Field Conditions, Tim McCartin
- 24. Long-Term Performance Demonstration (slides)
- 25. New Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group, Experience in Technial Evaluation of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) presented by J. K.
Channell, July 23, 1986
- 26. Memoto DOE, Attn: W. R. Cooper,
Subject:
Exhaust Air Monitoring Plans for WIPP from A. C. Schmidt, dated July 9,1986 i}}