ML20247J282
| ML20247J282 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/18/1997 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-0113, NACNUCLE-113, NUDOCS 9805210383 | |
| Download: ML20247J282 (42) | |
Text
I
^ .~ 3- ~ ~ ~ -~
.-m, hhkfhll3
, . k MINUTES OF THE 92ND ACNW MEETING rws/H/W f m c.' . O-' MAY 20-22,1997 l
- TABLE OF CONTENTS -
)
j
- l. Chairman's Report (Open) .......... .............................2
- 11. Generic Methodoloav for Decommissioning Performance (Open) . . . . . .. . . . . . . 2
- lll. Views on the Defense-in-Depth Approach (Open) ........ ... ....... .... 4 1 .
IV. Use of Expert Elicitation in the Review of a Hiah-Level Waste Repository (Open) . . . 12 V. Project Intearated Safety Assessment (PISA) (Open) . . . . .. .... ........ . 16 VI. DOE's Nonsite-Soecific Topical Safety Analysis Report for a Centralized Interim Storaae Facility (Open) . .. ... .... . . . . . . . ...... ...... ..... 18 Vll. NRC's Licensina Process for Centralized Interim Storaae (Open) . . .. .. . 19 Vill. Reautarly Scheduled Information Exchance Betw'ggn the ACNW and the Director.
Division of Waste Manaaement. NMSS (Open) . ..... ... .... . . 21 IX. Executive Session (Open) . ....... .. . . . . .. .. . .. ... 24 A. Elections (Open) . . . . . . . ... . .... . .... ... . .. . .. 24 B. Future Meeting Agenda (Open) .... .. .... ...... . . . . 24 C. Future Committee Activities (Open) . ... . .... ..... .... . 24
- APPENDICES -
- 1. Federal Register Notice
- 11. Meeting Schedule and Outline Ill. Meeting Attendees IV. Future Agenda and Working Group Activities V. List of Documents Provided to the Committee l
.m -
-\
9005210383 970718 U ct /
PDR ADVCM NACNUCLE g PDR 0113 pgg7cggTo 051GI E y Certified BY -
j C t.7, * ; j !7iN.f ERTIFIED issued: July 16,1997 i - By Paul W. Pomeroy 7/25/97 ,
PROPOSED MINUTES OF THE 92ND MEETING OF THE {
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE l MAY 20-22,1997 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) held its 92nd meeting on May 20-22,1997, at the Two White Flint North Building,11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and take appropriate acGons on the items listed in the attached agenda. The entire meeting was open to public attendance.
A transcript of selected portions cf the meeting was kept and is available in the NRC Public Document Room at the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. [ Copies of the transcript are available for purchase from Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc., Court Reporters and Transcribers,1323 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Transcripts are also available on FedWorld from the *NRC MAIN MENU." The Direct Dial Access number for l FedWorid is 800-303 9672; the local Direct Dial Access number is 703-321-3339.]
Dr. Paul W. Pomeroy, Committee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. and briefly reviewed the schedule for the meeting. He stated that the meeting was being conducted in conformance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. He also stated that the Committee had
)
not received any requests from persons or organizations wishing to make an oral statement during the meeting. However, he did ask that members of the public who were present and had l
something to contribute inform the ACNW staff so that it could allocate time for them to make l oral statements.
ACNW members Drs. B. John Garrick, William J. Hinze, and George M. Homberger were present. [For a list of other attendees, see Appendix ll1.]
l l
1
/ >9 ,
~
92nd ACNW Meeting 2 May 20-22,1997 -
- 1. Chairman's Report (Open) . .
[ Richard K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)
Dr. Pomeroy identified a number of items that he believed to be of interest to the Commit-tee, including the following:
. This is the last ACNW meeting Dr. Hinze will be attending as an ACNW member.
. Dr. Hinze will become a consultant to the Committee.
. A law suit heard in the U.S. Court could delay the opening of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for 2 to 5 years, if successful. The attomey generals of New Mexico and Texas, along with citizens groups and private citizens, claim the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) present compliance criteria for WIPP are insufficient to protect public health and the environment.
. The tunnel boring machine broke through the south portal at the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository site at 11:04 a.m. on April 25,1997.
II. Generic Methodoloav for Decommissioning Performance (Open)
[Howard Larson was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)
Mark Thaggard, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), after summa-
. rizing the history and background of the low-level waste (LLW)/ decommissioning regulatory framework, gave an overview of the decommissioning performance assessment (PA) approach and the codes used in that approach.
In comparing the LLW and decommissioning pas, he indicated the following points as most relevant:
- 1. Decommissioning sites are not sited with waste disposal in mind [so that path-ways that are less important in LLW PA may be more important in site decommis-sioning management plan (SDMP) pas].
i TE 1 92nd ACNW Meeting 3 May 20-22,1997
- 2.
- While there are no waste classification or intruder barrier requirements in decom-missioning, the inadvertent intruder is a key consideration in the decommissioning and decontamination (D&D) PA.
- 3. Barrier performance may be a key to demonstrating compliance as there is a 1000- year time frame for D&D PA.
- 4. D&D pas have different s ource terms than LLW pas (D&D sites generally have a small number of radionuclides, may hcve hazardous contan.. :.s, and may have no waste containers. They may also have existing groundwater contamination).
M. Thaggard then proceeded through the logic diagrams for the LLW PA approach and the decommissioning decision framework, noting many of the similarities. He ended his l
presentation with a discussion of the various computer codes and the staff's near-term activities.
James Kennedy, NMSS, explained that staff analysts must continually bear in mind both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory considerations when they assess the SDMP sites. He pointed out that in cornrast to NRC regulations, NEPA has no specific release criteria but, instead, looks at a range of impacts.
Further amplifying on just one consideration, " costs," J. Kennedy noted that using the Shieldalloy site to dispose of waste onsite (which had been discussed with the Committee at a previous meeting) was estimated to cost about $3-8 million whereas offsite t!isposal was estimated to cost about $140 million. These potentialimpacts must then be evaluated against the related environmental and other public health and safety impacts.
An option must meet the requirements of NRC regulations. If such cannot be met, the site may be transferred to the Superfund for disposition.
Dr. Pomeroy asked about plans to provide guidance to the States to guide them in determining the acceptability of proposed D&D plans and was told that the LLW branch technical position (BTP) on PA was due to be distributed shortly. In addition, it was
92nd ACNW Mr. ting 4 .
May 20-22,1997 possible for the agency to render some level of assistance, but agency resources were particularly tight. Therefore, any such request would be carefully evaluated as'to relevant priority.
Dr. Garrick asked if the D&D lessons leamed from test reactors, critical facilities, etc., had been factored into the staff experience. Norman Eisenberg, NMSS, stated that he was not sure and, therefore, would look into the relevance of those D&D activities.
Dr. Hinze asked if the various criteria ecnsidered in releasing a site had been given weighting factors and was told that such factors are not used.
ACNW Committee members raised a variety of other questions conceming the process and indicated interest in continuing to be kept informed of progress in this area. They also stated that they would accept the proffered opportunity to observe utilization of the SEDSS (Sandia Environmental Decision Support System) computer code !ater this year.
Ill. Views on the Defense-in-DoDth ADDroach (Open)
[Lynn Deering was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)
Three Department of Energy (DOE) representatives presented their views on aspects of the defense-in-depth (DID) philosophy. Stephan Brocoum, Assistant Manager for Licensing, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office (YMSCO), DOE, presented DOE's overall philosophy on DID and subsystem requirements (SSRs) and discussed DID in the context of DOE's proposed 10 CFR Part 960 and the draft Waste Containment and j lsolation Strategy (WCIS). Jack Bailey, Deputy Manager of Engineering & Integration i Operations, YMSCO, DOE, presented DID for the repository engineered barrier system,
)
and Abe Van Luik, YMSCO, DOE, presented the status of total system performance I assessment (TSPA) analyses in support of the viability assessment (VA) and use of l
)
TSPA to evaluate defense-in-depth attematives.
, * ' s 92nd ACNW Meeting 5
. May 20-22,1997
. S. Brocoum - DOE's Comments on Defense in Depth l
i S. Brocoum gave a history of DOE's views of and approach of to pre- and post-closure defense in depth.
Defense in depth for the postclosure repository system includes use of engineered and natural barriers. Engineered barriers will be used to compensate for uncertainties in natural barrier performance and natural barriers will be used to compensate for uncertain-
, ties in engineered barrier perfomlance. DID measures include delay or prevention of radionuclides release, mitigat' ion of releases, and quality assurance (QA) controls.
DOE's 1988 Site Characterization Plan (SCP) layed out objectives for the engineered and natural barriers to be used as part of the repository system. Engineered barriers are to limit release of radionuclides to natural barriers and are not to adversely impact natural barrier performance. Natural barriers are to provide an environment conducive to long-lived engineered barriers, and to provide conditions where transport of significant quantities of radionuclides will take a long time.
DOE supports a single, risk-based quantitative criterion for postclosure performance, as opposed to SSRs. The proposed 10 CFR Part 960 relies on total system performance, requiring natural and engineered barriers, each consisting of multiple barriers. DOEis essentially silent about DlD in the proposed 10 CFR Part 960.
WCIS establishes a framework for allocating performance to natural and engineered barriers, and provides a basis for describing DID for postclosure repository elements.
Thus, it provides for DID. However, not all barriers will necessarily be quantified. WCIS is still evolving; it (1) limits water contacting waste packager, (2) promotes robust waste packages, (3) limits mobilization of radionuclides from waste form, and (4) reduces radionuclides concentrations during transport through engineered and natural barriers.
WCIS is still evolving because more is being leamed about the site. DOE's philosophy is to use PA to focus its efforts on the defense-in-depth barriers that are the most important and have the highest uncertainty; thus the performance allocated to each repository
, 4 1
l J
i >,
- 92nd ACNW Meeting 6 .
May 20-22,1997 system attribute depends on the effectiveness of component barriers and their uncertain-ties.
l DOE plans to rely both on natural barriers and on engineered barriers to keep water from contacting waste; corrosion-resistant barriers and galvanic processes will increase the robustness of the waste package. DOE also plans to rely on solubilities; long contain-ment time; limiting the impact of engineered materials on water chemistry to limit radionuclides mobilization; the use of a combination of engineered barriers, such as backfil; and natural barriers, such as diffusion, sorption, and dilution;and mixing to reduce radionuclides concentrations during transport.
DOE's current approach to analyze features, processes, ar'd events (FPEs) is to consider likelihood and potential effects and to use TSPA to evaluate consequences for a limited number of FPEs, such as volcanism.
In summary, robust waste packages and enhanced engineered barriers provide defense in depth for the engineered system; components of natural barriers, both qualitative and quantitative; also provide defense in depth, and use of conservative assumptions in TSPA for elements with high uncertainty also ensures defense in depth. DOE wants to tie DID in to total system performance. DOE does not believe in SSRs that have no nexus to total system performance, which DOE believes impose requirements that may detract from total systems performance. S. Brocoum noted that the total cost, with all engineered features, is less than $1.8 million.
Committee questions included whether there is a threshold for determining whether there is too much reliance on engineering in order to comply with the standard. S. Brocoum responded that DOE is focusing on the total system; focusing on individual components can detract from the optimal design.
The next speaker was Jack Bailey, Deputy Manager of Engineering & Integration Operations, Yucca Mountain Project Office (YMPO), DOE . He discussed various design components being considered to achieve DID for the repository engineered barrier systern (EBS).
I
r y 4 ' \
92nd ACNW Meeting 7 May 20-22,1997 l
J. Bailey reviewed the design and engineering goals of the EBS for pre- and postclosure l DID. Goals include meeting preclosure requirements, developing a design that provides i acceptable performance, and using multiple barriers to improve confidence in the i engineered system performance in spite of uncertainties in natural processes and engineered features.
DOE is beginning to' carry out its strategy for the EBS, which includes the following: (1) develop design features to meet performance for the expected case, (2) systematically evaluate options for design features that could improve performance through use of PA to analyze component contributions and evaluate sensitivities to low probability events, (3) I systematically evaluate and document PA sensitivities to identify data uncertainties, (4) systematically evaluate and document PA sensitivities to identify uncertainties in features response, and (5) select appropriate design features to improve performance by the desired amount and to offset the effects of major data uncertainties.
1 J. Bailey showed sensitivity results from various models used for determining design input, including unsaturated and saturated zone hydrology and radionuclides transport.
thermal hydrology, and thermal chemistry. ;
J. Bailey also reviewed, in detail, the various design options for WCIS. Major features for TSPA evaluation include the subsurface repository layout, such as drift spacing, thermal load, and ventilation; the EBS, including backfill and flow diversion; and the waste -
package, including materials and thermal load.
Next J. Bailey presented a matrix for evaluating design features that can be used as a tool to document and compare goals and attributes and then summarized his talk.
Martin Steindler, ACNW consultant, asked if and how DOE considers cost in evaluating and selecting design features. J. Bailey and A. Van Luik responded that DOE systemati-cally evaluates what each feature contributes, independently and in combination with othec Teatures, then evaluates minimum requirements for the quality and longevity of various features in an iterative fashion. The matrix is used in this process. j
a 92nd ACNW Meeting 8 May 20-22,1997 .
Another question was raised as to how much flexibility is there in the process to allow for changes during construction. J. Bailey responded that tney did not expect too much change from the as-planned design.
Another question raised was whether waste would be set back from faults. DOE committed to get back to the Committee with the answer to this question. S. Brocoum added that this process is difficult without a final standard from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Abe Van Luik - Status of TSPA Analyses in Support of the Viability Assessment A. Van Luik indicated that he would address what DOE has leamed from past uses of TSPA, the status of TSPA and future plans for TSPA-VA, and preliminary scoping sensitivity studies supporting evaluation of attemative designs for DID.
Lessons Leamed From Past Uses of TSPA:
A. Van Luik first described work performed before the 1986 Environmental Assessment Site Characterization Plan (SCP). This included the Pigford National Academy of Science study that showed that it is possible to meet the NRC 10 CFR Part 60 SSRs and still fail the EPA cumulative release standard. Other studies were also commissioned by NRC, EPA, and DOE to evaluate the EPA standard. He said all the analyses were slmplistic, and indicated that the Yucca Mountain site could meet the standard, but that if some conditions, such as unsaturated zone flux, are worse than assumed, consequences could be greater.
A. Van Luik discussed major changes since the SCP:
e EBS modeling concepts have evolved from small, stainless steel, vertically emplaced containers, to large multibarrier containers made of nickel-based alloy with carbon. steel.
. . , i 92nd ACNW Meeting 9
- May 20-22,1997
- e Natural barrier system modeling concepts have moved away from very low estimates of net infiltration and from literature-based solubilities to net flux rates as high as 2 and 15 mm per year (higher during assumed future climate scenar-los) and to site-specific solubilities.
- Assumptions about the total system performance capability have also changed. It is no longer assumed that unsaturated zone fluxes, and hence release, will be minimal, that engineered barrier failure will occur at 1000 years, and that doses need not be calculated, Process level modeling has been incorporated into TSPA, creating more defensible analyses, and the doses from all pathways are calculated.
e There have been major changes in philosophy from the time of the SCP:
)
Performance goals are no longer assigned to subsystems and compo- i i
nents. I Expert judgment is no longer used to tabulate Estimated Partial Perfor-mance Measures (EPPMs) that drove system requirements down to subsystem and component level.
There will no longer be the use of simplified, unsubstantiated assumptions TSPA tools are used to directly support evaluation of data uncertainty, design assumptions, and alterative conceptual models.
I Subsystem performance goals valid for a specific conceptual model are now obsolete.
Status of TSPA-VA:
- DOE has held 9 of 10 workshops on abstraction of process models.
l l
)
1 L _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
u 92nd 4.CNW Meeting 10 May 20-22,1997 ,
e Sensitivity analyses and model development are in progress. . ,
o Expert elicitation are in progress.
- TSPA-VA peer review has been initiated.
e TSPA technical exchange is scheduled for July 1997.
e Complete draft TSPA-VA is scheduled for June 12,1998.
e Major outcomes of abstraction workshops include identification of key performance-related issues for each process model, prioritization of key issues using surrogate performance related criteria, and development of approaches to address key issues in the context of TSPA-VA.
e Expert elicitation for unsaturated zone flow, waste package degradation, and saturated zone flow and transport have yielded important results on ranges of values and sensitive assumptions.
e TSPA-VA Peer Review panelists have been selected, a kick-off meeting was held in February 1997, and expert interim comments are due in June 1997.
Preliminary Scooina Sensitivity Studies to Evaluate Attemative Desians for DID:
- Models are used for scoping sensitivity analyses in support of design and testing. Conservative scoping studies are used to allow comparative analyses. Four case studies are being evaluated, each assuming various levels of credit for cladding, ceramic coating lifetime, backfill and drip shields. Results were shown for a calculated total dose from drinking water after 100,000 years, for Skm and 30 km from the site.
' - r 92nd ACNW Meeting 11 l May 20-22,1997 l
Conclusion:
l A. Van Luik concluded his talk with the following:
e Since the SCP, advances have been made in design, in understanding of the site, and in process- and system-level modeling.
e With a credible system-level modeling capability, it is both possible and preferable to do system-level evaluations of subsystem and component design changes and site uncertainties.
e Preparation for TSPA-VA is proceeding as planned, including uncertainty evaluations, abstraction of process level modeling, model testing, and extemal expert reviews.
e To aid decision-making, PA continually updates system-level models to support testing and design with scoping sensitivity studies.
Questions:
The question was asked if A. Van Luik believes that the SSRs are necessary. A.
Van Luik replied that he believes that SSRs that have a strong nexus to total ;
system performance are merely redundant, and SSRs that do not have a strong nexus and require a conservative analysis simply cause the overall analysis to be more conservative than is required by the risk standard. Thus either way SSRs are a lose-lose proposition and do not add to protection of public health and safety. However, the DID concept is useful and important because it reveals what design or natural features contribute to meeting the standard and to providing added protection.
The question was asked how the saturated zone assumptions influence the calculated dose. A. Van Luik responded that faster groundwater travel time (GWTT) results in an earlier arrival of the peak dose, but results in greater l
l
o
= ' ,
92nd ACNW Meeting 12 May 20-22,1997 .
dispersion, thus a lower dose. A slower travel time results in less mixi,ng and less dilution, but later arrival of the peak. Dr. Homberger pointed out that this was dependent upon assumptions abut dilution potential, and pumping at the dis-charge point can greatly add to uncertainty. Dr. Van Luik agreed and indicated that dilution is simply a benefit that DOE doesn't actually take credit for quantita-tively. Dr. Homberger asked whether fractures are assumed to divert water I around waste. A. Van Luik indicated that fracture flow is assumed to be fast and inconsequential; it reduces the overall flux available to contact the waste. He added that GWTT may not be an indicator of the " goodness" of the site or be connected to total system performance.
Dr. Garrick wamed against using conservative assumptions even in scoping studies because, based on Waste isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) PA experience, these assumptions are hard to actually move away from later on.
IV. The Use of Expert Elicitation in the Review of a Hiah-Level Waste Repository (Open)
[ Andrew C. Campbell was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)
S. Brocoum, DOE, discussed the purposes cf DOE's expert elicitation and noted circumstances when elicitation are useful. He also stated that elicitation are important in bounding uncertainties and can be used to help reach conclusions through quantifica-tion and integration of information. S. Brocoum then discussed several current elicitation being conducted by DOE to facilitate development of key process models. He stated that these elicitation generally follow the guidance in the BTP on the Formal Use of Expert Elicitation in the HLW Program (NUREG-1563). He then discussed why they are being done and their current status. S. Brocoum discussed DOE's perspective on expert elicitation. He noted that they can enhance confidence in the technical program and help support DOE's compliance arguments. He stated that elicitation do not eliminate the exercise of judgment by the decision maker.
)
- g e
92nd ACNW Meeting 13 May 20-22,1997 S. Brocoum discussed the Probabilistic Volcanic Hazard Analysis (PVHA) elicitation and I
expressed DOE's concems with NRC's response to PVHA. He stated he was specifically concemed that NRC considered the opinion of one of its experts (who provided no technical basis for this differing opinion) to have more weight than DOE's 10 experts. He stated that the NRC did not present a PDF (probability distribution function) and NRC did not present a study similar to DOE's. He stated that the issue applies to all of DOE's elicitation and that DOE is concemed with NRC giving an appropriate weight to expert elicitation. He stated that otherwise, the licensing value of such elicitation is questionable. He stated that the NRC's result appears to be the technical opinion of an individual. S. Brocoum summarized how expert elicitation will be used, but noted that NRC and DOE need to agree on the value of such elicitation because they are time and resource intensive. '
Dr. Pomeroy opened the session to questions. M. Steindler asked S. Brocoum about the number of experts that are in an elicitation, the quality of the result, the different protocols for expert elicitation, and if it was DOE's policy to follow the BTP process because it is j easier. S. Brocoum stated that the elicitation is a process that brings together a group of
)
recognized experts. He stated that an outside person, who was not part of the process, needs to present the basis of his difference of opinion. S. Brocoum also stated that one protocol is not necessarily better than another, but that, in general, it is easier to follow NRC's processes in a licensing situation. Dr. Garrick asked if DOE's concem was with the process or the result. S. Brocoum stated that they followed the BTP process fairly closely, but that NRC did not like the result. Dr. Garrick asked if there was a significant difference between the two numbers. S. Brocoum responded that the issue was that NRC wanted them to agree with a point estimate beyond 99% of their curve. If they do that in every case, they won't be able to design and build the repository. Dr. Homberger asked about the phrase " bounding uncertainties." S. Brocoum responded that they meant
" understanding uncertainties." Dr. Hinze asked about the phrase " proper weight." S.
Brocoum responded that the NRC staff needs to provide a written response to the report detailing its concems and the basis for its concems. Dr. Hinze commented on the unsaturated zone expert elicitation ard stated that it was excellent.
92nd A:.W Meeting 14 May 20-22,1997 .
Michael Lee, NMSS, piesented the staff's observations on the DOE elicitation process.
He discussed the chronology of developing NRC's " Branch Technical Position (BTP) on the Formal use of Expert Elicitation in the HLW Program"(NUREG-1563) and its key points. He stated that a formal, structured elicitation would contribute 'o the robustness of DOE's licensing case. He discussed the specific technical positions in the document, the guidelines on conducting an elicitation, and when it is appropriate to use an elicitation process. He stated that the "nine steps"in the BTP reflect a survey of the literature. The BTP does not prevent DOE from using its own experts, but he stated that any potential conflicts of interest need to be documented following some established procedure. He also noted that an expert elicitation should not be used as a substitute for data collection.
M. Lee also discussed his presentation at a symposium sponsored by the Atomic Safety and Licensin;, Board (ASLB) and issues raised by the ASLB. He discussed the BTP guidance and stated it also expands the definition of " peer review" relative to NUREG-1297. He stated that the BTP does not prescribe the specific technicalissues when expert elicitation should be applied. He stated that use of the BTP guidance by an applicant does not guarantee that the NRC staff will accept the result, but it does bolster the licensing case. M. Lee stated that the staff has no position on the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee Report (SSHAC) elicitation methodology, but that it is generally consistent with the BTP. One specific aspect of the SSHAC methodology that he discussed was the role of the Technical Facilitatory / integrator (TFI). He added that DOE needs to provide intemal guidance on the use of the TFl in their elicitation.
M. Lee discussed current staff activities, including monitoring DOE elicitation. He stated that they see no fatal flaws with DOE's approach, but they do have some comments, which were provided in three letters to DOE, M. Lee discussed the first letter, dated December 26,1996, in which the NRC proposed closing out its Site Characterization Analyses (SCA) comments on the use of expert judgment. He also discussed the second letter, dated December 31,1996, in which NRC stated its concems in three specific areas: (1) updating an elicitation when new data become available before the license application (LA) is submitted, (2) documenting changes in elicited positions of individual experts after feedback sessions, and (3) the need for a procedure documenting the role of the " Technical Facilitatory / Integrator"(TFI) in DOE's elicitation process. He also stated that in a letter dated January 7,1997, the NRC responded to a DOE request for further i
,- i 92nd ACNW Meeting 15
. May 20-22,1997 guidance on approaches for documenting potential conflicts of interest. He also dis-cussed future staff activities.
Dr. Pomeroy opened this session up for questions and asked about a timely response from the NRC on the PVHA report. M. Bell responded that DOE transmitted the report to NRC for information purposes, not for review and comment. Norman Eisenberg, NMSS, added that there was an Appendix 7 meeting on the BTP and PVHA and that the technical exchange in February was also on PVHA. Dr. Homberger asked if there was a feeling of disagreement with PVHA among the staff? M. Lee stated that the weakness with PVHA was in not disclosing potential conflicts ofinterest and bias. Some of the staff, he stated, did not recognize that DOE can use any expert it wants to in a licensing case. He stated that the staff does have a good feeling about the extensive amount of work performed by DOE. He added that the independent staff review benefits DOE's licensing position. He noted that the development of issue resolution status reports and license review plans and acceptance criteria will be important in the future. Margaret Federline, Deputy Director of DWM, NMSS, discussed NRC's relicensing strategy to provide early feedback to DOE. She stated they wanted to avoid disaggregation of issues and believed it was important to look at issues in an integrated fashion, such as the probability and consequences of volcanism. M. Federline stated that based upon the technical exchange, DOE needs to do some consequence work. Dr. Hinze asked about the number of experts and the BTP. M. Lee stated that the BTP recommends a diversity of experts covering the range of opinion for a particular subject being evaluated. Dr.
Hinze asked if there is a problem with the ongoing elicitation. M. Lee stated that the staff has no issue with the number of experts and is more concemed with some fine points. Dr. Garrick asked about documenting the quality and consistency of the elicitation. M. Bell responded that the staff has been observing the DOE elicitation to give feedback to DOE, but that it is up to DOE, not the staff, to document the elicitation.
Dr. Garrick stated he was thinking in terms of guidance. N. Eisenberg responded that the BTP provides general guidance and that DOE's documentation has been adequate, with the exceptions already noted. Dr. Pomeroy asked why it has taken so long for the staff to convey problems about PVHA to DOE, since it has been ongoing for 2 years. Janet Kotra, DWM, NMSS, responded that both the BTP and the SSHAC report were works in
f g 92nd ACNW MO: ting 16 May 20-22,1997 .
progress during the time of the PVHA. She discussed the reasons for developing the ,
BTP.
N. Eisenberg discussed the staff's position with respect to PVHA. He stated that the staff approach and basis for its position were published in the peer-reviewed literature and discussed at the technical exchange. He noted that the NRC has a somewhat different model than DOE and that this was discussed at the technical exchange. He stated that there was agreement as to the upper bound, and he added that the extent of agreement between DOE and NRC should not be minimized. He added that from the staff's perspective, the NRC model information is sufficient to resolve the volcanism issue. Dr.
Pomeroy discussed the problem with accepting a point value rather than using the elicitation results. N. Eisenberg stated that DOE's goal of the expert elicitation was to bound the range of scientific views and quantify the subjective uncertainty. NRC had a different goal, which was to bound the probability. He stated that staff did not suggest that DOE use the NRC upper bound. He stated DOE is free to use the full range, but NRC would evaluate using the upper bound and if no problems were apparent would close out the issue. NRC's estimate of consequences and probability did not indicate a safety issue. N. Eisenberg also reiterated the position that following a procedure does not guarantee acceptability by NRC. Disagreement on the volcanism issue does not force DOE to go to the 99th percent for other elicitation. Dr. Hinze mentioned the quality of the peer review for the NRC's volcanism paper.
V. Project Intearated Safety Assessment (Open)
[L. Deering was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)
Carol Hanlon, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, DOE, discussed the back-ground, purpose, contents, and outline of Project Integrated Safety Assessment (PlSA).
She also described its relation to the Site Characteristics chapter of the license applica-tion, the schedule for preparation, and the associated guidances.
The PISA concept came out of DOE HLW Program replanning efforts in 1996 to stream-line and refocus the program. It became apparent that an integrated safety assessment
- - i 92nd ACNW Meeting 17 May 20-22,1997 l
was essential. The PISA is an intemal vehicle for presenting integrated information on scientific programs, design,PA, and health and safety. It is not part of the VA process, but sections of the PISA may be available during the same time frame as the VA. The PISA will support the Environmental impact Statement and may be used to initiate preliminary sufficiency comments.
The purpose of the PISA is to integrate the effort of scientific programs, design, PA, and health and safety; assemble and begin to evaluate the DOE's safety case and assess p information currently available; and identify strengths and weaknesses. C. Hanlon noted that the PISA replaces the synthesis reports.
l PISA has 11 chapters. Other features of PISA are that it allows for a presentation of a concise, coherent integrated safety case, it corresponds to elements of Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) prepared by industry for successful reactor LAs, and it reflects strong consideration of the Format and Content guide for the HLW LA and 10 CFR 60.21(c).
I C. Hanlon noted that Chapter 2, Considerations Relating to important Features of Natural and Engineered Systems, serves as a road map of the PISA. This chapter is modeled after NRC Regulatory Guide 170 for the reactor program. j PISA correlates with the WCIS Hypotheses, NRC Key Technical issues (KTis), and the Format and Content Guide, License Application Review Plan, and 10 CFR 60.21(c).
Pisa provides a basis for the SAR of the LA. The PISA Content Guide is being incorpo-j rated into the Technical Guidance Document for the LA. The comments received on l PISA will be reflected in the LA. The LA will include additional chapters, such as QA, Land Ownership and Control, and Performance Confirmation.
' The PISA is scheduled for completion in the fall of 1998. In June 1997, DOE will distribute a management plan, a content guide, and a writer's guide in FY 1999, DOE will begin preparation of an LA.
C. Hanlon concluded by indicating that the PISA effort has already proven useful as an integratir,g and clarifying tool. The PISA is expected to be valuable in defining safety
92nd ACNW Mccting 18 May 20-22,1997 case and shaping the LA. DOE expects the PISA to be an important tool for communica-tion. The PISA is intended for an intemal DOE audience to evaluate strengths and weaknesses. It is strongly linked to the LA and will go straight into the LA SAR.
VI. DOE'S Non-site Specific Topical Safety Analysis Report for a Centralized Interim Storace Facility (Open)
[Howard Larson was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.]
Christopher Kouts, Director, Sto: age and Engineering Technology Division, OCRWM, DOE, and Dan Kane, Licensing Manager, DOE, discussed the contents of the May 1, 1997, Topical Safety Analysis Report (TSAR) submitted by DOE to the NRC's Spent Fuel Project Office. This document is for a 40,000 MTU non-site-specific spent nuclear fuel storage facility, in his introductory remarks, C. Kouts explained that DOE's intent with this early submis-sion could facilitate the timely design and licensing of the centralized interim storage facility (CISF) once a site is designated. His intent was to move the interim storage facility design efforts off the critical path of LA development should either of the bills currently under Congressional consideration pass. (Both the proposed S.170 and H.R.
1270 would require an accelerated facility development schedule, which DOE believes it would not be possible to meet without advance efforts such as the TSAR.)
After discussing the layout of the facility and briefly describing the proposed facility cask handling and storage capabilities, D. Kane briefly outlined the contents in each chapter of the TSAR, particularly noting DOE's rquest that NRC provide a timely acceptance evaluation of each chapter (and why DOE believed such acceptance would be possible).
He stressed DOE's belief that such an approach was*possible because the DOE had drafted the TSAR to be in accordance with NRC requirements and approved national standards and codes.
In response to a question from the Committee, DOE indicated that the schedule for such a facility was 32 months after DOE was granted access to the designated site. Estimated
92nd ACNW MIting 19 May 20-22,1997
. cost of the facility is approximately $150 million. Full-time staffing for three-shift operation was approximately 35 operators with a total onsite staff of approximately 120. It was I pointed out that such a cost and schedule estimate could not be met unless the TSAR was approved by the NRC.
Among the questions asked by ACNW members were questions directed to the basis for the initial 40,000 MTU storage capability; plans (if any) and capability for facility expansion should additional onsite storage at the CISF be required; the sensitivity of the facility to potential accident and off-normal conditions; seismic loading criteria; and the basis for the assumptions related to volcanism and tomadoes.
The Committee requested to be kept informed of CISF progress and other related DOE activities requiring NRC approval (such as DOE's proposed Dry Transfer System).
Vll. NRC'S Licensina Process for Centralized interim Storaae (Open)
(Howard Larson was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)
Susan Shankman, Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO), provided a brief history of how the agency has handled topical reports in the past. She then discussed current staff intentions on processing DOE's CISF TSAR:
(1) The cask designs referred to in the TSAR have not yet been certified by the NRC.
(2) Since this is a generic report, no site has been identified. Therefore, relevant site-i specific impacts cannot be evaluated.
Michael Raddatz, SFPO, then discussed an NRC assessment report for the CISF TSAR, noting that while it was perhaps possible that the staff could agree by the date c'f formal license application on the questions DOE would need to address, the staff could not possibly "close" issues at this time. Whatever conclusions the staff reached would all be cavested with the statement "No further questions at this time"-implying that the NRC l
l
t 92nd ACNW Meeting 20 May 20-22,1997 could have further questions on issues as site-specific data became available and were submitted in a formal application.
Charles Haughney, Deputy Director, SFPO, provided the following summary:
(1) Although not a requirement, the staff will probably notice receipt of the TSAR.
(2) The staff was pleased that DOE had indicated that the facility design criteria would De 100 years.
(3) Regarding bumep credit, DOE has recently submitted a topical repod that would give credit for the depletion of actinides. If the report were amended to include credit for long term fission product poisons, presumably more fuel could be put in a canister (although weight limits might be reached).
(4) The NRC staff regards this as an important application as it has many implications (C. Haughney also noted that this is a " banner year" at SFPO insofar as work load),
(5) Spent fuel routing and transportation are recognizea by all as a large problem, particularly from the perspective of public understanding of the relative associated risks.
(6) Recent cask vendor performance has caused SFPO to reevaluate some of its design and mtenufacturing quality assurance monitoring procedures.
Although the ACNW members had several questions on the TSAR and the NRC's proposed approach, it was recognized that at this time it was not possible to discuss in detail prospective activities because of the uncedainties regarding site-specific informa-tion and dual-purpose cask design approvals. In regards to the Committee's questions regarding potential sabotage analyses, C. Haughney indicated that such a briefing could only be held in closed session.
,~. ,
t
,. l 1
I 92nd ACNW Meeting 21 l May 20-22,1997 D. Kane, DOE, volunteered his opinion that the NRC and DOE expectations as to the TSAR "seemed to be congruent."
l l
The Committee asked to be kept informed of relevant issues regarding spent fuel cask l and facility safety considerations, particularly those related to the TSAR.
I
- Vill. Reaularly Scheduled Information Exchance Between the ACNW and the Director, Division of Waste Manaaement. (DWM). NMSS (Open)
John Greeves, Director, Division of Waste Management, NMSS, introduced King Stablein, Acting Branch Chief, Engineering and Geosciences Branch in the DWM.
J. Greeves discussed the decommissioning rule. He said that the rule was confirmed by the Commission the previous day. He noted that the staff would now have to develop guidance to support the rule by a deadline in February. He said that they will be working with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and others in developing this guidance.
J. Greeves discussed a number of ongoing activities that the staff has been engaged in, such guidance on how to conduct a survey process, development of the Multi-agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual document, development of the D&D code, and development of the SEDDS code. He also discussed the workshop on methods for less complicated sites that was recommended in Direction Setting lissue 9.
Dr. Pomeroy asked about the expectation that some sites would be added to the CERCLA list. J. Greeves responded that the number of sites would be relatively small.
J. Greeves discussed the HLW tank issues at three sites, West Valley, Hanford, and j Savannah River. He showed an serial view slide of the West Valley site, pointing out the )
locations of the HLW tanks and the main processing building. He also distributed a map of the site with contours drawn for different concentrations of Sr-90 in a contaminant plume leaking from the process building. He said that tF.is provides a real site to analyze.
Dr. Pomeroy asked who was working on the project. J. Greeves named the individua's and described their interactions with the citizens task force. He also noted that they are i
having video conferences with the citizens task force every 2 weeks. He described the I tank waste at West Valley, noting that there four HLW tanks have residual material in the l
92nd ACNW Masting 22 May 20-22,1997 bottoms. He said that NRC must determine if this material meets the definition of
" incidental waste."
l J. Greeves then discussed the Hanford HLW tank waste problem. He noted that the processing will separate the LLW fraction from the HLW. He cited a 1993 letter to DOE from the office director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Robert Bemero, on the definition of " incidental waste." He noted that this definition is being used for all three sites. He also sr;id that they will meet with ACNW on this issue in October.
J. Greeves said that at the Savannah River site the separation of liquid LLW from HLW and production of HLW glass and LLW grout was taking place. He noted that the residyal material from one tank is now being grouted. The grouted tanks will be left in place. The NRC is reviewing this work to determine if the residual material meets the definition of
" incidental waste " DOE will pay for these NRC activities via an interagency agreement.
J. Greeves said they are attempting to develop a consistent approach for all the sites.
J. Greeves then discussed the BTP for LLW Performar.ce Assessment. He provided the Committee with an advance copy c' the NUREG and said it would be signed out for public comment shortly. He noted that the staff is anticipating ACNW review at the October meeting.
M. Federline, NMSS, discussed the previous weeks' presentations on the HLW and PA programs to the Commission. She summarized the HLW program presentations and said that the staff discussed a number of important issues, including issue resolution, and the status of the TPA (Total System Performance Assessment) computer code. She said there was a need to shift to a more comprehensive approach for the 1998-1999 time frame to look at all facets of the program, not just the KTis, in preparation for license review. M. Federline said that the NRC Chairman was generally satis'ied with the progress of the program under reduced budgets. Ms. Federline stated that she dis-cussed the concem with budget reductions and the need to stop working on three KTis because of the reductions. She noted that the staff will reprioritize the issues on the basis of sensitivity studios and discussed the loss of PA capability due to the cuts.
7a
92nd ACNW Meeting 23 '
, May 20-22,1997 M. Federline then described tu PA program. She noted that they were in agreement with Dr. Garrick on the use of PA. She statcd that the Commission was pleased that the sJ!s developed for the HLW program are transferable to LLW and decommissioning.
She noted that the Commission was interested in the proposal that compliance for probabilistic analyses be based on the mean and the 95% confidence interval. She said the Commissioners asked if the DWM staff was interacting with the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on the issue. She stated that they will do so in the future She also stated that the Commission asked if they are able to maintain PA capability, and she noted the upcoming ACNW review in July.
M. Federline then described the DWM actions for the Radionuclides Transport KTi. She noted that ACNW's concem with this KTl was stated in a letter to the Commission. She indicated that the radionuclides transport work on dilution is continuing under another KTI, but that they had terminated the sorption work. She indicated that they did this because they thought DOE was not going to take any credit for sorption. Now that it appears that DOE is going to take credit for sorption, they will have to reprioritize. She also discussed ACNW's concem about coupled processes, testing for colloid transport at the Apache Leap Research Site, and the igneous activity KTI. With regards to igneous activity, she stated they plan to close out the issues, but will maintain some level of expertise for the SER and license review.
J. Greeves then discussed some issues with respect to greater-than-class-C (GTCC) waste for decommissioned reactor vessels. He discussed the Pacific Gas and Electric proposal for disposal of the Trojan resctor ve.sel, which contains more than 2 million Ci of activity, as LLW. If the intemal components are cut out, they would obtain 350 cu ft of GTCC waste. He said the activity is mostly from Co-60 and Fe-55, but the GTCC activity comes from the C-14, Ni-63, and Nb-94. The proposalis to ship the reactor vessel in one piece to the US Ecology LLW site in Richland, WA. The staff is evaluating the issue in light of the BTP on concentration averaging. He said the utility has essentially proposed an attemative criterion on packaging. J. Greeves noted that the Yankee Rowe vessel was shipped to the aamwell LLW site with the intemals removed.
1 i
92nd ACNW Muting 24 May 20-22,1997 John Austin, NMSS, provided an update on the task force for DOE oversight. He discussed NRC's letter to DOE transmitting the memorandum of understanding between the two agencies on regulating DOE and the staff requirements memorandum requesting a briefing of the Commission on June 30,1997. He also discussed the recent change in leadership at DOE and meetings with NRC. He noted that the task force is working
{ intemally on a number of issues, including the following: issues requiring legislative l action, a pilot program for gathering information on DOE facilities, a plan for stakeholder interactions, a framework for task force operations, the creation of Gantt charts of l activities, and the distribution of weekly status reports. J. Austin offered to put ACNW on the distribution list and the Committee concurred.
IX. Executive Session (Open)
(Richard Major was the Designated Federal Official for this part of tne meeting.)
A. Elections (Open)
Elections were held. Dr. B. John Garrick was elected Chairman of the ACNW and Dr. George M. Homberger was elected Vice Chairman.
B. Future Meeting Agenda (Open)
Appendix IV summarizes the proposed items endorsed by the Committee for the 93rd ACNW Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, July 23-25,1997.
C. Future Committee Activities (Open)
. There was no ACNW meeting in June 1997, likewise there will be no August 1997 ACNW meeting.
. The ACNW will hold its 93rd meeting on July 23-25,1997, at the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses in San Antonio, Texas.
92nd ACNW Masting 25
. May 20-22,1997 The ACNW will hold its 94th meeting on September 23-25,1997, in Las l Vegas, Nevada.
^
eulafnSuli~ svailM)(M putPcinspection at@c enf@ct cts dFd@e vitti:ns are c.
M'uthat F, information regarding 1: pics Commission's Public Document Room, consideredcollectively,escalat d e discussed.whether the meeting the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, enforcement action is wmented been cancelled or rescheduled, the NW., Washington, DC and at b local because cf b repetitive natum cf ths airusan's ruling on esquests for the public document room located et the violati:ns.
opportunity to present oral statements 1.marning Raeources Center, nroe Rivers On February 23,1995,the NRC and the time allotted therefor can be Community Technical College,New informed the Petitioner that the Petition obtained by contacting Mr. Richard K. I.endon Turnpike, Norwich, had been refered to the OfBee of Connecticut, as well as at b temporary , Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and that Major, Chief. Nuclear Waste Branch (telephone 301/415-7366),between a local public document room located at act i on would be taken within a C.m. and 5 p.m. EDT. the Waterford Library, ATIM Vinos reasonable time regarding the specinc ACNW meeting notices, meeting Juhano,49 Rope Ferry Road, Wataford, concemt raised in the Petition.
transcripts,and letter are now Connecticut. . _ NU responded to the NRC on May 12, {
1995, regarding the issues raised in the evallable on FedWorld m the "NRC A copy of b Decision willbe Blod MAIN MENU." Direct Dial Access with the Secretary of thec a==taaion Petition; the Petitioner submitted a number to FedWorld is (800) 303-9672; for the en==tani,='s review in response on July 11.1995, regarding the local direct dial number is 703-321 ecmrdance with to CFR 2.206(c) of the issues raised in the NU subtnittal.
en==tanlon'a regulations. As provided On October 14,1995, the Petitioner 3339. submitted a Petition requesting that the for by this regulation, the Decision will Dated: April 30* 1997' constitute the Anal action of the NRC take immediate enforcement action Commission 25 days aRer the date of consisting of famediate suspension of AN I ~8@/EC'- issuance unless the Commission, on its the licenses to operate the three units at the Millstone Station, and immediate IFR Doc. 97-1171F Filed M-97; a:45 aml own motion, institutes a review of the same sees sus ***-* Decisionin that time. imposition of the maximum daily civil Deted at Rockville, Maryland, this seth day Penalty allowed because of the oMPru 3m. numens mne an % h NUCLEAR REQULATORY For the Nuclear Regulatory em=-winn, violations committ by thelicensee COE58880N sinos early 1989. The NRC informed the i Seanumy.Cohe, Petitioner by letter dated November 24, <
goeehetNea.go.ees,e6 ass,a0 4231 mrector@@downose w 1995,that because his October 14,1995, nagulation. Petition did not contain any new Normeest Utilities; beilletone Nuoleer Power Staton, Unita 1,2, and 3; Direcsor's Decision Paramant to to CFR information but merely raised again the 2.206 same issues as in hh orevious Petition, tosuence of Director's Decielon Under his October 14,1995,' Petition would be 10 CFR 2.206 1. Introduction- considmed as an additimal supplement Notice is herob given that the Onnm,h 28,1994. Mr. 'Anth t{ J. s uary 15, W5, Mon.,
sector.OfEco ofNuclear Reactor Ross (Petitioner) Elod a Petition E. Discussion stegulation, has taken action with regard the Executive Director for Operations ti a Petition dated October 28,1994, as pursuant to Section 2.206 ofTitle to of 'Ibe Patitioner requested that supplemented January 15. February 8 the Code of Federal lations (1D CFR "nocelweted enforcement action"be and 20 and October 14,1995, submitted 2.206). By letter dated mber 15 taken against NU for violations at by Mr. Anthony J. Ross.The Petition 1994, the NRC informed the Petitioner Millstone involving procedun pertains to Millstone Nuclear Power that he had not provided a suf5cient comphance, work control, and tagging Statirn, Units 1,2, and 3. factual basis to warrant action under to control. As a basis for his request, the in tb< Petition, the Petitioner raised CFR 2.206.The NRC stated that if the Petitioner alleged that since August cena a s rey, tr,c iolations at the Petitioner wished the staff to take action 1993, violations in these areas had Millewe Sation avolving procedure under 10 GR 2.206, he needed to increased signincantly, that many of complianc.e. work control, and tagging provide more information describing the these violauons had nevw been control and requested that "eccolwated" specine technical violations that he . ** signed a severity level, and that wher.
enforcement action be taken against aueged the NRC had not adequately these violations are considered Northeast Utilities for these violations. addressed. By it,tters dated January 15, couectively with violations that had As grounds for this request,the February 8, and February 20,1995, the been assigned a severity level, escalsted Petttioner supplemented his Petition by enforcement action is warranted Petitioner asserted violations in these aree i had increased ogniBcantly, that submitting Ests of alleged violations. La because of the repetitive nature of the many cf these violations had never been ths Petition, the Petitioner requested., violations. In his October 14,1995, ass!gned a severity levelby b NRC, that " accelerated enforcement action supplement to b Poudon,h anttthr.t when these violations are be taken against Northeast Utilities (NU) Petitioner requested that the NRC for violatirms at Millstone 3 involving considered collectively, ==rwtated enforcement action is warranted Procedure comphance, work control. a no Patmoner also sented in ble ocieber t4.
acd tagging control. As a basis for his sees.Peution that, since man er the viaistans bed becauae of the repe.tve nature of the .heen enhetanusted by the NR laspectors and/or request, the Petitioner asserted that violations
- since Au st 1993, violations in these The Director of the Of5os of Nucioar areas ha increased signi$cantly,that g
e g g hg noiha g,s4_w g,,,,,3 g oig3 , g,,3, ,,,,,,, , ,,33 g,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,
Reactor Regulation has granted the many of these violatius had never been m Nnc e nepect. In tu November 34, twl loner.
Petition, in part. In other respects, the . ee NRC infonn ad b Peuueen that this asseruen Petition is denied. The reasons for this
- Nortbeen Nedeer Energy Casapesy (WNaCXV would be referred to the DIG. In addulen, in &ls det don an e IM in the limnese). an electric power opereung outsignary of loner, the Pettuanor's requem ter tramediate action Throctor's Decision t to 10 CFR Nu. bolds lienses ser she oPereuen of edilleiene we. dent.orma Petiusew's earuon er ==s6*c' hr b NRC was sehmd to es OlG.
206" (DD.47-11), the complete text of Nudear Power Suuom. Uans s.a. and 3.
k ..
24470 Fed:ral Register / Vol. 62 N2, 87 / Tusaday, May 6,1997 / Notices , , . ,
Alternatives to th> Pmposed' Action NUCLEAR REOULATORY c'te-epectSc Topical Saf;ty Analysis twaanmeemed Report (TSAR) for a CentralInterim Since the Commtamico has concluded Storeae Facility (CISF).
thm is no measurable environmental Advisory ComnWttee on Nuclear G. FederulGuidance Report 23-The fspect associsted with the proposed Weste; NoWoe of Meeting enmmittee willredew b Proposed action, any alternatives with equal or Federal Guidance Report 13 Health ter enviroamentalimpact need not De Advisoif C ommittee on Nucle Risk for Environmental Exposure to evaluated. As an alternative to the .#aste (ACNW) will hold its 92nd muting a May 20-22,1997,in Rum Radionuchdes (tentative).
H. Wasta Classificadon atHanford, bposed .of action, the staff the proposed corsidmd action. Denial of T-2B3, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Washington, and Savannah River, South the application would asultin no RockviDe, Maryland.
ee Carolino-%s Commitase willdiscuss change in cunent environmental 8 Pen to the warte classificationinethodology ub tne p actio alternati gou ,, W t estment ulk action an almuar. HLW removal and cleaning of tanks Tuesday, May 20 1097-4:30 a.m. until (tentative).
Alternative Use ofResources 6 Pa. 1. Preparation ofACNWReporto-%e Wednesday, May 21, !097- 4:?0 a.m. Committw wiu At=~na potential his action does not involve the use until 6 p.m.
rts including igneous activity cf any resourme not previously Thursday, May22,2997--8:30 a.m. m ed to the proposed Yucca Mountain considered in the Final Environmental until 4 pm. Repository, and othat topics d%=aad !
Statement for the Susquehanna Steam During this muting, b Committw during the meeting as b need arism. I Electric Station, Unit 2. plans to consider the following: O Committee Activities / Future Agencies and Persom Consulted A. Planningfor and Meeting with the Agendo-%e Committw will constder Nuclear Regulatory Conmtission-The topics propoeed for future considmtion ?
In accordance with its stated policy
- Committw will prepare for and meet by the full Committee and Working on May 1 1991 NRC staff consulted with the Comn@sion to dia ass items of Gro .The Committee will discuss with the Pennsylvania State ofBeial, R. mutualinterut. Topics will sclude the A related activities ofindividual Maim f the Pennsy1vanla Department ACNW priority list e.nd past Committe n embers.
cf Environmental Protection, rgarding sports on the refence biosphm and K M/scellaneous-Th6 Committee the environmentelimpact of the & A d tmp wiu discuss mbceDaneous mm proposed action. The State ofBcial had models for ucca Mountain, coupled slated to b conduct of Committw no comments. processes in NRC's high-level weste activities and organizational activities pmlicensing program, igneous activi and complete discussion of matters and Finding of No Signiacrat lamped at Yucca Mountain, and risk info ,
s eissues that were not completed performance based regulations. ne uring previous meetings, as time and Based upon the environmental Committee is cunently scheduled to availability ofinformation permit.
assessment, the Con 2 mission concludes meet with the Commission on May 20 Procedures for the conduct of and that the proposed action will not have 1997 at 2:00 p.m. . Participation in ACNW meetings wm a significant effect on the quality of the B.T,enerie Methodologyfor Published in the Federal Register on human environment. Acx:ordingly, the Decommissioning Perforrnance October 8,1996 (61 FR 528141. In Commission has determined not to Assessment (PA)-Therammittee wiu accordar.cs with these procedures, oral prepam an environmentalimpact review the use of PA in the ' or writtan statements may be presented statement for the proposed action. decommissioning of variour facilities. by members of the public, electmnic 2 For further details with twpect to the C. Meeting with NRC's Pfrector, recordings will bepermitted only proposed action, see the licensee's letter Division of west, Management, MSS._ during those portions of the meeting dated December is.1996, as The Committw willmold a current that are open to the nublic, and supplemented by lette dated Febmary nenu dheussin d b h a d questions map ask anly by NMSS. Topics might include the status members of tne Committee,its 26,1997, March 12 and 27. April 3,9, 16,18, and 24,1997, which am of work at the Yucca Mountain site, and consultants, and staff. Persons desiring high level waste standards and to make oral statments should notify available for public inspection at the regulations. the Chief, Nuclear Waste Branch, Mr.
Commianlon's P"blic Document Room. D. Meeting with Representative of the Richard K Major, as farin advance as The Gelman Building,2120 L Street. DOE and NRC-Theenmmittee will practicable so that ap riste NW., Washington, DC, and at b local meet with representatives of the arrangements can be ma to schedule public document room located at the Department of Energy and the NRC staff the neessaary time durh.g the meeting Osterhout Free Library, Reference to c11scuss DOE's performance Integrated for such statements. Use of still, motion Departm rat,71 South Fr=dh Street. . Safety Assesament (PISA), experience pictum, and television cameras during Wilkes. Barre, Pennsylvania 18701. with the use of expert elicitation in the this meeting will be limited to sekcted Deted et RockviDe. Maryland, this 2nd der h 6hlevel waste repository progism, portions of the meeting as determined of May 1997, and comments on the defense-in-depth py the ACNW Chairman. Information For the Eclear Raguhtory Commisslan. Philosophy. regarding the time to be set aside for this
. John F. Saela. E. Spent Fuel Dry Storage Focilities- purpose unay be obtained by contacting -
The Committee will review a draft the Chief Nuclear Wask Branch, prior Duvetor. Project Directorate J4. DMslon of vmion of the NRC staff's Standard Reactor Projects-FH. Offia ofNucleor to the meeting. In view of b possibility ReactorRapleon. Review Plan for a spent fuel dry storage that the schedule for ACNW meetings facility. may be edjusted by b Chairman as IFR Doc. 97-tis 6a FDod 5-5-67; 8.45 am) F. Centmilnterim Storoge facility- necessary to facilitate b conduct of b een oaos reen-eue The Committee will review DOE's non , meeting, persons planning to attend O
> . . 2 p:05
- 4) -2:00 - 3:30 P.M. (Meetine with the Commissi2Dm (Open)
Meet with the Commissioners in their conference room (OWFN) z g to discuss those issues outlined in item #3 above. l 3:30 - 3:45 P.M. * *
- BREAK * * *
- 5) 3:45 - 5:15 P.M. Preparation of ACNW Reoorts (Open)
Discuss possible reports on the following topics:
5.1) PA in site remediation/ decommissioning 5.2) Igneous Activity 5:15 P.M. Recess Wedi gsdsv. May 21.1997. Two White Flin! North. Room T-2B3.11545 Rockville Pike.
Rocic>111$_ Maryland
- 6) 8:30 - 8:35 A.M. [Ooeninn Remarks by ACNW Chairman (Open)(PWP/RKM)
// 5S
- 7) 8:35 - HbOO-NOON / Views on the Defense Ip.-deoth Aceroach (Open) (BJG/LGD)
A discussion with the Department of Energy on the defense in-
/ot.go io; 3,t gdepth philosophy for a high-level waste repository.
10:00 - te:t5 A.M. BREAK - S. Brocoum, DOE
- A. Van Luik, DOE
- J. Bailey, DOE II:SS E00 - 1:00 P.M. * *
- LUNCH * *
- 1:/D -
- 8) -hee - 2:30 P.M. / The Use of Exoert Elicitation in the Review of a HLW Reoositorv (Open) (PWP/ACC)
A discussion by representatives of the Department of Energy and the NRC staff on experience to date with the use of expert elicitation in the HLW repository program.
- S. Brocoum, DOE
- M. Lee, NRC 3:co (
- 9) 2:30 - MG P.M. J Proiect Intecrated Safety Assessment (PISA) (Open) (PWP/LGD)
A discussion with the DOE on the PISA which will be used to provide a site description that can be used to support compliance with the revised (DOE's) siting guidelines.
- C. Hanlon, DOE N
( 3D0 - 5I 7 3reak C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
N
- E 3.. $ ADVISORY UIlkE5tiTTEE oN NUCLE R WASTE e WASHINGTON. D.C. 20056 '
l Draft 2: May 16,1997 . .
I 1
Sebedule and Outline For Discussion 92nd ACNW Meeting May 20-22,1997 Tuesday. May 20.1997. Two White Flint North. room T-2B3.11545 Rockville Pike.
Rockville. Maryland 8:30 - 8:35 A.M. Openinn Remarks by the ACNW Chairman (Open) 1)
1.1) Opening Statement (PWP/RKM) 1.2) Items of current interest 9:55 8:35 - Mh00 A.M. Generic Methodology for Decommissioning Performance 2)
Assessment (Open) (BJG/HJL) This will be a generic presentation by the NRC staff on decommissioning performance i assessment methodology. The discussion will be decoupled from j any one specific site, (M. Thaggard, NRC). j 9:5T 16:00 - 10:15 A.M. * *
- BREAK * *
- l
- 3) 10:15 - 1:45 P.M. Preoare for the afternoon's meetinn with the Commission (Op:n)
(PWP/RKM)
Discuss possible topics and prepare background material for the >
meeting with the Commission, currently scheduled for May 20, 1997, from 2:00 - 3:30 p.m. Topics will include: !
3.1) Selected topics from ACNW's November 20,1996 Priority Issues (PWP/RKM) 3.2) Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation (BJG/ACC) i 3.3) Reference Biosphere Critical Group (BJG/HJL) 3.4) Flow and Radionuclides Transport / Coupled Processes (GMH/ACC-LGD) 3.5) Igneous Activity (WJH/LGD) la?20 1;45 4h00 - H+46-P.M. * *
- LUNCH * * *
( )enoI65 hmnscr bed ochon3, 1
i
,. . 4 l
- I; 12:30 - 1:30 P.M. * *
- LUNCH * *
- attor 12:2o
- 16) A.3G ,0.00 P.M. Comolete Preparations of ACNW Reoorts (Open)
-0.00 P.M. Adjourn
/4!.30 Presentation time should not exceed 50 percent of the total time
_ allocated for a specific item. The remaining 50 percent of the time is reserved for discussion.
- Number of copies of the presentation materials to be provided to the ACNW - 35.
3 . . . , ,
J;/7 H 31
- 10) HB - 5:00 P.M. Continue Preparation of ACNW Recons (Open) .
t 3 a - 5!cb Discussion of potential ACNW reports listed in item 5 and items reviewed earlier in the meeting.
H 3 4 4.'O
- 11) f:00 - 5:30 P.M. Committee Activities / Future Acenda (Open)(PWP/RKM) 11.1) Set agenda for 93rd ACNW meeting
' t.2) Re:.iew items for out months ii 3) Future working groups topics / dates
' . 4) Reconcile EDO responses to committee reports 11.5) Election of ACNW off- 4s St DO
-5,30 P.M. Recess Thursday. May 22.1997. Two White Flint North. Room T-2B3.11545 Rockville Pike.
Rockville Marvland g:op 9;.gs- Conf.'me AcdW RP b-
- 12) 660 - 8:35 A.M. Oneninn Remarks by ACNW Chairman (Open) 1:n- 8:45
-84G - W,00-A.M. DOE's Non-Site-Soccific Tonical Safety Analysis Reoort 13)
$NS- tot:5 M) for a Central Interim Storane Facility (CISF) (Open)
(PWP/HJL)
This discussion with the DOE will include CISF operations, design basis, and occupational radiation exposures.
- C. Kouts, DOE
- D. Kane, DOE l0:15 /0:30 16t00 - WM A.M. * *
- BREAK * * *
- 14) t0-tt- 11:30 A.M. NRC's Licensinn Process for Centralized Interim Storace (Open)
/b!Jo -l1: @ (PWP/HJL)
The NRC staff will present an overview of their planned licensing process and comment on DOE's CISF proposal.
- S. Shankman, NRC
- M. Raddatz, NRC
- 15) -H4t}- IMO P.M. Discussion with the Director. Division of Waste Mananement.
//t# is,if NMSS (Open)(PWP/ACC)
A current events session with the Director, topics might include:
15.1) Status of site characterization at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository 15.2) Status of EPA HLW Standards 15.3) Status of Pending Legislation 15.4) Update on the regulation of certain DOE facilities
,*'s Appendix lli 2 92nd ACNVV Meeting
' A May 21.1997 S. Wastler NMSS B. Ibrahim NMSS J. Firth NMSS R. Johnson NMSE M. Lee NMSS P. Justus NMSS R. Weller NMSS D. Brooks NMSS V. Colten-Bradley NMSS N. Eisenberg NMSS C. Lui NMSS J. Kotra NMSS M. Federline NMSS May 22.1997 C. Haughney NMSS S. Shankman NMSS M. Raddatz NMSS M. Waters NMSS P. Eng NMSS F. Sturz NMSS M. Delligatti NMSS J. Austin NMSS J. Davis NMSS R. Weller NMSS K. Stablein NMSS C. Jones NMSS S. Wastler NMSS R., Johnson NMSS ATTENDEES FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND GENERAL PUBLIC May 20.1997 R. Wallace USGS j F. Rodgers DOE ,
J. Russell CNWRA B. Gamble Booz Allen j M. Phillips LLNL/ DOE l R. Andersen NEI f
C. Hanlon DOE H. B. Finger Consultant -
self I
c'
, l APPENDIX lil: MEETING ATTENDEES
~
92ND ACNW MEETING MAY 20-22,1996 , ,
ACNW MEMBERS ist Day 2nd Day 3rd Day Dr. Paul W. Pomeroy X X X 1
Dr. William J. Hinze X X X {
Dr. George W. Homberger X X X l 1
Dr. B. John Garrick X X X ACNW Consultant:
Dr. Martin J. Steindler ACNW STAFF ist Day 2nd Day 3rd Day Dr. Andrew CampbelI X X X Ms. Lynn Deering X _X X Mr. Howard J. Larson X X X Mr. Richard K. Major X X X Dr. John T. Larkins X X X Dr. Richard P. Savio X X X Ms. Michele 5. Kelton X X X ATTENDEES FROM THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 20.1997 R. Neel NMSS J. Kennedy NMSS j J. Firth IMSS S. Nalluswami NMSS R. Codell NMSS M. R. Byrne INSS w
Appendix fil 3 92nd ACNW Meeting MayjP1.1997 S. Echols Winston & Strawn R. Wallace USGS S. Hanauer DOE T. Cotton JKRA A. Van Luik DOE L. Reiter NWTRB B. Gamble Booz Allen F. Rodgers DOE J. Katz BDM Federal A. Brownstein DOE J. York ASE R. Goffi Booz Allen J. Bailey TRW E. Kelly NFS R. Andersen NEI S. Crawford Self C. Hanlon DOE R. Yasek DOE J. Russell CNWRA J. Tanker Unknown G. Roseboom USGS (retired)
M. Phillips LLNL/ DOE May 22.1997 i S. Echols Winston & Strawn C. Kouts DOE R. Wallace USGS F. Rodgers DOE J. Russell CNWRA F. Gorschboth BDM ;
B. Gamble Booz Allen D. Kane DOE B. Eble M&O G. McDannel LMITCO/INEEL J. Iman DOE S. Hanauer DOE R. Andersen NEI S. Crawford Self E. Kelly NFS T. Mossman Booz Allen & Hamilton M. Phillips Self for LLNL/ DOE C. Hanlon DOE
c APPENDIX IV: FUTURE AGENDA The Committee agreed to consider the following during the 93rd ACNW Meeting, July 23-25,1997:
A full day's session will be devoted to reviewing the perfor-mance assessment (PA) capability of the NRC and CNWRA staffs.
This review will include discussions of both high- and low-level waste PA, as well as, the use of PA in site decommis-sioning management plan remediation efforts. The session will also focus on the use of PA in calculating the consequences of igneous activity on an high-level waste repository, on the use of PA in the prioritization process, and on PA integration into the overall regulatory process.
- A full day's session will be devoted to reviewing the use of probabilistic performance assessment approaches for waste management. The transition to risk-informed, performance based regulation will form part of the discussion. Represen-tatives from the NRC, CNWRA, DOE, and the nuclear industry will participate.
The ACNW will hear a description of science and engineering experiments currently in progrecs at the CNWRA.
- Preparation of ACNW Recorts - The Committee will discuss
~
~
potential reports, including igneous activity related to the l proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, and other topics discussed l during the meeting as the need arices.
- Committee Activities / Future Acenda -
The Committee will consider topics preposed for future consideration by the full Committee and Working Groups. The Committee will discuss ACNW-related activities of individual members.
- Miscellaneous - The Committee will discuss miscellaneous matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and organizational activities and complete discussion of matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit.
l
,- s Appendix V .
2 92nd ACNW Meeting
' Christopher Kouts, DOE, and Dan Kane, DOE, dated May 22,1997 14 NRC's Licensina Process for Centralized Interim Storaae
- 10. " Staff Review of the Centralized Interim Storage Topical Safety Analysis Report,"
presented by Charlie Haughney, Deputy Director, SFPO, Susan Shankman, Branch Chief, SFPO, Michael Raddatz, Senior Project Manager, SFPO, undated
[Viewgraphs)
I i
l I'
l
APPENDIX V LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE
[ Note: Some documents listed below may have been provided or prepared for Committee use only.
These documents must be reviewed prior to release to the public.) *
- MEETING HANDOUTS AGENDA DOCUMENTS ITEM NO.
2 Generic Methodoloav for Decommissioning Performance
- 1. " Status of Performance Assessment in Support of Decommissioning," presented by Mark Thaggard, Sr. Systems Performance Analyst (Hydrology), Division of Waste Management, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, d.Sted May 20,1997 -
[Viewgraphs) 7 Views on the Defense-in-Depth Aporoach
- 2. " DOE's Comments on Defense in Depth," presented by Stephan J. Brocoum, Assistant Manager, Licensing, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, DOE, dated May 21,1997 [Viewgraphs)
- 3. " Defense-in-Depth for the Repository, Engineered Barrier System," presented by Jack N. Bailey, Deputy Manager, Engineering & Integration Operations, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, DOE, dated May 21,1997 [Viewgraphs)
- 4. " Status of Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) Analyses in Support of the Viability Assessment," presented by Abe Van Luik, Yucca Mountain Site Character-ization Office, DOE, dated May 21,1997 [Viewgraphs) 8 The Use of Expert Elicitation in the Review of a HLW Repository
- 5. "Use of Expert Elicitation in DOE's High-Level Radioactive Waste Program,.
presented by Stephan J. Brocoum, Assistant Management, Licensing, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, DOE, dated May 21,1997 [Viewgraphs)
- 6. " Formal Use of Expert Elicitation in the High-Level Waste Program: Staff Observa-tions to Date," presented by Michael P. Lee, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, dated May 21,1997 [Viewgraphs) 9 Project Intearated Safety Assessment (PISA)
- 7. " Introduction to Project integrated Safety Assessment," presented by Carol A.
Hanlon, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, DOE, dated May 21,1997
[Viewgraphs)
- 8. " Total System Performance Assessment - Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA) Plan, prepared by TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc., dated September 13,1996, provided by Andrew C. Campbell, ACNW Staff [ Handout #1)
- 9. "ACNW/ DOE Meeting #1, Centralized Interim Storage Facility TSAR," presented by
l 3
l Appendix V 4
- 92nd ACNW Meeting
' J. Hinze, ACNW Member (Facsimile dated May 11,1997)
Subject:
Igneous Activity Letter, dated May 3,1997
Subject:
Igneous Activity, dated May 4,1997
- 19. Comments provided by Lynn Deering, ACNW Staff, to W. J. Hinze, ACNW Member, re Draft 1 Straw Man letter on Igneous Activity, dated May 2,1997
- 20. Memorandum from Andy Campbell, ACNW Staff, to Lynn Deering,
Subject:
Comments on Proposed Draft Letter on Igneous Activity, dated May 6,1997
Subject:
Comments on the Yucca Mountain Volcanism issues at the 91st ACNW Meeting, dated May 4,1997
- 22. Letter from Michael P. Ryan, U.S. Geological Survey, to Dr. William J. Hinze, ACNW Member, providing comments on volcanism as a result of the ACNW meeting session on volcanism, dated April 25,1997 [ Facsimile dated May 5,1997)
- 23. Note from Gene Roseboom, U.S. Geological Survey, to Bill Hinze, ACNW Members, providing comments on igneous activity, dated April 25,1997 [ Facsimile dated April 28,1997)
- 24. E mail from Eugene H. Roseboom, Jr., to William .l. Hinze, ACNW Member, providing additional comments regarding igneous activity, dated April 30,1997
[ Facsimile dated May 7,1997) 7 Views on the Defense-in-Dooth Approach
- 25. Status Report
- 26. "10 CFR Part 60 Technical Criteria and Total System Performance Assessment , ,
Comments Before the American Council on Nuclear Waste," viewgraphs presented !
by Charles Fairhurst, University of Minnesota, April 23,1997 8 The Use of Expert Elicitation in the Review of a HLW Repository
- 27. Table of Contents
- 28. Status Report
- 29. Letter from Paul W. Pomeroy, Chairman, ACNW, to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC,
Subject:
Comments on the Final Draft Branch Technical Position on the Use of Expert Elicitation in the High Level Radioactive Waste Program, dated August 30, 1996
- 30. Memorandum from Paul W. Pomeroy, Chairman, ACNW, for James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC,
Subject:
Staff Responses to the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste's Comments o the Final Draft Branch Technical Position on the Use of Expert Elicitation in the High-Level Radioactive Waste Program, dated September 26,1996
- 31.
- Branch Technical Position on the Formal Use of Expert Judgment in the High-Level 1 Radioactive Waste Program," NUREG-1563, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Kotra, J. P., Lee, M. P., Eisenberg, N.A., and DeWispelare, A.R., November 1996
- 32. Letter from John H. Austin, Chief Performance Assessment and HLW Branch, Division of Waste Management. NMSS, NRC, to Ronald A. Milner, Director of I Program Management and Integration, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
,,,y ,
Appendix V 3 92nd ACNW Meeting MEETING NOTEBOOK CONTENTS 18E NUMBER DOCUMENTS 1 Onenina Remarks by ACNW Chairman
- 1. Introductory Statement by the ACNW Chairman, undated
- 2. Items of Current interest, undated
- 3. Introductory Statement by the ACNW Chairman, Second Day, undated
- 4. Introductory Statement by the ACNW Chairman, Third Day, undated 2 Generic Methodoloav for Decommissioning Performance
- 5. Table of Contents
- 6. Status Report
- 8. Letter from Dade W. Moeller, Chairman, ACNW, to The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman, NRC,
Subject:
Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant Dismantlement, dated October 18,1989
- 9. Letter from Paul W. Pomeroy, Chairman, ACNW, to The Honorable Shirley A.
Jackson, Chairman, NRC,
Subject:
Comments on Streamlining the Site Decom-missioning Management Plan Program," dated September 28,1995
- 10. Viewgraphs presented at Joint ACRS/ACNW Subcommittee Meeting, " Overview of NRC's Decommissioning Program and Responsibilities," Division of Waste Management, March 1996
- 11. " Site Decommissioning Management Plan," NUREG-1444, Supplement 1, published November 1995
Subject:
November 26,1996 Briefing on Proposed Decision Framework for SDMP Site Analysis, By Paul Davis, Sandia National Labs (SNL), dated December 3,1996, w/ Attachments
- 13. NRC Draft Contractor Report, "A Decision Framework for Treating Uncertainty Associated with NRC Decontamination and Decommissioning Decision Making,"
dated January 17,1997 [ Prepared for Internal Committee Use]
3 Preparation for Meetina with the Commission
- 14. See separate notebook.
5 Preparation of ACNW Reports
- 15. Table of Contents
- 16. Draft letter to The Honorable Shirley Jackson, Chairman, NRC,
Subject:
Comments on the NRC Program to Predict Risk from igneous Activity at the Proposed High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Draft 2, prepared by Dr. William
O$ $
Appendix V 6 92nd ACNW Meeting 13 DOE'S Non-Site-Specific Toolcal Safety Analysis Reoort (TSAR) for a Central Interim Storace Facility (CISF)
- 45. Table of Contents
- 46. Status Report
Subject:
DOE Centralized Storage Facility (CISF), April 30,1997
Subject:
Fourth Meeting with the U.S. Department of Energy Regarding Submittal of Central Interim Storage Topical Safety Analysis Report, May 5,1997
- 49. Chapters 1,3,12 and 14 " DOE Centralized Interim Storage Facility Topical Safety Analysis Report," Rev. O, May 1,1997, 14 NRC's Licensina Process for Centralized Interim Storace
- 50. fable of Contents
- 51. Status Report
Subject:
NUREG-1567, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities:
Draft Report for Comment, October 1996
- 53. NUREG-1536, " Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems", January 1997
- 15. Meetina with the Director. Division of Waste Manaaement
- 54. Table of Contents
- 55. Status Report i
1 A " *
- d' .,
Appendix V 5 -
92nd ACNW Meeting l Management (OCRWM), DOE,
Subject:
Issue Resolution for Site Characterization Analysis Comment 3 and Other Open items Related to the Use of Expert Judgment, dated December 26,1996
- 33. Letter from John H. Austin, Chief Performance Assessment and HLW Branch, Division of Waste Management, NMSS, NRC, to Ronald A. Milner, Director of Program Management and integration, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), DOE,
Subject:
Implementation of NUh.5G-1563 in Expert Elicitation for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Program, dated December 31,1996
- 34. Letter from John H. Austin, Chief Performance Assessment and HLW Branch, Division of Waste Management, NMSS, NRC, to Ronald A. Milner, Director of Program Management and integration, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), DOE,
Subject:
Documenting and Disclosing Potential Conflicts of Interest in Expert Elicitation for the Geologic Repository, dated January 7,1997
- 35. " Repository Licensing Strategy and Related Topics," viewgraphs presented by Stephan J. Brecoum, Assistant Manager of Licensing Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, DOE, at the DOE-NRC Meeting, April 30,1997 9 Project Intearated Safety Assessment (PISA)
- 36. Table of Contents
- 37. Status Report
- 38. " Introduction to Project Integrated Safety A*_ fnent," viewgraphs presented by Carol Hanlon, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, DOE, at the DOE /NRC Management Meeting, April 30,1997 11 Committee Activities /Futurn Aaenda
- 39. Agenda for 93rd ACNW Meeting, July 22-24,1997, San Antonio, TX
- 40. Agenda for Out Months though November 1997
- 41. Reconciliation of Executive Director for Operations' Responses to Recent ACNW Reports (Reference Biosphere and Cntical Group issues and Time of Compliance for LLW Disposal Facilities)
- 42. Executive Director for Operations' List of Future Meeting Topics
- 43. Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Office M&O Meeting List
- 44. One Year Calendar of Events