ML20213A624
| ML20213A624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2474, NUDOCS 8702030400 | |
| Download: ML20213A624 (24) | |
Text
h
%%~
u 11 g nne &#n Up&jiS i i h'7*g 3 CERTIFIED MINUTES DATE ISSUED:Dec.12,1986
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE ACRS SPENT FUEL STORAGE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, WASHINGTON, D. C.
NOVEMBER 21, 1986
Purpose:
The subject meeting was held to review 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), with emphasis on its use in licensing dry cask storage at Surry 1 and H. B. Robinson 2, and the changes being proposed in it to accommodate a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility (Attachment 1).
Attendees (Attachment 2): Total - 28 ACRS Members - 4 NRC/NMSS (Participants) - 6 C. P. Siess, Chairman L. C. Rouse D. W. Moeller J. P. Roberts F. J. Remick F. C. Sturz P. G. Shewmon C. B. Sawyer A. T. Clark R. Chappell (Did not participate)
ACRS Staff and Fellows - 5
- 0. S. Merrill NRC/RES (Participants) - 4 J. C. McKinley K. G. Steyer H. Alderman L. L. Beratan J. Parry C. W. Nilsen C. Sun M. Vagins (Did not participate)
Others (Non-participants) - 9 J. D. Trotter, NUS K. Arn, SERCH (Bechtel)
L. Peeters, SAIC E. Gordon, Transnulcear, Inc.
R. W. Bown, DOE-0CRWM T. S. Guttman, DOE-0CRWM P. J. Gross, DOE-0ak Ridge Operations J. Breitner, ACR
~
p r--- r C. Brinkmans .
DESICNATED ORIGINAz, Cert 1gggg g , f y , g~
g20 0 861212 --
/,,.,, _ , J B M,T. ACRS-2474 PDR
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORACE MTG. 2 Novernber 31, 1986 e .
, Presentation Schedule and Handouts:
The order of presentation followed, with minor exceptions, the schedule given in Attachment 3. The exceptions were: (1) Item VII, Comments on Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Part 72, was presented after Item III, and (2) Item V, Transportation Aspects of New Materials, was deleted and will be discussed in a future meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Transportation of Radioactive Materials. A list of the handouts provided during the meeting is given in Attachment 4.
Meeting Highlights I. Introduction - C. P. Siess, Chairman
- 1. Dr. Siess discussed the historical background of 10 CFR Part 72, emphasizing <"at it was originally concerned only with spent fuel storage pool design, but was not reviewed by the ACRS at that time
-- 1979. The proposed revision was not submitted for ACRS review because (1) it was considered of low safety significance, (2) the rule had not been previously reviewed by the ACRS, and (3) it was not submitted for review to CRGR.
- 2. NMSS sees few ISFSIs in the near future. Dry cask storage licenses have recently been granted under the existing Part 72 to Surry 1 and H. B. Robinson 2, but dry cask storage will not be needed at every nuclear power plant. Duke is considering dry cask storage at Oconee (rather than rod consolidation) and a few others may do the
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 3 Novemb:r 31, 1986
, same if needed by the early 1990's. However, by the middle or late 1990s additional space may be needed by other licensees.
- 3. Most plants have reracked their fuel rods, including Surry and Robinson, and some have done rod consolidation. Rod consolidation does not violate fuel rod integrity whether done at the plant or at the proposed MRS facility. Any gap activity lost as a result of damage done in rod consolidation will have to be subtracted from EPA allowable releases in reprocessing the fuel. Since EPA allows approximately 10% of Kr-85 to be released in fuel reprocessing, no more than 10% of the rods can be defective or leaking during rod consolidation.
- 4. Dr. Siess emphasized that the objective of today's meeting is to review and discuss the entire Part 72, section by section, identifying changes being proposed to accomodate MRS-type facilities and to facilitate the use of Part 72 in licensing additional dry cask storage facilities.
, II. Introduction to 10 CFR Part 72 - K. Steyer 1
- 1. Mr. Steyer provided copies of the existing Part 72, which was published November 12, 1980 and became effective November 28, 1980.
He explained that this document would be used as the basis for l
subsequent presentations during the meeting. He also provided copies of the proposed rule, which was published in the Federal l
Register on May 27, 1986. The comment period on the proposed rule t
o MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 4 November 31, 1936 expired on August 25, 1986. A sumarization of the,coments would be made later in this meeting.
III. Overview of 10 CFR Part 72 A. General Provisions, Procedural Requirements (Subparts A, B, C and D) -- Lee Rouse, NMSS
- 1. Mr. Rouse emphasized that Part 72 was being revised to accommodate wet or dry spent fuel rod storage at or away from nuclear power plants, including the DOE designated MRS -- or its equivalent if it is renamed later.
- 2. The existing rule covers only power reactor fuel. The proposed rule includes fuel from all reactors.
- 3. They have expanded emergency planning in the proposed rule; it is now complete without reference to Appendix E, Part 50. If fuel is in dry storage at a nuclear power plant, the plant's emergency plan encompasses the dry storage also. For the proposed MRS, a limited local emergency plan would be required i
(Section 72.19 in both existing and proposed rules).
- 4. Section 72.21, which required licensing documents, has been deleted in the proposed revision, and the appropriate requirements have been placed in the text of the applicable sections.
l
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 5 November 31, 1986
- 5. Section 72.31 (14) (b) has been modified in the proposed revision to include, in addition to spent fuel, the storage of high-level radioactive waste in the proposed MRS.
B. Siting Evaluation Factors (Subpart E, Sections 72.61 through 72.70)
-- L. Beratan, RES, and T. Clark, NMSS The presenters followed the outline contained in handout number 4.
The highlights of the discussion of Subpart E follow.
- 1. Section 72.66 -- Geologic and Seismological Characteristics.
This section was the most controversial and ambiguous to the subcommittee members, particularly regarding the distinction between paragraphs (a) Massive Water Basin and Air-Cooled Canyon Types of ISFSI Structures, and (b) Other types of ISFSI Designs.
- 2. Dr. Siess commented that, if (b) is intended to apply only to cask design, it need not appear as a separate paragraph.
Also, if the overturning of the massive concrete pads (upon which the casks will rest) is acceptable under SSE conditions, this aspect can be covered in design, not in siting.
- 3. Dr. Siess further said:
(a) It is not clear whether an Appendix A of 10 CFR 100 eval-uation would be required under (b),
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 6 November 31, 1986 e ~
, (b) It is not clear that (a), (6), the ISFSI design earthquake (DE) requirements, can be invoked under (b),
(c) Herecommendeddeletionofthedistinctionbetween(a) and(b),
(d) He is concerned with the unclear scope of the " limited" investigation permitted in (a) (1)
(e) It is not clear that (a) (1) through (5) are screening criteria, and (a) (6) is the basis for selecting SSE; i.e., whether (a) (1) is to be used, or Appendix A under (a) (6) (1).
- 4. Dr. Moeller noted that the design of the structures should be separated from the design of the storage cask.
C. General Design Criteria (Subpart F, Section 72.71 through 72.76) --
J. Roberts and T. Clark, NMSS This presentation covered the material outlined in handout number
- 5. The highlights of this presentation and discussion are:
- 1. The proposed rule will include consideration of tornado missiles for both the MRS and on-site storage facilities, which is not required in the existing rule.
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 7 November 31, 1986 4 *
- 2. Mr. Roberts stated, in response to a question from Dr. Shewmon about putting leaking or defective rods in dry storage casks,
~
that the criteria do not permit doing so, especially when grossly defective rods are involved, although such rods can be stored in a pool or canister.
- 3. Dr. Moeller asked what containment limits were used for Surry dry cask storage. Mr. Roberts said they used the same limits that are used for the transportation casks.
- 4. Degarding the cask design to prevent criticality if flooded, Mr. Rouse indicated that the casks are designed to prevent criticality even if the fuel is new (the most extreme, but unlikely case).
- 5. Dr. Moeller pointed out that both the existing and proposed rules (regarding total dose) indicate that Part 72 is to comply with EPA Standard 40 CFR Part 190, which is already outdated, that later information exists, and that the EPA ought to be asked if they contemplate making changes in 40 CFR Part 190.
D. Quality Assurance and Training (Subparts G and I) -- J. Roberts, NMSS This presentation covered the material outlined in handout number 6.
~ _ _ _ _ _
~
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 8 November 31, 1986 4 *
. Regarding Subpart G, the following points were made by Mr. Roberts.
- 1. As the rule exists, you use Appendix B, Part 50, QA Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants. No change is proposed for section 72.80 -- QA Program; Records.
- 2. A Branch Technical Position has been drafted, which they hope will eventually be incorporated as a Regulatory Guide, giving guidance to applicants with respect to the 0A program for ISFSIs.
- 3. There is a separate subpart incorporated into the proposed rule for MRS, commensurate with its importance to safety.
Regarding Subpart I -- Training and Certification of ISFSI Person-nel, the following comments were expressed.
- 1. F. Remick expressed concern about the quality of the training program in the absence of a systematic approach and more prescriptive requirements like those for Reactor Operators --
especially for the MRS rather than the on-site ISFSIs like Surry and Robinson. He also expressed concern about the apparent lack of control at the MRS facility to prevent someone from committing mistakes.
E. Physical Protection (Subpart H) -- C. B. Sawyer, NMSS
- Mr. Sawyer followed the outline contained in handout number 7. The highlights of his comments follow.
l
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 9 November 31, 1986
- 1. The four provisions in this subpart are: (1) physical security plan, which includes a means to demonstrate compli-ance, (2) design for physical protection, including site layout and design features, (3) safeguards contingency plan, which is a statutory requirement, and (4) changes to (1) and (3). .to prevent a dilution of the effectiveness of the plan.
- 2. The most substantive requirements of Part 73 that apply to ISFSIs and the MRS are those contained in Section 73.50 --
Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities.
- 3. The objective of these requirements is to protect against radiological sabotage.
4
- 4. He expects that the security force at an MRS will be equivalent to that for a nuclear power plant. Dr. Remick disagreed with the requirement that made such a number appear to be reasonable; he thought the size of the security force could be smaller.
IV. Comments on Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Part 72 -- C. W. Nilsen, NMSS Mr. Nilsen discussed their review of the public comments received regarding the proposed rule changes. They were published on May 27, 1986; the comment period ended on August 26, 1986. His princi-
- pal points were:
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 10 November 31, 1986
- 1. Of the over 180 comment letters received, approximately two-thirds were of a single consensus, i.e., they were written in response to a letter to his constituents from a representa-tive of the state of Tennessee. They all say to license the facility in two stages, but not in Tennessee.
- 2. Other comments were received from DOE, from four states, from eleven utilities, and approximately 50 from individuals.
- 3. The majority of the comments were of a procedural or clari-fication nature. There were only a limited number of safe-ty-related technical comments.
- 4. In response to a question asked by P. Shewmon regarding at-reactor site ISFSI licensing, L. Rouse answered that there is a notice of opportunity for a hearing when NRC receives the license application, but there was no request for a hearing in either the Surry or Robinson case.
- 5. F. Remick asked about the DOE comments. Mr. Nilson said they commented mainly on (1) the aspects of publishing the oppor-tunity for notice of a second hearing; (2) the three questions asked by the Commission in the proposed rule; i.e., what things could be opened at the hearing, what type of hearing, and the form that the hearing should take; (3) the aspects of physical protection; (4) the continuous monitoring of the dry casks; and (5) the effectiveness of the proposed rule.
b
~
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 11 November 31, 1986
. V. Dry Spent Fuel Storage Licensing, Topical Report Reviews, and Safeguards (Surry and Robinson 2) - J. Roberts and C. Sawyer, NMSS The materials used for this presentation and discussion were handouts 9 through 12. The dry cask used at Surry and the dry concrete module and stainless steel canister used at Robinson 2 are shown in handouts 10 and 11, respectively.
J. Roberts described the licensing approach taken for both sites, emphasizing safety, environment, and safeguards. These included consideration of (1) site review, (2) site phenomena severity determination,(3)siteandcaskcomparisonanddeterminationof acceptability, (4) on-site transportation from the fuel building to the storage area, and (5) storage, including monitoring, health and safety and license conditions.
C. Sawyer discussed the Safeguards Licensing at Surry and Robinson
- 2. In the case of Surry, several security features that were already in place to meet the requirements of Section 73.55 (Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage) could be used to meet the requirements of Section 73.50 (Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities).
These features are structures, equipment, and personnel. The actions required for Surry to meet the safeguards were minimal and readily accomplished. The licensee modified the physical
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 12 November 31, 1986 protection plan for the reactor site to accommodate,the dry cask ISFSI, which was in the protected area at Surry. The modified plan was acceptable to Safeguards.
In the case of Robinson 2, the licensee modified the physical protection plan for the reactor site to accommodate the factors peculiar to the ISFSI. The ISFST was not within the protected area at Robinson. The modified plan was acceptable to Safeguards.
The highlights of the discussion of these licensing actions were:
- 1. D. Moeller noted that the dry cask storage area at Surry is 0.5 mile from the reactor but still within the site boundary.
1
- 2. The dry casks at Surry rest in a cradle and are open to the environment. Each cask stores 21 PWR assemblies weighing 10 tons.
- 3. The concrete storage modules at Robinson are 25'x22'x13' high and house three canisters in separate modules. The 31- foot thickness of concrete provides shielding and protects the canisters from tornado missiles. Each canister holds 7 PWR assemblies. Robinson is authorized for eight canisters, i.e.,
two blocks of three modules and one block of two modules.
l l
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 13 November 31, 1986
. 4. The dose rate on the surface of the front door,s of the concrete module is around 50 millirems /hr., well under the technical specification limit of 200 millirems /hr.
i Other details of the discussion of the Surry and Robinson 2 dry cask storage are available in the handouts and the meeting transcript.
VI. Transportation Aspects of New Materials - R. Chappell, RES This presentation was not made because Dr. Siess determined, in a private conversation with Mr. Chappell, that most of what Mr.'
i Chappell had to say would deal with transportation aspects which are not within the purview of this subcommittee, but is the function of another subcommittee that will meet later at an j appropriate time to deal with it.
l l
l VII. Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) Update - T. Clark, NMSS The material provided by Mr. Clark for this review is in handouts 13 and 14. The former summarizes the update and the natural i
phenomena risk; the latter discussed the nature of and provides a j description of the MRS.
The principal points of Mr. Clark's presentation and the discussion l
thereof were:
l 4
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 14 November 31, 1986
, 1. As of this date, there is still no response from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (i.e., to remove the injunction issued at the request of the State of Tennessee against the DOE preventing their submittal of the MRS Proposal to Con-gress).
- 2. As a consequence of the above, there is very little current DOE activity in this area.
- 3. Regarding beyond design basis natural phenomena threats of flood, earthquake, and tornado, dry casks present no problem for flood or earthquake but may have a problem with tornado missiles. Further missile analyses and studies will be done by the staff. Consideration of this matter had previously been excluded because of wet storage.
o Similarly, the cells (i.e., the hot cell facility inside the handling building) present no problem for earthquake and tornado, but could present a criticality problem with a deluge flood. DOE has proposed the use of poison racks, if necessary to solve the criticality problem, so that even if the cell were totally flooded criticality could not occur. Mr. Clark said he would prefer not to do that because he does not think it is necessary in this case.
- 4. The proposed MRS is designed to have five HEPA filters in series to protect workers and the environment against airborne
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 15 November 31, 1986 particles due to rod defects or damage in hand, ling. L. Rouse said that this is probably a little overkill, but in the rod consolidation operation rods may be broken while they are outside the canister. He also said that, as a point of reference, three HEPA filters are typically required in a plutonium facility.
- 5. In answer to a question by Dr. Remick regarding rod consolida-tion, J. Roberts said that under Part 50.59 there has been a demonstration by Duke Power Co. at Oconee. There also has been some demonstration at West Valley. But neither of these examples are in the context of the Millstone 2 application where rod consolidation will, when licensed, be used to expand spent fuel pool capacity.
VIII. Future Rulemaking, 10 CFR Part 72 - L. Rouse, NMSS L. Rouse presented this topic orally without the benefit of visual materials. The principal points of this discussion were:
- 1. Future rulemaking would be directed toward the certifica-tion and licensing of dry storage casks relatively independent of specific sites. The license would there-fore be a more general one (including the training and certification of people) for the installation and use of
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 16 November 31, 1986
. such casks. In order to use it, the lice,nsee would have to meet certain site criteria.
- 2. A rulemaking package on the above is in preparation and will probably go to the ED0 sometime later this year.
'S0ch rulemaking would eliminate the site-specific licensing process.
IX. Executive Session - C. Siess, Chairman The following decisions and statements were agreed to by the ACRS Subcommittee members present:
- 1. C. Siess said that this was an excellent presentation. It provides a good background for any ACRS review of an MRS application.
- 2. The ACRS need not be involved in the review of:
- a. licensing ISFSIs, or
- b. reracking fuel rods at existing nu: lear power plant.
The ACRS should, however, be involved in an MRS review. Also, if many utilities decide to do rod consolidation, perhaps the ACRS should review this aspect of the process. A decision on this was deferred to the future.
- 3. The principal areas of concern with Part 72 are those high-lighted in these Minutes. They are:
- a. Training (Subpart I), as emphasized by Dr. Remick,
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE MTG. 17 November 31, 1986
. b. The inconsistency of Part 72 (72.67, existing versions; 72.83, new version) with 10 CFR Part 20, and 40 CFR Part 190; also the inconsistency of 10 CFP Part 100 with ICRP-40, as emphasized by Dr. Moeller, and
- c. Seismic issues (72.66), as emphasized by Dr. Siess.
- 4. No written comments will be provided for ACRS discussion or approval. The oral comments made during this meeting are deemed sufficient for the NRC Staff to modify the proposed rule accordingly. However, the ACRS wishes to see the revised rule.
All presentation handouts are listed on Attachment D and are on file in the ACRS files.
NOTE: 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 (202) 347-3700.
I
n?
40362 Feder*l Register / W1. 51. Ns. 21S / Thursday. Nr.vember 6,1986 / N:tices cmergency preparedness plans be Finding of No Significant Impact l conducted within 1 year prior to considered during the balarze of the ,
meeting.
cperation above 5% of rated power. The ne Commission has determined not The Subcqmmittee will then hear Perry emergency plan was previously to prepare an environmentalimpact -
exercised on April 15.1988, with state statement for the proposed exemption. presentations by and hold dacussions with representatives of the NRC Staff.
( cnd local government participation.
However, the need for this exemption
, , ' , [" '"
"g*'$g its consultants, and other interested proposed actfon will not have a Persons ngareng tMs nWew.
has arisen because the Federal Fureer information agareng topica significant effect on the quality of the .
Emergency Agency (TD.iA), in its report human errvrronment. to be discussed, whether the meeting dated September 5.1986, has characterized the April 1988 exerdse as For details with respect to this action, has kn canceUed a MeMeMe 8
demonstrating full participation fw see the request for exemption dated , ,"n p ra e nts Ashtabula. Ceauga and Lake Counties . October 30.1986 which is available for
.public inspection at the Commission's ah the time allotted therefor can be cf Ohio, but partial participation for the , Public Document Room.1717 H Street obtained by a prepaid telephone call to State of Ohio. the cognizant ACRS staff member. Mr.
NW., Washington. DC. and at the Perr'y De Needfor the ProposedActiant Public Library. 3753 Main Street. Perry, Owen Merrill (telephone 202/634-1414)
The proposed exemption is needed to Ohio 440et, between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Persons permit the licensee to proceed with planning to attend this meeting are Dated at Bethesda, Maryland. this 3rd dar urged to contact the above named operation above 5% of rated power prior of November 1988-la conducting another offsite emergency Individual one or two days before the Wahme R. Butler, preparedness exercise.He next scheduled meeting to be advised cf any exericse with full participation at the of,,ctof, swg pyj,cg pfneswar, ya,4 changes in schedule, etc, whicy may Division ofBMILicensig. have occurred.
State and County levelis presently scheduled for May 1988. An alternativa (FR Do:. so-2 stas Filed it-5 4e; s.45 am]
Deted: November 3.1s58.
asAmsa coca resww Moeton W. IJbaAin.
I eYi ay$7 #I""
include full offsite participation. Adytsory Cew.ma on Reactor $'lf However, neither date would be tunely Safeguarda, Subcommittee on Spent (FR Doc. 86-25113 Filed 11-5-88 8.45 arn]
f:r Perry Unit 1. which is expected to be Fuel Storage; Meeting ."*"'"**"' " " "
ready by mid to late November 1986 for eperation above 5% of rated power. ne ACRS Subcommittee on Spent Environmentallmpact of the Propoeed Fuel Storage will hold a meeting on Proiposed AvailablHty of FY 1987 Action:The exemption would not affect November Zi.1968. Room 1048.1717 H - Funds for Financial Assistance To tha environemtalimpact of the facility Street. NW., Washington DC. Enhance Technology Transfer and because the level of emergency The entire meetin Dissemination of Nuclear Energy public attendance. g will be open to Process and Safety information reparedness will not be degraded by Its
.ssuance. Both FEMA and the NRC The agenda for the subject meeting
! concluded from the April 1988 exercise shall be as follows:. Actucv: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
th:t the results provide reasonable Fridsy Novctnber 21.16.30 a.m.
cssurance of adequate offsite emergency Until the Conclusion of Business Action: Notice.
preparedness relative to the Perry Plant. suuuAny:The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory nerefore, the proposed exemption does The Subcommittee will continue its review of to CFR Part 72. " Licensing Commission (NRC). Office of Nuclear not involve a significant radiological Requirements for the Independent Regulatory Research announces snvironmentalimpact. In addition, the Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High proposed availability of FY 1987 funds cction would have no eflect on Level Radioactive Waste" and to support pmfessional medngs nonradiological environmental impacts Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS).
casociated with the Perry Plant. ,f,'n o saions and' Oral statements may be presented by Alternative to the PmposedAction members of the public with the publications for the expansion.
Because the staff has concluded that concurrence of the Subcommittee exchange and transfer of knowledge.
thIre is no significant impact associated Chairman; written statements will be ideas and concepts directed toward the l with the proposed exemption any accepted and made available to the research necessary to provide a j alternative to the exemption will have Committee. Recordings will be permitted technology base to assess the safety of
. cither no environmentalimpact or only during those portions of the nuclear power (hereinafter called l
greater environmentalimpact. meeting when a transcript is being kept, project).
and questions may be asked only by Projects will be funded through grants.
Alternatire Use ofResourcest nia cetion does not involve the use of members of the Subcommittee,its arrscTive cats: November 1.1986 resources not previously considered in consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring through September 30.1987.
connection with the Final to make oral statements should notify the ACRS staff mamber named below as Anomass:U.S. Nuclear Reguistory Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Perry Nuclear Power Plant- far in advance as is practicable so that Commission. Attn: Crants Officer.
Units 1 and 2." deled August 1982.
appropriate arrangements can be made. Division of Contracts. Omce of During the initialportion of the A ministration. WasMngton, DC 20555.
Agencies andPhrsons Consulted:%e meeting. the Subcommittee, along with rom PURTNaA 18sFoAtIAT1oM coefTACT:
NRC staff consulted FEMA regardingits any of its consultants who may be September 5.1986 report. No other ne cognizant NRC grant official is Mr.
present, may exchange preliminary Ronald nompson, telephone (101) 492-cgencies or persons were contacted. views regarding mattars to be 4322.
~
t -
grmcymsvr /
- 0. MERRILL ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON SPENT FUEL STORAGE .
J .
LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C. -
DATE November 21, 1986 ATTENDANCE LIST -
PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILIATION C. P' Swss A c R.S D W. Me //ci-
F . 3 R e' m c r RG. Sxswan O.S At wens ACKS Shff
k' S-1S Yt t AGC L.c Rouse Pc :Nrnss : A//2c.
1R RodrA FC: 1)Mr s : AJRr-K d. s*-r a t sc : msr: me
- c. /5. S A Wyet SC : NMss : /WCC A .7~ C/wle Fc . Wnss : Mgc L. L 21searA A) ircr: Marc.
C w AWeen bc: NAc Casper Sud 4CRS J c. M A% er ace's un ff
~,Paav AcR2 W.,D. Tilo176/E- N(L6 C020
& Am SRca kesu e % eAe e s SAit E . 6 o (LDod T M NSWdt.L,G h l$4 C.
A LJ (bus 1)3E - Cocrateno TT. A$tMMNA/ LZ10E - <X' eta)F\
A77/fCHMr#7 R
- 0. NERRILL
., I _
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON SPENT FUEL STORAGE j ,
. LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C. ,
DATE November 21, 1986 j ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILI ATION
?dN' U $rorr 005 - $ak [ja $p<nbm.s
- A/<fr em an ACW.9 .2%h MlthowY2qms NA'C RSS
(?oss Che/I nell AJ R C - A) A45 S
=_.
e M
e
' JBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON _ SPENT FUEL STORAGE _ . _
- 0. MERRILL i
, %ATIO.'l: Room 1046,1717 H St. NW. Washington, D.C.
DATE:
November 21, 1986 j ,
ATTENDANCE LIST ,
PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE ii0. AFFILIATION
~
to Arn 6 errt6 Rech4e9 b l k 0 70F eit. E-c cw p as
_ Les h e b +<_e s E -o /9 A gAic_ '
4/k,564~ 5-nr71 mor E % ~vec de su eN e-M3t rttAuruvccew 0ur L 07: (..iGse v G c '^1 W A Cl' -
C.3C.m e n w 12- 0 t 'W C. L-e I
e
9
') ,
PRESENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE NMSS/RES BRIEF4NG ON 10 CFR PART 72 AND MRS ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPENT FUEL STORAGE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1986 I. Introduction - C. P. Siess, Chairman 8:30 - 8:45 a.m.
II. Introduction to 10 CFR Part 72 ~
- 8:45 - 9:00 a.m.
Keith Steyer, RES III. Overview of 10 CFR Part 72 o General Provisions, Procedural 9:00 - 9:30 a.m.
Requirements (Subparts A, B, C and D) - Lee Rouse, NMSS o Siting Evaluation Factors (Subpart E) 9:30 - 10:00 a.m.
- Leon Beratan, RES, and Tom Clark, NMSS
- BREAK ******
10:00 - 10:15 a.m.
o General Design Criteria (Subpart F) 10:15 - 11:15 a.m.
- John Roberts and Tom Clark, NMSS o Quality Assurance and Training 11:15 - 11:30 a.m.
(Subparts G and I) - John Roberts, NMSS o Physical Protection (Subpart H) 11:30 - 12:00 NOON
- Carl Sawyer, NMSS LUNCH 12:00 N00N IV. Dry Spent Fuel Storage Licensing (Surry and 1:00 - 1:30 p.m.
Robinson 2) and Topical Report Reviews -
John Roberts and Carl Sawyer, NMSS V. Transportation Aspects of New Materials 1:30 - 1:45 p.m.
- Ross Chappell, NMSS VI. MRS Update - Tom Clark, NMSS 1:45 - 2:00 p.m.
BREAK 2:00 - 2:15 p.m.
VII. Comments on Proposed Changes to 2:15 - 2:45 p.m.
10 CFR Part 72 M779c@trM 3
9 SPENT FUEL STORAGE MEETING 2 NOVEMBER 21, 1986 s
'J VIII. Future Rulemaking, 10 CFR Part 72
, - Lee Rouse, NMSS 2:45 - 3:00 p.m.
IV. Executive Session - C. P. Siess, Chairman 3:00 - 4:00 p.m.
ACRS Subcommittee Chairman: Dr. C. Siess '
Cognizant ACRS Staff: Owen Merrill 202-634-1413 Proposed Action: Subcommittee report to the ACRS during the December 1986 ACRS Meeting l
(
l I
- s. _ _ _ _
.i
) <
LIST OF HANDOUTS ACRS SPENT FUEL STORAGE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WASHINGTON, D. C.
NOVEMBER 21, 1986
- 1. Part 72 - Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel in an Independent Fuel Spent Storage Installation
- 2. Federal Register /Vol. 51, No. 101/ Tuesday, May 27, 1986 Proposed Rules
- 3. Overview of 10 CFR Part 72 - General Provisions - Procedural Requirements (Subparts A, B, C and D) - L. C. Rouse, November 21, 1986.
- 4. Siting Evaluation Factors (Subpart E)
- 5. General Design Criteria (Subpart F) - J. P. Roberts, NMSS
- 6. Quality Assurance and Training (Subparts G and I) - J. P. Roberts, NMSS
- 7. Physical Protection (Subpart H) - Carl B. Sawyer, NMSS
- 8. Comments on Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Part 72 - C. W. Nilsen
- 9. Dry Spent Fuel Storage Licensing and Topical Report Reviews (Surry and Robinson 2) - J. P. Roberts, NMSS
- 10. Castor V/21 Cask - GNS
- 11. H. B. Robinson - Horizontal Storage Modules
- 12. Dry Spent Fuel Storage Licensing (Surry and Robinson 2) - Safe-guards - Carl B. Sawyer, NMSS
- 13. MRS Update and Natural Phenomena Risk
- 14. Monitored Retrievable Storage Nature of MRS ATTACHMENT 4
,_ _.______J