ML20214A580
| ML20214A580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/23/1987 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2491, NUDOCS 8705190505 | |
| Download: ML20214A580 (36) | |
Text
"
\
l
+
hb$$~Ah
}& 5ll$$?'
,eu.mppw?? p7y7p *
.1 i h CERTIFIED MINUTES j- [g'g
. DATE ISSUED: April 23,1987
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES f THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE PEETING r WASTE MANAGEMENT FEBP ARY 19-20, 1987
' SSHINGTON, D.C.
Purpose:
The ACRS Subcommittee on We ce Management met on Thursday and Friday, February 19-20, 1987 at 1 .7 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. to review the following pertinent nuclear waste management topics:
- 1. Rulemaking for ,he definition of high level waste (HLW)
- 2. HLW Geolooic epository performance allocation
~
- 5. Implementation of the HLW Five Year Plan
- 6. Hydrology of geologic repositories (domestic and international programs)
- 7. NRC's waste package corrosion research program
- 8. Guidance documents for low level waste (LLW) Shallow Land Burial (Standard Review Plan, and Standard Format and Content Guide),
- 9. Long range plans for LLW Program through 1993.
The order cf discu:sion of these topics followed the Proposed Schedule l
and Outline for Discussion, Revision 2, February 13, 1987.
h bff/5Djft h~ i 5l/h lif R h
ji h a pf
y f NkOI $s5 070423 ACRS-2491 PDR DESIGUMED ORICUTAL bMk'4%ee$rc,m t
W m 4 11 mi L
US
'ttertifica ny /
7.M-a _
. s
.L ', ,
Minut:s/ Waste Management 2 February 19-20, 1987 The entire meeting was open to the oublic. Mr. Owen S. Merrill was the Cognizant ACRS Staff Member for this meeting. Dr. D. W. Moeller, Chairman, ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee, was in charge and conduct-ed the meeting. A list of documents provided to the meeting attendees is included as Attachment 2, and the original Attendance List is includ-ed as Attachment 3.
Attendees: Total - 53 ACRS Members - 5 NRC Sta#f - 23 D. Moeller S. Coplan, NMSS F. Remick D. Fehringer, NMSS M. Carbon P. Brooks, NMSS P. Shewmon S. Wastler, NMSS C. Mark J. Voglewede, NMSS T. Mo, NMSS ACRS Consultants - 5 D. Galson, NMSS A. Bender, NMSS F. Parker J. Linehan, NMSS K. Krauskopf J. Bunting, NMSS .
W. Kastenberg M. Knapp, NMSS R. Dillon- T. Johnson, NMSS M. Steindler J. Shaffner, NMSS L. Pittiglio, NMSS ACRS Staff - 2 T. Verma, NMSS R. Grill, RES J. McKinley M. McNeil, RES
-*' 5. Booy, RES S. Parry T. McCartin, RES C. Sun R. Kornasiewicz A. Tabatabai 1 Others - 13 Sandia National Labs - 2 l l
R. Cranwell !
R. Guzowski Meeting Highlights:
- 1. Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste - D. Fehringer (Handouts I
- -- w y
. i
- Minutes / Waste Management 3 February 19-20, 1987 No. 1, 2 and 8)
Dr. Fehringer said that an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on this topic was in preparation for publication very soon in the Federal Register. The purpose of this effort is to revise the definition of HLW in 10 CFR Part 60 to conform to the definition of the HLW in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). He said the two key phrases in the NWPA definition are, "in sufficient concentration" and
" requires permanent isolation," and that the current definition is source-based, not risk-based. A risk-based definition would be based on the characteristics of the wastes and their associated risks, which would improve the match between wastes and disposal facilities.
Dr. Fehringer emphasized that a more precise definition of HLW is needed to:
(1) Identify the need for waste generators to enter into contracts for transfer of HLW to 00E.
(2) Allow DOE to plan for receipt of wastes.
(3) Determine which of the NRC's regulatory requirements apply to specific types of wastes.
Dr. M. Steindler made the point that NRC did well in classifying Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) as A, B or C, but they "came apart" when they tried to define HLW.
Minutes / Waste Management 4 February 19-20, 1987 Dr. F. Parker pointed out that the Swi s have an excellent and totally risk-based system, NAGRA (Nationale Genossenschaft fur die Lsagerung Radioactive Abfalle), with which the NRC Staff was unfamiliar. Dr.
Parker recommended that they should look into it.
Dr. Fehringer indicated that their definition of HLW proposes a 4-quadrant system which he described and discussed. (Seehishandout and transcription of his remarks for this description and the ensuring discussion).
When asked by Dr. Kastenberg about the inclusion of societal impacts --
as on an aquifer -- and economic impacts, Dr. Fehringer said they prefer not to include these factors in the definition.
Dr. Fehringer called to the attention of the Subcommittee a list of 9 issues on which public coments are particularly sought (see pages 24 and 25 of handout number 8, Draft ANPR,10 CFR Part 60, Definition of "High-Level Radioactive Waste"). A draft letter comenting on these topics was prepared by the Subcommittee for full Comittee consideration during its 323rd meeting, March 5-7, 1987. The Subcomittee also indicated to the Staff that they want to review this topic again after public coments have been received and evaluated by the Staff.
- 2. HLW Geologic Repository Performance Allocation - P. Brooks and S.
Coplan(HandoutNo.3)
. i
' Minutes / Waste Manag? ment 5 February 19-20, 1987 P. Brooks gave an overview of this topic, discussing the following in some detail:
(1) Why performance allocation (P/A) is needed.
(2) What is performance allocation?
.(3) DOE's planned approach to performance allocation She then gave a hypothetical example of the use of performance allo-cation relative to a potential release of radionuclides into the sur-rounding environment, taking into consideration the following factors:
1
- 1. Containment time of the waste package / canister
- 2. Radionuclide release rate
- 3. Post-closure groundwater travel time (in an unsaturated zone)
- 4. Compliance with EPA standard She discussed the fact that consideration of these factors, including the performance and target and confidence level for achieving each of these targets, leads to the establishment of a test program to provide data for the determination of the overall performance goal and the ,
desired confidence level.
Regarding DOE's planned approach, which is now an integrated system approach, Ms. Brooks cited DOE's Draft Mission Plan Amendment, particu-larly that portion dealing with the Issue-resolution strategy (see Figure A-2 on 10a of Handout 3). She said that this strategy includes, initially, the identification of issues and setting licensing strategy
. i Minutes / Waste Management 6 February 19-20, 1987 followed by performance allocation for (1) the identification of perfor-mance measures, (?) setting performance goals, and (3) setting " indica-tions of confidence." And, as mentioned above, this procedure leads to a testing strategy and program for providing the necessary information to resolve (and document) the pertinent issues.
Dr. F. Parker noted that one of the main problems is how to assign allocation to man-made barriers without knowing all about the site; hence the site must be characterized first. Dr. Moeller noted that the performance allocation must be set as early as possible, performance goals must be proven by testing,and that the final goal and confidence level must be consistent. Other highlights of this discussion-were noted by Dr. Moeller as follows:
- 1. Although there are no " standard procedures" for balancina the conservatism needed to account for uncertainties, it must nevertheless be done.
- 2. There is a need for the validation of DOE computer codes for assessing the performance of a repository.
- 3. There are two major factors in assessing repository perfor-mance: (1) When does leakage occur, and (2) How rapidly do the radionuclides move into the environment after leakage occurs, to which Dr. J. Parry added a third factor i.e., (3)
What constitutes leakage?
- Minutes / Waste Management 7 February 19-20, 1987
- 4. Every time ycu have to relax one of the goals set for a given barrier, this action will appear as a " failure" to the public -
and will therefore draw much public comment.
- 5. The above-cited Figure A2 (see page 10a of Handout No. 3) does not include a feedback or comment loop regarding performance allocation.,
- 6. One of the problent with this approach is how to define high, medium or low confidence in a given measurement.
- 7. Regarding the allocation of goals for individual barriers and systems, you can either (1) keep them all lenient so you won't be embarrassed by exceeding any of them, or (?) keep then all so tight that, even if any of them are exceeded', something else can take up the slack. A site using the first approach would probably be rejected. But using the second approach may be too stringent.
- 8. The SCP submitted by DOE (March 4, 1987) will identify the barriers and the goals for each barrier.
No Subcommittee action was taken regarding this topic insofar as the preparation of a written draft comments; oral comments and the dis-cussions were deemed adequate as this presentation was principally for information.
e 9
- Minutes / Waste Management 8 Februa ry 19-20, 1987
Dr. W. Kastenberg (ACRS Consultant - See Handout No. 4)
Following the 320th ACRS meeting, December 11-13, 1986, A. Newsoin of ACRS wrote a letter to ACRS Consultant Dr. W. E. Kastenberg, dated December 17, 1986 requesting him to evaluate a Draft Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) report entitled, " Techniques for Determining Probabilities of Events and Processes Affecting the Performance of Geologic Repositories" (NUREG/CR 3964/ SAND 86-0196), dated March 19P6.
The basis for this evaluation was to be the 40 CFR Part 191 (Final Rule), EPA Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes Final Rule (50 FR 38066, September 19,1985). The objective of the evaluation was to determine if the SNL approach is sound and if the methodology is appropriate.
Dr. Kastenberg's report and his presentation during this meeting are contained in Handout No. 4. Some of the highlights of this report are:
- 1. EPA's Standards are probabilistic
- 2. The SNL approach is a reasonable first step
- 3. The SNL methodology seems appropriate, but more consideration needs to be given to the following key issues:
(1) determing probabilities (2) determining uncertainty (3) communication of results with respect to regulatory
- Minutes / Waste Managemen2 9
' February 19-20, 1987 compliance (4) " reasonable expectations" (5) no formal methods for screening out certain scenarios
- 4. Regarding 3 (4) above, the words, " reasonable expectation,"
were used to make licensing possible, because no guarantees can be made over the projected repository lifetime of 10,000 years. NRC prefers and uses " reasonable assurance" which has the same objective, but denotes a somewhat different meaning.
- 5. With the uncertainties in scenarios, models and parameters, the NRC Staff will have to tell how they will approach the problem of assessing whether DOE has demonstrated compliance with the EPA Standards.
- 6. It is premature to say whether the SNL approach can determine compliance? What is needed are:
(1) agreed-upon methods for expert opinion (2) agreed-upon methods for data base (3) formalism for screening (4) quantification (propagation / aggregation) of uncertainty
. (5) representation / communication of risks Dr. R. Cromwell of SNL responded to Dr. Kastenberg's report and presen-tation. His principal points were as follows:
-' Minutes / Waste Management 10 February 19-20, 1987
- 1. The SNL report. represents about a decade of development work, but they were requested to keep the report short and concise.
They do have other reports that go into greater detail on their sensitivity and uncertainty analysis techniques.
i-
- 2. He agreed with Dr. Kastenberg's stated need for numbers (probabilistic values) for scenarios or events to generate I
CCDFs.
- 3. There is a systematic method for scenario development, but is it universally accepted? Is rulemaking needed here as a possible way of handling it?
1
- 4. NRC and DOE will ultimately agree on a set of 5 to 10 accident scenarios that will be used in evaluating the repository, but they first must agree on the methodology to develop the scenarios.
- 5. NRC has a companion document to guide them on handling uncertainties. Sandia outlined their procedures for evaluat-ing and confirming the computer codes they will be using.
- 6. Questions yet to be answered -- How does the repository change with time? How do various events alter its performance? Or even its characteristics?
_Minutss/Wasta Manag: ment 11 February 19-20, 1967 S. Coplan stated that the SNL report was prepared shortly after the EPA Standards were issued. By so doing it helped the NRC Staff to understand EPA's concept. He acknowledged that the report has certain soft spots, and indicated that focusing on uncertainty analysis can be useful..
Dr. Bender gave a presentation on the LSS, a DOE electronic informa-tion / record management system currently under development by the NRC.
He followed the handout closely, first giving a historical perspective on the need for such a system followed by a discussion of the issues to be handled by the system, major technical challenges, the current status of the system, what it does, how to build a data base, etc.
The principal points discussed were:
- 1. NRC's current system is a transitional LSS or TLSS since it is
- currently using magnetic storage; the LSS will use laser disc storage.
- 2. Text books will not be included, but if all applicable NRC and DOE documents are included, this will be a major step forward.
- 3. The LSS, as its name implies, will be used in the licensing process and is intended to provide " instant" retrieval of any page of any document in the system on a " full text" basis
Minutes / Waste Management 12 February 19-20, 1987 including figures, graphs, etc. Its principal intended use will be in the legal " discovery" process during licensing hearings.
- 4. Two laser storage discs are capable of storing several million documents.
- 5. NRC's iritial development cost on the LSS was only $300,000,
- 6. All participating parties, NRC (Staff, Licensing Board, Appeals Board, etc.) DOE, States and Indian Tribes, will have access to and use of this system, the cost to be paid by DOE out of the Nuclear Waste Fund. An interagency advisory committee comprised of representatives of the above parties, will provide guidance on the development policy, use, etc., of the LSS.
- 5. Implementation of HLW Five Year Plan -- S. Coplan (Handouts No. 6 and 7)
Dr. Coplan reviewed the HLW 5-year plan's objectives and approach, and discussed the status of implementation of the plan, focusing on an ongoing planning activity -- the resolution of compliance demonstration issues. The latter is primarily a matter of early identification and prioritization of open items, and the development of mechanisms to focus development of guidance and NRC/ DOE interactions on the formal closure of open items. He said their approach to implement this plan is to
-. - - - ~ _
Mirtutes/ Waste Management 13 February 19-20, 1987 develop a complete set of work plans to cope with the open itens in an effort to bring them to closure.
Some of the discussion highlights were:
- 1. The principal motivation or purpose behind this effort is to support the NRC Staff licensing review capability.
- 2. The plan's implementation is a proactive effort focusing on the early identification of problems and licensing decisions (each having a work plan,'with full interaction with States,
]
Indian Tribes, etc.,
- 3. John Linehan stated that the 5-year delay in the DOE mission plan will not affect NRC's 5-year plan. The 5-year plan reflects DOE's response to NRC's concerns and will permit the pre-licensing program t, proceed in a more orderly manner.
This delay will also allow DOE to put in place a good QA program prior to collecting data. Also, the NRC needs to know how DOE plans to use the time. According to the amendment, it is DOE's intention to have an MRS in operation to accept waste in 1998; the repository was to have started accepting waste then, but that has been delayed to 2003. In spite of all of the above, the schedule is still tight.
- 6. Hydrology Programs -- Domestic and International -- W. Ott
- Minutes / Wast 2 Management 14 February 19-20, 1987 6A. Groundwater Flow in a Saturated Fractured Media -- D. Chery (Handout No. 11)
D. Chery presented material on the NRC hydrology program that is underway under contract with In-Situ, Inc. He said that the main purposes of the study are:
(1) To provide the NRC with research products which may support and/or confirm the basis for certain specific staff technical positions, and (2) To provide a capability sufficient to evaluate DOE documents related to groundwater flow and transport in saturated fractured rocks in which high-level radioactive waste might be stored.
.l He then delineated and discussed 7 study tasks and 4 major task areas which are given in the 4th and 5th pages of Handout 11. The essence of this program is that the contractor is doing theoretical and modeling i
studies in parallel to achieve the purposes stated above. The unique feature about this work is that the same thing has been done previously but in this program they are intercomparing various models to determine l
which one or ones work best. The internationel program, HYDROCOIN (Hydrologic Cc;e Intercomparison Study), shows that the models need further confirmation.
l l
Minutes / Waste Management 15 February 19-20, 1987 I
- 68. Groundwater Flow and Transport Methodolooy in an Unsaturated Fractured Media -- T. Nicholson (Handout No. 12)
T. Nicholson discussed this work which is being perforned by contract to the University of Arizona (UAZ), and which will apply to Yucca Mountain.
He said that its purpose is to evaluate unsaturated flow and transport methodology, with emphasis on precision and accuracy of measurement methods. It covers precipitation, infiltration, deep percolation, vapor loss, etc., and includes the unique aspects of vapor transport, temperature gradients and negative water potentials. Mr. Nicholson presented a matrix (Handout 12) which illustrated the extent and breadth of this work.
Some of the aspects of this work which were stressed were:
(1) Fracture Characterization - UAZ is developing a 3-dinensional fracture generator (2) Water content - neutron moisture maters have been used in saturated media, but not in unsaturated redia (3) Covered instrumentation is being used to measure (a) water content,(b)waterpotential,(c)liquidpermeability,and(d) air permeability (4) In order to provide a 3-dimensional model of the underground volume, they have to drill a borehole at a 45 degree angle.
Minutes / Waste Managenent 16 February 19-20, 1987 Studies show that air flow in fractures may be upward to the ground surface (5) Vapor phase trarsport is important for carbon-14 (produced by n-p reaction on nitrogen in the spent fuel cover gas)
(6) Whereas DOE is site specific in addressing the Yucca Mountain site, NRC is addressing the fundamentals. NRC is not so interested in the instruments per se, but in obtaining good i
data 6C. Hydrological Modeling Research -- J. Randall (Handout No. 13)
J. Randall discussed the hydrological modeling research program, which is directed primarily toward tuff and basalt media. He said that the Sardia National Laboratory (SNL) is doing research on methodology for risk assessment. And, as in 6B above, DOE is doing engineering development work, whereas NRC's effort is on research.
Mr. Randall followed the handout rather closely in his presentation, giving a summary of the computational task and discussing the following codes:
(1) SWIFT (Sandia Waste Isolation Flow and Transport),
(2) NWFT(NetWorkFlowandTransport),
(3) DNET (Dynamic Network),
(4) BASALT
Minutes / Waste Management 17 February 19-20, 1987 (5) SWIFT II (SWIFT modified for fractured media idealized as dual i
porosity media), i
. (6) NEFTRAN (NWFT modified for dual porosity fractured media),
(3) For Unsaturated Welded Tuff TOUGH [ modification of LBL program MULK0M (nulticomponent simulator]
Others are being considered, but none have TOUGH's versatility. The principal factors regarding this program are:
4 (1) There is no consensus in the technical community on how the movement of water and the transport of contaminants should be modeled in unsaturated fractured media.
J (2) SNL says that the transport of radionuclide in air or water vapor will be small compared to the transport in liouid water and, although UAZ's position on this issue is somewhat
" softer," both agree that SNL's effort should be on modeling transport in liquid water.
(3) Experiments to t.chieve resolution of the issue of modeling water movement and contaminant transport in unsaturated
' fracture media are being conducted by the University of New Mexico under a SNL contract, field experiments are being done by UAZ, and UAZ is doing laboratory visualization experiments for both water movement and contaminant transport.
1
. Minutes / Waste Management 18 February 19-20, 1987
- 60. HYDROCOIN (Hydrologic Code Intercomparison Study) -- T. McCartin Handout No. 14)
Dr. McCartin explained that the purpose of this international coopera-tive program is to obtain improved knowledge of the influence of various strategies for groundwater flow modeling on the safety assessment of radioactive waste disposal. Nations who comprise the group involved in this study include USA (NRC and DOE), France, U.K., F.R.G., Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden and Finland.
He discussed the three levels of effort in this program:
Level 1: Verification -- to verify the numerical accuracy of the groundwater flow programs Level 2: Validation -- to validate the capabilities of different groundwater flow models i Level 3: Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis -- to examine the influence of groun &ater flow simulation by incorporating various physical phenomena Dr. F. Parker stated that, beyond groundwater modeling, the NRC should also get involved in the international cooperative effort on biological or biosphere modeling (biomods) and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) studies in this area. And it was announced that there will be a
1 Minutes / Waste Management 19 February 19-20, 1987 HYDROCOIN meeting in Washington, D.C. during the week of the Memorial Day Holiday, May 25, 1987.
- 7. NRC's Waste Package Corrosion Program -- M. McNeil (Handout No. 15)
M. McNeil reviewed the DOE vs. the NRC programs to give the subcommittee a status report. He reviewed the waste package material choices for the 3 media -- tuff, basalt and salt. His principal points are summarized below.
What is DOE doing that NRC should also be involved in?
l (1) Welds, regarding hydrogen embrittlement (DOE has a major program underway on this topic). Can the final weld be heat treated and stress relieved? Since embrittlement occurs at low temperature, soft material is used since it has low stresses. Screw caps were once considered, but not now.
(2) Modeling of stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in carbon steels (DOE has a program underway here also)
(3) Integrated effects and scaling -- Scaling from a 3" to a 6" pipe can be important and difficult 1
l (4) Bimettallic containers -- How do you assess them? '
Subjects not being covered by DOE l
l
Minutss/Wasta Management 20 February 19-20, 1987 (1) Mass transport in mineral salts (2) Biocorrosion (bac,llis) could be a problem (3) Statistical Variability of corrosion Dr. Dillon expressed major concern about the following generic issues on appraising a corrosion program.
(1) Experimental design -- selecting variables to be considered (2) Simulation tests -- there is a need for such tests to support parametric tests (3) Other corrosion -- are there some corrosion processes that should be considered that have not been? He said that we must be sure that all the processes that may take place are being considered.
- 8. LLW Guidance Documents -- Standard Format and Content (SFC)
(NUREG-1199) and Standard Review Plan (SRP) -- M. Knapp, L.
Pittiglio and T. Jnhnson (Handouts No. 16 Dr. Vnapp f r.troduced the sutiect, and L. P. Higho presented a summary of NRC's work on the licensing of LLW disposal facilities. This was followed by an illustrative example of a site to be evaluated, presented by T. Johnson.
L. Pittiglio's and T. Johnson's presentations closely followed the i
material presented in the handout. The highlights of the discussion follow:
~ '
Minutes / Waste Management 21 February 19-20, 1987 (1) Both documents were prepared to meet the requirements of the LLRWPAA of 1985 and both documents were patterned after similar documents for the review of nuclear power plants.
Similar guides are being developed for the Environmental Report.
i (P) The SRSP is a loose-leaf type document and therefore capable of convenient modification and revision, as required. Both documents will be revised annually.
(3) Both documents need to be revised to cover below ground vaults and earth mounded covers. Alternative disposal methods will be covered in the revisions.
(4) The SFC tells what is covered in the SRP. Both' documents have
- basically the same Table of Contents, but both lack an Index.
4 (5) Dr. Moeller comented that environmental monitoring was l
- covered in many sections of the report, but that there was no index to use in locating the various places where it appears.
He also said that he felt the degree of detail in both reports was too great.
4 (6) Dr. Mark said he felt the documents were too complicated; that they should be simplified. lie also asked:
(a) why the applicant is required to calculate the l probability of a perched aquifer, w y v - -
-s ,-. e- e , - -r- - ~ - - - .,-o-w- w - ,. ~~,--~w --- ~ w~,-m ----a, - -~- e-
Minutes /Wasta Management 22 February 19-20, 1987 (b) regarding the procedures for sampling, preservation, storage and detectable _ limits (which must be accept-able to the " technical community" -- a term which needs to be defined).
(7) Dr. Mark also stated that:
(a) the buffer zone needs to be defined (b) the term " approximate distance" at which earth-quakes are to occur should be more specific (8) Dr. Mark and Steindler posed questions:
(a) How does this docurrent compare to EPA's requirements for a toxic waste disposal facility?
(b) How can a projection of waste volume to be received each Jar be done?
(9) Dr. Parker commented on the following issues:
(a) Pertneability of earth cover vs. facility liner (b) Filling voids between containers -- what about placement of containers within the hole (facility)? !
(c) The use of radiation criteria contained in ICRP-30 vs. 10 CFR 61 l
J
Minutes / Waste Management 23 February 19-20, 1987 (10) T. Johnson commented on the hydraulic engineering surface drainage and erosion protection, covered in Section 6.31 of the SRSP. He stated (and Dr. Moeller noted) that verifying the radioactive and toxic chemicals contents of the waste could be a tremendous technological job and could involve high collective doses.
(11) The goal for a LLW disposal site is protection of the public health and safety for 300 to 500 years - the estimated lifetime of the wastes.
T. Johnson's illustrative ex; ample of a site to be evaluated using the SFC and the SRP was a uranium mill tailings pile that was to be moved to a completely new site.
During the Executive Session, the Subcommittee prepared draft comments (reflecting the above and other observations regarding the SFSC and the SRP) for ACRS consideration during its upcoming 323rd meeting, March 5-7, 1987.
- 9. LLW Long Ranoe Plan -- M. Knapp (Handout No. 17)
A Draft Low-Level Long Range Plan was provided and followed as the basis !
of the presentation. Dr. Knapp discussed the assumptions, draft goals, !
~
\
LLRWPAA goals, other regulatory goals, casework goals and additional l l
l draft goals which comprise the plan. The concurrent and ensuing dis- l cussion highlights were:
I
. Minut!s/ Waste Management 24 February 19-20, 1987
- 1. There are currently 15 to 16 compacts and static planning LLW facilities. M. Knapp believes we'll have 3-5 regional facil-ities. A number of states may not meet the requirements of the LLRWPAA.
- 2. The amount (curies) of waste will probably not change, but the volume will be reduced by compaction. Application of the de minimis concept will also reduce the volume but not in curies.
- 3. Dr. Moeller asked who is most competent to license LLW dis-posal facilities -- the NRC or the NRC Agreement states. In some cases, the States are more stringent than the NRC.
- 4. Dr. Moeller also asked if pre-disposal treatment is required for Class A wastes. If it is, might such handling increase the worker doses?
- 5. At the present time, the NRC does not have the necessary resources to provide a full set of nationally consistent regulations,standardsandguides(NRC,EPAandAgreenent states) for LLW disposal facilities.
- 6. Regarding the reduction in LLW Volune, D. Moeller asked if this is NRC's responsibility, and if the curies remains constant, why seek a lower volume? If the volume is decreased by a factor of 2, waste disposal operators will have to charge
, . , ~ , - . _ , . - ,- - - - - - - - - , - - - - ---- - . -w - --,-,
Minutes / Waste Mcnagement 25 February 19-20, 1987 twice as much. However, it will be cheaper to compact and transportation costs will also be less.
- 7. A single 30-40 acre site will last 25-30 years; less than 10 acres /yr are required for a regional compact. And, since there are fixed costs, a fewer number of facilities will be more economically justified. So why cannot a LLW site be designeo for 50-100 years.? The Europeans are going to greater confinement vs. shallow land burial.
- 8. Dr. Parker raised the question of co-location of HLW and LLW repositories for greater than Class C wastes, the total volume of which is very small. The bottom line was that it would be cheaper to place them (Class C wastes) in a repository.
- 9. Regarding the Additional Draft Goals on the last page of the handout, Dr. Moeller noted the following:
(a) Operational Safety Procram -- to avoid a radiation incident (such as Sequoyah)
(b) Mature OA Program -- better documentation regarding hearings if both the generator and the disposal site I
document samples (c) Full Performance Assessment Capabilities -- NRC needs to be able to do this
Minutos/ Waste Management 26 February 19-20, 1987 (d) Commercial Storage and Disposal of LLW at Nuclear Power Plant Sites -- currently contrary to NRC policy, but could change. The waste might be stored above ground in a warehouse, but very few nuclear power plant sites would meet 10 CFR 61. Put would not this distract from safe operations? Would the plan be that they would accept outside waste and become a commercial disposal site? (In Sweden, the electrical utilities take the LLW for the entire country.)
Following the formal session, the Subcommittee went into Executive Session, with adjournment of the Meeting taking place at 3:30 p.m. on February 20, 1987.
NOTE: A transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. or can be purchased from ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 N. Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001(202)347-3700.
3 .
ATTACHMENT 1 (REVISION ? - FEBRUARY 13,1987)
PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION ACRS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ROOM 1046, 1717 H STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C.
FEBRUARY 19-20, 1986 Thursday, February 19, 1986
- 1. 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Opening Remarks D. Moeller, Chairman
- 2. 8:45 - 10:00 a.m. Rulemaking for HLW D. Fehringer, DWM Definitien
- 3. 10:00 - 10:15 a.m. BREAV
- 4. 10:15 - 12:00 N00N Performance Allocation S. Coplan, DWM
- 5. 12:00 - 1:00 p.m LUNCH
, 6. 1:00 - 2:30 p.m. Assessing Compliance W. Kastenberg, with EPA HLW Standard Consultant 7 2:30 - 3:15 p.m. HLW Licensing Support System A. Bender, NMSS
- 8. 3:15 - 3:30 p.m. BREAK
- 9. 3:30 - 4: 15 p.m. Implementation of HLW J. Linehan, DWM 5-Year Plan
- 10. 4:15 - 5:00 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION
- 11. 5:00 p.m. RECESS
________________________________________________________________________~
Friday, February 20, 1987
' 12. 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Opening Remarks D. Moeller, Chairman
- 13. 8:4E - 10:00 a.m. Hydrology Programs F. Costanzi, RES (Domestic & Inter-national)
' Schedule / NM Mtg.
, 2 Feb. 19-E0, 1987 '
~
14 10:00 - 10:15 a.m. 'PREAK
- 15. 10:15 - 12:00 N00N NRC's Waste Package- M. McNeil, RES Corrosion Program
- 16. 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH
- 17. 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. LLW Guidance ' -M.
Documer.ts (SRP and Le Knapp, Pittigl T6 SF and C) JjnShaffner, and T&l dohnson, DWM ;
- 18. 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. J LLW Long Rance Plan E.-Geldierg, DWM #
through 1993 it. K e
- 19. 3:00 - 3:?5 p.m. BPEfK
- 20. 3:15 - 4:30 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION
- 21. 4:30 p.m. ADJ00Rh I
l 9
l l
. 1
. _ . , _ _ . . . . - - - - -- -- -- - - - -- ~ -
ATTACHMENT 2 ACRS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 19-20, 1987, WASHINGTON, D.C.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS HANDED OUT DURING THE MEETING
- 1. Draft Report, A Proposed Classification System for High-Level and Other Radioactive Wastes, ORNL/TM-10789), December 12, 1986, D. C.
Kochser and A. G. Croff
- 2. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) Definition of "High-level Radioactive Waste", Daniel J. Fehringer, dated February 19, 1987
- 3. Perfo'mance r Allocation, Pauline Brooks, February 19, 1987 4 EPA Containment Reouirements, W. E. Kastenberg, February,1,1987
- 5. High Level Waste Transitional Licensing Support System (TLSS), Avi Bender, February 19, 1987
- 6. Implementation of HLW Five Year Plan, Seth M. Coplan, February 19, 1987
- 7. Draft Mission Plan Amendment - Overview
- 8. 10 CFR Part 60 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Definition of "High-Level Radioactive Waste" (pp. 1,24, 25 - . undated
- 9. Draft #3 of Qualitative Comparison of Risks Associated with the Operation of a HLW Repository vs. a Nuclear Power Plant, -
Parry /Moeller, February 19, 1987
- 10. Notice of Upcoming NPC/ DOE Technical / Programmatic Meetings, Febru-ary 17, 1987
- 11. Flow of Groundwater and Transport of Contaminants throuqh Saturated Fractured Geologic Media from High-level Radioactive Waste, In-Situ (undated)
- 12. Evaluation of lfnsaturated Flow & Transport Methodology with Empha-sis on Precision & Accuracy of Measurement Methods
- 13. Hydrological Modeling Research, John D. Randall, February 70, 1987
- 14. Hydrocain (Hydrologic Code Intercomparison Study, undated)
- 15. Potential-pH Diaqram for Iron Including Cracking Regimes (After Ford)
- 16. Summary of NRC's Work on the Licersing of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities
- 17. Draft Low-Level Waste Long Range Plan, M. Knapp, February 20, 1987
- 18. Unsaturated Flow and Transport through Fractured Pnck Related to High-level Waste Repositories, Dr. Daniel D. Evans, October 1,1986 I
e
O. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT
- ACPS StJBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION ROOM 1046,1717 H STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C.
DATE February 19-20, 1987 g ATTENDANCE LIST y)
PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILI ATION P. W. N eo (le r A C R S M e m 6 s v.
l' "
- r. 2. R e ,,, , cA
" 4 h1. Car bon "
'N G.Sh w men F. % k<< Ac TcS Csn su (+an4 o "
v'. k % ud<oas '
W. % W se<a' ~ "
b; Ion
TR.
At. 5 + H M
)
DAri C ALRoA/ "/
An 'Gubv v o 7ehm Line. ham "
h T6un % g
- r n+cMirlfkT S
O. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION ROOM 1046,1717 H STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C.
DATE February 19-20, 1987 [gp/g/97[ '
ATTENDANCE LIST 7)/f/8SMf PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILI ATION 5.A b \lh it ge&tle dodd LC SA) c P. M.Cd Whsvi S. 2e/m d t_. 1?s. b.d -
- 3. he e et /
Sk ~ \ Ah u Aces Fosd '
M. TdleAu dasis NV Pawes /drovk ld ut G.wr, n'.lls W< t.' t-,Ls 0
@eEe.F-f O h uu t b Shob' A.. Mb
% re T . R y d '
h a. /w w / w h che<: A %he Mus Gq.
Le hamis taes roa 3,6. G AL5aAl Mc '
dud No N e t.
u AcRs W <
I s
ACRS SUBCOMMfTTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT __ _ _ _
- 0. MERRILL l o
LOCATIO:l: ROOM 1046,1717 H St. NW, Washington, D.C.
February 19-20, 1987
. DATE:
ATTENDANCE LIST ,
l i
PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE ii0. AFFILIATION
< 'i , /),% i= M7v iM
' $1], E LG s r ukccc, E Cf6 ?-- UC L. A l'] CW.c DmsulhnV.
M . .S d <> < , , d b , ? i: cu s 1 -
< bMa ([uct { '
) A. A slh'd /E c.90 e 6cth t k
( O i ,1 c. t/ , f-
.. . c,qcn /J U .,
,[] 'ik n a i , 's '
e w i) I 'f 7 A f N 5 n . .c .-....... n .
AL(~'
' R u_ ~A b '. . (. % 2.-
fo.+ 6 099/ 5Ai
>lA NLKr: E(Q31 \/); y Oli d l9/ L C
\ f'e.L<w . E: h";('? \'00 s A ; e
'.b7EC TC N'/f6 p-(iqi[4 p(g
's s. L _ s_ nW T' 'W bt *Q'
. i I [i_1/v' ( ~ - [ i ( ' ll (\ } l , e/ ; h , [Yf r'M k $1 f 'I n . , , ,, (T (' i 7 b- ks. k. ,N l lit lG ,,b! b, $1 Jh . i 4 . , . v : , ~, c s . . . /. n m ... i / M -
e-O h
- 0. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT
, ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION ROOM 1046,1717 H STREET, NW, WASHINGTON,_D.C.
DATE February 19-20, 1987 /b/
ATTENDANCE LIST r FE8 A% 1981 -
l PLEASE PRINT:
NAME AFFILIATION A-C ES #<k L u
- b. M o,16 '
h
,A4. Ca e L l~
d c . M a clt 7 S h w en en
l
}. 3+a s n ; lev Acte 9 Consu l wt >
S. M rb r si
K. K em u s kov.c o
- w. kb e hEd' 6 "
. b;llo w '-
O. merir;I/
A c TP S
- 6. '% r, m "
Sre.'=<llow--
H . l/u s $ htMssJwutu ~
- 7. Tohvoh ynss /Gmr l SLF%< hurUnutu
_L. fi N. ,ab .n
. . , h,6,9,/ n l. u ,
- 0. MERRILL WASTE MANAGEMENT
. ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION ROOM 1046,1717 H STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. _
DATE February 19-20, 1987 [R/hd ATTENDANCE LIST ,. FED 20 1 PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILIATION 2 . (v ll*
DJ W43 !)E .(
% V r hlet w M 9 /kG5 m.L / % _ u ,1 di. u)uB/. des / PES Tr Nafsw Gr O DF W Fr
- d. t . h.u.s,. in . tds reu o A NSd.ex I )VS G rp h - w ., s 2- Ln ec"%ce-N. . [rf,eLlx... N'E3R)4 koGoG Idotwas icwi cz w M B l N L=5
- lEL/WDA TfrMeA A/F l
6
_ _ . _. .. I
9P.9tteefm W C. Merri ll Wf12rar/YlArQFEMovr ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON ( """" "'T^= ,@C ' ' ' G - -
LOCATION ROOM 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C. _
gg7 !
c^'- ,'u". 0 DATE . ~ .-- . '. "~o 1 fg y y-ATTENDANCE LIST .
PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILI ATION Gy?Il LA> M TR / R TC 4] f bY /oHR //FC
% onnIel l A la n N. u)p1Rlhss /PE7 -
i <
M . 6. n e NI e. \ w as/ce5
_f . R - 1, w n/R FX
/
T \(.Ae \1 M Q.X% 4. \>0 M GT [N M S S
- tis M c.C-arf ln wM0/AE5 L 4.cs, a.o w ~ s / rn e
/ . Ce, -\ . <- -
< ., 4 1 c 6
F
. ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT _ _ _ ~ 0. MERRILL
- L0 tt.il.1 0:l: R00M IU46.1717 H St. NW, Washington D.C.
'DATE: February 19-20, 1987 ATTENDANCE LIST C I 7 #/ IN PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE NO. AFFILIATION l f, l 41 Y C'i$ b fd/L
[\! 6 66 s bdc q g p, etg s ()C.L A I(pg Md 4d5
, k GElv:)lt ,l Nt:9V1 Ck t aYA c< u. f'
/Lud;D c06 /) c ( ~
(' A Ob clclcx na67 N o S. ce < >
f L (AKdZ IC C 'l / 2 V A g/D/rt /S L h Y$ flit a u s fu/.1l ' . O 1ll l' Tf,,,Ja)(lue5*
$ , d = -= ll O l 3 l,- 3 41lc
)QI Ad(u Effi5'l WQSh'm Ecm La,
. _i , . . . . + cer.
E_ CuHe e t 0 ~lt / ()cj60-(NMWletO E O Cf',3 %d3 07S{lj? hue G 096 c ,4 l l=~
e I
r
.. - _- .