ML20247R842

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Committee & Consultant Repts - 009

ML20247R842
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/30/1989
From:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247R836	List: ML20247R832 ML20247R839 ML20247R842
References
NACNUCLE, NUDOCS 8906070338
Download: ML20247R842 (15)

Text

r.--

. a. .e j ,l:'

(. . E,. '

[.:..

b ACNW COMMITTEE AND CONSULTANT REPORTS - 009 Submitted in Accordance with Sections 10 and 13 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 1

l l

April 1989 890607033D 890601 PDR ADVCM NACN'

'f99 ;)

l  :+

Pi ,

n;q - ,

lll 3:

I' ,

l. .

,.W

, C O'N T E N T'S-DATE 1-, , .I)l

SUMMARY

LETTER: 05/19/89 l 1 'II) ACNW' REPORTS.TO CHAIRMAN, NRC

1) : Moeller ltr to Zech,' Draft Technical Position 05/03/89 on Postclosure Sea'1s in an Unsaturated Medium-

. 2) Moeller ltr.to Zech, Proposed Waste Confidence 05/03/89 Decision by.the Waste Confidence Review Group

3) -Moeller ltr to Zech, Proposed' Commission Policy

~

05/03/89

-on Exemptions from Regulatory Control.

4) .Moeller ltr to Zech, Management of Mixed . -

05/03/89-Hazardous and Low-Level' Radioactive Wastes-

'(MixedWastes)-

i-4 r

._.,,---------.-.------a-uu-------..,-----,-,,---,,_-------

.{ ~ ,

. #,c acy%

~

UNITED STATES

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

$ - ADVISORY COMMITTEE oN NUCLEAR WASTE

[$ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666

/

• • "* May 19, 1989 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

NINTH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE, APRIL 26-28, 1989 The Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) held its 9th meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, on April 26.?8, 1989. A summary of actions is presented below.

REPORTS, LETTERS AND MEMORANDA The Committee completed letters on the following subjects:

1. Draft Technical Position on Postclosure Seals in an Unsaturated Medium

2. Proposed Waste Confidence Decision by the Waste Confidence Review' Group

3. Proposed Commission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control 4.- Management of Mixed Hazardous and Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Reports on the subjects noted above were sent to you on May 3,1989.

5. In response to an inquiry during the meeting with the Commissioners on April 27, 1989, Dr. Moeller completed a memorandum to Commissioner Curtiss on the Activities of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. A copy of this memorandum has been sent to you.

l

6. The Committee completed a memorandum to Mr. Victor Stello, Executive l Director for Operations, on ACNW Meeting Follow-up Items. A copy of l this memorandum has been sent to you.

l l

l' l

The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. May 19, 1989 OTHER ACTIONS, AGREEMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS AND REQUESTS Technical Position on Post Closure Seals in an Unsaturated Medium The Committee was briefed by the NRC staff on the borehole and shaft sealing conceptual design, the regulatory requirements that pertain to the seal design, performance requirements, performance confirmation testing, and the need for the Technical Position. The Comittee was also briefed on the proposed resolution of related public coments. The Comittee discussed the approach and adequacy of the guidance provided in the draft Technical Position and prepared a letter report to you.

Preliminary Findings of the Waste Confidence Review Group Dr. Moeller briefed the Comittee on the Working Group meeting on this topic ,

held on April 19, 1989. The Comittee discussed the review of waste confidence proceeding findings and provided a report to you. The draft finding is expected to be published in June for public comment. It is likely that it will be ready for the Comittee to revisit in November 1989.

Management of Mixed Hazardous and Radioactive Low-Level Wastes The Committee was briefed by the NRC and NUMARC staff on the management of mixed hazardous and low-level raoicactive wastes. Industries involved in low-level radioactive wastes disposal are claiming a burden due to the dual '

regulation of mixed waste by NRC and EPA. Comittee coments have been provided to you.

Status of the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) Review and the Production of I the Site Characterization Analysis (5CA)

Mr. Robert Browning, NMSS, stated that the Branch Draft SCA is scheduled to be completed by May 8, the Division Draf t SCA by May 22, and the final Office Draft SCA is scheduled to be provided to ACNW by June 2, 1989.

Exemptions from Regulatory Control The Comittee was briefed by the NRC staff on the proposed policy statement i on exemptions from regulatory control. The NRC staff discussed the current schedule for major policy improvements. The Comittee prepared a letter report.

I l

j

The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. May 19, 1989 On a separate topic, the Comittee was briefed by the NRC staff on procedures for handling petitions for disposal of radioactive waste streams which are

- below regulatory concern that qualify for expedited handling. Expedited handling means reviewing these rulemaking packages and having them ready for Comission approval in 7 to 12 months. The Comittee agreed to examine the first few expedited petitions on a trial basis. The Comittee will schedule briefings during the 60-day initial coment period, and again at 120 days following the public coment period.

Licensing Support System (LSS)

The Comittee was briefed by the NRC staff on the negotiated rulemaking and development of the LSS in support of the HLW repository licensing proceeding.

The LSS is expected to facilitate document discovery in advance of the license application. This was an information briefing only. No Comittee action was taken.

Future ACNW Activities The Comittee agreed to review the programs of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) in the near future. The Comittee does not plan to visit the Center anytime soon.

The Comittee reconfirmed its intention to visit the West Valley Demonstra-tion Project in October 1989.

The Comittee discussed the proposed schedule for conduct of rulemaking activities associated with the High-Level Waste Program for FY 1989. The ACNW expressed interest in participating in a number of the ongoing rule-ma kings. The Comittee requested that Mr. Blaha, Assistant for Operations, be advised of the Comittee's interest.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES The Committee agreed to the tentative future agenda as shown in Appendix A.

Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman 4

__________..____._______m___._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .

4 APPENDIX A FUTURE AGENDA 10th ACNW Meeting on May 11, 1989 Update on the Site Characterization Plan (0 pen) - The Comittee will be briefed on the status of the NRC review of the SCP and will review selected sections of the Branch Draft Site Characterization Analysis (SCA).

Final Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring (0 pen) - The Comittee will be briefed on the final technical position of environmental monitoring of LLW disposal facilities.

Comittee Activities (0 pen) - The Comittee will discuss anticipated and proposed Comittee activities,- future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.

lith ACNW Meeting on June 13, 1989 (tentative)

Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) (0 pen) - The Comittee will be briefed on the status of the NRC review of the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) and will continue its review of the SCA.

Comittee Activities (0 pen) - The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Comittee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.

12th ACNW Meeting on June 28-30, 1989 (tentative)

Waste Management Research Program and Strategy Plan (0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed on the HLW and LLW research programs, including the activ-ities of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses.

Status of Cementatious Waste Forms (0 pen) - The Comittee will be briefed on the status of cementatious LLW forms and the reporting of mishaps involv-ing LLW forms prepared for disposal, SECY-89-116, (H. Thompson).

Site Characterization Analysis (0 pen) - The Comittee will finalize coments on the SCA/SCP, if not completed on June 13, 1989.

Greater-Than-Class : Radioactive Wastes (0 pen) - The Comittee will be briefed on the DOE storage and disposal of Greater-Than-Class C radioactive wastes.

APPENDIX A <

13th ACNW Meeting on July 26-27, 1989 (tentative)

Meeting with the Comission (0 pen)

Performance Assessment (0 pen) -

The Comittee will be briefed on the NRC approach to . performance assessment and status of (internal) activities (NMSS/RES Memorandum of Understanding).

EPA Low Level Waste Standards (0 pen) - The Comittee will be briefed on radionuclides release standards for LLW disposal sites.

Status of NRC/ DOE Interactions on DOE Quality Assurance (0 pen) ,

14th ACNW Meeting on September 13-15, 1989 (tentative)

Retrievability Demonstration (0 pen) -

The Comittee will be briefed on the Technical Position on demonstration of retrievability during site characteri-zation.

Tectonic Models (0 pen) -

The Comittee will be briefed on the technical position on tectonic models.

l Data Availability (0 pen) - The Comittee 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 Comittee will be briefed by NRR on the licensing program for LLW han-dling systems, fuel compaction, decontamination and decommissioning. The Comittee will discuss any crossover issues with representatives of NMSS and the EDO.

l

~

M#

UNITED STATES 8' n g $

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

,, [ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066

%, +...+/

May 3,.1989 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

DRAFT TECHNICAL POSITION ON POSTCLOSURE SEALS IN AN UNSATURATED MEDIUM During its ninth meeting, April 26-28, 1989, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with members of the NRC staff to discuss the draft Technical Position on Postclosure Seals in an Unsaturated Medium. Represen-tatives from the U.S. Department of Energy were present at this meeting. We also had the benefit of the document. referenced.

On the basis of this review, we offer the following comments:

1. .The draft technical position does not deal adequately with factors such as seismicity, tectonics, and long-term changes in geology, hydrology, and climate that might affect seal or barrier performance. Long-term projections on the geology, seismicity, tectonics, and climate of the j Yucca Mountain area contain uncertainties and each of these factors l could have impacts on the design, location, and performance of the seals. For these reasons, we believe that the draft technical position needs to be expanded to explicitly address these considerations.

2. Backfill materials for shafts and seal cements for boreholes can be selected to have sorptive properties for radionuclides. Such materials would provide added protection against unanticipated events, even if no containment functions are assigned to the backfills and seals. We

! recommend that the draft technical position include a statement ad-dressing this additional consideration.

3. The draft technical position indicates that the outflow of radioactive gases from the repository could be significant and needs to be pre-vented. We believe that a rationale to support this position should be provided, as well as some perspective on the significance of this potential release.

4 Whether fracture or matrix flow predominates within the repository is an unresolved issue, and its resolution could have an impact on the method of control of potential releases. Because fracture flow may prove significant, its potential impact on the performance requirements for the barriers needs to be addressed in the draft technical position.

l

o

• t The Honorable Lando W. Zech,'Jr. May 3, 1989

5. It-appears that the closures that the U.S. Department of Energy proposes to install in the Yucca Mountain facility might be better characterized as " barriers" rather than " seals." If appropriate, the title of the

, draft technical position should be altered to reflect this fact..

The Committee wishes to express concern about the apparent . lack of response from the geological community to which the draft technical position was available for review. The NRC should consider implementation of a - more active program for soliciting reviews from such groups.

On the basis of our review, we believe that development of the draft techni-cal position is justified. We hope these comments will be helpful.

Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman

Reference:

Memorandum dated March 31, 1989 from John J. Linehan, NRC, to Richard K.

Major, ACNW,

Subject:

Transmittal of Draft Technical Position on "Postclosure Seals in an Unsaturated Medium" 1

i

__ ~___.__ _ _ . _ - . . _ _ . _ . . _ . - _ - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

~

[o ne i -

~%, UNITED STATES

!' - P' a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEA(i WASTE o -*

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006

%...../

May 3, 1989 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission >

l Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED WASTE CONFIDENCE DECISION BY THE WASTE CONFIDENCE REVIEW GROUP During its ninth meeting, April 26-28, 1989, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with members of the NRC Staff to discuss the preliminary draft of the proposed Waste Confidence Decision (see refer-ence) by the Waste Confidence Review Group. This matter was also a subject of discussion during a meeting held on April 19,'1989 by an ACNW Working Group.

On August 31, 1984, the NRC issued a final decision on what has come to be known as its " Waste Confidence Proceeding." The current review is an update of that assessment, and a significant feature in this latest review is the incorporation of the changes brought about hy the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of December 1987.

On the basis of our discussions on this matter, we offer the following coments:

1. We believe the present report appears to be technically sound, and in this assessment, we endorse both the expanded application of the generic approach to the majority of nuclear power plants and the incorporation into the proceedings of a more realistic timetable for the availability of a licensed repository and an extended time interval for the storage of spent fuel.

2. We continue to have concerns about the ability of the NRC staff to confirm that the repository complies with the probabilistic stan-dards developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The explanations given in the proposed Waste Confidence Decision on how p this is to be accomplished do not illuminate the process nor do they provide convincing arguments that it can be accomplished.

O

'+.,

e r The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. May 3, 1989 The report also needs organizational and editorial. changes to enhance o the ease with which it can be read and assimilated.

Sincerely,  !

Dade W. Moeller Chairman  ;

Reference:

u Memorandum dated April 17, 1989 from Robert M. Bernero, Director, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to Dade Moeller, Chairman, ACNW, transmitting Preliminary Draft of Waste Confidence Review Group Proposed j Waste Confidence Decision (PREDECISIONAL) i a

l l ,

9

_ _ - ____-___________a

~

pa %g"o UNITED STATES 8'~ "1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ n$* ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE o

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20m

% .... /

May 3, 1989

. The Honorable lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGLILATORY CONTROL During its ninth meeting, April 26-28, 1989, the Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with members of the NRC staff to discuss the proposed Comission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control. We also had the benefit of the document referenced. This matter was'also a subject for discussion at several of our previous meetings. We most recently comented to you on this matter on December 30, 1988.

As a result of our review, we believe the latest version of the proposed Policy Statement has successfully addressed a number of formerly unre-solved issues. Areas that still need to be strengthened and/or clari-fied are listed below:

1. The Policy Statement should state unequivocally that practices (including sources and devices) that are candidates for exemption should not, taking into consideration all such practices, result in an annual dose rate mrem (about 0.1 mSv) greater per year] than of thea long-term small fraction [i.e.,dose annual aboutlimit 10-

[100 mrem (1 mSv) per year] for individual members of the public.

Although this could mean that the dose rate from individual sources might approach 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year, suitable adjustments will need to be made where a given population group might be exposed to multiple sources.

2. Another important consideration, particularly in terms of releases of radioactive materials into the environment which represent an irretrievable action, is the associated longer-term dose comitment to the affected population. In essence, the proposed policy must take into consideration both the annual dose and the dose comit-ment.

3. We continue to believe that the permissible annual collective dose limit should be reduced as the allowable dose rate to members of the public from individual practices increases. We urge that this approach be made a part of the Policy Statement.

i.

.The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. May 3, 1989.

4. Although differences in the dose rates to members of the public from natural background sources can be used to provide perspective, we believe that such differences .should. not be used 'as s' justi-  ;

fication for setting dose rate limits for practices being con-sidered for exemption. The Policy Statement should be modified to reflect.this limitation.

Sincerely, k -

Dade W. Moeller l

Chairman-

Reference:

Memorandum dated April 13, 1989 from Bill M. Morris, Office of Nuclear  ;

Regulatory Research (RES), for Raymond F. Fraley, ACRS, transmitting Preliminary RES Draft of Proposed Commission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control 1

i l

I 4

i 4

h l

I

.l l

p aa:

+f

~

?['  %,

n

. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

(  ;! I$

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE I o,

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20EE6

%, . . . . . / q l

May 3, 1989 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

MANAGEMENT OF MIXED HAZARDOUS AND LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WA (MIXEDWASTES)

During its ninth meeting, April 26-28, 1989, the Advisory Committee of.

Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with members of the NRC staff and representa-tives from the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) to discuss the current status-of the development of procedures for licens-ing facilities for the disposal of mixed wastes. This matter has also been discussed during meetings held by the Committee in calendar year 1988.

As you know, the U.S. Congress has assigned dual jurisdiction for the regulation of mixed wastes to the NRC and the Era v nnmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, representatives of these two agencies have met on a regular basis over the past several years in attempting to resolve the problems caused by dual jurisdiction and to develop a common approach toward regulation. Unfortunately, for various reasons, these meetings have not resulted in full resolution of these problems, while at the same time mixed wastes continue to be generated and various groups are developing plans to submit applications for licensing dis-posal facilities for such wastes.

On the basis of these observations and our latest discussions on this matter, we offer the following comments.

1. It should be possible to resolve the problems caused by dual jurisdiction. For example, existing agreements between NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on the regulation of occupational health and safety at nuclear power plants, and between NRC and the Department of Transportation on matters relating to the transportation of radioactive materials, could serve as models for developing a joint agreement between NRC and EPA. Direct discussions between the NRC Chairman and the EPA Administrator could help bring this subject to closure. We urge that consideration be given to this approach.

2. During our meeting, we learned that most organizations knowledge-able in this field have concluded that any facility that meets NRC's regulatory requirements for the disposal of low-level radio-active wastes is capable of meeting the EPA criteria for the disposal of hazardous (nonradioactive) wastes. This conclusion

C The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. -2' May 3, 1989 could serve as a basis for the development of a joint NRC-EPA statement for regulating such wastes.

3. This matter is of sufficient importance that the NRC resources being directed to its attention should be increased. We were told that the projected effort for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 is at a level of 0.5 FTE. We believe this is inadequate.

4. Many groups (NRC, EPA, NUMARC, and the Department of Energy) are addressing the problems related to the disposal of mixed wastes, and, although most of the related issues appear to have been identified, several appear to have been overlooked. These include the development of specific guidance for the regulation of hazardous wastes that contain naturally occurring and accelerator-produced. radioactive materials and of hazardous wastes that contain greater-than-Class-C low-level radioactive wastes.

These matters need to be addressed.

It is our conclusion that the problems associated with the development of a joint NRC-EPA regulatory approach for licensing facilities for the disposal of mixed wastes are primarily institutional. We hope that these comments will serve as a stimulus for the development of ap-proaches for resolving theso problems.

Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman l

t

!- - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - - - - . - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - - -