ML20235P126
| ML20235P126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1987 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2502, NUDOCS 8707200350 | |
| Download: ML20235P126 (31) | |
Text
.
008 a?5ba i
p r~.r~r*'~ Q '
}& fflYYY v
..J CERTIFIED COPY fr,
.J" DATE ISSUED:fiay 28, 1937
,u WJk
~
l
SUMMARY
/MINilTES OF THE I
MEETING 0F ACRS SUP2 COMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT l
WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 18-19,1987
Purpose:
The Waste Management Subcommittee met on Mcnday and Tuesday, May 18 & 19, 1987, to review the following topics:
(A) High-level Waste:
- 1) impact of NMSS reorganization on waste management program; 2) status report on NRC review of the QA progrm of the U.S. Department of Energy; 3) waste acceptance activities regarding the processing of radioactive wastes into i
l glass; 4) update on the National Bureau of Standards' waste package program; l
- 5) Generic Technical Positon (GTP) on Qualification of Existing Data for HLW l
Repositories; 6) GTP on Peer Review for HLW Repositories; and 7) report on the Parfnrd, Washington (BWIP) hydrology meeting.
(P) Waste Management Research:
- 1) demonstration of performance modeling of a LLW shallow land burial site -- the nitrate disposal pit site at Chalk River, Canada, and 2) l control of water filtration into near surface LLW disposal units.
(C) l Low-Level Waste:
- 1) update on status of mixed wastes issue, and 2) greater than Class C wastes.
l l
l l
The various topics were reviewed in the order shown on the Final Agenda (Attachment 1).
, e e m ex -
1 a
1 la l.s tE L I L --
l V.j e 3337c3:1TD ORIGIllAL
,5._
t 87072OO3QO G7052B g,\\,(1g g3 py 4 hK i
2502 Pr!R
4.
f!INUTES OF APRIL 18-19 WM MEETING 2
The meeting was held in Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
The l
meeting started at 8:30 a.n. on Monday, May 18, and continued until 5:00 l
p.n.; the meeting resumed at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 19, and ended at 12:00 Noon.
l Attendance:
l l
The following ACRS members and consultants were in attendance on the days indicated.
Name Monday. May 18 Tuesday, May 19 f
D. W. Moeller, Member x
x l
J. C. Ebersole, Member x
x l
C. flark, Member x
x F. J. Remick, Member x
x M. First, Consultant x
x D. Orth, Consultant x
x F. Parker, Censultant x
G. Pinder, Consultant x
Total Members:
4 Total Consultants: -4 NRC Sta## and Fellows:
- 0. 5. Merrill, Serior Staff Engineer S. J. S. Parry, Senior Fellow i
l A. Tabatabai, Fellow l
f:FC Staff Presenters Attendees: Total - 19 (See Attachment 1 for names of Presenters and Attachment 2 for list of all attendeed.)
Others:
- 14 1
l Tot 61:
- 44
{
1
4 4
s, MINUTES OF APRIL 18-19 WM MEETING 3
Documents:
The documents provided during the meeting are listed in Attachment 3.
They are arranged to correspond with the order of presentation given in Attachment 1.
Also included as Attachment 4 is the list of documents provided in 0. S.
Merrill's memorandum to D. W. Moeller, May 8, 1987 -- background information for review prior to the meeting.
Subcommittee Executive Session Actions Only oral ccmments were made during the discussion of the various topics highlighted below, except for the Quality Assurance and Mixed Waste topics.
Written draft reports on these two topics were prepared by the Subcommittee 1
l during an Executive Session for ACRS review during its 326th meeting, June l
4-6, 1987. They are entitled, " Quality Assurance Frograms for High-Level Waste Repository," and " Disposal of Mixed Wastes." It is planned that NRC Statf will make presentations on these two topics to the full Committee during that meetino.
l Discussion Highlights 1.0 QA Program Status - J. Kennedy (Document No.1)
I
~
MINUTES OF APRIL 18-19 WM MEETING 4
1.1 The objectives of NRC's efforts are (1) te help cause DOE to put into place a QA Program adequate for licensing before the start of site characterization, and (2) for the NRC Staff to have performed sufficient review of the DOE QA Progran before site characterization that NRC woul6 have reasonable assurance that the plan meets the regulations in Part 60 for QA.
In line with the first NRC objective, DOE stated in a September 3,1985 letter from W. Purcell to R. Browning, NRC, that their objective is "to have a fully qualified (QA) program in place prior to submittal I
cf the SCP's."
DOE further stated that they will request the NRC to l
l audit their progran so that they (D0E) might demonstrate compliance with applicable 0A requirements.
1.2 In June an NPC Staff /NRC consultant team will perform a " mini-audit" of the mireralogy/ petrology program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), for the Nevada tuff site (Yucca Mountain). They will review both the paper and the product.
1.3 At the present time the NRC Staff does not have performance indicators as this is a first-of-a-kind effort. They plan to develop such indicators as the program progresses.
1.4 Regarding DOE's independence in the OA area, Dr. Remick said that the DOE QA Program should not be so independent that their employees (and contractors) feel no responsibility for QA.
I l
i i
l E.-
l
~
~
]
[.;
d.
I MINUTES OF APRIL'18-19 WM MEETING
-5 1
2.0 Revision of NRC's~QA Review Plan - L. Riddle (Document #2)'
2.1 L. Riddle said_that the 1984 QA Review Plan in Part 60 was based on 18-
- criteria that were based on SRPs for nuclear power plants, most of which are administrative in' nature. The plan is being updated and revised as a' result of the experience during 3 years of usage and the resulte, of the Ford' Study. -(The NRC Staff is to provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the. list of 18 criteria.)
?.2 The objectives of the revision are to identify improvements and clari-i fications as necessary for the plan to be applicable to the licensing of-a geologic repository, i
2.3 The revisiens will include:
i more detailed and specific guidance to DOE inclusion of technical audits changing the 18 criteria to include good laboratory practices
- and the use of laboratory notebooks as a QA record the endorsing of NQA-1 l
2.4 A discussion between L. Riddle and F. J. Remick and M. W. First stressed the necessity of a glossary in the revision to clarify and differentiate j
l i
l
--______----_D
s.
i MINUTES OF APRIL'18-19 WM MEET'ING 6
h' r-between such terms as readiness review, technical review, audit, review, l'
etc.-
i I
l 2.5 NUREG-1055 should be studied for lessons learned -- independence is a major issue.
1 2.6 It Was agreed with.the Staff that after the LANL audit and the draft-of i
l the Review Plan is completed-(by summer, 1987)'the Subcommittee will meet again-with the Staff to review progress on this topic.
l l
3.0 GTPs on Peer Review and Qualification of Exis' ting Data for HLW Repos-itories, J. Donnelly~(Documents #3, 4 and 5) 3.1 J. Connelly said that they had just met on the preceding Thursday, May 14, 1987 with representatives of DOE, the States and Indian Tribes to identify, discuss and resolve various issues relating to'these two closely-related GTPs. The issues and their-resolution are given in Document 6'3.
3.? Corroborating data need not be developed under'an NRC Approved QA prcoram, but the procedures and persorrel used in obtaining the data need to be considered on a case-by-case evaluation of such data.
e-------____________.-------______
f!INUTES OF APRIL 18-19 WM MEETING 7
3.? Of the 4 methods discussed by J. Donnelly for the qualification of existing data, confirmatory testing ranks first, corroborating deta or ar. equivalent QA Program second, and peer review last.
1 3.4 In the further discussion of peer review, the following subjects were I
emphesized.
1 i
i al independence of peer review members b) whether the rules for 3.4(a) apply to NRC's peer review members j
i c) whether NRC will apply its QA rules to itself, which J. Parry J
l l
l emphested should be done I
l l
l d) does the Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) represent an independent peer review group for the NRC, which was l
l enswered in the negative since it is under NRC's direction j
el the States and Indian Tribes can and have been asked to provide members to peer review groups f) the National Academy of Sciences /Eational Research Council and nther professional societies should be asked to suggest nominees for peer review groups. The NAS/NRC method for selecting such nominees to avoid conflict of interest may provide a pattern for the NRC to follov.
g.
F. Parker stated that a peer review group should not 1) set up test plans, 2) recommend ranking of sites, or 3) become part of the project.
- MINUTES OF APP.7L 38-19 WM MEETING
'8 4
- 4.0 Impact of NMSS Reorganization on Waste Management Program - J. Linehan (Docunent#6) l l
4.1 J. Linehan discussed the revised Division of High-Level Waste Management (DHLWM) organization as shown in the handout. The biggest change is the trantfer of the' low-level waste functions to a new separate Division of.
Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning (DLLVMD).
4.? There is no significant impact of this reorganization on the NMSS/HLW program. They have gone from e, matrix organization to a line orga-nizetion.
1 4.3 The storage of spent fuel and the licensing of the Monitored Retrievable Storage (MP.S) is in e separate division of NMSS, and the transportation of spent fuel is in yet another division of. NMSS. The coordination of these progran with the DHLWM programs is handled by the Systems Engi-3 l
neering and Evaluation Branch of the DHLWM. There was concern expressed l
by Ir. embers of the Subcommittee regarding this division of responsibil-ity, their beliefs being that these efforts should all be under the-
{
i aegis of the DHLWM, not just under that of NMSS.
]
5.0 Update nn NBS Waste Package Program, - E. Wick of NRC, and C. Interrante i
of the National Bureeu of Standards (NBS) (Documents 7-10)
l MINUTES OF april 18-19 WM MEETING 9
I i
5.1 E. Wick gave an overview of this work, which is the evaluation and
)
compilation of DOE waste nackage data.
There are 4 tasks being per-formed by NBS: 1) Review ot vaste package data base, 2) Identification of additional data required. 3) Performance of experimental tests proposed under task 2, and 4) Provision on short notice as requested of I
l general technical assistance on evaluation of waste package data.
l 5.2 C. Interrant reviewed hBS' efforts as a contractor for NRC including personnel, document control, etc.
Document #9 is the NRC/NBS first annual report on this program.
5.3 The key technical problems in this effort are corrosion, leaching, dissolution, and transport within the waste package, all of which are under investigation for both metal alloys and borosilicate glass for use in baralt, salt, tuff and grenite (crystalline) media.
5.4 As a result of NES's efforts to date, NRC has authorized them to perfom 4 experimental studies (see Document #10):
- 1) Pitting corrosion of steel used for nuclear waste storage, 2) Effects of corrosion on the behavior of Zircalloy Nuclear Fuel Cladding, 3) Evaluation of methods l
l for the detection of stress corrosion crack propagation in fracture l
l mechanics samples, and 4) Corrosion in simulated repository environments.
l l
u________________
fi1NUTES OF APRIL 18-19 WM MEETING 10
\\
i i
6.0 Waste Package Acceotance Activities Recarding Processing Radioactive Wastes into Glass - E. Wick (Document f13)
{
l
\\
l l
6.1 Preceding E. Wick's discussion of this topic, it was brought out that i
(relative to iten 4.0 above):
- 1) FPC will have an internal QA program plus one for contractors, including the FFRDC contractor, and 2) A major concern by the Subcommittee is the NP.C internal CA program, which the Staff indicated they would discuss in a future subcommittee meeting.
1 i
i l
- f.. ?
E. Wick pointed out that DCE plans to produce borosilicate waste forms from HLW at the West Valley (New York) Demonstration Project (WVDP) and the Defense Waste Production Facility, Savannah River, South Carolina (DWPr) in late 1988 or early 1989, which is prir.r to the selection of the first repository site and submission of license application to NRC.
Thur, cil WVDP HLW and a significant fraction of High-Level Defense j
Waste (HLDW) at the Savannah River Plant (SPP) will be committed to waste forms before the first repository is licensed. Hence, product 1
specifications and production on processes are likely to be completed before waste package designs are finalized and before sites are characterized.
NRC will not know if the waste form will be compatible with the repository.
6.3 E. Wick stated that in order for the PRC Staff to assess the performance of waste forns, DOE must 1) allocate performance, 3) submit sufficient waste packege and site-specific environmental data, and 3) assess a
e MINUTES OF APRIL 10-19 WM MEETING-
-11 potential negative impacts on other components of the Engineered Barrier System (EBS).
' I i
6.4 No defense wastes will go into an MRS; they will be held on-site and then sent directly to the repositorn when it is available.
C.5 D. Moeller noted that the projected.3,540 lbs. of borosilicate glass-
]
will.have a decay. Feat of 660 watts'and anLexposure rate of 6300.R/hr.
Also, that the fission product slurry (solids) will make up 25% to 40%
of the borosilicate glass mix.
7.0 Greater than Class C Wastes (GTCC) - T. Johnson and G. Roles (Dc:,ument F12) l 7.1 Pr. Johnson said that GTCC waste is comercial LLW that exceeds. Class C radionuclides concentrations as defined in.10 CFR Part 61.
It includes GTCC waste generated by NPC or Agreement State licensees. It does.not l
include 1) LLW owned or generated by DOE, 2) LLW froni Naval decomis-l sioning, or 3) LLW owned or generated by the Federal Government result-ing from' nuclear weapons work.
7.2-The DOE's five_ recommendations for management of GTCC LLW in a recent i
report (D0E/NE-0077, February 1987) were discussed. They appeur on page 2 of Document #12. Ard eppearing on page 3 is' r. matrix listing the GTCC l
l i
i
___.m_____
-.-------------u
w 7.,
MINUTES OF APRIL'18-19 WM MEETING 12
~
Wastes -identified in the DOE. report, listed according.to Waste Generator Type of Activity (primarily from commercial.'and decommission-I ing sources), Physical Form,-Volume in cubic meters to the year 2020, and Radionuclides Generated.
Fortuitously or not, as-the case may be.
1 the total volune prcjected to be generated by the various-generators by 1*
l the year 2020 is 2,020 cubic meters..
h 7.3 A comparison of GTCC Weste with the NRC conceptual HLW definition (in a February ANPR) was discussed by Mr., Johnson.
D.'Moeller noted that.50%
of GTCC wastes will probably be:HLW, and that 35% of GTCC wastes will,.
because of.long-lived radionuclides, require permanent isolation.
l 7.4 Mr. Johnsen also indicated that in an April 30, 1987 letter to DOE, NRC l-indicated that 1) they are pleased that DOE will eccept GTCC wastes l
(hence the disposal facility does not need to be licensed), 2) a
' disposal decision cannot be made at this time, and 3) NRC reconmendt; disposal in en HLW repository.
7.5 D. Moeller noted that there was no discussion of disposal options since the NRC has not set up standards for.the disposal of GTCC wasted.
1 7.6 D. Moeller also noted that Congress may exempt tSe HLW repository from the RCRA requirements.
= _ - _ _ _ - _.
}
l lilNUTES OF APP!L 18-19 k'M MEETING 13 i
8.0 Mixed Wastes Update - S. Bahadur (Document #13) l 1
l P.1 S. Bahadur gave a very well organized review of this topic, as evidenced i
by the presentation hendout, coverino 1) background 2) issues for i
i cdmiristrative solution (incompatibilities, definition of mixed waste, i
{
siting, design, and complexities, and 3) current conclusions.
i 1
1 8.2 Following many months of closely working with the Environmental Pro-tectior. Agency (EPA) on this issue, the NPC and the EPA have achieved substantial agreement on her it is to be handled.
Their conclusions are:
- 1) dual regulation is technically achievable, 2) procedures are l
l likely to be complex and burdensome, and 3) substantial work is required for simplifying permitting /licensino, inspection, and enforcement.
l 8.3 S. Bahadur stated that approximately 3% of mixed wastes consist of 1) organic scintillation fluids, etc., 2) chromium-based wastes; sand S$
lead-oriented wastes.
i 8.4 The.inint NRC/ EPA definition of nixed waste includes the condition that toxic chemicals must be a major component within the waste.
8.5 Jtint siting guidelines are being developed.
NRC has added an iten that groundwater flow rate, froin outside engineered barriers for a 100 foot flow path, must be greater than 100 years. Also, that the physical m
y PIf;UTES OF APRIL 18-19 WM MEETING 14 barrier.P.round the disposal site should be at the height of the'30 year flood.(30 years is the time required to fill the waste facility).
s 8.6 D. Moeller noted that toxic chemicals must all be in solid fonn before being placed in the site, because organic chemicals will push through I
clays and will dissolve a plastic' liner.
l 8.7 Ir. reply to a question by D. Poeller' as to why so much fuss about HLW and LLW when toxic chemicals last forever (and EPA is~ preserving this condition), S. Bahadur answered that there are four characteristics, only one of which has to be met in order to classify a chemical' as toxic:
- 1) toxicit) (its concentration must be greater than a threshold value), 2) corrosivity 3) flammability, and 4) reactivity.
9.0 Summary cf April 1987 Hydrolocy Meeting at BWIP (Hanford) Site, - P.
Hildenbrand and N. Coleman (Document #14) 9.1 P. Hildenbrand stated that the April 1987 meeting at BWIP was for the purpose of 1) resolving potential' licensing issues -- key technical issues -- prior to DOE's drilling a 6 ft. diameter Pre-Exploratory Shaft (ES), and 2) discussing DOE's hydrologic testing programs.
(Similar key technical issues exist at the other sites).
j l
l l
1 I
MINUTES OF APRIL 18-39 WM MEETING 15.
9.2 In response to a question as to why the ES could not be sunk before completing the taking of.. test data, P. Hildenbrand' answered that the sinking of the shaft would disturb the zone and~thereby prohibit the gathering of meaningful data later.
I 1
9.3 P. Hildenbrand said that DOE is preparing a.new " concept" paper because1 the NRC pointed out_to them in an April'1986 meeting that they were not following a December 1985 agreed-upon protocol, DOE has not been able to prepare the new " concept" paper until now because of its sched-ule-mandated preparation of the Firal Environmental Assessments. The USGS agrees with the current (in preparation) " concept" paper.
9.4 N. Coleman stated that hydrology at Hanford is a key issue and that, in addition to resolving the issue discussed in. item 9.3, one of the objectives of the April 1987 meeting was to reach general agreement on the conceptual scope of the hydrologic testing procram..
9,5 N. Colenan discussed the 4 objectives of the pre-ES hydrologic tecting-program which are the' collection of:
- 1) " perishable" hydrological data,
- 2) data that would give early indications of disqualifying conditions, 3)' data regarding possible hydrclogic effects on ES construction, and 4) hydrologic data relevant to the ES and repository design.
9.6 N. Coleman also said that the overall objective of the testing program l
l l
_____.-__a
i l
MINUTES OF APRIL 18-19 WM MEETING 16 1
is to prove you do not have vertical communication; he referred
. Subcommittee members to BWIP Site Technical Position No.1.1:
Hydrogeologic lesting Strategy for the BWIP Site. December 1983.
- 9. 7-G. Pinder pointed out that there are ways of verifying that you have vertical communication, but, to his knowledge, no way of establishing that you don't. This was the key issue of a lengthy discussion, which resulted in D. Voeller recommending that G. Pinder be provided with pertinent documentation for review and that subsequently he' meet with the NRC staff and their consultants to further discuss this key issue, and report back to the Subcommittee en his findings and recommendations.
i (Subsecuent to the Subcommittee meeting, plans to confirm such arrangements were undertaken).
9.8 D. Mceller asked if DOE could not sink the ES without disturbing the hydrolcgy of the site, and was answered, yes, but it is not a sure thing. Because of tight scheduling, DOE is evaluating whether they can begin now to sink the shaft, but the State and Indian Tribes'are suspicious of this, i
9.9 _h. Coleman stressed that the pre-ES tests should inok'for' factors that will disqualify a site, not those that me.ke it look good. This point was emphasized by several Subcommittee members..
i I
1 L_______________..______.__.__
l e
I MIIUTES OF APRIL 18-19 WM MEETING 17 9.10 Additional discussion re-emphasized seme of the issues discussed above j
as well as bringing out new issues of concern to the Subcommittee and j
Consultants, namely:
l l
l 1)
The test plan does not evaluate vertical communication l
2)
The plan is not designed to answer key questions 3)
Fractured media gives cause for concern 4)
The r.eed for statistical tests and optimization tests to help l
define their uncertainties associated with the site 5)
The bering of slant holes (suggested by S. Parry) and of horizontal 1
holes from the ES, when drilled, would be helpful in locating the existence of fractures.
This option of slant drilling should be
]
considered, although the NRC consultants apparently do not support it j
6)
DCE has said that if vertical flow is found it would cause them to j
seriously question the suitability of the site l
7)
Re-emphasis on providing G. Pinder with substantial back-up reports l
and arranging for him to meet with the NRC Steff and their consul-l tants/ contractors to review this key issue.
I 1
9.11 The NRC Staff support the plan and believe it is adequate.
10.0 Demonstration _of Performance Modeling of a LLW SLB Site (Nitrate Dis-posal Pit Site, Chalk D.iver, Canada), - C. O'Donnel (Document #15) l l
1
_____n
MINUTES'0F APRIL 18-19 FM MEETING 18 10.1 E. O'Donnel indicated.that this effort was a comparison of' predictive radionuclides transport modeling versus: field observations at the abcVe-stated site. This effort was performed in order to test the concept of " site modelability" to. demonstrate the Licensing Requirements l
for Land Disposal of Radioactive Maste (Sub'part D, Part 61.50(a)(2)'of-l l
-10 CFR 61), which states that a." disposal site shall-be capable of being characterized, modeled, analyzed and monitored."
1 10.2 Actual measured radionuclides rigration was compared with predicted migration estimates from hydrologic transport models. The study is described in detail in Document f15.
10.3 D. Veeller asked if the model includes a material or mass balance, which was answered in the affirmative with the explanation that by this means the horizontal and vertical radionuclides concentration can be de-l ternined.
11.0 Control of Water Infiltration into Near-Surface LLW Disposal Units, - E.
O'Donnell-(Document #16) 11.1 E. O'Donnel explained that, in the humid' eastern part of the United States, trench covers have, in general,' failed to prevent some'of the i
incident precipitation from percolating downward into buried waste 1
)
sites, The purpose of the present work is'to investigate and 1
3 1
')
__~.-
PINilTES OF APRIL-18-19 WM MEETING -
19.
demonstrate a procedure or technique that will control water infiltration into wastes regardless of whether.they are buried above or below ground level.
Results to date show the proposed. procedure to be very. promising and that.it it applicable to shallow land burial as well as to above ground disposal.. The progran is described in detail in Document #16.
i 11.2 D. Moeller noted that the principal water pathway is through the. earth cap over the waste disposal site. Multiple-layer caps have been proposed and used, but have not been tested.
They also require perfect Quality Control. They can be, however, subject.to frost heaving and subsidence.
11.3 The concept discussed in this presentation is testing the use of a bicengineered approach.
It employs an impervious plastic cover alternating with narrow strips of vegetation, in these tests juniper plants whose roots car go as much as 250 feet deep in arid regior.s, but which normally go only 30-40 feet. Water is taken up by the roots and transpired to the atnosphere, thus removing the unwanted water fron the disposal pit.
- i>****
NOTE:
A transcript cf the meeting is available in the NPC Public Document l
Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. or can be purchased from
.]
l ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 N. Capitol Street, Washington, D.C.
20001 (202) 343-3700. All documents listed on Attachment 3 are l
available in ACRS files, i
-l l
l 1
~
FINAt AGENDA (May 15,1987)-
ACPS SUSCOMPI' TEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT RODM 1946, 3717 H ST.'NW., WASHINGTON, D.C.
MAY~18-19, 1987 Pcndav. May 18 C:30'- C:4f.c.r, Opening Statement-D. W. Moeller, Chairman 2
P:tE. c:3C a.n.
Overvita r# Q/A Program J. Kennedy,
'j end Activities HLWM 9:30 - 10:00 a.r.
Fetisfor te C/A Review Plan
.L. Riddle, HLVM
-i
't-96 1r '! e.n.
BREAr j
fc:15 21:1f c.r.
GTPs on Peer Review and J. Donnelly OLali'fication of Existing HLWM i
i rata for HLW Repositories I
11:1F - II:?" ?.n.
Impact of NMSS Reorganization J. Linehar' i
en Waste Peracement Program -
HLWM 11:30 - li:?" p.n.
LUNrP I?:30
- 3C r.m.
Update en NBS Waste Package
.E.
Wick /HLWM s
Prrcram NBS Stat
l 1:30 - ?:2'. p.m.
Waste Acceptance Activities T. Wick, Recardinc Processing HLWM Padioactiva Wastes inte Glass i
i
- 3[ - ':45 r.r.
F0fAE
{
1 2:4E
' ?O p.r.
Greater than Cless C T. Johnson
'3 Westet and G. Poles, LLWM I
3:3r 4: 15 p.r.
P4xed Wastes Update S. Bahadur-i LLWM l
l 4 15 - 5:gr p.m.
Executive Session l
l 5:00 p.m.
RECESS kriscMarWr /
440?OSEf AGENDA. MAY 18h39, 1987 2
4 Tuesday, May 19 --
i u
2:00 - 8:05 a.m.
Opening Statenent D. W. Moeller, l
Chairman i
E:05. E:5p a.r.
Sunmary of April 1987 R. Johnson, Pydrology Meeting at BWIP P. Hildenbrand (Panford) Site and HLWM Staff
/
8:50 - 9:20 a.r..
Deno,stration of Performance E. O'Donnell Pedeling of a_LLW SLB Site RES/WMBR (Nitrate Disposal Pit Site.
Chrik River, Canada)-
9:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Control of Water Filtration E. O'Donnell Into Near Surface LLW RES/WMBR Dispesal Units 1
10:15 - 10:20 a.n.
BREAM 20:30 - 12:00 Nonr.
Executive Sessier 12:00 Noor ADJOURN NOTE:
The ACRS Sub:ennittee on Nuclear Plant Chemistry, D. Moeller, Chairman, j
1 will meet fror. 1:00 to 5:00 p.r. to review SRP Section 6.5.2,
- Containment j
Frray as a Fission Product Cleanup System," and SRP Section 6.5.5, l
"Supr ession Pools as Fission Product Cleanup Systems. All Waste Mar.agene*t Subconm'ttee members and consultants are' requested by Dr.
Mcs'ler to attend this meeting also, if possible.
i j
'l 1
i
i ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATION pnnm 1046..1717 H St. NW.. Wm h_iDgton, D.C. 20555 May h-19, 1987 DATE ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
NAME AFFILI ATION
?. W. N o m a.s a Ac1r5 /h m hw-C.
/hA p g 3 C.i BER$ons
'F.
Pee s=
Acta 9 Ceasuc7wr(My /) l D
Ogru a
1 C.5 ManelLL A C1E S S vA-ra i
9.E9 '% re a v
/r7a9 Se. h c u F. T R btick
/-CES MemW O e 97-N C E 9 [ f A/_A W rM M T~
N.
r l
S.
P)#>T72 ky 2.)
w.,
M E _ _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _. _ _. _... _ _. _ _ _ _ _.
- i iE i f
!. : GN yt,jr t M SGEMENT
'r W..
'As hi gton, D.C. 25555 F._] D l.F
<t 7
";y f'f-l 9, 1 :47 4
~
~_ '
MAf /T MT,7 ATTEfC MCE tIST i
i
? *:5E i'!!T:
k/N2& ! [kNdE Nbl Nim $ce""I
. D& se. lf - ed On C _
b l'<du f r
._ M 144 $_9"bV A)M b(ise 1e- -
^/se
..e a-.
.h66 l
we w
M l! 4. &Y.E C3
___O_ d f b Auri. htentem weWev /uEis _
l
_ Gy 1 FA*TY Wenedluehc J.dL $ NA/
W/2C
$.Nt]. ]-J.8/5 EA N YA C
...??N_
WMod we -
_Aot-l.
Bsm Si A Nec 7 L w. AJ e
3hg_E. Ts.k+c Ec M. B. S.
ht E h%u..--
CLv[u 6.,hhvis h
-..--.Nbs NL$
+x<
etw.
eec sww
\\
% & ku5d
- AOS -
i et %h_.
1 ses G_tw _
L N5?.
k$
Ae L-ptc b_ e hell u.ac_ ____
1 l
t t...t....
.a ur h. _ ;asTE tyG3n% tit
'" " ' - - _1 : 5 JJ.d.ilf J!W.
N= s M ngicn, D.C. 20555 s
- y 1 G '. 9, i E7 ATTEf0 3CE L]5T nr.
n a_ r.,..,.,.
4 s
hAME AFFI L1 ATI ON 1
C
. a a.. - -
)] J. S. G_e(-
R. Pie J85 M
Lian.g.
. R...D. h u..
4 e
4mg MW HWM-W
+h W43's e aw h
'*m-*
E W
-e.
map,m,-
- e
=.
em e we,
6.-%--
ii W g-mm
- u' hh..emiem-gm.de
,e,.
m O
9
- r-
- se g
eg
__ 9 mm$
3%
m
,m, I
l
- i l
N l
l.
b e' up 4
- 9' d6*46 h NeWWgm
_M-j I
1 i
l
. l I
I l
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ - _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - ' - - ^ - - - " ' ^ ~ ~ ~ ' ' '
- m-s m Locqjo:1:
Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C. 20555 i
DATE:
Mag 18-19,1987 ATTENDANCE LIST I
PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE NO.
AFFILIATION O
! ~ D' ' ]
_S h l (_
Jp a 1
\\,
- e h -[l 7 0,,f '- ( v, t h(ig.?
h ',
p --
i2.
(4 LLF,.
q cg 1
'g h
1 -)-
Ie,
L' J C, i.
h65
}
L r
~
l 7
n f ",.
Al l V,'.4 f
J 4
I {l,,
f-[U.
f.dt'ibrLha_
h b YL 11d b 2d %
d r..-
l L
w"
,(
(
h db d
IL 5t.
d (l
U >
- O i t.;'
(*
i._
('
3
,/. fii n/:) //
ION $M'd fi
/
lii it rt d.l~
F^('?'~]
E. E>:H L k-MT E ()/[
lJkn gn:[kD'[f [T?nUD Yb/
- +c; c a,, -
)
q
,e
, -i i c ^ n
\\s~
\\\\
v i
l-t
[Li
'3 i
(,
l Qy xi.
6 c ;G '
n
/'
o l
,k
.k (
f[ C h.\\
I L__-__---__________________-____-_._________.___-_
. : :..[ t.T :' G Ofi wts TLy...' GEyrNT d
' ^
- :2fe j)l7_ lit. L th s hington, D.C. 20555
_ : g
- 1 E k,' '. 2 s 7 ATTE V2t.CE t.15T
' r:5 E M P.T:
'- 2.l AFFILI ATION
. 3.E ~Braww w MR C_. _
Tobe<t Aphwsd N % ___.
Donald L. C] tera dr.
A/EL/RES/kUWB C M a),bok-r NU5 Cmg.
M l C.yJ ll _
fa &
_L.1)r Af$._
_ - meuns y L.
a t
s.-
.c --
1
".eh-eus.mi m
he p
gym.m-
-m
- =uas.
en
,,i,m
..w-w em6 ep.e.
e.
,ym,gg..
e.
peue e-m e
=
===m aume.e==w w a
w esa--
'emage o
em aeme w w
emme as h Sh-e aques N e m ey g ai g.
- *- =
neur,.W m m p g-en h 4 e-spe>
m e s.uupa e
e..m e
- smey=.
___,e q, e s g 4 4 *
=4 me e.
-.ei>4-
-. -- mO9Eis.0 % 9 k
l
,. 6.
e
's.,
... t.
. i.
.h ' :
- t.
q ATiEC'CE LIST v. - x 1,, a:
,~
.. a-
.: - h.. d. 0.
AFF]LI AT10!4 i
I F..o**
!.w z i k fef
/
- - _w...
.._ n. _.. _..
u'
- )--
q 4
- k. [.L >c.c w nin c _
WO.9%
MC E9 C,.
s,
?.
A L~. { ]. A _~>.-l IN U,. c 3
L
[ 5, t.;.
a
+
%w e
NL.'. 5 I ' $. -.
IA5 OW L
(.k.h CIC h_C 96 $
bc e (tc / C VI b 4/'*5 I 6 b S-l 1
l 1
c=.
-e.
.n..
[
c
~ - - - -
- * - =
==.e.
w e.g ame m.m
.ee e w j
s o-~--
-_~
=
M.
w4 e -em
.m mm W
L
= =. - = = = - - -
UNewDmm asw g
.p aw@ m mg wg*ei.e
+ um M4 4
65 4".'W s
- .u.*-=w
.-me.
an.
.p o
.e-
.e*4.==*=
--= i mm N
M"N*
mee.
g wa sage ee eu pg.-e4 use.
e e9
- a. 6 4
W, L
O M##M8
- O 4h*
e sgg
.,e
.Ns-6 M M WW W*##OlO f
LIST OF DOCUMENTS DISTR 7BUTED DURING THE MEETING OF THE ACF.S StiBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C, May 18-19,1987 1.
NP.C Staff Review of HLW Repository QA Programs,. J. Kennedy, May 18, 1987 2.
Revision to QA Review Plan, Linda K. Riddle, May 18, 1987 3.
Generic Technical Positiors (GTP) on Peer Review and Qualification of Existing Data, Jer.es Donnelly, May 18, 1927 4
Draft.GTP on Peer Review for Figh-level Nuclear Waste Repositories, USNRC, Jure 1986 1
5.
Draft GTP cr Qualification of Existing Data for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories, (USNRC, undated) 6.
USNPC Organizatier Chart Division of High-Level Waste Management, February 6, 1987 4
7.
Dverview of NBS 1A Contract, E. A. Wick and C. G. Interrante, National Bureau of Stardards (NBS), Fay 19, 1987 (presented on May 18.1987).
8.
Technical Issues (Waste Package) No identifying information, but pre-sented by Dr. C. G. Interrante, NBS, May 19, J987 (presented May 18, 1987) 9.
NUREG/CR 4735, Volume 1, Evaluation and Compilation of DOE Waste Package Test Data, Bienr.ual Report: December 1985 - July 1986, dated March 1987 10.
Set of four proposels, each under the general heading, Proposal for NBS Experimental Studies Under hBS-NRC Project (FIN-A-4171-6)
I?.
L'este Acceptance Activities Regarding Vitrification cf HLW, E. A. Wick, May 19, 1987 (prosented on May 18, 1987I
- 12. Grer.ter than Class C (GTCC) Vestes, Presentation Vaterial. T. Johnson and G. Roles, May 18, 1087 13.
Brie M ng cn Status of Mixed Waste, Sher Bahadur, NMSS/LLWM, May 18, 1987 t
- 14. NRC Peview of Hanford Site Characterization Activities -- Hydrogeology, N. M.'Coleman, May 19, 1987 i
i+77M CHMW.3 i
i O
/pril 10-19, 1987 Waste Management 2
Vecting l
1E. NUREG/CR aP79, Demonstration of Performance Modeling of a Low-level Waste Sheilow-Land Burial Site, April 1987
- 16. Control o' Vater Infiltration Into Near Surface LLW Disposal Units, Arrual Reports, October 1985 - September 1986 I
i l
i l
l l
l l
l 1
l
I
]
LIST OF DOCUMENTS TO ACCOMPANY STATUS REPORT FOR
. WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MAY 18-19, 1987 l
1.
Qualit." Assurance 0/A Backarnurd Documents (a) hMSS Background Paper on Q/A Programs (April 1986) i l
(b) Presentation Material, Draf t GTP..
10CFR60 Q/A Pecuirenents
.(c) _Portior of Certified Pinutes of the April 24-25, 1987 Waste Mana9e-ment Subcorrittee Meeting, issued May 30, 1986 I
i 2.
Generic Technical Position on Qualification of Existino Data for HLW.
I Repositories, fpril 1987 j
3.
Dra't Gene-ic Technical Position on Peer Review for HLW Repositories, June IFFf- (attached to GTP on Ouelification of Existing Data a.
f.RC Organi:etion Charts, April 19F7 F.
Mer.orandur from S. R?hadus to Distribution,
Subject:
Review of Draft Generic Letter on Pixed LLV Disposal Facility Design Concept, March 26, I
1 1987 6.
SECY-86-2EO, Discussinn of Polic and Hazardous Waste (Mixed LLW) y Options on Mixed Low-Level Radioactive j
Disposal, dated October 3, 1986 1
7 Letter from H. Thompson, NRC/hMSS, to A. Rossin, DOE,
Subject:
Greater than Class C LLW, dated April 30, 1987 l
F.
NUREG/CP-4879, (draft), Demor.stration of Performance Modeling of a low-level Waste Shallow Land Eurial Site, April 1987 l
9.
NUPEG/CR 4910, Vol 1 (draft) Control of Water Infiltration into Near Surface.LLW Disposal Units, Anrual Report, October 1985 - September 1986 10.
Selected hPC Products -- HLW Frogram, April 1987 l
11.
HLW Docurerts FYI, Cover letter from N. Still to Interested Parties, dated 3/9/87 12.
Remarks by Commissioner Asselstine, Press Release No. 87-2 February 10, 1987
&IkWh Y
List of Decuner.ts/L'aste Management 2
May 18-19, 1927 Subcommittee Mtg.
- 13. A Study cf the Isolation System for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive i
Wastes, NAS/NP.C 1983 14 U. S. Departrent of Interior letter to R. Morgan from D. Frederick (with
. attachments) dated August 25, 1983 15.
[' raft GTP on Ground Water Travel Time (GWTT), dated January 3,1986 i
l j
j l
l l
4 l
1 l
)
1 i
l
\\
l l
l l
l i
l l
l l
l l