ML20245A606
| ML20245A606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/1989 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-0006, NACNUCLE-6, NUDOCS 8904250291 | |
| Download: ML20245A606 (47) | |
Text
_
- OdNW-bdef Y )) m~mhalp% m? fDK HW-
.m l l L $
bJQ i '.
L Q w k. Y h"b MINUTES OF THE 6TH ACNW MEETING g q3 - y eg JANUARY 23-24, 1989
- TABLE OF CONTENTS -
1 PAGE I. Chairman'sReport(0 pen).................................. 1 II. Division of High'-Level Waste Management Program for FY89(0 pen).............................................. 1-4 III. DOE Presentation on the West Valley Demonstration Project (0 pen)............................................ 4-8
'IV. DOE Presentation on the Performance Assessment Program for the Yucca Mountain High-Level Geologic Repository (0 pen).. 8-30 A. Introduction and Overview of the DOE Performance Assess-ment (PA) Program...................................., 8-11 B. The DOE Approach to Repository Preclosure Safety Assess-ment.................................................. 11-12 C. Development of the Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function (CCDF)....................................... 12-14 D. Selection of Scenarios................................. 14-16 E. Total System Performance Assessment Model............. 16-17 F. Validation of Models.................................. 17-20 G. Examples of Performance Allocation for the Waste Package (Engineered Barrier System) Testing Program... 20-22 H. Engineered Barrier System Submodels................... 22-23 I. Engineered Barrier System Mode 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-26 J. Summary Presentation and Performance Assessment Areas Needing Early Resolution.............................. 26-30
)
I go.
\
T l
) i J
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL 8904250291 890124 C'_ -
PDR ADVCM NACNUCLE Certified By 0006 PDC
l TABLE OF CONTENTS . 6TH.ACNW (MINUTES)-
4 PAGE V. ExecutiveSession(0 pen / Closed)........................... 30-32 A. Reports, Letters, and Memoranda....................... 30-31
- 1. Activities of ACNW Concerning High-Level Waste Management........................................ 30
-2. West Valley Demonstration Project................. 31 B. Other Committee Conclusions........................... 31-32
- 1. ACNWBylaws(0 pen)................................ 31
- 2. Future ACNW Membership (0 pen / Closed............... 31
- 3. Topical Status Reports (0 pen)..................... 31-32
- 4. AwardNomination(0 pen)........................... 32 C. Future Activities..................................... 32 VI. Appendices Appendix I - Attendees................................ 1-1 Appendix II - Future Agenda........................... 11-1 Appendix III - Other Documents Received............... III-1 Appendix IV - ACNW Letter Reports / Memoranda........... IV-1 i
I i
l 1
-- _ _-_ __:_-__ =__ __ _ _ _ -
a '
[ m, av s Issued: 2/23/89 i .< MINUTES OF THE 6TH ACNW MEETING d
- d*
- JANUARY 23-24, 1989 A 89 The 6th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste was convened by Chairman Dade W. Moeller at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, January 23, 1989, at 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland.
[ Note: For a list of attendees, see Appendix I, ACNW members, Drs. Dade. W.
Moeller, Clifford V. Smith, Jr., and Martin J. Steindler were present. ACNW consultants, Drs. Melvin W. Carter, William J. Hinze, Judith B. Moody, and Donald A. Orth were also present.]
The Chairman said that the agenda for the meeting had been published. He also identified the items to be discussed. He stated that the meeting was being held in conformance with the Federal Advisory Comittee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws92-463 and 94-409, respectively.
He also noted that a transcript of some of the public portions of the meeting was being made, and would be available in the NRC Public Document Room at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
[ Note: Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also available for purchase from the Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005.]
- 1. Chairman's Report (0 pen)
LNote: Mr. R. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Dr. Moeller announced the appointment of a second Deputy Executive Director for Operations. Mr. Hugh L. Thompson will be Deputy Executive Director for Materials Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support. Mr. James Taylor will serve as Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Regional Operations, and Research. Other appointments announced by Dr. Moeller were Mr. Robert Bernero as Director of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards and Mr. Stewart Ebneter as Administrator of the Region II office in Atlanta, Georgia.
II. Division of High-Level Waste Management (HLWM) Program for FY 1989 (0 pen) LNote: Dr. S. J. S. Parry was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
The principal presenters for the Division were Messrs. Robert Browning, Division Director, and Robert Johnson. Supporting comments were provided by Mr. Melvin Silberberg, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
Mr. Browning opened the presentation with an overview of the Commission briefing paper, Regulatory Strategy and Schedules for the High-Level Waste Repository Program, SECY 88-285, that provides the Commission with a descrip tion of the Division's regulatory strategy and how the Division's ongoin program meshes with, and responds to, the Department of Energy's (DOE program. Mr. Browning noted that the FY 1989 NRC budget for high-level waste programs was made a s the request of the Office of Management and Budget (pecific line item at0MB) to identify reimbursable costs unde i
- . .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
=- = mm m- ----
.. 1, ,
t 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 provisions referring to the Nuclear Waste Fund. This'line item will include' the funds for the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), the Office of the General Counsel, and the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. H, During Mr. Johnson's discussion of the Division's program, Dr. Moeller inquired as to when the Division's operating plan would be available. Mr.
Johnson indicated that it will be available in February. Mr. Johnson pre-sented charts that illustrated the schedule of interactions between DOE and the NRC staffs. He pointed out that the DOE Mission Plan and decision schedule are updated to reflect programmatic changes. The current key dates are 1995 for the DOE submission of the application to construct a repository and 1998 by which time the NRC is expected to rule on the application. All current activities are aimed at meeting these dates.
Given that the license application will probably take three years to prepare, the NRC staff is expected to have the Content and Format Guide for. the application ready in 1992. The Guide requires that most, if not all, of the rulemakings and technical positions will have to be finished before that time. Dr. Moody questioned the ambitious nature and scope of these require-ments. Mr. Browning noted that while the near-term dates, such as the start of the Exploratory Shaft Facility (ESF), are slipping, the final dates have
.not been adjusted. Dr. Moeller raised the possibility. of a Limited Work Authorization (LWA). Mr. Browning indicated that such an approach had been deemed inappropriate by OGC.
Mr. Johnson emphasized that the fundamental purpose of the Division's efforts was to make possible the submission of a thorough, competent license (con-struction authorization) application. Such a submission would allow the staff to issue a positive finding within the legislatively mandated three-year time period. Therefore, the Division is working toward eliminating uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding the preparation of the application.
There are three general classes of uncertainties to which Mr. Johnson re-ferred. They are: regulatory, technical, and institutional. Examples of each were presented and discussed. The form of the resolution of these uncertainties was also detailed. The NRC staff prefers the use of technical position papers, and only in limited cases, the use of Regulatory Guides or rulemakings. Apparently, DOE does not support this approach, preferring to stress rulemaking. Dr. Steindler noted that a rulemaking approach would be preferred for defining methodology, such as performance assessment, and/or protocol. Mr. Browning noted that the state of Nevada generally opposed the idea of narrowing issues and providing guidance during the earlier stages of the program.
Mr. Johnson described the efforts of the CNWRA, in conjunction with OGC and NMSS staffs, to analyze the existing regulations and to propose methods or actions to reduce uncertainties. He also described the in-house staff efforts in the area of performance assessment. Dr. Moody asked if the DOE models are to be used. It was indicated that some DOE models would be used
e- . . .
t 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 and some would be internally developed. Both Drs. Moody and Steindler questioned this activity.
With respect to rulemaking, it was noted that the state of Nevada is the second principal participant after 00E. The previously noted position of the state towards rulemaking was noted. Dr. Moody commented that Nevada has very valid comments (technical). Nevada's opinion that the site is not a good ,
site was discussed. Dr. Steindler asked if the NRC staff would know a good site if it saw one. Mr. Browning said that that question was a valid one and that it has not been resolved. Mr. Browning stressed that the reason for these activities was the legislative mandate that licensing be completed in three years.
Mr. Johnson noted that rulemakings were not limited to Part 60, but also included changes to Parts 2 and 51. The Part 51 rulemaking relates to the partial adoption of DOE's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the NRC.
Mr. Johnson resumed his presentation moving from the Division's regulatory strategy to the FY 1989 program. A chart detailing the comparative number of full-time employees (FTEs) and contract dollars in the four principal areas of Division activity was reviewed. In response to a question by Dr. Orth, it was explained that FTEs were internal NRC employees, and dollars were ex-ternal contractual figures and that they were unrelated. Mr. Browning explained that the FTEs were all technical, except as noted for support or management. Further, he noted that the FTEs are shared among activities. t In response to Dr. Steindler's questions, Mr. Browning indicated that he had requested 70 or 71 FTEs and had been given 63.9. He and Mr. Johnson stated that current resources were adequate to fulfill their programmatic obliga-tion.
An extended discussion ensued on the NRC staff's plans to review the DOE study plans. Approximately 106 or 107 study plans are to be submitted to NRC by DOE in the next two years. The NRC staff plans to perform a preliminary review of all study plans. Because of the limited resources, NRC will only perform an in-depth review on those deemed to be most critical. This will amount to about 20% of the total. This position was questioned by several members and consultants. The staff acknowledged a degree of risk and in-dicated that the Commissioners share the Committee's concern.
Mr. Johnson listed several ongoing reports, such as the quarterly progress reports that are being prepared for the Commission. He indicated that the staff did not expect to have to review DOE's first semiannual update or progress report on the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) in this fiscal year.
Dr. Moeller asked for an explanation as to the meaning of " program architec-ture." Mr. Johnson stated that it is the systematic analysis of regulations to identify regulatory and technical uncertainties and recommending methods for resolving those uncertainties. In responding to questions by Dr. Steind-1er, Mr. Johnson indicated that the CNWRA has 15 to 20 people assigned to this effort. The work is expected to be completed by the end of FY 1989.
. _ _ = . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
es p g.
e 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 It was stated that the staff will be preparing a work plan for the develop-ment of the license (construction authorization) application review plan.
This effort is to be coordinated with the preparation of the Content and Format Guide. A major portion of this work will be in the preparation of the performance assessment review strategy. Dr. Steindler asked if this work had started yet. Mr. Johnson said that the staff was preparing to start a source term and total system performance assessment using available technology. Dr.
Moody, again, warned the staff as to the complexity and magnitude of the proposed effort. Mr. Johnson discussed the QA review plan briefly. The staff mentioned their concerns that the DOE QA plans may not be available in a timely manner.
The staff's review of the SCP was described. The schedule and the ACNW's position in that schedule were detailed. The delay in receiving supporting documents was noted. The staff explained that the Design Acceptability Analysis (DAA) document was required because DOE did not have an acceptable 0A program in place when the Title 1 design of the ESF was performed.
Mr. Browning encouraged the Committee to invite the DOE staff to brief the Committee on the SCP. He indicated that the staff did not intend to respond to the comments of the state of Nevada on DOE's SCP.
The staff briefly described their effort to establish priorities for the research programs.
In closing, Dr. Steindler again raised his concern about NRC being able to decide if a site was acceptable. Mr. Browning responded that this is diffi-cult but is, of course, the core of the construction permit decision. It was indicated that the decision has to be made in approximately 1994 when the staff is required to address the preliminary site characterization sufficien-cy question.
l III. DOE Presentation on the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP)
LNote: Dr. S. J. S. Parry was the Designated Federal Official for this portionofthemeeting.]
Mr. Jack Baublitz, DOE, outlined the hierarchial structure within DOE that operates the WVDP and indicated that the funding for the project is jointly provided by DOE and New York State's agent, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). DOE pays 90 percent and NYSERDA 10 percent. DOE's funding comes directly from its budget, not the Nuclear Waste Fund. This arrangement was set up in the enabling legislation in 1980.
The work is being accomplished by a wholly owned subsidiary of the Westing-house Corporation, West Valley Nuclear Services Corporation. The site description was provided by Mr. T. W. McIntosh of D0E. The site encompasses some 3000 acres, with approximately 200 acres containing either structures or disposal sites. The site was jointly opened in 1962 by Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) and New York State. The reprocessing plant was completed in 1966 and ran for six years, reprocessing some 640 metric tons of spent fuel .
1 1. .
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 Reprocessing was stopped in 1972'and NFS withdrew from the site in the late 1970's, ceding it to NYSERDA. DOE became involved with the site after 1980.
The West Valley Demonstration Project Act (P.L.96-368) limits DOE's respon- 1 sibilities to five items: (1) solidify the liquid high-level waste (HLW), I (2) develop containers for the solidified HLW, (3) transport the HLW to a-federal repository, (4) dispose of the LLW and transuranic (TRU) waste generated during these operations, and (5) decontaminate and decommission (D l and IJ) the facilities used. Dr. Steindler questioned the intended extent of l the D and D operation. It was indicated that the D and D activities under this program will be limited to those portions of the site and facilities used in the solidification operation and related actions. DOE and NYSERDA are in the scoping phase of preparing an EIS for clean-up of the entire site.
The EIS is not scheduled for completion until 1994.
The liquid HLW is contained in two of four HLW tanks. Some 600,000 gallons of alkaline supernatant and sludge are held in one 1,000,000 gallon low-carbon steel tank and 12,000 gallons of acidic liquid are held in a 15,000 gallon stainless steel tank. There are approximately 30 million curies of activity in these tanks, principally strontium and cesium. Minor amounts of uranium, thorium, and TRU are also present.
The burial sites contain approximately 2.3 million cubic feet of waste.
Contained in this volume is 700,000 curies of by-product materials, 470,000 curies of source materials and 56 kilograms of special nuclear materials.
About 25 percent of the waste came from the reprocessing plant. This volume includes fuel cladding hulls, unprocessed spent fuel slugs, and radium. The construction of the disposal trenches was detailed. Dr. Moody inquired as to the nature of the soil. It was indicated that the soil is weathered till underlaid by unweathered till. It has very low permeability which has led to flooding of the trenches by rain. The disposal practices were such that less than 53 percent of the trenches were filled with solids, that is, the void fraction was greater than 40 percent. Because of the low permeability of the soil and settlement of the waste, rain water collected in the trenches and eventually over-flowed in 1975. To control this problem, an additional four feet of cover were added and a program of pumping out collected water and treating it was initiated. The initial remedial actions were undetaken by NFS, but are now handled by NYSERDA. Responding to a question by Dr. Parry, Mr. T. K. DeBoer, NYSERDA, acknowledged that radioactive material had been found in a local creek. He indicated that such discharges were from the plant itself, and not from the burial grounds.
[ Note: At this point in the proceedings, the presentations focussed on the details of the processes to be used at West Valley. The presentations were made by several DOE and West Valley personnel and overlapped in content, j Rather than reporting each discussion separately, the presentations are j condensed into a cohesive description of the entire system with emphasis on l the vitrification operation. Individual questions and comments of members, j consultants, and staff are included as appropriate.] l
e ...
GTH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 The purpose of the demonstration project is limited to the removal and solidification of the liquid HLW contained in the tanks. The plan is to pump off the liquid supernatant from the alkaline sludge, process it through ion exchange columns leaving the radioactive constituents, largely cesium, on the resins. The stripped liquor, principally sodium nitrate, is then to be evaporated down to concentrations suitable for the preparation of a cementi-tious waste form. The resins, with radionuclides, are to be combined with !
the sludge from the tank and the acidic liquor from the Thorex process and processed with glass-making materials in a liquid-feed ceramic melter. The resultant glass is to be cast into steel canisters for storage and eventual transportation to and disposal in the HLW geologic repository.
Dr. Carter asked why two waste streams were going to be generated rather than only one, that is, glass. The presenters took the position that for economic reasons, it seemed less expensive to produce some 12,000 71-ga11on drums of low activity cement plus 300 canisters or logs of high activity glass, rather than 1500 or 1600 logs of glass that would be required if no cement was produced.
During the development work performed prior to the initial production effort, it was discovered that the supernatant contained approximately 150 ppm of oxalic acid as a residue from the decontamination operations. This material caused foaming when early samples of actual supernatant were solidified. The foaming was eliminated by an appropriate additive. The incident supports the often stated position of the Committee and the NRC LLW staff that testing of actual, not simulated samples, is an absolute necessity. The West Valley personnel indicated that up to 2000 test formulations had been tried during the development period.
Approximately 2000 drums of cement have been processed to date. The original estimates for residual activity in the drums was 700 mrem per hour contact dose. In fact, while variations are seen, the general surface activity averages approximately 70 mrem per hour. Of the 2000 drums processed, only one has given indications of being misprocessed when an additive feed pump either failed or was not activated properly. The West Valley staff pointed out that this one drum had only been misprocessed. There is no evidence that the cement is in any way unsatisfactory. West Valley personnel have sampled several drums and demonstrated that there is an appreciable effect on the aging of the cement as a function of size of the sample or bulk cement block.
They found that it was necessary to allow the drums to cure for up to 70 days before the cement met the values obtained from 2 inch square cubes after 28 days curing. To further check these results, a sample of 20 drums has been set aside for long-term aging and sampling. Dr. Carter asked if any of the drums had been instrumented during the solidification process. He was told that temperature measurements had been made.
Vitrification is accomplished in a liquid feed ceramic melter. The melter is the result of development activities conducted at Pacific Northwest Labora-tories (PNL), Savannah River Laboratory, and West Valley itself. West Valley has had two melters in operation. Neither has processed actual sludge. Only
- i. , , ,
l I
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 simulated feed streams have been processed. The only actual sludge that has been processed was a small button in a muffle furnace, in a bot cell. The full-scale melter presently being used for engineering development is to be l removed and refurbished and held as a spare. An identical, entirely new
, melter will be used for the actual processing of the glass.
1 Given the recent experience with stripping the supernatant, it is expected that less than 0.1% of the total activity in the tanks will end up in the cement-filled drums. Assuming that 300 canisters of glass, or glass logs, will be produced, it is estimated that each log will contain approximately 120,000 curies of activity. That corresponds to a surface dose of 8500 R per hour for the glass containers and about 700 mrem per hour for the cement drums. Each log will generate about 300 watts of heat. As noted previously, the design value for the drums was 700 mrem. A result of this reduced activity level is that the accumulated annual person-rem for the site has
, been kept low. Last year the entire site experienced a collective dose of just above 300 person-rem distributed between approximately 100 individuals.
The sludge in the low-carbon steel tank contains essentially all the stron-tium, other fission products, uranium, and TRU constituents. It is a mixture of oxides and hydroxides precipitated from the action of neutralizing the acidic liquor resulting from the reprocessing operation. Its largest single component is ferric hydroxide. Of the some 600,000 gallons of HLW, approxi-mately 8 percent is sludge. The liquid associated with the sludge is actual-ly supernatant and it contains a large amount of sulfate. Sulfate is detri-mental to the glass-making process, and therefore the sludge will be washed to remove the sulfate liquor. This material will be processed as supernatant and the stripped sulfate will be formed into cement. The sludge, Thorex waste, and resins from the supernatant and wash water processing are to be blended together in the HLW tank and processed into glass.
Dr. Steindler questioned the feasibility of adequately stirring or agitating '
the sludge and other components in the HLW tank. It was indicated that up to seven 150 horcapower pumps could be installed in the tank and that was deemed adequate. Dr. Orth confirmed that some difficulties had been foreseen and it was for that reason that so many pumps were being installed.
The designed output capacity of the mixed melter is 45 kilograms of glass per hour. The feed materials, mixed sludge, glass frit, etc., are metered into the melter, being spread on the crust of the glass bath. As the various constituents work through the crust, or the crust is consumed from underneath by the glass bath, they are gradually heated and decomposed to form glass.
The crust prevents spattering and rapid gas evolution and reduces the rate and amount of radionuclides discharged to the off-gas system. A full-scale melter has been running for four years on simulated wastes. As noted earli-er, it is to be replaced with a new melter, refurbished, and held as a reserve. The experience with the simulated wastes indicates that thorium aids in the process while rare earths and zirconium cause problems. The presence of plutonium and cesium loaded resins has no adverse effect. The glass bath is generally held at 50 to 150 degrees above the liquidus for the melt.
=m.._..,-.
)
+ . . .
18 ' pg 4
- 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 l West Valley plans to meet the same specifications as Savannah River and to ship the canisters in the same transportation casks. Samples may be taken l directly from the canister, or the discharge stream of the glass may be sampled.
I Dr. Steindler noted that the glass performance tests being used had not been )
correlated to actual service conditions, and that this difficulty existed for l other sites also. He r.oted that it is up to the repository to set the l
acceptance criteria to be placed on the waste glass product. l Dr. Moody questior.ed the use of boro-silicate glasses as the primary waste l form. She noted that both in terms of ease of processing and devitrification i the non-boron containing glasses appeared preferable. The West Valley staff did not directly respond to Dr. Moody's comments, but suggested that the melter could easily handle boron glasses and that the service temperatures of the glass are below levels where devitrification may occur. l The West Valley staff indicated that it is expected to cost some $800 million to convert the waste to cement and glass. Finishing the disposal operations and D and D is projected to reach up to $1.5 billion. The question of the defining limit on TRU waste was addressed. No decision has been reached, but values of 10, 30, and 100 nanocuries per gram were mentioned.
The intent to produce an EIS for the entire site has been noted earlier. The EIS document will cover a wide range of topics, including the burial sites and the final D and D of all the facilities.
A major question acknowledged as needing to be answered is that of product qualification. It involves two groups within DOE and is subject to NRC staff approval.
Dr. Moody asked about the seismic requirements on the facility. Mr. Davis Hart, NRC project manager for West Valley, commented that after review, the seismic specifications on the processing equipment have been set at 0.1 g ground acceleration.
IV. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Manage-ment (OCRWM), Performance Assessment Program for the Yucca Mountein High-Level Waste Geologic Repository
[ Note: Mr. O. S. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
A. Introduction and Overview of the DOE Performance Assessment (PA)
Program Dr. Donald Alexander, Regulatory Compliance Branch, DOE, addressed the following topics:
- 1. General PA program to address the NRC regulations.
)
l .a ,.
l e..
I 6TH'ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989-
]
- 2. Overview of the management and organization of the PA program.
- 3. . Interface between PA and the testing program.
4.- Current projects-(FY 1989 PA activities).
Some of the major points he made in his presentation. follow.
- 1. PA spans the entire spectrum of activities from the beginning of-site characterization through the final design, license applica-tion review, construction, operation, ending with permanent closure.
- 2. The PA . milestones for licensing include major Environmental
' Impact S. tement (EIS) and Safety Analysis Report (SAR) mile-stones, commencing-in January 1989 and extending to January 1995 when a final EIS and SAR are scheduled to be issued.
- 3. The pas fall.into six categories:
- a. Preclosure safety
- b. Post-closure total system
- c. Engineered barrier system ,
- d. Repository and seal system design
- e. Natural barrier
- f. Environment
- 4. The PA FY 1989 plans and reports include:
- a. Site Characterization Plan (SCP) b.
- d. PA activity plans
- e. Assessment reports
- a. Completion of the PASP
- b. Completion of the PAIP
- c. Development of methodologies and the conduct of activities in the following key PA areas:
(1 total system performance waste package performance ground-water travel time preclosure safety (5 environment assessment (6 exploratory shaft facility (ESF) i
c- o.
+
J 4
l 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1969
)
The highlights of ~ discussions pertaining to Dr. Alexander's presen-tation follow.
- 1. In response to a question by Dr. Moeller about performance allocation, Dr. Alexander stated that performance allocation is !
the process that is used to establish goals for the site charac-terization program.
- 2. Dr. Moody asked about the PA Strategy Plan (PASP). Dr..Alexan- l der said that it is several hundred pages long and is in draft form. It takes input from the SCP, a regulatory compliance plan which is currently being developed, and the EIS development plan which is not yet written. As such, the PASP is a major part of '
the PA management plan. It drives the implementation and activity plans.
- 3. Dr. Steindler asked what is the latest date at which DOE would be able to determine whether the site is suitable. Dr. Alexan-der answered that the current plan for the determination of suitability would be in the late 1994 time frame. DOE would have to look at both favorable and adverse conditions to ensure that the site is suitable.
- 4. Dr. Moeller asked if DOE people attended the meeting on this subject that was held at the University of Arizona in November 1988. Dr. Alexander said they were, adding that the work the University is doing on the flow of fluids through an unsaturated zone (one of the major considerations for the Yucca Mountain {
site) is something DOE hopes to collaborate on, at least in the l performance assessment area to evaluate the natural analog system.
- 5. Dr. Moeller asked how DOE got to the stage that they are, with I. respect to the ESF, without having done a design acceptability
) analysis (DAA). Dr. Ralph Stein, DOE, responded saying that the l design for the exploratory shaft was done several years ago at J which time DOE did not have a quality assurance (QA) program in j place that was consistent with 10 CFR Part 60. Hence, the DAA l is essentially revisiting that requirement to prcve to the I satisfaction of NRC that the design will satisfy Part 60 and the QA requirements nonetheless.
- 6. Dr. Moody asked what DOE is doing in the area of natural ana-logs. Dr. Alexander stated that they are looking at a number of analog ore bodies, citing two in particular -- Pocas de Caldas in Brazil and Cigar Lake in Canada -- looking at the migration of nuclides away from the deposits.
.. o.
1 i .
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 i
- 7. Regarding Dr. Smith's question about when the DAA will be forwarded to NRC, Mr. Stein said it would be on or about Febru-ary 8,1989.
B. The DOE Approach to Repository Preclosure Safety Assessment Mr. David Michlewicz, Manager, Safety Assessment Section, Weston Technical Support Team, addressed three principal areas in his presentation:
- 1. NRC and DOE preclosure safety requirements
- 2. DOE's technical at,proach
- 3. Technical issues He discussed the following selected preclosure safety assessment activities for FY 1989:
- 1. Definition of bounding case radionuclides inventory
- 2. Evaluation of transportation cask certification
- 3. Characterization of particle transport phenomena
- 4. Assessment of methodologies for identifying and screening initiating events.
Mr. Michlewicz pointed out that repository requirements for pre-closure safety are similar to other facilities and that an extensive body of safety assessment techniques exists. He said that the conceptual design had been analyzed, coordinated through a pre- !
closure safety assessment working group. He said that additional I information is still needed on the source term and the data base !
development, but that results of a license application design (LAD) !
safety assessment constitute the basis for the SAR and the NRC >
license application.
The highlights of the discussions on this topic follow:
- 1. Mr. Michlewicz stated that DOE will submit a petition for rulemaking (which is currently in the final review stages at DOE) proposiq; ?st the dose guideline for the repository be 5 l rem, based primarily on similarity to facilities which have -
similar operations.
- 2. Dr. Steindler asked if, in the validation of the ORIGIN code, l the initial effort will be largely to satisfy the QA require-ments and not necessarily to increase the accuracy of the data.
Mr. Michlewicz said that the work would be done for both the QA and also to satisfy the analyst's needs for basic data, viz.,
l
-- ~ -- ~ -~
F.. - ..
w; . , , . ..
b .
.6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 I
bounding source terms for accident analyses, and radionuclides and neutron spectra for shielding calculations.
- 3. Dr.: Carter asked. how far they had actually gotten in looking at initiating events for accidents.- Mr. Michlewicz said the conceptual design report identified approximately ten initiating events - (and - their probabilities)- for the repository surface facilities. Additional analyses have also been done'for the ESF-and the underground facility.
- 4. . Mr. Michlewicz said that the results - of the safety assessment will feed into the advanced conceptual ' design.~and eventually into the, license application-design.
~
C. Development of the Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function (CCDF)
Dr. Larry Rickertsen, Manager, Issues Resolution Section, Weston~
Technical Support Team, briefed the Committee on the CCDF by dis-cussing:
- 1. Regulatory need
-2. Definition
- 3. DOE's approach to its construction
- 4. Treatment of human interference in its construction He made the following major points.
- 1. In regard to the regulations, he stated that 10 CFR Part.60.112 implements the. EPA Standards of 40 CFR Part 191. The contain-ment requirements of Part 191.13 require that the 10,000-year cumulative releases to the accessible environment shall:
- a. ~Have a likelihood of less than one chance in ten of exceed-ing a specified quantity,
- b. Have a likelihood of less than one chance in 1000 of exceed-ing 10 times the specified quantity.
- 2. Using the regulatory requirement as the basis, he defined terms to be used in a mathematical expression for the CCDF, which, when- determined, is represented' by a curve which, when plotted on the same graph as the EPA performance objective limits, shows compliance with the EPA standard if it lies below those limits.
- 3. He explained DOE's approach in constructing the CCDF, which is to integrate over all the variables that are important to I
i
r__--_ __- - _- _
t 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 releases from the system (over the joint probability distribu-tion of those variables) multiplied by a step function (Helm-holtz step function, which equals 1 for a variable whose value l 1s greater than zero, and equals zero when the value of the variable is less than zero) to make sure that only those things i that exceed the release limit are taken into account. He said that DOE would develop one or more conceptual models of the repository system, would identify the important variables in each model, and would integrate over those variables for each conceptual model. He also discussed the application of sensi-tivity and uncertainty analysos to the CCDF code, as well as ways to simplify the code without markedly affecting its useful-ness.
- 4. In regard to DOE's creatment of human interference in the code's construction, Dr. Rickertsen said that it will be explicitly evaluated taking into account all pertinent factors, viz.
- a. Identification of potential interferences !
- b. Obtaining essential information
- c. Development of credible -(underline added) scenarios
- d. Estimation of consequences
- e. Assessment of scenarios for regulatory purposes I
He said that it may not be practical to incorporate human interference into the overall CCDF because estimates of the absolute probability of human intrusion in the future may not be feasible, and because speculative probability estimates of human interference may lead to misjudgments of more credible processes and events. Another reason is that, since human interference dominates all other evaluations of performance, it will purpose-ly be down-played so as to not diminish the role of finding out about other aspects of the site.
The highlights of discussions on the CCDF between the Committee and Dr. Rickertsen are given below:
- 1. Dr. Moeller asked whether the scenarios are accident scenarios or scenarios of ways in which radionuclides releases might occur under normal conditions, including airborne releases of radio-nuclides. Dr. Rickertsen said that the scenarios to be con-sidered will be for anticipated conditions of various ways that radionuclides could be released, including airborne releases.
Also, since he was talking strictly about post closure perfor-mance assessment, he said that disruptive scenarios, which are .
I
i o ..
l 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24,~1989 I
i analogous to accidents in preclosure analyses, would also be considered. 4
- 2. Dr. Steindler asked how DOE determined that the CCDF would be a legitimate model for a repository. Dr. Rickertsen answered that it is not really a model for the repository, but that it is just (
a way of collecting and organizing information about conse- '
quences and probabilities of things happening. Another way to do it would be a risk-based approach, which would require the same kind of information and model. Mr. Stein added, quoting from 40 CFR 191, that "... the implementing agency will assemble all of the results of the Performance Assessment to determine compliance with 191.13 into a complementary cumulative distribu-tion function."
- 3. Dr. Moeller asked how much confidence DOE has that this assess-ment can be carried out in a meaningful way. Dr. Rickertsen said that he believes it can be done, subject to the resolution of both parameter and model uncertainties.
- 4. Dr. Moeller asked if they were taking into account the relative hazard or health impact of the radionuclides. Dr. Rickertsen said yes, and explained that the release limits that went into EPA's modeling are being used as DOE's standard for this deter-mination.
D. Selection of Scenarios Dr. Felton W. Bingham, Supervisor, Repository Performance, Sandia National Laboratories, discussed what a scenario is and why they are ;
useful. He said that some scenarios had already been selected and that additional scenarios will also be selected. His major points were: 1
- 1. A scenario, particularly in relation to the repository, is a ,
hypothetical sequence of events and processes that may affect the performance of a repository system. It usually begins with an initiating event or process which is not the scenario.
Scenarios define the ranges of state variables for use in the CCDF discussed above.
- 2. The scenarios should be exhaustive and mutually exclusive. This can be accomplished by constructing mutually exclusive classes of scenarios. j
- 3. The purpose of the scenario selections made to date was to guide the site characterization in two ways:
- a. To obtain needed data 1
.. .m -=
~
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989
{
- b. As an early step in PA.
- 4. Dr. Bingham said that the general principles for scenario-selection for site characterization should take into account all sufficiently credible (underline added) natural processes and events, and that scenarios should be developed for both "nomi-nal" and " disruptive" classes, as well as those initiated by human activities. He cautioned that one should be conservative in selecting scenarios to ensure that all necessary data are.
collected, and to ensure that resources are not wasted on insignificant scenarios. He discussed several examples of scenario classes selected for the site characterization and identified criteria for future scenario selection.
The discussion highlights on this presentation-follow:
- 1. Dr. Moeller asked if all scenarios must be hypothetical and at what point is a scenario closed out. Dr. Bingham answered that the scenarios are all hypothetical until one has good evidence that the scenarios are going to occur. The scenarios are carried out over the 10,000-year period of regulatory concern.
- 2. Dr. Orth asked if they were having any dialogue with NRC so they ;
can agree on what is significant. Dr. Bingham said that they l regard the NRC comments on the CDSCP, their anticipated comments on the statutory SCP (i.e., the SCA), and a continuing dialogue with NRC to be the most fruitful exchanges they're likely to have.
- 3. Dr. Moeller asked what the main criticisms of the NRC were on DOE's scenarios in the consultation draft. Dr. Bingham said the CDSCP was a little weak in providing sufficient information about how and why things were or were not done. The SCP pro-vides more information as a result of NRC's comments.
- 4. Dr. Smith (and later Dr. Steindler) asked if the state of Nevada had contributed to the scenario selection, and were there any potential scenarios that were unexpected by D0E. Dr. Bingham said the state of Nevada had reviewed and supplied comments on >
the scenarios in the CDSCP, but they contained no surprises to DOE. Mr. Stein, DOE, said that Nevada's comments would be explicitly addressed in the same time frame as the SCP progress report, which is due out in about six months. Mr. Stein added that DOE reviewed Nevada's coninents before the final production of the SCP, and DOE did not identify any issues that had not l already been addressed by the NRC or other sources (which he did not identify). I
- 5. Dr. Hinze asked if DOE /Sandia has taken the duration of events (including the phasing of repetitive events and the overlapping
- ;= u;z
- 18 34-D-
6THACNNMINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 ofevents),intoaccount. Dr. Bingham said that the mathematical description- (model) allows you to take the processes and time =
dependent state variables into account.
- 6. Dr. Moody commented on a statement made by Dr. Bingham to the effect that the main point of scenario development .is that-increased reliance can be made on the data. Dr. Moody stressed that it's not only the data that are gathered that are impor-tant, but also the interpretation and technical-use of the data.
Dr. Bingham agreed that this was true and that it was an impor-tant- point. He added that the data must be filtered through human. consciousness and applied to the numerical models that are used in actually making the CCDF.
E. Total System Performance Assessment Model Dr. Scott Sinnock, Supervisor, NNWSI Program Interface Division, Sandia National Laboratories, described the general methodology for the ~ total system model and the treatment of submodels, stressing that ' the total system model is not intended to be a definitive system performance assessment. The principal points that he made in his presentation are summarized below.
-1. Dr. Sinnock said that a "modeling hierarchy" approach was used.
A "modeling hierarchy" is the building of physical processes from detailed mechanistic models to upper-level performance models, and making predictions of the site or subsystem, in terms of the performance measures required by the regulations.
- 2. To illustrate the above, he discussed the relationship between two subsystems, the engineered barrier subsystem and the natural barrier subsystem and total system functions and processes.
- 3. Dr. Sinnock emphasized that even though, scenarios, processes and a CCDF creation have to be considered, eventually, basic physical processes that are affecting the behavior of the system must also be examined. After discussing the various events and processes in the system and subsystems, he said that the total system performance has to account for all of them. It is a very complex system of interdisciplinary interactions. The theme of his presentation was to discuss how this information is merged ,
and synthesized in such a way as to allow some estimates to be i made of the total system behavior.
The principal points of discussion on this subject are given below.
1
- 1. Dr. Steindler asked whether Dr. Sinnock was drawing any dis-tinction between mechanistic and empirical models. Dr. Sinnock replied that the attempt is in the direction of mechanistic l l
L_,.. ,,
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 models, rather than empirical ones, but that even points of mechanistic models rest on empirical assumptions.
- 2. Af ter commenting on the use of models and simplified computer codes to determine the total system model, Dr. Steindler asked how one would know that he or she had not deviated from the real world sufficiently so that the answers were not useful. Dr.
Sinnock said that the answer to that question constituted validations, which would be covered by the next speaker. He went on to explain that, although models are simplifications of the real world, the use of multidimensional, multiscenario calculations to produce a CCDF vouchsafes for the feasibility and reliability of the system, and, if it errs, it errs on the conservative side.
- 3. Dr. Steindler sought clarification on Dr. Sinnock's discussion (while Dr. Sinnock was explaining the uncertainty of hierar-chical' models) of the interpretation of results of lower level mechanistic models to define appropriate, conservative input variables and conceptual models for the next upper level. He asked Dr. Sinnock to guess whether the results of the model would meet with his intuition about how the system should behave, and then define a somewhat. arbitrary basis for deciding whether the values are conservative. Dr. Sinnock said he would use the word discretionary rather than arbitrary, but said that is what he meant. He added that the validation of the model is the crux of whethe.r the results and their interpretation vindi-cate the model.
- 4. In summary, Dr. Sinnock said that in order to build up to many scenarios that provide the information to generate a CCDF, he believes that it will be necessary to make simplifying assump-tions because there are too many detailed mechanistic models of all the processes concerned to allow them to look at releases to the accessible environment -- too many scenarios for the waste package, for the site, and for geochemical interactions. The assumptions have to be simplified in such a way that they can be put out to the connunity for discussion to establish assurance that if DOE errs, as he said before, they would err on the conservative side.
F. Validation of Models Dr. Abraham Van Luik, Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, addressed the following topics:
- 1. Definition of validation
- 2. Regulatory requirements of model validation
- 3. Ensuring interaction between modelers and experimentalist
- x x-. :; - -- -
e 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989
- 4. Specific plans and schedules for testing conceptual models.
The major points made by Dr. Van Luik were:
- 1. Model validation is the establishment of the soundness of specific computer models and the legitimacy of specific applica-tions being made of those models.
- 2. In regard to regulatory requirements, he cited 10 CFR 60.21-(c)(ii)(F), which reads, " Analysis and models ... shall be supported using an appropriate combination of such methods as
, field tests, in situ tests, laboratory tests which are represen-tative of field conditions, monitoring data, and natural analog studies."
- 3. Dr. Van Luik said that there is a need for close dialogue between the field and laboratory experimentalist and those persons doing the performance assessment of the site. He also strased that work should be planned and organized to ensure explicit interactions between modelers and experimenters.
- 4. He said that the validation approach for hypothesis testing of a given model should include the following steps.
- a. Identify a suitable model, focusing on its applications
- b. Identify model assumptions and uncertainties
- c. Formulate credible (underline added) alternative models
- d. Identify competing hypotheses underlying alternative models
- e. Specify and conduct appropriate tests of hypotheses to:
(1) select from among competing models (2) evaluate selected models
- f. Where credible alternative models remain, conduct analyses with each model or with a bounding model.
The highlights of discussion, i.e., questions and answers between !
Committee members and Dr. Van Luik, follow:
- 1. With regard to Dr. Van Luik's reference to natural analog I studies cited above from Part 60, Dr. Moeller asked Dr. Seth Coplan, NRC staff, about statements attributed to the NRC staff that they no longer view natural analogs as very useful. D r.
Coplan replied that they do have somewhat of a problem with natural analogs since, in general, one does not know the initial conditions for the analog. In addition, it is impossible to get
)
l i
l
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __ i
l ** e.
l 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 l
a direct application of a numerical model to see if the pre-dictions are what the analog shows. But the NRC does believe that natural analogs can provide significant insights into what processes are operative in a particular physical situation, and how they might interact. This can give a qualitative under-i standing of how good the models might be. Dr. Van Luik, com-menting on Dr. Coplan's statement, said that when a natural analog is characterized, the same assumptions are projected backwards as in characterizing a potential repository site going forwards.
- 2. In regard to the international validation code, INTRAVAL, Dr.
Moeller asked whether Dr. Van Luik had learned some major lessons from participating in that program, if he thinks it is worth the effort, and if he thinks that it is accomplishing its goals. Dr. Van Luik answered that the main thing learned from INTRAVAL is the difficulty of approaching validation in the first place. He said that they were also participating in the HYDROCOIN (Level 2 of this program was a validation exercise) and INTRAC0IN programs, as well as the use of natural analogs in validation.
- 3. Dr. Carter asked what else has been learned from participation in the INTRAVAL program. Dr. Van ' Luik said that INTRAVAL has really just begun and it will be some time before that question can be answered meaningfully. However, it was Dr. Van Luik's understanding that some of the problems are: (1) characterizing something mathematically, (2) having other people model it (3) agreeing on all aspects of the modeling, and (4) defining a case so it makes sense and addresses something to do with validation.
- 4. Dr. Moeller asked why, in one of the slides entitled, "Retarda-tion Model Alternative Hypothesis Example," sorption, solubility and dispersion all contribute to the retardation of radionuclides mobility. He said he understands that to be correct for sorp-tion, but cannot be for the other two phenomena. Dr. Van Luik agreed, but explained that there was good reason for it in the SCP which would require too long to explain at this time.
- 5. Dr. Steindler asked if the three alternative hypotheses listed on the same slide was meant to be exhaustive. Dr. Van Luik said they are meant to be the ones that guide characterization.
- 6. Dr. Moody asked if the experiments Dr. Van Luik was discussing were just laboratory tests; and, if so, are any field tests planned. Dr. Van Luik answered that the C-hole reactive tracer test and some of the others are field tests; others are labora-tory tests. This is just a sampling, not a complete list.
I M _ _--_-______-_._----.___.____________a
_ _ _ - - - = = -
STH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 l 7. Dr. Carter asked what sort of a format would be used to interact the modelers with the experimentalist. Dr. Van Luik replied that almost every way you can imagine will be used.
l~ G. Examples of Performance Allocation for the Waste Package (Engineered Barrier System) Testing Program Dr. U-Sun Park, Senior Staff Systems Engineer, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), addressed the following areas:
- 1. Applicable regulatory requirements
- 2. System description conceptual design and preliminary analyses
- 3. Technical strategy for licensing
- 4. Performance goals to guide the testing program:
- a. overall goals
- b. waste package component goal It was followed by two related performance assessment presentations that addressed the engineered barrier system (EBS) model and submod-els to illustrate the relationships between performance assessment and performance allocation.
The major points made by Dr. Park in his presentation follow:
s 1. Dr. Park said that performance allocation to guide the testing would result from the consideration of inputs from regulatory requirements and system description (conceptual design).
Following EBS testing and submodel development, EBS performance assessments could be developed and, if the information available is adequate, an issue resolution document would be issued.
- 2. He cited two pertinent regulatory requirements, (1) the substan-tially complete containment requirement for the waste package and (2) the release rate control requirement on EBS. He stressed that the primary ob nent of the enclosed waste radionuclides (jective is to provide total inventory) for contain-a period of 300 to 1000 years following permanent repository closure to satisfy the first regulation. The secondary objective is to limit the release of radionuclides in accordance with the second regulation.
- 3. Dr. Park discussed the considerations, setting, and impilcations of waste package goals, which was discussed extensively by Dr.
Park, Mr. Appel, DOE, and Dr. Steindler. Dr. Park stressed that the goals are for the waste package testing program and not for
~
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 i
design criteria. He indicated that the overall goals are then '
allocated to the three principal waste package elements, viz.,
waste form, container, and waste package environment.
Highlights of the discussion with Comittee members were:
- 1. Dr. Moeller asked if DOE has put the major emphasis on the waste package because of the inability to characterize and model the natural barriers with any degree of certainty. Dr. Park said he doesn't believe that has been DOE's position in spite of the difficulty to characterize the natural barriers. DOE places emphasis'on both natural and engineered barriers.
- 2. Dr. Steindler asked if the interpretation of substantially complete containment has been a subject of discussion with the NRC staff. Dr. Park said it had been because DOE had had a slightly different interpretation of it in the consultation draft SCP.
- 3. Dr. Steindler asked if DOE had a quantified base regarding releases at a very low rate. Dr. Park said that they do, but the quantitative goals are, at present, still tentative because some of the studies have just begun. Dr. Steindler followed by asking what the time scale was for the tentative goals to become more firm -- within two years? Dr. Park said that he believes so because substantially more information would be available by that time.
- 4. Dr. Moeller asked about an earlier statement to the Committee (attributed to DOE) that the goal was that 80 percent of the waste containers should not leak, implying that 20 percent would. Dr. Park said that the statement was misinterpreted. It was not the intention of DOE to expect that 20 percent would leak, and that this matter has been clarified in the current SCP.
- 5. Dr. Steindler asked if the numerical values for the three major components of the waste package (see Dr. Park's major point No.
3 above) have been determined based on what DOE considers to be reasonably conservative values. If they have, does the fraction of the expected inventory release compare favorably with the regulation. Dr. Park said that it does. Dr. Steindler asked if the experimental data are such that the maximum fraction of the inventory released exceeds criteria , what then? Dr. Park answered that a draft of a waste package regulatory requirements strategy plan was recently completed and is currently undergoing project review. The plan addresses such a contingency -- that {
his discussion today focused on the perfonnance assessment and 1 performance allocations.
,~
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24,~1989
- 6. Dr. Moody noted that both the model and code are basically empirical .. Dr. Park agreed and added that the empiricism cannot be completely eliminated because it is the state of DOE's understanding. At the same time, he pointed out that there are many activities geared toward finding a fundamental mechanism for the release, e.g. , the mechanism of dissolution from an electro-chemical point of view that they are pursuing together with AECL in Canada.
H. Engineered Barrier System Submodels
- 1. Dr. William J. O'Connell, Technical Area Leader for Waste Package Performance Assessment, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), talked briefly about the role of submodels in the engineered barrier system (EBS) performance assessment. He described and discussed modeling of the three subsystems identi-fied by Dr. Park in the previous presentation, viz., container degradation, waste form alteration / release, and the waste package environment. He explained how these three submodels would be unified in the overall system model. He pointed out the importance of the interaction between modeling and experimental data collection.
- 2. In regard to container degradation, Dr. O'Connell discussed various container materials (e.g., copper base alloys and austenitic alloys), various degradation modes (e.g., stress corrosion cracking and pitting), and DOE's approach for obtain-ing data to develop and refine models.
- 3. In a similar manner, he identified several factors pertaining to waste form alteration / release and discussed one of them, spent fuel release by dissolution. He discussed DOE's approach involving en information exchange between experimental data (primarily laboratory experiments) and modeling (calculation),
that helps define data needs (in this case) for thermodynamic data base development.
- 4. Relative to the waste package environment, Dr. O'Connell identi-fied the following factors as important and applicable; they are near-field:
- a. hydrology and heat transfer
- b. mineralogy and geochemistry
- c. mechanical effects The highlights of the Corrnittee's discussions on this presentation of submodels by Dr. O'Connell are given below.
.- u.
~
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989
- 1. Dr. Moeller asked about the criteria for the selection of the six candidate materials for the waste package. Dr. Farmer, LLNL, said that a report has been issued on this subject which he would provide to the Comittee.
- 2. After noting that because of finite time limitations before decisions have to be made on the selection of materials from which to make the canisters, and the plac.ng of waste materials in those canisters, Dr. Steindler stated that it is a reasonable possibility that DOE will not be able to uncover mechanisms to the extent necessary to put a mechanical model together in time to be useful for the prediction of container life. He then asked if DOE has a fallback position developed that allows empirical correlations to be devised that are defensible. Dr.
Farmer responded that there are semi-empirical models available which could be used, as necessary.
- 3. Dr. Orth asked if, by way of checking the models, anybody had taken a sample of actual fairly highly irradiated spent fuel and observed what happened? Dr. O'Connell said that several serit i of tests on spent fuel under a variety of conditions were sponsored. Dr. Orth asked what kind of correlation they got with the models. Dr. O'Connell said the solubility limits of the various radionuclides are in relatively good agreement.
There also seems to be a reasonable correlation (for uranium minerals) between the calculations based on thermodynamics and the experiments, but that in these areas, to date, there are as many disagreements as there are agreements.
- 4. Dr. Moody asked what percentage dissolution was observed in the spent fuel tests -- dissolution and reprecipitation -- and what was the length of the experiments. Dr. O'Connell answered that the experiments were of the orter of months in length, but they were still fairly near the start of the dissolution experiments.
To date, they have observed a fairly low proportion of uranium ,
to other materials. Dr. Bruton, LLNL, provided an additional, '
detailed explanation, adding that when you look at how long the experiments have gone in relation to their predictions, the predictions were two to three orders of magnitude longer.
I. Engineered Barrier System Model Dr. Michael J. Apted, Deputy Manager, Performance Assessment Scien-l tific Support Program, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, gave the third of three briefings on the engineered barrier system (EBS) model.
Dr. O'Connell's preceding presentation on EBS submodels indicated that the EBS modeling would provide a unification of submodels, such j as those he discussed, which would result in the modeling of the l waste package as a system. Dr. Apted's briefing described and {
l I
l" 6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 discussed this system modeling. A summary of his major. pists follows.
- 1. The approach to system performance analysis proceeds in a stepwise manner, beginning with a single waste package, then to a set of waste packages, then to the predicted system perfor-mance, the various factors considered in each step being as follows:
- a. Single Waste Package (1) system description (2) failure modes (3) semi-empirical models (4) mechanistic models (5) bounding processes
- b. Set of Waste Packages (1) spatial variability in env'ironment (2) probabilistic treatment of processes (3) integration over all waste packages (4) bounding analyses
- c. Predicted System Performance (1) uncertainty analyses (2) sensitivity analyses
- 2. After identifying five applicable EBS PA codes, and describing one in particular (the AREST Code), Dr. Apted presented a schematic on the behavior of spent nuclear fuel and described the limitations of the accompanying assessment. Specifically, he said that release depends on:
- a. waste package design
- b. waste package materials
- c. sent fuel characteristics
- d. site characterization information l
l
.- e.
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24,'1989
- e. solubility data
- f. long-term corrosion models 9 storage before emplacement
- 3. He discussed the considerations for EBS release model, the principal factors of which are:
- a. scenario dependence
- b. containment dependence
- c. release pathway
. d. physical form of released nuclides
- e. chemical constraints on release.
- 4. Based on the preceding information and using one or more of the codes delineated earlier in his presentation, he presented and discussed the results of four examples. The factors considered in his uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of the predicted system performance were also discussed.
Highlights of the discussions resulting from questions asked by the Comittee members and consultants during and after the presentation (other than the clarifying questions and answers during the dis-cussion of examples) follow.
- 1. Dr. Steindler asked if there were an option to choose between two models, how would one determine which one to pick as being most representative of the real world. Dr. Apted answered that one may have to go with the model that is particularly bounding or less favorable at the time (which implied that tMs model would give your a more conservative answer), even though the results of calculations of the two models were only two orders of magnitude apart.
- 2. Dr. Moody asked Dr. Apted if he thought the Canadians, who are currently making one-dimensional calculations, might eventually go to three-dimensional calculations. Dr. Apted said he would not presume to speak for the Canadians, but he guessed that they would not do so, which would be repetitive of his calculations, but rather would do some finite element calculations, i.e.,
studies around individual packages.
- 3. Dr. Orth asked Dr. Apted to give him some idea of his milestones and time line and the chances of meeting them with his re-sources. Dr. Apted passed the question to the DOE manager, Dr.
l I
.- r.
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 Don Alexander, who said he would cover it in his presentation, which was next on the agenda.
J. Summary Presentation and Performance Assessment Areas Needing Early Resolution Dr. Donald H. Alexander, Chief, Regulatory Compliance Branch, DOE, discussed and summarized the points left unanswered in some of the preceding presentations. In addition, he discussed other areas needing clarification and answered the written questions asked by the ACNW regarding various issued on which ACNW had requested clarification.
Prior to answering the ACNW questions, Dr. Alexander made several significant comments about the DOE schedule, the Site Characteri-zation Plan, and what he called other constraints. The summary of his comment in each of those three areas follows.
DOE Schedule / Time Line
- 1. The Safety Analysis Report (SAR) is due in 5 years -- not a trivial task -- a very, very tight time schedule.
- 2. Work on the Alternate Conceptual Design (ACD) for the package for the repository will start in October 1989.
- 3. In the preclosure performance assessment area, DOE is trying to ramp up quickly so that they can give feedback and input to the design process that will be dependent on preclosure risk assessments.
- 4. Items of importance to be done this year:
(a) Identifying scanarios that need to be analyzed.
(b) Identifying codes that can be used in analyzing scenar-ios.
- 5. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) due date is October 1993. DOE is to receive the information for the analyses (for the DEIS) in the January 1992 time frame, which allows only 1 year and 10 months after receipt of the data to issue the DEIS.
Site Characterization Plan
- 1. The SCP is a far more comprehensive document than was originally anticipated.
, . _ . .m.m.m_._==--__;==
.. i.
, 's !
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY'23-24, 1989
.s
- 2. The magnitude of developing and issuing the SCP was much greater than anyone originally thought it would be.
- 3. The SCP is also a licensing plan since it deals with how DOE is going to approach the license application itself.
- 4. The data being gathered during site characterization has to !
be taken in the context of the license application.
Other Constraints
- 1. Much of the data that will come from the testing program will come in very late in the process.
- 2. Because of this, it will require that DOE have its code certifications in place in time to receive the information, process the data quickly, and produce assessments that will go into the documents (EIS and SAR) for publication on schedule.
DOE's Response to ACNW's Questions Question 1: Is PA done by a separate organizational unit?
Answer: PA is conducted by an integrated program management structure, drawing on the strength they get from the diversity of the different organizations, which was apparent from today's presentations. PA permeates DOE's entire repository program from top to bottom.
Question 2: How does PA interface with ongoing tests and investigations at the site and the contractors doing the work?
Answer: There is a strong interface and coordination between PA, modeling, and testing -- laboratory testing, site characterization testing, and design.
And it's becoming a very well-coordinated program now that the SCP is in place.
Question 3: What interchanges between modelers and laboratory and field researchers are planned?
3
.. u l
6TH ACNW MINUTES. - 28 , JANUARY 23-24,'1989 Answer: The PA strategy plan is being prepared to address this problem. DOE is also developing a long-range plan that will ensure that the PA program is thoroughly folded in with other elements of the program.
Question 4: How early in the program will information feedback for validation of models begin?
l Answer: It is an ongoing process that has actually been ongoing mentally for many years, and it will l continue until the required data are obtained and L
models are validated.
Question 5: What steps are bring taken to ensure that all significant scenarios are included in the CCDF, and that they are mutually exclusive?
Answer: Today's presentation addressed this topic and answered this question. Dr. Alexander cited Dr.
Bingham's reference to: (a) literature reviews, (b) use of ex groups, (c) international re-ports, and (d) pertreview by such groups as the ACNW.
He stressed that ther'e needs to be both domestic and international efforts to try to close on the scenarios classes (as a minimum) early in the process.
Question 6: How will human intrusion be included in deriving a CCDF7 Answer: As Dr. Rickertsen explained in his presentation, it will be addressed explicitly, but it may not be incorporated into the ultimate CCDF for the whole system for reasons given in the presentation.
Question 7: What explicit criteria are proposed for screening scenarios; will the Expected Partial Performance Measures (EPPM) play a role in scenario screening?
Answer: DOE has examined criteria from several sources, i.e., those from international reports (IAEA list),
the Koplik, Kaplan and Ross study, and several other sources cited in Dr. Bingham's presentation (see Section D, page 14). Dr. Rickertsen noted that the EPPM looks like it would be at least a conservative screening criterion and would be potentially useful in this regard. Dr. Alexander added that he believes it is something that needs to be discussed more openly internationally, and
e- u a
6TH ACNW HINUTES JANUARY 23-24,~1989~
cited a conference to be held in Paris in October 1989 that will deal with validation, scenario selection and many other related topics that have been discussed today. Some DOE people will be attending this conference.
Question 8: What corrosion models for waste package reliability analysis are being considered; what data and tests support these models?
Answer: Dr. O'Connell presented some of these models in his talk (see Section H, page 22). He talked about pitting models to demonstrate how DOE is addressing all credible mechanistic models in an effort to identify those models that seem to be most appropriate for the setting DOE is operating in.
Question 9: Where does DOE need guidance from NRC?
Answer: There are three general categories of performance assessment that DOE has been discussing with the NRC staff that DOE believes are fundamental to the development of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR).
The overriding consideration is, of course, the repository performance and the suitability of the site. The three specific areas that contribute substantially to this consideration and need clarification are:
- 1. Evaluation of engineered barrier system performance
- 2. Evaluation of groundwater travel time
- 3. Determination of the extent of the disturbed zone.
The characteristics of all three items are an integral part of compliance with Part 60. And, because groundwater travel time is closely tied to the edge of the disturbed zone, how you define the disturbed zone strongly affects the modeling for groundwater travel time.
Dr. Alexander named three other areas that require ongoing dialogues between DOE and NRC for early resolution of technical issues, all of which will require the continuation of meetings between DOE and NRC staffs.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ = _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ . _ _-
q.,
4 6TH-ACNW MIIIU1ES JANUARY 23-24,'1989
- 1. Draft technical position papers (some of which DOE plans to develop over the next several years)
- 2. Rulemaking to definitively close u t certain technical issues-
- 3. Consideration of the generation and presence of carbon-14 in the vicinity of the waste package, even though, in Dr. Alexander's opinion, it is really an unnecessary artificial problem that is not of real concern from a health and safety perspective.
Following the conclusion of Dr. Alexander's summary remarks, Dr.
Moeller- asked about DOE writing technical positions (that D r.
Moeller understood DOE would plan to adopt and that would meet certain criteria). Dr. Alexander explained that the SCP is more than just a characterization program; it also lays out a strategy for licensing (including the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Final Safety . Analysis Report), through, in part, the issue resolution hierarch However, this hierarchy is based on require-ments,notissues(y.as one might conclude from its name), because the requirements of like kind are lumped together and consolidated into issues. It is DOE's plan to issue, late in the game, a series of Issue Resolution Reports that would essentially close out large categories of requirements. But before DOE issues these reports, they intend to develop, within the DOE staff, a number of position papers that would comprise the Issue Resolution Reports. . Dr.
Alexander said that that is what he meant in regard to DOE develop-ing technical position papers.
V. Executive Session (0 pen / Closed)
A. Reports, Letters, and Memoranda
- 1. Activities of ACNW Concerning High-Level Waste Management (Letter to Chairman Zech dated January 25,1989)
Based on the assumption that the acceptance review will be completed by January 27, 1989, the DHLWM staff schedule of_ major SCP review activities indicates that the NRC Site Characterize-tion Analysis would be ready for review by ACNW in June 1989.
Other possible ACNW review activities were identified, including DOE briefings on the SCP content, invitations to attend weekly SCP review team meetings, and provision of early drafts of the SCA for familiarization and comment as ACNW considers appropri-ate. The Committee agreed to review and evaluate specific
- l. ...- ..
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24, 1989 )
i
" Review Plans", DOE's responses to the five " Objections" raised in the NRC's initial Point Papers, any additional. areas of disagreement that result from DOE's responses to the " Point Papers", and any substantive concerns raised by the state of Nevada.
- 2. West Valley Demonstration Project (Letter to Chairman Zech dated l January 25,1989)
The Comittee recommended additional work in the areas of: (1) the acceptance criteria for the vitrified high-level waste and (2) the public health and safety criteria for the decontaminated /
decommissioned facilities and land areas.
B. Other Committee Conclusions
- 1. ACNWBylaws(0 pen)
The Committee discussed the revised ACNW Bylaws and a few changes recommended by Mr. Fraley. Dr. Steindler agreed to consolidate the latest revisions for distribution to members and staff. The Committee will schedule an affirmation session during the February 1989 meeting.
- 2. Future ACNW Membership (0 pen / Closed)
The Comittee discussed potential nominees for ACNW membership and potential consultants for the Committee. The Committee will continue discussions during the February 1989 meeting.
The Committee requested that Mr. Noff Lockard distribute an up-to-date list of ACNW consultants. The Chairman urged ACNW members and staff to make use of the list when deciding which consultants to invite to upcoming meetings.
- 3. Topical Status Reports (0 pen)
The Committee suggested ways to improve the usefulness of meeting status reports and other support documentation prepared by the ACNW staff. The following changes will be implemented:
Copies of ACNW letter reports will be attached to the meeting minutes as part of the appendices.
ACNW staff will send meeting status reports early enough so that members will have adequate time to read them before the meeting. '
e s .-
6TH ACNW MINUTES JANUARY 23-24,'1989 ACNW meeting notebooks will be delivered to the members' hotels prior to the meeting, if desired.
4.-AwardNomination(0 pen)
The Committee endorsed the nomination of Dr. David Okrent for the Founders Award sponsored by the National Academy of Engi-neering.
C. Future Activities The Committee agreed to the tentative future agenda as shown in Appendix A.
1 l
9 l
l
.' 'i, ; .- -
~
,.. t :
l Reg!' sterVI fr A.4,Np,.yjjpdpefday@n,uary'1'8,'11180 '/ offees f
/Ydr 1 M9Ih '
~
B. Admintstra'tivh Session. inicuding l t ir Special Constituencies. Museum Advisory Panel; Meeting :
future agenda, new rnembers, and I fu al Endowment for the Arts.1100 Pursuant to section10(a)(2)of the staf!1ng (Open/ Closed) l Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub. C. Discussion of West Valley ,
DC 20500,202/682-6496 at least seven L 92-463). as amended, notice is hereby Vitrification process (Open)
(7) days prior to the meeting. . given that a meeting of the Museum D. Presentations by the Department of ,
Further inforEatbn with reference to Advisory Pannel (Special Exhibitions Energy on Performance Allocation and l' this meeti^8 can be obtained from Ms* Assessment (Open) !
g Section) to the National Council on the
- Arts wdl be held on February th-10.1989 Procedures for the conduct of and ' l an 8em ntOfIe Natio a Endowment for ge Arts, Wash!ngton,-
from 9:00 a.m.- 5:30 p.m. in room M-14 partici ationin ACNW meetings were publisfed in the Federal Register on 'k I of the Nancyllanks Center.1100 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW., J ~'- June 6.1988 (53 FR 20090). In accordance* $.
DC 20500, or call (202) 682-543h' with t,hese procedures, oral or written J tnuary 10,1989. Washington, DC 20500. ,,
{
Yv nne M.Babloei
%Is meeting is for the p,urpose of , , . statements may be presented by membefs of the ublic, recordings wid 2 Director. councl/ codIUne/ Dpera tions. Panet teview discussion evalustfoni '
and reconunendation on applications forl be permitted on during those portions k" Nationo/Endowmentfortas Arts. ,9 of the meeting a transcri t is b'eIn
? financial assistance under the National i l p Doc. 89-U02 Filed 1-17-ee. 8 45 am) Foundation on the Arts and the ilumanities Act of1965,as amended.
kept, by members and questions of the Committee.its may be asked o) m coos mm including discussion of information consultants, and Staff.ne Office of the (
given in confidence to the Agency by ACRS is providing Staff support for the g grant applicants. In accordance with the ACNW. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notif the Executive NatloyldotNcll on the Arta; Meeting published in the Federal Registee of determination of the Chairman Director of the Office o the ACRS as far .
,f.
February 13,1980, these seastons will be in advance as practicable so that U Pmsuant fo'section 10(a)(2) of the , appropriate arrangements can be made" L Coinmittee Act (Pub. completely closed to the public pursuant 4 Federal to subsections (c)(4), (6) and [9)(B) of to allow the necessary time during the L 92-463), Advfiory'nded, as ame notice is hereby meeting for such statements. Use of still, given that a meeting of the National section $52b of Title 5. United States Council on thfArts/ National Assembly Code. .
motion pictme and television cameras during this meeting may be limited to s
}
of State Arts Agincies/ National Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Ms. selected portions of the meeting as '
/ ubfy'of Eoch1' Arts Agencies Sub-Yvonne M. Satine, Advisory Committee determined by the ACNW Chairman.
il ;
- ttee to the National Council on Information regarding the time to be sef 0 {
ts wm be held on February 2,1989 Management Officer National aside for this purpose may be obtained ,f j
\jfro 3:00 psr>to'5Mps. In room M-07 DC Endowment for the Arts, 2050s, or call (202) 682-5433.
Washington, by a prepaid telephone call to the ie ,
l cf the Nancy Hanfs Center,1100 - Executive Director of the Office of the j , 1 Pennsylvania A'venu'e NW., Washington, Janua ry 10,10a0. ACRS, Mr. Raymond F. Fraley DC 20500. ~ '"' " "
Yvonne M. Sabine,
@lephm 301/49245W. prim to tb j
f Uls meetink willbe n to the Directu, Council and Pbnedberetions.
Notione/ Endowment /or the Ares.
meeting. In view of the possibility that ,
{, t j public on a space avail e basis. %e the schedule for ACNW meetings may ,i : j topics for discussion willinclude a . p Doc. 8S-1104 Filed 1-17-82 415 amj be adjusted by the Chairman as c , !
report on a retreat on Federal, state and sumo coes mws necessary to facilitate the conduct of the !# (
locrI roles in support of arts institutions meeting, pusons planning to attend ,
~~ ; ';;
cnd planning for a review'of Federal, ,< sh uld check with the ACRS Executive '
a dloca] ~fwle ~ In UPP Director if such reschedu!Ing would 4 t s f' '/ ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY - - ."3tih 1
,{d. s. . ! . .i/* MMISSCH resultin majorinconvenience. {
<l if you need sp,ecial accommodations Advisory Committee on Nuclear Da te: lanuary 11,1989. y 4 5
(
due to a disability,please contact the p Ma C. llo>te, g j Office of SpecialConstituencies, Waste; Meeting <
Addsory conunistee Monagement Officer.
National Endowment for the Arts.uoo ne Advisory Committec on Nodear P Doc. 5-1143 Filed s-17-se. e.4s em)
'b :
bl Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, Waste (ACNW) will hold a meeting on ,u,, ,,
DC 20500,202/682-5532,'ITY 202/682- j- h. f, January 23-24.1989, Room P4I2. 7TD .
5409, at least seven (7) days prior to the Norf olk Avenue. Bethesda, hul Port >ocs F
ing.
er information with reference to f this meeting may be Inf rmation the release scu28 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, subcommittee on Thermal lff this meetlng can be obtained from Ms. "*"* " "8 $-
Yvonne M. Sabine, Advisory Committee ('(*,('n of en na p racy 5 USC o Management Officer,14ational 552b(c)(6). The following topics wm be
%e ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal 't A Endowment for the Arts, Washington, discussed:
Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a n')'
DC 20506, or call (202) 682-5433. sneeting on January 23,1989, Room 2F17 15 l Yvonne M.Sgaa,. e.g ;; .. .
Afonday cod Tuesday, f pap .-&30 a.in. until the @tf am and 21.One White Flint North. H555 gockville pike, Rockville. MD.
') Y.
< 1 l 7 L8 R \
The entire meeting will be open to ..' 9 )
Director.'Counc$and anelOperotsons, business Noum! Endow]nentforthe Arts...,_ ,; p ,yg, ,
D ne agenda for the subject meeting "7 %I!8"'4" '
- Division of 10gb-tevelWeste '
Management Omce of W'M MEadoy, k as Mm .p /]
jyj p
- g g I P.
o[ 8h1103' Filed 127-89. 8.45 emj focuory 23,1989-.12M j and Safegaards cf1989 Prtysm Mm amtilspot or O n..r:; eta . - co 1
. Safety (Open) -
Plans 2 g j ; z, 13 l suma'coes Wsk.eN.s. .-
p ..m a
.6 .
MAJOR:6th ACNW
( SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION' , , , .
6TH ACNW MEETING JANUARY 23-24, 1989 BETHESDA, MARYLAND Monday, January 23, 1989, Room P-114', 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
(1) 8:30 - 8:40 a.m. Chairman's Comments 1.1) Opening Remarks 1.2) Items' of current interest 12.:f o p.m _
(2) 8:40 - 10+0F a.m. Division of High-Level Waste Management NMSS, CY-89 Program Plans (syse) 2.1 Report by the Director DHLWM io tr .-
. 10:00 - 10:M a.m. ***** BREAK *****
5:oo 7wo p.m.
(3) IJets - 1h0CT-N00k Administrative Session 3.1) Future agenda
( 3.2 New Members 3.3 ACNW By-laws 3.4 Chairman's Meeting with EDO & TA's 3.5) Other topics 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. ***** LUNCH *****
(4) 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. West Valley Vitrification Process (s7sP) i l
4.1) Report by DOE 2: 35- 2,: 4 r p. ,4. (b4f. 4.2) Report by N.Y. State Officials (See detailed schedule attached)
Tuesday -
January 24, 1989, Room P-114, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md.
(5) 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. OCRWM Presentation on Performance (o sh Assessment for the High Level Waste Repository 10:30 - 10:45 a.m. ***** BREAK ***** 1 4
12:00 - 1:00 p.m. ***** LUNCH *****
l 1
3:00 - 3:15 p.m. ***** BREAK *****
NOTE: See details of individual presentations attached.
i_ .
j
APPENDIX A FUTURE AGENDA February 21-23, 1989 HLW Repository (0 pen) Estimated time: 12 hrs. - The Committee will be briefed by DOE and NRC staffs on the status of the Site Characterization Plan, the SCP Review Plan, and the Exploratory Shaft Facility.
State of Nevada (0 pen) Estimated time: 3.5 hrs. . The Comittee will be briefed by representatives from the state of Nevada on their comments on the DOE Consultation Draft SCP.
Greater Than Class C Wastes (0 pen) Estimated time: 1.5 hrs. - The Comittee will be briefed by the NRC staff on the proposed rule on the treatment of Greater Than Class C wastes.
Committee Activities (0 pen) Estimated time: 1.5 hr. - The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, i and organizational matters, as appropriate.
March 22-23, 1989 (tentative)
Meeting with the Commission (0 pen) - The Committee will meet with the Commis-sion to discuss a variety of topics, such as:
- West Valley Demonstration Project
- Division of High-Level Waste Management FY89 Program
- Deletion of Section 20.205 from the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20
- Performance Assessment
- ACRS/ACNW Staffing Plan Waste Confidence Rulemaking (0 pen) - The Committee will meet with the NRC staff to discuss the waste confidence rulemaking.
HLW Repository (0 pen) - The Committee will continue discussions on the status of the Site Characterization Plan, the SCP Review Plan, and the Exploratory Shaft Facility.
Licensing Support System (0 pen) -
The Committee will be briefed on the development of the Licensing Support System for the High-Level Waste Reposi-tory.
Post Closure Seals (0 pen) - The Comittee will be briefed on the technical position on post closure seals in unsaturated media, l Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (0 pen) - The Committee will be {
briefed on the latest activities at the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses.
l
s- ..
APPENDIX A - 6TH ACNW MEETING Committee Activities (0 pen) - The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
- i. ..
APPEND 1..?S
- 1. MEETING ATTENDEES II. FUTURE AGENDA III. OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED VI. ACNW LETTERS REPORTS a
,r. ,,
APPENDIX I ATTENDEES 6TH ACNW MEETING JANUARY 23-24, 1989 i
IST DAY 2ND DAY
.ACNW Member Attendees:
'Dr. Dade W. lioeller /
Dr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr. / !
Dr. Martin J. Ste'indler ! /
ACNW Consultant:
Dr. Melvin'W. Carter / /
Dr. Willian J. Hinze /
Dr.' Judith B. Moody / /
Dr.. Donald A. Orth [ !
e.
l l
l APPENDIX I ATTENDEES l 6TH ACNW MEETING JANUARY 23-24, 1989 PUBLIC ATTENDEES NRC AND CONTRACTORS ATTENDEES D. Thurston, SAIC M. Silberberg, RES K. Unnerstall, Newman & Holzinger W. Brown, NMSS S. Sharron, SERCH _
R. Weller, NMSS T. Fabian, Nuclear Waste News K. Chang, NMSS E. Helminski, The Rad Exchange P. Justus, DHLWM D. Goeser, Westinghouse Electric Corp. J. Swift, NMSS M. Gorbachev, ural HLW Pumping Commissariat W. Ott, RES S. Watt, NCAI . D.-Hurt, NMSS G. Westwater, NCAI J. Surmeier, NMSS
- J. Linehan, NMSS DOE AND CONTRACTORS ATTENDEES R. Browning, NMSS R. Neel, NMSS U-S. Park A. Ibrahim, NMSS L. Rickertsen J. Holonich, NMSS D. Alexander, HQ J. Pohle, NMSS R. Stein,'HQ J. Trapp, NMSS G. Appel, HQ D. Chery, NMSS A. Dam, Weston T. No, NMSS D. Michlewicz, Weston M. Blackford, NMSS S. Goldsmith, Weston G. Birchard, RES H. Minwalla, Weston R. Ballard, NMSS T. McIntosh R. Kornasiewicz, RES J. Coleman S. Coplan, NMSS P. Berger, Energetics Inc. P. Brooks, NMSS C. Bradley N. Brown, CNWRA C. Noronha, Weston B. Adler, CNWRA J. Bradbury, NMSS WEST VALLEY E. Booy, NMSS S. Spector, CNWRA P. Valenti, WV Nuclear Serv. R. Weiner, CNWRA R. Lawrence, WV Nuclear Serv.
C. McVay, WV Nuclear Serv.
J. Pope, WV Huclear Serv.
E. Maestos NATIONAL LABORATORIES T. DeBoer, NYSERDA W. Bixby P. Krishna, BNL W. O'Connell, LLNL L. Ramspott, LLNL STATE OF NEVADA M. Apted, PNL J. Farmer, LLNL L. Lehman S. Sinnock, SNL E. Holstein, Nye County, NV C. Bruton, LLNL D. Bechtel, Clark County, NV F. Bingham, SNL A. Van Luik, BNL l
III-2
o l' r*.
e, APPENDIX II - FUTURE AGENDA February 21-23, 1989 HLW Repository (0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed by DOE and NRC staffs on The status of the Site Characterization Plan, the SCP Review Plan, and the Exploratory Shaft Facility.
State of Nevada (0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed by representatives from the state of Nevada on their comments on the DOE Consultation Draft SCP.
GreaterThanClassCWastes(0 pen)- The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on the proposed rule on the treatment of Greater Than Class C wastes.
Committee Activities (0 pen / Closed) - The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, organizational matters, anu a new member, as appropriate.
March 22-23, 1989 (tentative)
Meeting with the Commission (0 pen) - The Committee will meet with the Commis-sion to discuss a variety of topics, such as:
- West Valley Demonstration Project
- Division of High-Level Waste Management FY89 Program
- Deletion of Section 20.205 from the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 Performance Assessment
- ACNW/ACRS Staffing Plan Waste Confidence Rulemaking (0 pen) - The Committee will meet with the NRC staff to discuss the waste confidence rulemaking.
HLW Repository (0 pen) - The Committee will continue discussions on the status of the Site Characterization Plan, the SCP Review Plan, and the Exploratory Shaft Facility.
Licensing Support System (0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed on the development of the Licensing Support System for the High-Level Waste Reposi-tory.
Post Closure Seals (0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed on the technical position on post closure seals in unsaturated media.
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed on the latest activities at the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses.
Committee Activities (0 pen / Closed) - The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, organizational matters, and a new member, as appropriate.
t i~ f. ; e .
l..
APPENDIX III - OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED A. Meeting Handouts from ACNW Staff and Presenters I. Executive Session
- 1. Memorandum for ACNW Members from Parry, January 23, 1989, re-
-ACNW Review of SCP and SCA - Options
- 2. Handout, Meeting with Nuclear Safety Research Association of Japan - Summary Report by Dade Moeller, with enclosures II. Division of High-Level Waste Management FY 89 Program Plan
- 3. ACNW Briefing on High-Level Waste Management Strategy and FY 89
. Program dated January 23, 1989
- 4. tability Analysis (DAA) Report Task Action Plan for Exploratory on Design Shaft FacilityAccep(Meeting Handout #1)
- 5. Task Action Plan for Site Characterization Plan (Meeting Handout
- 2)
III. West Valley Demonstration Project 6a. Letter for Parry from DeBoer, NYSERDA, dated January 24, 1989, re West Valley Demonstration Project
- 6. West Valley Demonstration Project Overview, January 23, 1989 IV. Performance Assessment for the High-Level Waste Repository I
- 7. U.S. Department of Energy, Introduction and Overview of Performance Assessments, January 24, 1989, by Donald Alexander
- 8. U.S. Department of Energy, The DOE Approach to Repository Preclosure Safety Assessment, January 24, 1989, by David Miche1wicz
- 9. U.S. Department of Energy, Development of the CCDF, January 24, 1999, by Larry Rickertsen
- 10. U.S. Department of Energy, Selection of Scenarios, January 24, 1989, by Felton Bingham
- 11. U.S. Department of Energy, Total System Performance Assessment Model, January 24, 1989, by Scott Sinnock
_^ _
. _ . . . _.;_ _-,_._ ,_ _ _ q
\ en e.-
APPENDIX III, Meeting Handounts, 6TH ACNW MEETING l
- 12. U.S. De3artment of Energy, Validation of Models, January 24, 1989, by.Abralam Van Luik !
- 13. U.S. Department of Energy, Example of Performance Allocation the L Waste Package Testing Program for Issue 1.4, January 24, 1989, by U-Sun Park
- 14. U.S. Department of Energy, Engineered Barrier System Submodels, January 24, 1989, by William O'Connell
- 15. U.S. Department of Energy, Engineered Barrier System Model, January 24, 1989, by Michael Apted
- 16. U.S. Department of Energy, Summary Presentation, January 24, 1989, by Donald Alexander III-2 I
+g' ..
+
i' APPENDIX III (CONT'D) j B. Meeting Notebook Contents Listed by Tab Number TAB
- 1. Schedule and Outline for Discussion )
J
- 2. Tentative Agenda of West Valley Demonstration Porject, Revised January 6,1989 (Draft)
- 3. Detailed Agenda for 0CRWM Presentation to the ACNW on Performance Assessments, January 24, 1989 I
- 4. Index 6th ACNW Meeting 1.1 5. Introductory Statement by ACNW Chairman 1.2 6. NRC Announcement No. 3, January 9,1989, re NRC Announces Organizational Changes and Appointments of Senior Executives 2 7.' Status Report, undated
- 8. Memorandum for ACNW Members from Parry, January 13, 1989, re Director DHLW Presentation, January 23, 1989, SECY-88-205
- 9. SECY-88-285, Regulatory Strategy and. Schedules- for the High-Level Waste Repository Program [For Internal Use Only],
with 8 enclosures 3.1 10. Administrative Session Index
- 11. Future ACNW Agenda, undated 3.2 12. NRC Invites Public to Submit Nominations for Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Draft #2, January 19, 1989 3.3 13. Status Report on ACNW Bylaws, undated l- 14. Memorandum for Parry from Moeller, January 2,1989, re Comments on Proposed ACNW By-Laws
, 15. Memorandum for ACNW Members from Parry, December 12, 1988, re Commission Staff Requirements Memo - 7/24/87 - ACNW By-Laws, with attachments 4 16. Status Report on West Valley Program, undated
- 17. Memorandum for ACNW Members from Parry, January 12, 1989, re !
West Valley Demonstration Project Plan, with attachments I
l III-3
- e. . ? . g
+
APPENDIX III, Notebook Contents, 6TH ACNW MEETING TAB 5 18. Status Report on DOE's Performance Assessment Program
- 19. Letter for'Merrill from Stein, DOE,. January 6, 1989 re Perform-ance Assessment Program, with enclosure
- 20. ' Memorandum for' Parry from Lear, January 12, 1989, re Suggested Questions for~ DOE Briefing.on Performance Assessment, with enclosure
- 21. Memorandum for ACNW Members from Merrill, January 13, 1989, re Performance Assessment Package: DOE's Presentation January 24, 1989, with 4 attachments t
III-4
s APPENDIX IV - ACNW LETTER REPORTS / MEMORANDA l The letters / memorandum listed below were issued as result of the 6th ACNW meeting and are attached.
- 1. Activities of ACNW Concerning High-Level Waste Management (Letter to Chairman Zech dated January 25, 1989) {
Based on the assumption that the acceptance review will be completed by January 27, 1989, the DHLWri staff schedule of major SCP review activities indicates that the NRC Site Characterization Analysis would be ready for review by ACNW in June 1989. Other possible ACNW review activities were identified, including DOE briefings on the SCP content, invitations to attend weekly SCP review team meetings, and provision of l early drafts of the.SCA for familiarization and comment as ACNW i considers appropriate. The Committee agreed to review and evaluate specific " Review Plans", DOE's responses to the five " Objections" raised in the NRC's initial Point Papers, any additional areas of disagreement that result from D0E's responses to the " Point Papers", and any substantive concerns raised by the state of Nevada.
- 2. West Valley Demonstration Project (Letter to Chairman Zech dated January 25, 1989)
The Committee recommended additional work in the areas of: (1)the acceptance criteria for the vitrified high-level waste and (2) the -
public health and safety criteria for the facilities and land areas I i
i
- -- - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __- O
e .- ) n 4.p,.ntag{o UNITED STATES
. y g
- '.g g
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISDRY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE !
o, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
[
' , , , , e *#
January 25, 1989 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
SUBJECT:
ACTIVITIES OF ACNL' CONCERNING HIGH-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT During its sixth meeting, January 23-24, 1989, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with members of the NRC staff to review the activ-ities of the Division of High-Level Waste Management (DHLWM). Emphasized in the discussions was the work of the Division with respect to the proposed High-Level Waste (HLW) Repository at Yucca Mountain and the role of the ACNW in this effort.
lie found the discussions beneficial, and the NRC staff was fully responsive to our questions. We concluded that DHLWrt has good leadership and their work is progressing well. We were particularly impressed by the efforts of the division director to keep the size of his staff modest and to monitor rather than duplicate the work of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
In terms of the work of this Committee concerning the NRC staff's ongoing review of the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) and their preparation of the Site Characterization Analysis for the HLW repository, we have concluded that our resources would best be directed to the activities noted below and intend 4 to proceed in this direction. ;
1
- 1. An evaluation of the several " Review Plans" completed or being developed by the NRC staff to be used as guidance for its reviews, e.g., the Review Plans for the SCP and for Performance Assessment,
- 2. An evaluation of DOE's responses to the five "Dbjections" cited by l the NRC staff concerning the Consultation Draft SCP; any additional )
areas of disagreement resulting from DOE's responses to the " Point j Papers," which were prepared by the NRC staff; any substantive I concerns raised by the state of Nevada; and any additional areas noted by the ACNW as being of special interest.
We also plan to review selected HLW rules, key NRC Technical Positions, and Regulatory Guides which are being developed within the NRC, as well as related plans and reports being developed by D0E. In addition, we plan to review relevant research under the direction of NRC, including the programs of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses.
ex -
1
[ h
, 4 The' Honorable Lando .W. Zech, Jr. January 25. 1989 If there are additional areas important to the Comission on which you desire our input, we will be pleased to respond. -
Sincerely, 9 s 78 Dade W. Moeller Chairman i
l
- e p#uc% .
% UNITED STATES
}g,*g*- i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- : E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE o, "5 [ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20li66 g . .v.../
January 26, 1989 ,
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
SUBJECT:
WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT During its sixth meeting, January 23-24, 1989, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste- (ACNW) met with representatives of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), its contractors, and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority for a review of the West Valley Demonstration Project.
We discussed, among other concerns, the procedures that have been developed and are being applied in solidifying decontaminated supernatant low-level wastes and testing the melter for vitrification of the high-level wastes.
As - a result of this review, the Committee concludes that the program is appropriately focused and that the results are favorable. Although there appears to be good communication between the DOE contractors and staff and the Nuclear Fegulatory Commission (NRC) staff, there may be a_._need for additional input from the NRC staff in two areas: M
- 1. Acceptance criteria for the vitrified high-level waste, including ~N the enumeration of testing procedures to indicate conformance with these criteria, need to be identified by DOE for the waste pro-ducers, and these criteria,.in turn, need to be reviewed by the NRC to determine if they are acceptable; and
- 2. Public health and safety criteria for the. facilities and land areas being decontaminated and decommissioned as part of this project need to be established.
We plan to schedule a visit to the West Valley site within the next six months.
~
He trust these comments are responsive to your request.
Sincerely, 9aA W DadeW.Moe1Ier Chairman f o L oW 7.-
ta r ; *, y . .
- 'i .
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. January 26, 1989-
References:
T. U. 5. Department of Energy Report, DOE /NE/44139--15, " West Valley
- Demonstration Project Plan," January 1989
.7. Letter dated August 3,1988 from R. D. Hurt, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory .
Commission, to W. W.. Bixby, U. S. Department of Energy, regarding 1 comments on the revised West Ve11ey Demonstration Project Plan {
l l
i I
i l
j L