ML20245G520
| ML20245G520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/23/1989 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-0010, NACNUCLE-10, NUDOCS 8908160054 | |
| Download: ML20245G520 (23) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. #. 1 i .-
h[
,~, p .
PD/C8//tlN9 4
a 77 -- ,
ei ITi pi
(!
TAPsLE OF CONTENTS
' j Il-e 10TH ACNW MEETING
- ( MAY.11, 1989 ,
r >
1
' Q.) u& r
?
t bxl ? A4 ,k w, : eY s
l PA_GE I. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT (0 pen)................................ I j II. SITECHARACTERIZATIONANALYSIS(SCA)(0 pen)............. 2-9 A. Qua1ity-Assurance (QA).............................. 2 i B. Ge o l ogy/G eo p hy s i cs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 i C. Hy d ro logy a n d Geo chemi s try. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
. D. Materials Engineering............................... 6 E. Performance Assessment.............................. 7
. F. Geotechnical. Engineering............................ B-9 III. DRAFT FINAL TECHNICAL POSITION ON ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR-ING..................................................... 9-11 IV. EXECUTIVE SESSION (0 pen)................................ 11-12 i A. Site Visits.......................................... 11 B. Future Meeting Schedules............................ 11-12 C. Scoping PRA Study for the High-Level Waste Repository 12 D. Future Activities................................... 12 V. APPENDICES Appendix I - Attendees.................................. 1-1/-2 Appendix II - Future Agenda............................. 11-1/ Appendix III - Other Documents Received................. III-1/ 1 O
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL 8908160054 890623 /L<
POR ADVCM NACNUCLE Certified By ( // d R-OO10 PDC
Issu:d: 6h3fg9
- MINUTES OF THE THE 10TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE MAY 11, 1989 BETHESDA, MD l The 10th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste was convened by Chairman Dade W. Moeller at 8:30 a.m. , Thursday, May 11, 1989, at 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland.
l [ Note: For a list of attendees, see Appendix I, ACNW members, Drs. Dade. W.
l .Moeller, Clifford V. Smith, Jr., and Martin J. Steindler were present. ACNW consultants, Drs. Melvin W. Carter, Richard F. Foster, William J. Hinze, Judith B. Moody, Donald A. Orth, Paul W. Pomeroy, Paul G. Shewmon, and Mr.
l EugereE.Voilandwerealsopresent.]
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 Connittee 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)
[Mr. R. F. Fraley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)
Dr. Moeller introduced the Committee and its consultants and noted the attendance of Dr. Paul Shewmon of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guards (ACRS).
Dr. Moeller announced the receipt of a letter of appreciation from Chairman Zech and thanked his fellow members, ACNW supporting staff and consultants for their part in these accomplishments.
He requested that the members note their availability on a 1990 calendar.
With reference to obtaining a scoping probabilistic risk assessment study on the Yucca Mountain site Dr. Moeller indicated that the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (PES) has such a study under development, which will be the topic of a briefing in the near term.
The presentation schedule on the Site Characterization Analysis was detailed and the members and consultants were reminded that the material that had been distributed was predecisional and should not be disseminated beyond the Committee.
4 4
10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989
- 11. SITE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS (SCA) (0 pen)
[ Note: Dr. S. J. S. Parry was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] {
Dr. King Stablein, NMSS, is the project manager for the preparation of the SCA. Dr. Stablein stated that the briefing will be subdivided into six general areas of technical concerns. Each area will have a principal pre-senter. The SCA is in an early stage of development and at least two addi- ;
tional versions will be submitted to the Committee.
Dr. Sti.blein described the process for preparing the SCA and identified the current draft as the " branch" draft meaning that the comments had only received a management review at the branch chief level. He noted that the individual groups of comments would be integrated to avoid duplication in the future. It was also stated that the presentations would not be a page-by-page review of all the comments, but would focus on items of particular interest. In response to questions from Dr. Moeller and some consultants, Dr. Stablein discussed portions of the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) and procedures to resolve some of the staff's earlier questions and concerns.
A. Quality Assurance (QA)
Mr. James Conway, NMSS, identified two principal concerns of the staff with the QA aspects of the SCP. They were: (1) implemen-tation of the QA program, in toto, and (2) certification of data collected before the QA program was placed into effect. Drs. Smith, Steindler, and Hinze raised questions with Mr. Conway. Dr. Smith was concerned that the NRC staff was not aware of DOE's plans to certify pre-existing data. Dr. Steindler noted that merely provid- i ing an adequate paper trail was not sufficient to ensure competent 1 data. He stressed the need to demonstrate the quality or technical soundness of the data. Dr. Hinze questioned the adequacy of the data used to site and design the exploratory shaft. The staff responded in general terms to these questions.
In closing, Mr. Conway commented on the incompleteness or limited content of the Q list as presented in the SCP.
B. Geology / Geophysics Ms. Charlotte Abrams, NMSS, commented that she planned to present selected topics of concern in the SCP. Upon questioning by Drs.
Hinze and Parry, Ms. Abrams indicated that these topics were select-ed because they were either the most interesting or of greatest concern. Ms. Abrams noted that there are central themes that run through the various topics, and that these themes are interrelated.
These central themes were stressed during the presentation.
Ms. Abrams addressed the question of tectonics and fault movement.
She noted that the location of the exploratory shaf ts may not comply
. s i
1 10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 with-limitations proposed in referenced reports, and that the staff plans to review the matter in detail. Dr. Hinze questioned whether i the relocation of the shaft had' taken into account factors other-l ,
than' the surface exit of the shaft. Ms. Abrams stated that a f considerable effort had been expended in considering the relocation l of the shaft but that the staff was still concerned that the charac-terization area was not representative'of the entire block in which- ;
the repository is to be located.
The staff discussed their concerns relative to faulting. It was noted that the SCP did not fully integrate or consider alternative 1 conceptual models of .. faulting. Further, the possible effects of ]
nearby faults were not included. Faults were treated ~ as narrow 1 discontinuities rather than planes of movement having finite di-mensions. Ms. Abrams also pointed out that the SCP did not clearly take into account the postclosure tectonics or various waste package and performance issues. Upon questioning by Dr. Hinze, she stated that the fault slip rates have not been determined in sufficient detail. Ms. Abrams observed that a detailed review of the geologic data has not been performed since 1984.
Ms. Abrams restated that DOE does not appear to have taken into sufficient account the possible effects of fault movement on the postclosure vative. Two performance and that examples of this are:the(1desig)ns appear to be nonconser-the characterization of faults being limited to those with movement greater than one meter in the quaternary and 100 meters in tertiary rocks and (2) the assumption that new faulting will follow existing faults.
Dr. Shewmon raised a question as to whether models to predict faulting exist. The staff said that there were tabulations of such models and agreed to provide them to the Committee. Dr. Hinze asked if all the faults in the site had been located. The staff said that additional faulting was possible, particularly, since all current fault detection studies have been based on surface studies. Dr.
Hinze suggested two investigatory procedures that could be used for developing further detail on the location of faults.
Ms. Abrams stated that DOE had considered alternative conceptual models relative to volcanism. Sufficient consideration has not been given to nearby volcanic structures, such as the Death Valley Pancake Range Volcanic Belt. Also, limiting the area of considera-tion to 70 km appears to be questionable. Dr. John Trapp, NMSS, noted that the rate of volcanic events expected or projected by DOE is not consistent with the staff's projection.
There was a discussion between Drs. Trapp, Moeller, Steindler, Moody and Parry concerning performance allocation and the setting of
" goals" for the values of physical parameters. Dr. Trapp noted that the " goals" or acceptable limits set by DOE on the parameter of
w .
t 10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 volcanic activity would not allow the _ site to meet the EPA perfor-mance criteria. Ms. Abrams noted a lack of integration between the volcanic and tectonic studies. She noted that this problem was apparent during a recent field trip by the NRC staff to the site and surrounding araa. Dr. Hinze commented that there appeared to be -
limited substance and/or comment on this matter in the SCP. Ms.
Abrams concurred and indicated that the staff was awaiting the study plans to firm up the substance of the program. The lack of, or .
delay in,-receiving the study plans was discussed.
Dr. Smith raised the question of how the site suitability decision is to be made. No clear concerns or statement defining the deci-sion-making process was forthcoming from the staff. Dr. Trapp stated that progress was being made by DOE. Dr. Orth noted that as some concerns were resolved, new concerns arose. He wondered if the number of concerns was increasing or decreasing.
Ms. Abrams moved to the topic of seismicity. Dr. Steindler asked if the values now proposed by DOE were more conservative than previous-ly presented.- Ms. Abrams stated that some concerns had been resolved, but that the numbers had not changed drastically. Mr.
McConnell noted that DOE has become more conservative in the area of alternative models.
There was a further general discussion on the prediction of seismic events and their consequences. Dr. Foster asked if there was an effort to determine a nonacceptability limit on the site. Dr. Smith supported this question but no clear response was given. The inference was that it is DOE's responsibility to make a negative determination on the site's suitability.
Ms. Abrams discussed natural resources and stated that the consid-eration of alternative models in this area was limited. Further, the integration of studies related to natural resources was limited.
Dr. Smith questioned what constituted a natural resource in terms of economic value. Ms. Abrams said that a natural resource was not defined in dollars, and that no studies were proposed to explore possible ore sites, such as faults. Only vertical drilling was proposed. Dr. Hinze commented that the potential for natural resources can be flagged by adequate exploratory studies and recom-mended that such studies should be done.
The lack of coordination in the geophysical studies was discussed by Ms. Abrams. She noted that no program was directed toward the identification of volcanic igneous features, for example. Dr.
Steindler asked if this was because it was early in the program.
Ms. Abrams said no; no programs had been proposed. Dr. Hinze commented on the lack of proper sequencing of tests. The lack of homogenity in the rock was noted at length, as was the capacity of the site.
10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 The adequacy of the surface-based testing programs was discussed.
Mr. Abrams stated that additional testing both in terms of quantity and technical complexity, would be desirable.
C. Hydrology and Geochemistry Mr. Jeffrey Pohle, NMSS, led the presentation on hydrology. He indicated that there were several concerns related to the determina-tion of the groundwater travel times (GWTT) and the definition of the disturbed zone. DOE proposed a disturbed zone boundary based upon changes in the permeability and porosity. While the NRC staff did not disagree with the approach, they questioned limiting it to two properties.
There was a discussion between Mr. Pohle and Drs. Moeller and Parry on the state of the geologic structure when the GWTT is measured.
Mr. Pohle indicated that empl6 cement activities would affect the GWTT. Drs. Moeller and Parry expressed the opinion that the GWTT was to be measured in an undisturbed structure. [ Note: Review of the regulation, Section 60.113, shows that the GWTT is to be a prewaste emplacement value. This seems to refute the staff's stated position.]
Mr. Pohle then discussed the use of GWTT in constructing the cumula-tive distribution curves. The staff believes that 00E is using an inappropriate procedure of tending to consider values near the mean, rather than allowing for the effect of limiting values. Dr. Steind-ler questioned the staff's concerns in this area.
Mr. Pohle detailed the limitations of DOE's gechydrology program.
Basically, the staff found no improvement or expansit i in DOE's proposal from that put forward in the Consultation Draf t SCP. He noted that there were no plans to characterize the Calico Hills structure that underlies the repository site and is the site's primary barrier. Dr. Moeller questioned this point since previously the staff had objected to DOE's penetrating that lower structure.
Dr. Moody asked if the regional flow system studies proposed are adequate and if test site data are available. It was suggested that l the regional studies are adequate, but not all of the test site data I has been made available.
Dr. Shewmon questioned the status of the waste packages with respect l to exposure to water. Mr. Pohle stated that the current approach is 1 to assume a steady-state exposure to moisture of limited volume, and mostly likely as a vapor.
l Dr. Hinze asked what F.ow regime has been assumed, fracture or I porous media flow. Mr. Pohle stated that DOE is stressing porous media flow although the evidence suggests that fracture flow is the 1
.10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 most likely process. He further indicated that DOE is attempting to mathematically represent fracture flow as porous flow.
Dr. Smith raised questions related to the determination of site suitability and the closure of technical issues. Mr. Linehan stated the staff's concerns have been voiced to DOE but not prioritized as yet. He stated that the SCA would include a prioritization of concerns.
Mr. Pohle discussed the geochemical concerns. He noted that no plans were presented for investigating the concentration of radio-nuclides on the surfaces of fractures. Mr. John Bradbury, NMSS, confirmed that statement in detail. There was an expanded discus-sion of this point by Drs. Steindler, Moody, and Mr. Voiland. The DOE assumptions as to the value of the effective Kds were reviewed.
The nonconservative effect on the calculated performance of the repository was noted.
Drs. Steindler, Cherry and Mr. Pohle discussed performance assess-ment and the uncertainty resulting from using data of limited range.
D. Materials Engineering The staff's review of those portions of the SCP that relate to waste package materials was presented by Dr. Kien Chang, NMSS. He noted that DOE had altered their concept of substantially complete containment in the SCP, from that in the CDSCP. He noted some of the " goals" set for repository conditions. The details of the waste package emplacement system apparently were not included in the SCP.
Dr. Shewmon questioned the logic of some of the " goals" that were defined. Dr. Steindler also questioned some of DOE's positions.
Dr. Chang noted that the staff's earlier question on the CDSCP relative to standardized testing procedures was not addressed in the SCP. Mr. Voiland asked if there were study plans in preparation that might address this question. The question was not answered directly but it was stated that study plans were in preparation.
Their content was either not known or not presented.
The behavior of carbon-14 was questioned by Dr. Moeller. Dr. Chang stated that alternative designs to handle it were proposed by DOE.
DOE has also raised the possibility of obtaining a regulatory exception for carbon-14 releases. ,
Drs. Steindler and Shewmon questioned Dr. Chang on the staff's desire for standardized tests whose results may be extrapolated with confidence.
10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 E. Performance Assessment Mr. Norman Eisenberg, HMSS, was the principal presenter in the area of performance Assessment. He stressed the continued lack of an integrated or coordinated approach to performance assessment, which was also observed in the CDSCP. He enumerated six specific areas of concern. They were: performance allocation, alternative conceptual models, the use of performance.essessment to guide site characteri-zation, validation of scenario analysis, and the formal use of expert judgment. 1 Dr. Steindler questioned if the staff was objecting to the system not yet being operative. Mr. Eisenberg said no. He stated that what was in place and presented was incomplete and in some cases either inadequate or illogical. As an example, he cited the canis-ter failure rates proposed over 1000 years, wHch neglected to specify the cumulative number of canisters thai. would have been expected to have failed. Additional examples were drawn from the hypothesis testing tables where there appeared to be inconsistencies from discipline to discipline. He noted that the first total system performance assessment is not scheduled to be completed until 1993.
Mr. Eisenberg stated that the staff was not satisfied with the validation program proposed by DOE. However, upon questioning, he was unable to define clearly an approach acceptable to the staff.
He stated that a technical position on this question was being con-sidered. The inability of the staff to annunciate its requirement in this area was addressed by several members and consultants. Mr.
Ballard stated that this topic had been proposed to the Commission in SECY-88-285, " Regulatory Strategy and Schedules for the High-Level Waste Repository Program," October 5,1988.
The concern with scenario analysis was discussed. One point that was made was that scenario analysis was often cor. fused with alterna-tive conceptual models. Mr. referenced a report by Mr.
Eisenberg[ Note: A copy of the report Benjamin Ross to clarify the concern.
entitled, "A First Survey of Disruption Scenarios for a High-Level Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada," SAND 85-7117, December 1987, has been forwarded to the members and consultants.]
In closing Mr. Eisenberg reviewed the DOE's approach on the use of expert judgment. He gave an example of what the staff believes is inappropriate use of such input and noted the staff's intention to prepare a technical position on the matter. Mr. Eisenberg comented that he personally disliked having to use expert judgment. He believes that by appropriate planning one should be able to minimize or avoid the use of expert judgment. Dr. Moody noted that in the earth sciences it is impossible to avoid using expert opini3ns.
a
. J 10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 l
F. Geotechnical Engineering l The final presentation, which covered geotechnical engineering, was 1 given by Dr. Dinesh Gupta, NMSS. He described the three geotechni-cal objections made in response to the CDSCP. They were: (1) location of the exploratory . shaft, (2) depth of the exploratory shaft, and (3) interference among tests. Of these the first appears l to have been fully resolved, the second partially so, and the third '
has been approached constructively by DOE in the SCP.
He noted that the expansion of the SCP over the CDSCP had given rise to four new concerns. These are not yet characterized as objec-tions. The are: (1) acceptability of the exploratory shaft design, (2) yadequacy of the testing program, (3) integration of the designs of the repository exploratory shafts and test facilities, and (4) details of the performance confirmation program.
The acceptability of the shafts' design has been addressed by the Design Acceptability Analysis (DAA). The staff has -found that certain contributors to the DAA were also involved in the design project itself. Thus it appears that there is a potential for a conflict of interest. DOE also failed to address all the applicable design requirements in the DAA, and some that were addressed were inadequately covered. He gave several examples.
Drs. Smith, Hinze, and Pomeroy questioned Dr. Gupta on the staff's definition of conservative data. A definitive answer was not provided.
Dr. Gupta detailed the staff's concerns about test interferences.
DOE's improved approach was noted but the staff believes that l interferences will occur and that sufficient time and/or space has not been allowed for the program. He particularly noted the lack of tests of full-scale packages, that contain radioactive materials.
, With respect to the site characterization program itself, Dr. Gupta l noted the limited number of boreholes to be drilled. He also l pointed out that these were generally drilled vertically, whereas the staff would prefer some to be drilled at an angle to transect vertical geologic features, such as faults. The proposed dry drilling procedure with continuous core removal, was discussed. It is an unproven technology, but desirable, if feasible. Questions were raised about the desirability of drilling numerous holes into the repository horizon.
The spatial requirement for the repository and the test area were discussed. The staff's calculations do not support the DOE's claims as to available space. A representative from DOE-Las Vegas indicat-ed that the difference was related to layout of the repository and siting of the canisters themselves.
1 I
l l
I 10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 In closing, Dr. Gupta noted the staff's opinion that the SCP does not address the question of retrievability or the performance 4 confirmation program in sufficient depth. l Ill. DRAFT FINAL TECHNICAL POSITION ON ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
[ Note: Mr. O. 5. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Mr. John Surmeier, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommission-ing, gave the introductory remarks. He stated that this final version of the Environmental Monitoring Branch Technical Position (BTP) provides general policy guidance, as recommended earlier by the Committee, rather than de-tailed technical guidance. He then introduced Dr. Edward Shum, a senior environmental chemist in the Siting Section of the Technical Branch, who gave the presentation.
Dr. Shum provided some background on the development of the BTP, stating that about 14 organizations and agencies provided comments on the draft BTP that was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1987. On July 22, 1988, they briefed the ACNW on this subject and reviewed the comments made by the Committee in its August 9, 1988 report to Chairman Zech via the transcript of that meeting. A summary of the major comments received from all commentors on the draft BTP follows:
- 1. The intent of the BTP should be clearly stated.
- 2. The BTP should provide more specific guidance, i.e., be more pre-scriptive.
- 3. The objectives of monitoring are unclear.
- 4. The one-year period of preoperational monitoring should be extended.
- 5. The critical pathways should be considered.
Dr. Carter raised a question about the definitions in the BTP of the monitor-ing periods -- preoperational monitoring, monitoring during operation, and postoperational monitoring, which he said appea" to be internally inconsis-tent and in need of a little polishing. Dr. Shum said they were using the definitions given in Part 61.2 where monitoring is defined as " observing and making measurement to provide data to evaluate the performance and character-istics of the disposal site." Hence, he believes that there is no choice but to use this definition, although they would prefer otherwise.
Dr. Shewmon asked if the definitions are not relevant to a low-level disposal site, will licensees still be bound by them? Mr. Surmeier explained that the definitions were developed for the siting of a nuclear power plant whereas they are currently talking about a geologic setting for a disposal site.
10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 This is why they believe there is a need for a guidance document on this matter.
Dr. Carter said that he would agree that the document should not be prescrip-tive (referring to page 9 of the BTP), but said that the issue is compounded by reference to Appendix A which is extremely prescriptive. Dr. Shum ex-plained that Appendix A was included as an example in response to the com-mentors who recommended more specific guidance. Mr. Surmeier added that the s+aff would be willing to remove this appendix from the document. Dr. Shum agreed but said that an applicant, the licensee, would like to have it remain. Dr. Carter suggested that the appendix be removed, that a few of the words within it be modified, and that it be cited as a reference.
Dr. Carter observed that the staff had not sufficiently addressed the need for environmental modeling; most of the performance assessment will be done with modeling. Dr. Shum agreed and explained the complexities of the problem ,
of the pathway analysis and source terms. He said that the staff tried not 1 to get into pathway analysis because it depends on a standard, such as the EPA Clean Air Act. They would rather use a conservative approach.
Dr. Carter commented that most of the monitoring measurements will be of very low values so the use of modeling will be necessary. Dr. Shum agreed that the measurement of very small values would be extremely difficult. Dr.
Carter said that, for the record, Dr. Shum was talking about the low values proposed by EPA under the proposed revisions in the Clean Air Act.
Dr. Steindler asked what would happen if this document were not issued. Dr.
Shum said that the state authority or organization that is not a specialist in this area may need this type of overall guidance to ensure that they are aware of the types of things they must take into consideration in their monitoring program. Dr. Smith confirmed that it would be to the advantage of the licensee to have the guidance in one document rather than scattered throughout several references.
Dr. Moeller cited three references that he has used in this regard over many years, viz. ,
- 2. DOE's guide for Environmental Radiological Surveillance at U.S.
Department of Energy Installations, DOE /EP-0023, Revised July 1981
- 3. The Use of Reconnaissance Level Information for Environmental Assessment,NUREG/CR-0990(PNL-3080), December 1979 Dr. Shum agreed that these are very good reports. He cited a recent 1989 DOE report that is a consolidation of earlier reports.
I I
l
\
i 10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 Dr. Foster agreed with the previous comments about Appendix A to the extent that it is too prescriptive and should be deleted. He said that if it was not, the applicant would probably pattern his aoproach after it rather than being site specific.
Mr. Voiland said that the results of monitoring the performance of existing l L facilities such as the Beatty, Barnwell and Richland sites are probably "a i bunch of zeros," with which Dr. Shum agreed. Mr. Voiland added that there is again the matter of becoming more conservative -- larger zones or length of containment times, for example, both of which seem to be unnecessary for this type of operation.
Dr. Carter wet chemistrysugg(ested e.g., liquid that the staf f takeand carbon-14 a closer look atas iodine-129) thehe requirement questionedforif these are needed. He added that, instead, the staff might want to do screer-ing with things like tritium and gamma sources. He said that the people who use this guidance would have a heavy responsibility on them to do a consider-able amount of wet chemistry and that the question is whether it is needed.
Dr. Shum emphasized that all the staff wants is for the applicant to demon-strate compliance, not to do an isotopic analysis.
Dr. Orth suggested that, in the objectives sections in the front of the document, it would be worthwhile to emphasize exactly why some of the preop-erational testing is to be done.
Dr. Moeller suggested that the text be revised. He invited the staff to meet with the Committee in a couple of months for further review. Marked up copies of the BTP were provided to the staff for possible guidance and help.
IV. EXECUTIVESESSION(0 pen)
A. Site Visits The Committee deferred its planned visit to the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), San Antonio, Texas. The Commit-tee agreed to review the programs of CNWRA in the near future.
The Committee reconfirmed its intention to visit the West Valley ;
Demonstration Project in October 1989.
B. Future Meeting Schedules Dr. Moeller requested that ACNW Members reaffirm t'eir availability to attend future meetings scheduled during the last three months of 1989 and to indicate their date preferences for meetings to be held during calendar year 1990.
- - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ -_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ __ __ .__--_._-__-___-_________-_-__--__-_-__-a
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ = _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
f i
~
10TH ACNW MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 The Committee agreed not to have a full committee meeting on August 3-4, 1989. Instead, a working group meeting on mixed wastes will be scheduled. ,
C. Scoping PRA Study for the High-Level Wa';te Repository Dr. Moeller had been informed that the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) has a ' project underway on the development of a scoping PRA for Yucca Mountain. It was agreed that a' representative of Sandia National Laboratory should be invited to brief the Commit-tee on this subject'and that Dr. Okrent should be invited to attend.
D. Future Activities The Committee agreed to the tentative future agenda as shown in Appendix II.
The 10th ACNW meeting concluded at 4:55 p.m. on May 11, 1989.
C__.______._______________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
l.
I 4
/,PPENDICES
- 1. MEETING ATTENDEES II. FUTURE AGENDA III. OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED i
i 1
APPENDIX I - ATTENDEES :
10TH ACNW MEETING -
MAY 11, 1989 ACNW MEMBERS:
Dr. Dade W. Moeller Dr. Clifford V. Smith Dr. Martin J. Steindler ACNW CONSULTANTS:
Dr. Melvin W. Carter Dr.. Richard F. Foster Dr. William J. Hinze Dr. Judith B. Moody Dr. Donald A. Orth Dr. Paul W. Pomeroy Dr. Paul G. Shewmon Mr. Eugene E. Voiland
+. _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
j o: .
c
- APPENDIX I - 10TH'ACNW MINUTES k.
APPENDIX'I-ATTENDEES (CONT'D).
NRC AND CONTRACTORS DOE AND CONTRACTORS M. Blackford E. Regnier K. McConnell. J. Kimball
. P. Justus S. Brocoum.
- C. Abrams R. Gamble - Weston J. Wolf D. Siefken - Weston.
N. Eisenberg' P. Sobel - Weston J. Bradbury H. Bermain - Weston ua. Ibrahim P. Berger - Energetics Inc.
J. Bunting D. Dobson M. Nataraja J. Pesher ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY J. Surmeier
. E. Shum P. Bunton P. Brooks P. LaPlanta - CNWRA STATE'0F NEVADA U.S. GE0 LOGICAL SURVEY L. Lehman G. Roseboom PUBLIC'
.S. Sharron - SERCH K. Understall - Neuman & Holteizer P. Krishner - Battelle F. Keith - USCEA P. Austin - SAIC M. Voegele - SAIC/NNWSI I-2
. ,c 4
t APPENDIX II FUTURE AGENDA lith ACNW Meeting on June 13, 1989 Site Characterization Analysis (0 pen)-TheCommitteewilldiscusstheNRC review of the SCP and will continue its review of the SCA. NRC staff and consultants will be available for questions.
Committee Activities (0 pen) - The Comittee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
12th ACNW Meeting on June 28-30, 1989 (tentative schedule)
Site Characterization Analysis (0 pen) - The Committee will finalize comments on the SCA/SCP.
Waste Management Research Program and Strategy Plan (0 pen) -
The Committee will be briefed on:
High-level waste management research program and strategy plan HLW and LLW research program plans Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses activities.
I Status of Cementitious Waste Forms (0 pen) -
The Committee will be briefed on the status of cementitious LLW forms and will discuss with Mr. Hugh Thompson the reporting of mishaps involving LLW forms prepared for disposal (SECY-89-116).
PerformanceAssessment(0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed on the NRC approach to performance assessment for LLW disposal and the status of in-
-ternal activities (NMSS/RES Memorandum of Understanding), if time permits.
Committee Activities (0 pen) - The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
13th ACNW Meeting on July 26-27, 1989 (tentative schedule)
MeetingwiththeCommission(0 pen) -
The Committee and the Commission will discuss the ACNW Letter Report on SCP/SCA as well as other items of interest.
Scoping Study PRA for Yucca Mountain (0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed by members of the NRC staff and its contractor, Sandia National Laboratory, on the development of a scoping study PRA for Yucca Mountain.
EPALowLevelWasteStandards(0 pen)-TheCommitteewillbebriefedon radionuclides release standards for LLW disposal sites.
APPENDIX II -.10TH ACNW HINUTES Status of NRC/ DOE Interactions on DOE Quality Assurance (0 pen)
Committee Activities (0 pen) - The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
14th ACNW Meeting on September 13-15, 1989 (tentative schedule)
Retrievability Demonstration (0 pen) -
The Committee will be briefed on the Technical position on demonstration of retrievability during site characteri- ,
zation.
TectonicModels(0 pen) -
The Committee will be briefed on the technical position on tectonic models.
Data Availability (0 pen) -
The committee will invite representatives of DOE and USGS to discuss problems related.to delays in making data available and coming to closure.
Meeting with Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) (0 pen) -
The Committee will be briefed by NRR on the licensing program for LLW han-dling systems, fuel compaction, decontamination and decommissioning. The Committee will discuss any crossover issues with representatives of NMSS and the EDO.
Committee Activities (0 pen) - The Chairman will appoint a nominating commit-tee for the 1989 ACNW officers. The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
15th ACNW Meeting on October 11-13, 1989 (tentative schedule )
Committee Activities (0 pen) - The Nominating Committee will present a slate of officers for 1989. The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
16th ACNW Meeting on December 27-29, 1989 (tentative schedule)
Committee Activities (0 pen) - The Committee will elect ACNW officers for l 1989. The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activ-ities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
II-2
I '
APPENDIX III - OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED A. Meeting Handouts from ACNW Staff and Presenters '
AGENDA ITEM
- 0. Meeting Dates for the Rest of CY 1989 and 1990 (Meeting Handout
- 0)
- 2. Site Characterizatica Analysis Review
- 1. Note to DHLWM Section Leaders Involved in the SCP Review from Stablein, May 9, 1989, re Order of Presentations at the May 11, 1989 ACNW Meeting
- 2. Preliminary NRC Staff Concerns Related to the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Plan Presentation to the ACNW,-May 11- ,
1989
- 3. Note to Moeller from Browning, May 10, 1989, re Preliminary (Branch) Draft of NRC Staff Point Papers on the Site Characteri-zation Plan, with attachments (Official Use Only)
- 4. Memorandum for Moeller and Smith from Steindler, May 11, 1989, re ACNW Review of the NRC SCA, Basis for Action
- 5. SCP Review Milestones
- 3. Draft Final Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring
- 6. Memorandum for Starmer from Shum, April 27, 1989, re Review and Resolution of Comments on the Draft Technical Branch Position Paper on Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Radioactive Waste
-Disposal Facilities (Meeting Handout #3)
- 7. DLLWMD Final Branch Technical Position Paper on Environmental Monitoring of LLW Disposal Facilities, May 11, 1989 i
l
}
4
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ l
- 1. ; ,
APPENDIXIII(CONT'D)
B. Meeting Notebook Contents Listed by Tab Number TAB
- 2. Site Characterization Analysis Review
- 2. Note to HLWM Staff from Johnson, December 7, 1988, re SCP Review Plan Summary, with attachment
- 3. Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring
- 4. Status Report on Draft Final Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities, May 11, 1989
- 5. Memorandum for Major from Lear, April 27, 1989, re Final Techni-cal Position Paper - Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities, with attachments
- 4. Future Schedule 6.-Memorandum for ACNW Members from Major, May 5, 1989, re ACNW Future Schedule, with attachment I
l 1
1 1
III-2
)
i L J
p, y
. i' Federal Registir / Vol. 54, No. 80 / 'nuredzy, April 27,19e9 / Notices mtst A/rernative to the ProposedAction removed from the site.%e licensee Systera. 3700 South Custer Band. -
. It has been determined that there is no intends to retain Fermi t in a safe nionroe. Miclugen 4BlaL _a {
messarable impact associated with the storage (SAFSTOR) status until after the pro osed amendment any alternatives Fermi 2 license expires on March 20* 'Deted at RdA %e m g e of Apr01ees. t.
f to e amendment will have either no environmentalimpact or greater a hich Y
th ual For the Mar Rapl% r-we {'
1 to levels acceptable for release of the Charles 1. Mmer* -
- - '"tal ""
AreemrJtandorisot/aaandh facility 1o unrestricted access. ] g Ahe: native Use ofResources Re cwrProjectDirvctorna. Arumnof
- EndronmentalImpacts ReactorProjecte-Ill!Y, Yand5>enial 1
%is action does not involve the ese of Pipiccts. Office of/We/sarResesor .-
1 any resources beyond the scope of Fernu.1 is now maintained m a Regulation. !
resources used during normal operation. shutdown status in accordance with the Technical Specifications and ALARA @ Doc. 89-toose Pued N hl '
Fioding of No Significant Impact v" * " "
requirements of10 CFR Part 20. The
~
Dased upon the foregoing residual radioactivity (477 curies) at f environmental essessment. the Fermi t will decay significantly in the Aovisory Committee on Nucteer l Commission concluded that the 40-year period of the proposed license Waste; Meeung proposed action will not have a renewal There is s ery little potential for i significant effect on the quality of the a release of radioactivity to the The Advisory Committee on Nuclear I
human environment. Accordingly the environment or a significant radiation Waste (ACNW) will hold a meeting on Commission has detennined not to exposure of workers because mo*e the May 11.1989 stnom P-422. M20 Norfolk prepare an environmentalimpact 95 percent of the residual radioactivity Avenue.Bethesda.MD. Portions of this statement for the proposed license remains as activated metal components meeting will be closed to discuss cmandment, that are sealed within the reactor vesse] information the release of which would for further details with respect to this wHeh is in turn surrounded by a metal represent a clearly unwarranted cction. see the request for amendment containment building. invasion of personal privacy 5 U.S.C.
d2ted July 1.1988 with revisions dated The 40-year delay in removal of 652b{c)(8). Notice of this meeting was December 2.1988 and March 1,1989. residual radioactivity will reduce Published in the Federal Register on Copies of the request for amendment are potential exposure rates to workers that April 20.1989 (54 FR 16027). The cvai!sble for public inspection at the would dismantle Fermi t by a factor of following topics will be discussed.
Cornmission's Public Document Room, about 100. In addition, the 40-year delay the Cc! man Building,2120 L Street. NW.,
Dursday, May n,2as-ex a.m-6.m will result in a sr* aller volume of p,a Washington. DC and at the Russell radioactive waste to be disposed of at Library.123 Broad Street. Middletown, the time of decontamination as
- Review of the Site Characterization e Connecticut. compared to immediate Analysis for the DOE high level Dated at Rochille. Maryland, this 20th day decontamination.De smaller volume of radwaste repository (Open). ,
cf Apr0 toes. radioactive waste will result in the use
- Technical Position on !
For the Nclear Regulatory Commission. of a smaller area at a waste burial Environmental Monitoring ofIow Level 4 7, $g facility. % aste Disposal Facilities (Open). .
tor et A c te / D nsion of Finding of No Significant Impect 8 '
Re ate p Pl ReactorRegulation. The staff has reviewed the proposed includmg status of the Center for
- [TR Doc. 89-10088 Filed 4 .%89; 845 sm) rmwal d the Fenni1 facility license Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses
" " ' * '"" relative to the regmrements set forth in (Open).
10 CFR Part St. Based upon the
- Committee Activities--The environmental assessment, the staff Committee will discuss anticipated and IDockst No. 50-161 concluded that there are no significant proposed Committee activities, future envir nme talimpacts associated with meeting agenda, organizational c2atters.
Detroit Edison Co.; issuance of the proposed action and that the Enytronmentaf Arsessment and and new roembers, as appropriate (Open/ Closed).
FindinO of No Significant lanpact [rave p sed bcense amendinent a significant will not effect on the quality Procedures for the conduct of and
. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory of the human environment. Derefore, participation in ACNW meetings were Commission (the Commission)is the Commission had determined. published in the Federal Register on considering theissuaoce of an pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, not to prepare June 6,1988 (53 FR 20009). In accordance amendment to Possession-Only License an environmentalimpact statement for with these procedures, oral or written No. DPR-9 which currently allows the proposed amendment statements may be presented by i Detroit Edison Company (the licensee) For further details with respect to this members of the public. recordings win to possess-bot.not-operste the action, see [1] the application for be pennitted only during those portions permanently shut down Enrico Fermi amendment dated May 17.1985 as of the meeting when a transcript is being Atomic Power Plant. Unit No.1 (Fermi supplemented by letters dated July 23 kept, and questions may be asked only 1). De amendment would renew 1986. September 15.1986. September 25 by members of the Committee,its Posseasion-Only License No. DPR-G to 1987. September 15,1988 and December consultants, and Stsff.The Office of the extend the expiration date of the license 22.1988 and (2) the Environmental ACRS is providing Staff support for the from june 3061985 to March 20,2025. Assessment %ese documents are ACNW. Persons desiring to make oral available for public inspection at the statements should notif the Executive Descdpdon d Proposed Actima Fermi t has been shut down since Conun!ssion's Pubbe Document Room.
2120 L Street NW., Washingson. DC Director of the Office ofthe ACRS as far in advance as practicable so that .
September 22.1972 and all fuel has been 20555, and at the Monroe County library appropriate arrarggemente can be saade -
- 18176. Federd Register / Val. 54. Ns. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 1989 / Notices to allow the necessary time during the Program (TSIP), and until approval of secondary containment isolation trip meeting for such statements. Use of still. the TSIP submittal. to maintain functions on the outside atmosphere to motion picture and television cameras operability requirements and reactor enclosure and refueling ama during this meeting may be limited to surveillance procedures in accordance differential pressure low Trip Set Int selected portions of the meeting as with current NRC guidance. and Allowable Value on Pages 3 3-21 determined by the ACNW Chairman. For further details with respect to this and 3/4 3-22 (items e. and f.) would use Information regarding the time to be set action, see the applications for the engineering units " inches of H.O" to aside for this pur use may be obtained amendments deted January 1f,,1984 and eliminate ambiguity.%e reference to by a prepaid tele hone call to the March 29.1985, respectively, and the Figure B 3/4 4.6-2 on Page 3/4 4-19 (item Executive Director of the Office of the licensee's letter dated A ril11.1989. 4.4.e.1.4) would be deleted because this ACRS. Mr. Raymond F. Fraley which withdrew the app cations for figure does not exist in the TS.Do (telephone 301/492-4516), prior to the license amendments.The above drywell average air temperature sensor meeting. In view of the possibility that documents are avallable for public elevation and azimuth locations on Page the schedule for ACNW meeting may be inspection at the Commission's Public 3/4 6-10 are provided to give adjusted by the Chairman as necessary Document Room. 21201. Street. NW., approximate locations.The symbol %"
to facilitate the conduct of the meeting. Washington DC., at the Crystal River would be added to these locations.The persons planning to attend should check Public Ubrary 668 NW.First Avenue, footnote "*" on pages 3/4 6-47 and 3/4 with the ACRS Executive Director if Crystal River. Florida 32629. 6,52 will be corrected by replacing the such rescheduling would result in mejor Dated at Rockn!!e. Maryland. this 20th day word "and" with the word "or". De inconvenience. of April 1980. referenced penetration "O35A" on Pages Date April 24.1980. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiss!on. 3/4 6-23 and 3/4 6-42 will be corrected John C. floyle. Harley Silver. to "035B". An additional Action c. will Advisory Committee Management Officer. Pwject Manager. Pwiect Dimctomte 114. be added on Page 3/41-2 indicating that Division ofReactorPwiects ull. Office of 'The provisions of Specification 4.0.4
[FR Doc. 89-10144 Filed 4-26-89. 8.45 am] are not applicable", because the reactor m coot 7 p m NuclearReactorRegulation.
(FR Doc. SS-1009o Filed 4-26-87. 8 45 amj must first be in Operational Condition 1 coag y, ,3, or 2 to perform the surveillance.The
! Docket No. 50-3021 number of heat detectors for Fire Zone 25 on Page 3/4 3-04 in incorrect and Florida Power Corp; Withdrawal of IDocket No. 56-3521 would be revised from "15" to "13". The Appilcations for Amendments to Facility Operating Ucense two other heat detectors actually are Philadelphia Electric Co. Consideration located in the Unit 2 area.The word ofissuance f mendment to FaclHty " positive" on Page B 3/4 6.-2. Item 3/
'rhe United States Nuclear Regulatory 4.6.1.8 would be deleted because the Commission (the Commission) has If)t Ha ar s onsid all weble containment pressure range is granted the request of Florida Power Determination and Opportunity for Corporation (the licensee) to withdraw actually both negative and positive.
Hearing two applications for proposed (2) Category B changes deal with amendments to Facility Operating The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory minor text changes to achieve Ucense No. DPR-72 for the Crystal Commission (the Commission)is consistency throughout the TS.
River Unit 3 Generating Plant, located in considering issuance of an amendment Specifically Specification 3.6.3 on Page Citrus County. Florida, to Facility Operating Ucense No. NPF- 3/4 6-17 includes an Action Statement One of the proposed amendments 39, issued to the Philadelphia Electric that allows four hours to restore (for would have modified the facility Company, (the licensee), for operation of example) an inoperable Main Steam Technical Specifications to include the the Limerick Generating Station. Unit 1, Isolation Valve (MSIV). while silicon-controlled rectifiers in located in Montgomery and Chester Specification 3.4.7 on Page 3/4 4-23 appropriate surveillance and test Counties. Pennsylvania.The proposed allows eight hours to restore an sections. The Commission previously amandment is in response to the inoperable MSIV.The char.ge would issued a Notice of Consideration of licensee's submittal dated February 14. redse Specification 3.4.7 to four hours
!ssuance of Amendment published in the 1988. from the existing eight hour requirement.
Federal Register on May 23.1984 (49 FR ne proposed amendment would The change to footnote " " " on Pages 21829). Ilowever, by letter dated April make administrative changes to the 3/4 5-4 and 3/4 5-5 would add a 11.1989, the licensee withdrew the Technical Specifications (TS) to achieve requirement that "In the event that HPCI proposed change, consistency, remove outdated material, syste is not successfully demonstrated The other proposed arnendment make minor text changes, and correct operable during the twelve hour period, would have added operability and errors.The changes are grouped into then reactor steam dome pressure is to surveillance requirements for the reactor four categories. be reduced to less than 200 psig. In the trip breaker shunt trip attachment.ne (1) Category A changes deal with event that ADS cannot be demonstrated Commission previously issued a Notice correction of errors or the rernoval of operable during the twelve hour period.
. of Consideration ofissuance of outdated material.Specifclally Pages 3/ then reactor steam dome pressure is to Amendment published in the Federal 4 7-22 and 6-14 delete a reference to 5% be reduced to less than 100 psig". This Register on November 30,1988 (53 FR power (at '). Page 3/4 3-85 deletes a would be consistent with the respective 48330). Ilowever, by letter dated April reference to initial criticality (at #). Action Statements for each system.The 11,1989, the licensee withdrew the These references are no longer drywell and suppression chamber proposed change. appilcable.These conditions have been internal pressure designated in the In both cases the licensee committed satisfied and the footnotes would be Umiting Condition for Operation on to incorporate the proposed changes deleted. Page 3/4 3-85 also would add "/ Page 3/4 6-9 would be corrected to consistent with NRC guidance in the " between "1" and " location" for -1.0 to +2.0" consistent with that Technical Specification Improvement instrument 4. The primary and specified on Page B 3/4 6-2. The change
. 0
+ _i. . .
~
MAJOR:10th MTG AGENDA
.l TENTATIVE
\
SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 10TH ACNW MEETING MAY ll, 1989 BETFESDA, MARYLAND ,
~ v scav
$'e~'.
- . IM E, Ec-- 4::, 7920 t,orfolk Avenue, Bethesda , Maryland F
E:3 - E::: e.r. 1. Chairman's Comments (0 pen) 1.1) Opening Remarks 2.2)' Items of Current Interest to p. ..
E:Z: - :2:Z MM 2. Site Characterization Analysis Review- 'yg e ., J 35 . 55
- :X - ;::M a.r. *"
BREAK ***
( 21:M -
tc 15
- f4 p.t. *"
LUNCH ***
o5. 47 1:% '- 3+ M p.r. 2. Continued SCA Review n _:r ,:g
.3ttf - C p.r. *" ***
BREAK 4.o: 4 +7 2+9" - Leef p.r. 3. Review Technical Position on Environmental Monitorin9 of LLW Disposal Facilities (op
~
J 4:5[
EdTJ p.r.. ADJOURfi
_ ~ bb%nSctIbecf f o 10h5 t
l I
i 1
L