ML20247H197

Summary of 95th ACNW Meeting on 971021-23 in Potomac,Md Re Review of NRC waste-related Research & Technical Assistance

ML20247H197
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/22/1997
From:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:	NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
References
NACNUCLE-0116, NACNUCLE-116, NUDOCS 9805210093
Download: ML20247H197 (26)

Text

o

r k) s ,a

WD a<

MINUTES OF THE 95TH ACNW MEETING b

OCTOBER 21-23, 1997 ggg//f f9 6 C-f.4 4 K TABLE OF CONTENTS EA9ft I. ACNW Retreat (0 pen) . ..................... 2 II. Chairman's Report (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 12 III. Review of Nuclear Regulatory Comission Waste-Related Research and

, Technical Assistance (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . ....... 13 IV. Preparation for Next Meeting With the Comission (0 pen) . . . 15 I

V. Followup Actions as a Result of the ACNW Retreat (0 pen) . .. 15 VI. Executive Session (0 pen) . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 16 A. Future Meeting Agenda (0 pen) . . . . . . ....... 16 B. Future Comittee Activities (0 pen) .. . ....... 16 l APPENDICES i

!. Federal Register Notice j II. Meeting Schedule and Outline j III. Meeting Attendees i

! IV. Future Agenda and Working Group Activities i

V. List of Documents Provided to the Comittee l

l G\

9805210093 971222 V .

PDR ADVCPI MACNUCLE cO' 0116 PDR l p::mcs.:D ORIGIlML Coctiflod B7 t

'f h2' )

I \

CERTIFIED 1/12/98 '-

LgI.5:::dO I L bf

i P j Issued: 12/22/97 BY B. JOHN GARRICK PROPOSED MINUTES OF THE 95TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE October 21-23, 1997 POTOMAC, MARYLAND AND ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) held its 95th meeting in two locations: October 21, 1997, it met at the William F. Bolger Center for Leadership Development. 9600 Newbridge Drive. Potomac. Maryland, and on October 22 and 23, 1997, it met at Two White Flint North Room T-2B3,11545 Rockville Pike. Rockville. Maryland. The ACNW met to discuss and take appropriate action on the items listed in the attached agenda. The entire meeting was open to public attendance.

A transcript of selected portions of the meeting is available in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Public Document Room at the Gelman Building. 2120 L Street. NW., Washington, DC. [Copi::s of the transcript are available for purchase from Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd., 1250 I Street. NW. Suite 300.

Washington, DC 20005. Transcripts are also available for downloading or reviewing on the Internet at http://www.nrc. gov /ACRSACNW.]

Dr. B. John Garrick. ACNW Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:33 a.m. and explained the purpose of this session of the meeting. Dr. Garrick welcomed NRC Commissioner Greta J. 01cus who was invited to present some of her items of concern. ACNW members Drs. Charles Fairhurst. Raymond G. Wymer and George M. Hornberger were also present. For a list of other attendees, see Appendix III.

95th ACNW Meeting 2 , ,

October 21-23,1997 I. ACNW Retreat (0 pen)

'The ACNW held an all day planning session on October 21, 1997 at the William F. Bolger Center in Potomac, Maryland. Participants included ACNW members and staff, and a facilitatory, Mr. Nick Mann. Commissioner Greta J. Dieus was a guest speaker.

Dr. Garrick stated that the purpose of the meeting was to generate ideas on how to conduct Committee matters over the next year, and to develop source material that will serve as a basis for a strategic plan for the Committee.

He emphasized that the most important point for planning is for the ACNW to position itself to be responsive to change. He noted that he wanted to obtain the ACNW's views on the following four topics:

1. the most important and timely technical issues on the storage and disposal of nuclear waste and criteria to select priority issues:

2. resources available to the ACNW and a strategy for effective utilization of staff, consultants, and information:

3. the most effective approach for conducting public meetings with the Commission, and interacting and communicating with the public; and

4. general method of operations, including letter writing. interactions 4 th the NRC staff.

Dr. Garrick then introduced Commissioner Dicus who discussed her personal thoughts on the issues that are of most concern to her, and for which she '

believes the Committee could provide useful advice to the Commission. Using talking points from a previous speech, she identified and amplified upon issues for the Committee's consideration. The highlights of her concerns follow: J

1. Decommissioning - In response to deregulation of the nuclear industry.

plants are being decommissioned at a faster pace than ever before: as many as 20 plants are expected to close. Is NRC in a position to deal with decommissioning activities at this scale? Should the agency be doing something differently to prepare for this change?

2, NRC Oversiaht of DOE facilities - If NRC is going to oversee DOE facilities, how should the NRC position itself for this role? Will the l

l

95th ACNW Meeting 3 l, October 21-23,1997 ongoing pilot study lead to an understanding of this? If not, what should we be evaluating?

3. HLW Proaram - What direction should NRC take, given the uncertainty regarding the HLW program? If the disposal program is shut down, what steps should the agency be taking now? Are we on track, given the program's present course? Does waste confidence determination need to be revisited?

4. Relationship with States - What is the proper relationship between NRC and the Agreement and non-Agreement States? Are the NRC's comunica-tions with States adequate? Examples of areas of concern are the following:

the Branch Technical Position (BTP) guidance issued on LLW perfor-mance assessment.

trends in national LLW activities i.e., if the Compact Program crashes, where will NRC be and what should it be doing now to prepare for that possibility? Is NRC playing the proper role?

What would happen if existing LLW sites were to close? How will NRC's present complacency come into play?

Control and accountability of radioactive devices is an emerging problem. On the basis of a cost / benefit analysis. NRC has sug-gested that a rulemaking is not needed, but this problem often leads to direct exposures. What is NRC's role?

5. Radiation risk levels - What are proper levels for low-level ionizing radiation? Is the LNT hypothesis valid? Should NRC be doing more to support research on this topic, and what is the appropriate regulatory structure, given the present uncertainty about the LNT hypothesis? This could have a huge impact on where we go with decommissioning.

6. Multiole acencies acolvina multiole standards - Should the NRC push toward national radiation standards for decommissioning and waste disposal? If so, how do we proceed? What problems and obstacles are in the way? The decommissioning rule is not in concert with EPA applicable standards [NRC does not support EPA's 4-mrem standard for protection of

1 95th ACNW Meeting 4 '

October 21-23,1997 groundwater]. and this may also be the case with NRC's HLW rule when EPA issues the HLW standard.

7. Risk-informed performance based reaulation (RIPB) - Is the NRC headed in the right direction? Is NRC appropriately using performance assessment /probabilistic risk assessment (PA/PRA) in its waste activi- l ties? The agency is emphasizing the RIPB concept for power plants, but not for waste. Is this a mistake? NMSS is trying to develop a plan for applying PRA. but is finding it difficult. The ACNW could provide some advice on this.

Commissioner Dicus then asked: ~What are the Comittee's priority issues?"

and specifically. "How does the Comittee feel about interactions with the NRC l staff, and Executive Director for Operations (EDO) responses?"

Dr. Garrick noted that the Committee is anxious to discuss its concern that LLW is not getting enough attention from the Comission. He noted that many .

people outside the NRC believe LLW waste issues are NRC's biggest concern, j including the slow progress of the Compacts. Commissioner Dicus noted that ,

the Comission had to de-emphasize LLW in the budget because NRC is not i licensing any sites now. She asked the ACNW to consider advising the Comis-sion or wnat it should do or be preparing to do if the Compact process should stop.

Dr. Hornberger asked "whether there are specific technical issues within the j Commissioner's list of concerns. Commissioner Dicus mentioned the problem of long-lived radionuclides in LLW. and how such long life impacts the time of regulatory concern for containing LLW and. if NRC is assigned oversight of DOE facilities, the complex waste streams that NRC will need to consider.

In followup. Dr. Wymer asked about the sense of urgency or timing the Commis-sion anticipates regarding DOE oversight. She indicated that she thinks if NRC gets oversight of DOE. it will happen quickly, much sooner than the ten years now anticipated. Commissioner Dicus believes NRC has not done the advance pla uing necessary to prepare for this event.

Dr. Garrick noted some of ACNW's priorities. including the trend toward increased reliance on engineered systems as waste programs are evolving, and assessing if NRC has the capability to evaluate these systems performance, and I I

i l

l 95th ACNW Meeting 5

. October 2123,1997 j

opportunities and the need for NRC to emphasize RIPB regulation in its waste programs.

j Dr. Garrick complimented the NRC staff regarding its responsiveness to the '

Committee.

l Ms. Roxanne Summers. ACRS/ACNW staff. next discussed the NRC Strategic Plan I and the ACNW Operating Plan: she was involved in their development. She explained that each program office is developing an operations plan and listing substrategies and planned accomplishments. The ACNW Operating Plan supports various substrategies of HLW and LLW programs. Ms. Summers noted that she has asked NMSS to identify areas in its operating plan to which the ACNW could contribute, but NMSS has not yet replied. Robert Johnson, NMSS, noted that he would work with Ms. Sumers to identify where ACNW could help HMSS. and will provide her a copy of the LLW operating plan. l l

Ms. Summers explained that the operations plan also contains performance and )

output measures and indicators. She noted that this plan is focused on '

process rather than on technical issues, and that the ACNW can still contrib-ute to the draft plan. This concluded the introductory portion on the meeting agenda.

Previous Priorities Dr. Garrick reviewed last year's priority letter and noted areas on which the Committee focused this past year, and the priority areas identified that did not receive attention. He noted that, in the coming year, the Committee will want to pattern its priorities around the NRC Strategic Plan.

ACNW Mission l Dr. Garrick introduced Mr. Nick Mann, the meeting facilitatory. Mr. Mann I briefly discussed his role as facilitatory.

Dr. Hornberger led the discussion on developing an ACNW mission. He noted that the ACNW exists to serve as an " engine for change." He also noted that the NRC's vision is to " enable the Nation to safely and efficiently use i nuclear materials." He suggested that the ACNW should add this word to its vision statement, and that the term " enable" suggests an atmosphere of cooperative problem-solving rather than one of enforcing regulations, which

98th ACNW Meeting 6 "

October 21-23,1997 implies an adversarial atmosphere. Dr. Fairhurst-expressed concern about how the NRC can both regulate and enable.' _ Dr. Garrick indicated that " enable" means that the NRC will ensure that the benefits of using nuclear materials outweigh the risks, and that costs need to be considered. . Dr. John Larkins, ACRS/ACNW Executive Director, suggested that the ACRS has been pushing for resolution between industry and the NRC and the ACNW can play a similar role.

After continued discussion. Dr. Hornberger asked the group to review the-

'prioritization of topics in the November 20. 1996, letter tc the Commission, and decide whether the group agreed with the priority assignments or whether it wished to add further criteria. -The criteria were prioritized as follows:

1. NRC's Strategic Plan, including trends and directions in regulatory practice, such as the adoption of an risk-informed, performance-based method of regulation and decisionmaking:

2. the strategies and activities of licensees and applicants

3. the scientific and technical basis of information supporting the safety and performance assessments of nuclear waste disposal facilities, including the quality.and level of expertise involved

- 4. the timeliness o.f the advice provided by the ACNW with respect to effective decisionmaking in the regulatory process ,

After some discussion, Mr. Mann reminded the Committee of the difference between strategic

• planning" and strategic " wishing."

Goals and Stratecies Dr. Fairhurst led a discussion on ACNW goals and strategies. He made several points, including that the Committee needs to differentiate between real issues and issues that are " red herrings " and that 'DE v needs to provide a road map or strategy for how it intends to lay out a compliance case for the Yucca Mountain repository. He said that goals suggested by Dr. Andrew Campbell, ACNW staff, were a good starting point to discuss goals for the Committee. Dr. Wymer noted that the Committee needs to get a better handle on

'what is going on with DOE and industry. Dr. Garrick referred to Commissioner Dicus's talk, and asked whether the ACNW should look at alternatives to the

. Yucca Mountain choi;e. Dr. Hornberger indicated that we can back into that

~

95th ACNW Meeting 7 October 21-23,1997 issue if not approach it directly, by looking at "what if" scenarios. Dr.

Garrick commented that when the public is asked its thoughts about nuclear waste disposal. it is often seen that the public is more comfortable with a waste storage solution that permits waste to be watched and monitored, rather than to be disposed of permanently. He added that, to date. the waste problem is far from solved and is the " Achilles heel" of nuclear power for such reasons as poor communication. lack of meaningful public involvement, and the poor quality of risk assessments.

The group also discussed the pros and cons of increased public involvement.

Mr. Mann noted a paradox in that the group was suggesting that increased public participation is good, and at the same time, suggesting that increased participation is bad. The group realized that this was perhaps only an apparent paradox, and that more creative and effective ways exist to involve the public in a meaningful way than have been used. Dr. Garrick noted that the Federal Advisory Committee Act really does not address the issue of allowing a more meaningful role for the public. A suggestion was made that several themes had emerged from the session, that could serve as goals for the Comittee's Strategic Plan. Possible goals include assisting the Commission to position itself for a changing regulatory environment, and assisting the Commission in its goal to improve pubic confidence.

Priorities. Member Assignments Dr. Wymer led a discussion on Committee priorities. He discussed Engineered Barriers. Research, and DOE oversight, and referred to RIPB regulation, but deferred discussion on this topic to a later time.

Among points discussed were whether NRC has the capability to evaluate engineered barriers, what is the role of engineered barriers in NRC regula-tions, and the role of engineered barriers in the repository design. Regard-ing Research. Dr. Wymer noted that priorities in research include decommis-sioning, engineered barrier system (EBS), and interim surface storage as a first tier, and radionuclides transport as a second tier. Dr. Wymer identified issues involving DOE oversight, such as site closure, mixed waste, and the problem of dual regulation. It was noted that Interim Storage is a high priority issue and should be second only to Yucca Mountain issues. I i

Next the group discussed Committee members' assignments and future working I groups. The group first linked various members to their respective areas of l

95th ACNW Meeting 8 .

October 21-23,1997 expertise, then attempted to test this scheme by linking members to the various issues identified by Commissioner Dieus and comparing the two lists.

The members categorized each area of expertise as follows:

. Earth Science - Hornberger, Fairhurst

. Engineering - Fairhurst, Wymer. Garrick

. Underground Construction - Fairhurst

. Risk /PA - Garrick, Horn'erger a

. Chemistry - Wymer Other categories noted but not assigned were strategic planning, regulations, and the international area.

The members assigned themselves to each of Commissioner Dicus' topics:

. Decommissioning - Hornberger

. DOE Oversight - Wymer

. Contingency Planning / Alternatives - Garrick

. Agreement and Non-Agreement States - Hornberger

. Low-Level Waste - Fairhurst

. Risk Informed. Performance-Based Regulation - Garrick

. Radiation Risk Levels - Fairhurst

. Multiple Standards - Wymer.

The group then discussed future Working Group topics and assigned members to the topics, including the following:

. EBS - Fairhurst

. Near-Field Coupled Processes - Hornberger Ooerations Dr. Garrick led a discussion on Committee operations, noting that the Commit-tee's most important activity is preparing ACNW reports to the Commission. He outlined the following steps involved in report writing:

1. Clarify the need for the letter and the topics to place on the ACNW agenda.

96th ACNW Meeting 9 October 21-23,1997

2. Gather information through staff presentations and working groups.

3. Discuss and deliberate possible ideas for a letter.

4. The lead member prepares a draft letter.

5. The letter is reviewed and deliberated in public: then the final vote is taken.

The question was posed: "How can the Committee change this process to improve its effectiveness and efficiency?" Suggestions included narrowing the scope of letters and making them less elaborate: consider offering separate comments from individual members rather than forcing consensus, i.e., agree to dis-agree: develop a more robust report, similar to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board report. with an executive summary; clarify the audience; write )

i more letters by e-mail: and provide more timely input on letters before meetings, rather than waiting to bring up major issues at the meetings.

Members agreed to revisit this topic at a later time. It was suggested that the Committee could enhance the effectiveness of its advice by spending more one-on-one time with individual Commissioners, such as following up each letter with a personal visit to highlight the point of each letter.

The Committee members discussed the scope and duration of meetings. Members i deferred discussing use of consultants and candidates until after priorities  !

are established, so that needs can be better determined.

With regard to interactions with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and  !

Safeguards, the Office of the General Counsel, and Nuclear Regulatory Re-search. Dr. Larkins raised the possibility of holding more closed meetings to review predecisional material. Dr. Larkins also outlined a new approach to minutes writing, which involves preparing minutes that are very brief, rather than preparing the more traditional, more elaborate minutes. Dr. Garrick noted that the Committee would like to see the staff get more involved, and suggested that a staff member could make a presentation to the Committee on a specific topic at every meeting. Dr. Larkins suggested that the Committee give the staff adequate lead time for this activity. Dr. Garrick also noted that ACNW staff members should initiate projects themselves.

Performance Measures

I l

95th ACNW Meeting 10 -

October 2123,1997 Dr. Hornberger led a discussion on performance goals and indicators. Mr.

l Howard Larson, ACNW staff, described statistics he had gathered concerning how the Committee spent its meeting time during the first half of 1997. His report conformed to the format that was prepared for the ACRS. From the data he presented, the Comittee noted it should probably spend more of its time on strategic planning and future agenda topics. The Committee concurred with Dr.

Hornberger's comment that regardless of what the statistics reveal, the real j issue for the Comittee is how its advice is received and used. Comittee members were asked to suggest methods ar.d criteria to be used to evaluate { '

Comittee performance, and it was suggested that the Committee annually report on its performance to the Commission. In summary, the Comittee discussed that the issues the Comittee plans to address in FY 1998 should be crisply defined, be limited in number to those that, given the resources available to the Committee permit adequate consideration and development of advice to the Comission, and be capable of being meaningfully measured.

1 l Ms. Sumers reviewed the draft survey developed to poll the Commission and other readers of ACNW letters concerning quality and degree of satisfaction with the ACNW products.

l Discussion followed on ways to improve effectiveness. Someone asked if the Comittee talks often enough with the NHSS Office Director. It was suggested that he, as well as the new Director of Regulatory Effectiveness, be invited ,

in to talk with the Comittee. Dr. Hornberger also noted placing more L emphasis on problem solving should improve effectiveness. It was agreed that i the Comittee would revisit the issue of EDO response.

Wranun Dr. Garrick indicated that following this meeting, the Comittee needs a basis l for a letter on the its priorities. He stressed that the letter needs to make clear that the ACNW's effectiveness depends on its flexibility and ability to switch gears. He asked that a draft be prepared by the next meeting and that the Comittee ready to discuss its priorities at the December meeting with the Comission. It was agreed that the letter should reflect top-down thinking including a mission, vision, goals, priorities, and strategies, and a narra-tive of how the plan ties into the NRC Strategic Plan. The letter or plan should reflect what can be realistically accomplished with the given re-sources. It should also identify the issues the Committee decided to re-visit / defer until later. Dr. Garrick suggested that the letter highlight what l I

~

95th ACNW Meeting 11 October 21-23,1997 l is different from last year, for example, such emerging issues EBS and interim storage.. In the wrapup, Dr. Garrick summarized the following highlights of the i meeting:

1. The Committee needs to be more deliberate about holding individual meetings with Commissioners i

I

2. The Comittee needs more time to reflect during its meetings on what it I has heard and how to proceed-  !

i

3. The Comittee will conduct a self-assessment and report on the results annually to the Comission:

4. The Comittee needs to formalize top-down planning and send such a plan to the Comission annually:

5. The Comittee interprets the term " enabling" to mean cooperative problem-solving, rather than competing with or policing the staff, while at the same time not compromising safety. The ACNW must root its vision statement in this notion:

6. The Comittee needs to make progress in setting its technical priori- I ties

7. The Comittee needs to remember to distinguish between a 'wish" list and a "do" list.

Dr. Garrick concluded by suggesting that the ACNW is eager to get involved in contributing to the ACNW operating plan described by Ms. Sumers.

Dr. Hornberger agreed with Dr. Garrick's statements and added that the Comittee may want to consider writing shorter letters, or even developing a one-page sumary to go along with each letter. Dr. Wymer reiterated that the Comittee needs to develop a strong basis for selecting its priorities, and that the Comittee should not go overboard in its strategic plan in linking its activities to the NRC Strategic Plan.

Dr. Larkins agreed that the meeting had been useful and productive. He noted that a few issues were not discussed, including previous concerns about getting ahead of the NRC staff regarding strategic or priority issues. He

95th ACleW Meeting 12 October 21-23,1997 suggested that the Comittee should be proactive and not worry about getting ahead of the staff on these issues. He also added that the Comittee's advice is most useful when it is still fresh. He also suggested that the Comittee needs to identify technical areas it would like to work on jointly with ACRS and in what timeframe.

II. Chairman's Reoort (0 pen)

[ Richard K. Major was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)

Dr. Garrick noted a number of items that he believed to be of interest to the Comittee, including the following:

. The executive comittee of the EPA's Science Review Board endorsed the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM).

which was a joint effort by EPA. NRC. Department of Defense (D0D) and DOE to provide guidance for planning and conducting radiation surveys for decommissioning contaminated sites.

. Congressional comittees are negotiating further cuts to the budget on DOE *s nuclear waste activities. This affects defense and non-defense wastes: e.g., environmental restoration. Moreover, there is a proposal to shift Formerly Utilized Site Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) clean-ups from DOE to the Army Corps of Engineers.

The House of Representatives Comerce Comittee overwhelmingly approved a bill to designate the Nevada Test Site (NTS) as an interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.

. Mohamed Elbaradei was sworn in as Director General of the IAEA beginning in December 1. 1997. He replaces Hans Blix who headed that agency for the last 16 years.

. The European Comission has contracted with a consortium of French.

Belgian, and Russian interests to develop a conceptual design for an underground repository in northwestern Russia to dispose of mostly Russian defense program wastes of all types.

95th ACNW Meeting 13 October 2123,1997 i

The Department of the Interior (DOI) has been asked to probe the land transfer process at the proposed Ward Valley, California, low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal site. Questions were raised concerning the objectivity on the part of the contractor, who was on the National Academy of Sciences panel reviewing the site design. Furthermore, the Federal Claims Court denied the Department of Justice motions to dismiss U.S. Ecology and California Department of Health Services lawsuits seeking damages resulting from DOI delays of the land transfer.

DOE is planning to seek proposals from private industry to dispose of LLW from all of its sites. This is a move to create a more competitive environment for disposal of its LLW wastes. Currently. Envirocare of Utah. Inc. is the only facility licensed to accept these wastes.

In the September 26, 1997 report on the 1998 energy and water appropri-ations bill, congressional conferees indicated strong support for the use of commercial nuclear reactors for disposing of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. They indicated that incorporating this plutonium into mixed-oxide fuel was the preferred method for disposing of large quantities of this weapons-grade plutonium.

III. Review of NRC Waste Related Research and Technical Assistance (0 pen)

[Mr. Howard J. Larson was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.]

Dr. Hornberger chaired this session of the meeting. Background information on the NRC's research program was provided to the Committee for inclusion in the annual ACRS report to Congress.

Mr. Giorgio Gnugnoli discussed his draft document titled. " Scoping Document on the Effectiveness of NRC's Program in Research and Technical Assistance for Radioactive Waste Management." He provided an overview of his document, noting that although it discussed the activities of NRC DOE. and U.S.

industry, as well as international research in the area of waste management, the document was unfinished, awaiting feedback and additional input. The Committee concurred with his suggestion that this be a "living document." He then discussed the deadlines for the report due to Congress and the report due to the Commission in late spring 1998.

95th ACNW Meeting 14 -

October 21-23,1997 Messrs. S. Bahadur and W. Ott, RES, after briefly outlining earlier research accomplishments, next discussed the Radionuclides Transport Research Program currently under way in RES. The impact of budget reductions was presented:

it was noted that the current budget was approximately 20% of what it was just a few years ago. Budgetary constraints have resulted in both the HLW and LLW research efforts being phased out. Furthermore, these constraints have required that the current activities be very precisely focused.

At present, research efforts are focused on the following four assumptions:

1. All analyses build on the source term.

2. Engineered barriers have a wide range of applications.

3. Transport processes, including flow and chemical retardation, are large sources of uncertainty.

4. Integrated PA must keep pace with new methods and data to replace assumptions and reduce uncertainty.

In order to get the best out of the reduced resources, the RES staff is directly involved in the measurement and modeling work and has established access to facilities at universities and other laboratories. RES is also involved in bilateral exchange agreements with other countries, and relevant jointly funded projects with other groups have been successfully pursued. In addition, participation has continued in international programs such as the OECD/NEA-sponsored Sorption Project.

In response to Dr. Hornberger's question regarding peer review practices, Dr.

N. Costanzi, RES, stated that it is the policy of his office to have all projects reviewed by peers at some point. In responding to another question, he indicated that it was a Comission decision that an LLW research program could not be supported.

Dr. Ott discussed the components of the program in more detail and provided the Comittee with a sumary of projects started in 1997 and a project manager-by-project manager listing of program responsibilities. The RES representatives agreed to return to the Comittee to clarify any of the programs discussed in the presentation package, should it be necessary.

Dr. Hornberger asked Dr. Michael Bell, NMSS, to coment on the program in his office. Dr. Bell stated that the HLW program has been severely cut. Just 3 years ago its budget was $22 million as contrasted to next year when it will

95th ACNW Meeting 15 October 2123,1997 i

i l be around $11 million. He indicated that the CNRWA spent about $3 mil-l lion / year in research-type activities but is currently closing out its research efforts with only about $300 thousand allocated. The rest of the effort at the Center is categorized as technical assistance. Also discussed was the LLW program. Dr. Bell noted that 3 years ago in this area. NMSS had approximately 20 FTEs involved. In FY 1997 that number had dropped to 5 FTEs. i and for FY 1998 it will drop to 1.3 FTE. However, about 20 FTEs are now involved in the NRC Site Decommissioning Management Plan effort, which has  !

many aspects directly relevant to LLW disposal.

l At the conclusion of this session, participants were thanked for their candid  !

contributions. All indicated that they would be available in the future to  !

answer more questions from the Comittee as it proceeds to draft its material for the two reports.

IV. Preparation for Next Meetina With the Commission (0 pen)

[ Andrew C. Campbell was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.)

The Committee discussed the ACNW briefing of the Commission scheduled for December 17, 1997. This included review of the current status of several ACNW .

reports, a schedule for developing the briefing package, and assignments of ACNW staff and Comittee members. Dr. Garrick will be responsible for ACNW priority issues and the application of PRA methods to PA in the NRC HLW program. Dr. Hornberger will be responsible for the defense-in-depth philoso-phy. Dr. Wymer will be responsible for comments on PA capability in the NRC HLW program.

V. Followuo Actions as a Result of the ACNW Retreat (0 pen)

[Ms. Lynn Deering was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.]

l l The Comittee reviewed its approach for developing a top-down plan. The Comittee agreed that Ms. Lynn Deering. ACNW staff, would develop a first draft, based on input from the members and ACNW staff, by October 31, 1997. A draft letter is to be prepared for discussion during the November 1997 meeting. The Comittee reaffirmed its wish for a top-down approach reflected in the letter, and noted that it will decide later whether to develop two products, priorities separate from mission goals, etc.. or one. The Comittee

l 95th ACNW Meeting 16 -

, October 21-23,1997 agreed that will start with last year's priorities and criteria as a basis for the plan, but this year's plan will have fewer priorities.

VI. Executive Session (0 pen)

[ Richard Major was the Designated Federal Official for this part of the meeting.]

A. Future Meetina Aaenda (0 pen) )

Appendix IV sumarizes the proposed items endorsed by the Comit-tee for the 96th ACNW Meeting, November 20 and 21, 1997 B. Future Committee Activities (0 pen)

The ACNW will hold its 97th meeting December 16-18, 1997. The Comittee plans to meet with the Comission during this meeting.

)

i a

L_______._.____._____--__

Mr rNquG E &

^

52578 Federal Regist:r / Vol. 62, No.195 / Wrdnesday, October 8,1997 / Notices the licensee's prweitsti:n, f:llowed in ct the William F. Bolger Center For turn by an opportunity for the licenaw Richard K. Major, as far in advance as Imadership Development. practicable so that appropriate to twpond to b complainant's B. Meeting with NRC's Director.

presentation. In cases where the arrangements can be made to schedule D/ vision of Waste Management. Office the necessary time during the meeting

, complainant is unable to attend in ofNuclearMorerfalSafety and person, arrangements will be made for for such statements. Um of still, motion Safeguards--The Committee will mwt the complainant *s participation by picture, and television cameras during with the Director to discuss technical this meeting will be limited to selected telephone or an opportunity given for assistance, developments at the Yucca the complainant to submit a written portions of the mating as determined Mountain project, resources, and ohr by b ACNW Chairman. Information twponse to the licensee's presentation. Items of mutualinterest. regarding the time to be set aside for this If the licensee chooses to forego an C. Review ofNRCResearch and enforcement conference and, instead, purpoes may be obtained by contacting Technical Assistance-N Committee responds to the NRC's findings in will nyiew activida of NRC's Office of the Chief, Nuclear Wasta Branch, prior writing, the complainant will be to the meetin6. In view of the possibility provided the opportunity to submit Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards that the schedule for ACNW meetings and Nuclear Regulatory Research m the may be adjusted by the Chairman as

• written comments on the licensee's area of nuclear waste disposal.The necessary to facilitate the conduct of the rwponse. For cases involving potential ACNW will provide input to the discrimination by a contractor or vendor Advisor-Committee on Reactor mwting, persons planning to suend should notify Mr. Ma}or as to their -

to the licensw any asociated Safeguards

• February 1998 report to particular needs.

predecisional enforcement conference Cungrus co NRC research.

D. PrepareforNextMeeting with the Further information ngarding topics with the contractor or vendor would be to be discumd, whether the meeting handled similarly. These arrangements GelssfowN Cornininw wm .

for complainant participation in the Prepare for its next formal meeting with , has been cancelled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on sequests for the Predecisional enforcement conference the Comisslu. N Commlum is opportunity to resent oral statements are not to e conducte or viewed in scheduled to discuss items ofmutual and the time al.otted therefor can be any respect as an adjudicatory hearing interest with the Commisalon on obtained b contacting Mr. Richard K.

The purpose of the complainant's December 17,1997.

Major Chi f, Nuclear Waste Branch E.PaparodonofACNWReporte P ~ (tele

~

participation is to provide information to the NRC to assist it in its enforcement The Committee will discuss planned A.M. phone 301/415-7366), betwwn 8:00 nports, including a recommended and 5:00 P.M. EDT.

deliberations. ACNW meeting notices, meeting

• * * *

• spproach to implement the defense-in- transcripts, and letter reports are now depth concept in the revised to CFR available on FedWorld from the "NRC of Dated October at m7.Rockville. Maryland. this 3rd day Part 60, the Application of Probabilistic MAIN MENU." Direct Dial A For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Risk Assessment Methods to number to FedWorld is (800) 303-9672:

Mn C Heyle. Performance Assessment in the NRC the local direct dial number is 703-321-Secretaryof the Commission.

High.14 val Waste Program, ACNW 3339.

priority issues for 1998, and other topics Dated: October 2,1997.

[FR Doc. 97-26600 Filed 10-7-e7; e.45 am) discussed during the meeting as the

• • • • • • • • • • • '** Ma C Heylo

(**Q* ggyy;y,,,y,,,,, Acting AdnsorycommirtwManagement

^

-

• Agendo-The Committee will consider NUCLEAR REQULATORY

\[*

/\

COMMISSION topics proposed for future consideration IFR Doc. 97-26692 Filed 10-7-97; s:45 aml by the full Committee and Working 8""*****"'*"

Groups.The Committee will discuss Wat ^ ted acuvmes ofindividual o e of m NC QULATORY The Advisory Committu on Nuclear GEisceHeeMe Cornminw

• Waste (ACNW) will hold its 95th w discuss snisceHanwus mann Wweekly Notlos meeting on October 21,1997, at the related 2 h cah &mmmw William F. Bolger Center For leadership activities and organizational activities App!! cations and Amendments to Develo ment

• 9600 Newbridge Drive andco ew hsska dmaum and FacMpemung Ucenses inpW Potomac, Maryland, and October 22-23, [s ecific sues that were not completed No Significant Hazards Considerations 1997,in Room T-2B3,11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland *

,ygPmog g ngs,as 9o p e

t. L Background The entire meeting will be o en to Procedures for the conduct of and Pursuant to Pubtle law 97-415, the pub!!c attendance. The sched e for this partici stion in ACNW meetings were U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission snecting is as follows: pubH ed in the Federal Register on (the Commission or NRC staff)is Tuesday October 21,1997-8:30 a.m. September 2,1997 (62 FR 46382). In publishing this regular biweekly notice.

until 6:00 p.m. accordance with these procedures, oral Pubuc Law 97-415 revised section 189 '

Wednesday, October 22,1997-4:30 a.m. or written statements may be presented of the Atomic Energy Act of1954.as '

until 6:00 p.m. by members of the public, electronic amended (the Act), to require the '

Thursday, October 23,1997-8:30 a.m. recordings will be permitted only Commission to publish notice of any 1 until 4:00 p.m. during those portions of the meeting amendments issued, or proposed to be i !

that are open to the public, and issued, under a new provisfon of section 1

- A. ACNWRetreot-The Committee questions may be asked only by members will discuss their mission, 189 of the Act.This provision grants the ,8 members of the Committee,its Commission the authority to issue and 5

planned accomp!!shments, priorities. consultants, and staff. Persons desiring make immediately effective any and work processes for FY 1995-99.The to make oral statements should notify .g amendment to an operating license retreat will be held on October 21,1997, the Chief. Nuclear Waste Branch, Mr. upon a determination by the g

e

...~....

_ _ _ . ......g,

,--w m

8

[  %, UNITED STATES e

(. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. ADVIso'lY COMMITTEE CN NuCt. EAR WASTE WAsHIN2 ton. D.C. 3186 Revised: October 9,1997 l

1 SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 95TH ACNW MEETING OCTOBER 21-23,1997 POTOMAC AND ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND TUESDAY. OCTOBER 21.1997. Wit i IAM F. BOLGER CENTER FOR I FADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT. 9600 NFWBRIDGE DRIVE. POTOMAC. MARYLAND

1) 8:30 - 6:00 P.M. The Committee will hold a one day retreat to discuss priorities and procedures for the coming year.

. WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 22.1997. TWO WHITE FLINT NORTH. ROOM T-2B3.11545 ROCKVil i F PIKE. ROCKVil i F. MARYLAND A 2) 8:30 - 8:35 A.M. Ooenina Remarks by the ACNW Chairman (Open) 2.1) Opening Statement (BJG/RKM) 2.2) items of Current interest 40

3) 8:35 - 1096 A.M. Review NRC Waste Related Research and Technical Assistance (Open)(GMH/HJL) 3.1) Waste related research activities by Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) 3.2) Waste related technical assistance by Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) 3.3) Roundtable discussion, elements of a letter report, 10:40 - si:co 19:00 -10:45 * *

• BREAK * *

• St:Ob I:15  ;

4) ftN5 - 900 P.M. Preparation of ACNW Reoorts (Open)

Discuss possible reports on the following topics:

4.1) Defense-in-depth philosophy (GMH/LGD) 4.2) Application of Probabilistic Methods to Performance Assessment (BJG/ACC) 4.3) ACNW Priorities / Strategic Plan (BJG/RKM/LGD) 4.4) ACNW comments on Waste Related Research and Technical Assistance (GMH/HJL) 1:15'- Jt:15 49,99 -4t49 P.M. * *

• LUNCH * *

• D:4s fist tS0 -+999.M. Continue orecaration of ACNW reoorts (Open)

Continue report preparation as noted above.

2 .

9:00 - 4tHPP.M. * *

• BREAK * * *

5) +90 - 6 999WI Committee Activities / Future Aaenda (Open)(BJG/RKM) 4:15-2:46 .1) Set agenda for 96th ACNW Meeting November 20-22,1997 5.2) Review items for out months festp.v <.J f o 5.3) Topics for next meeting with Commission (December 17,

/o/R3 1997) 5.4) Retreat follow-up 5.5) Set meeting dates for 1998 R:15' 4.' + f S:18 549 P.M. * *

• RECESS * *

• THURSDAY. OCTOBER 23.1997. TWO WHITE FLINT NORTH. ROOM T-2B3.11M5 ROCKVILLE PlKE MARYLAND

6) S:30 *:35 A.M. Ooenino Remarks by ACNW Chairman (Open) (BJG/RKM)

7) 8:35 - 9:30 A.M. Preoare for next meetina with the Commission (Open) (BJG/ACC)

Discuss topics and make assignments for the next meeting with the Commission December 17,1997

?;3f- /d:os'

( --949- 12:00 NOON Continue orecaration of ACNW reports (Open)

(44;45 - Me30 Break) Continue report preparation as noted in item 4 ffff,.~. f,$I Com mif f t e A(fivitie-s% f 3wrc. d E n d4"E) & .

12:00 - 1:00 P.M. * " LUNCH * "

8) t 0&- F99rP.M. Follow-uo actions as a result of the ACNW Retreat (Open) ll!

• S'- /4; oo (BJG/LGD) 84 Discuss priorities and procedures for future ACNW activities, les20 -10:30 tiG- 4;00 P.M. Continue orecaration of ACNW reoorts (Open) 4400 P.M. * *

• ADJOURN * *

• M:00 lib 1/

APPENDIX lil: MEETING ATTENDEES 95th ACNW MEETING OCTOBER 21-23,1997 ACNW MEMBERS 1st Day 2nd Day 3rd Day l Dr. B. John Garrick X X X Dr. Charles Fairhurst X X X  !

Dr. George W. Homberger X X X Dr. Raymond G. Wymer X X X ACNW STAFF 1st Day 2nd Day 3rd Day Dr. Andrew Campbell 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 4

Ms. Michele S. Kelton X X X

Appendix lli 2 -

95th ACNW Meeting ATTENDEES FROM THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION October 22.1997 L. Troci..e EDO M. Bell NMSS J. Hickey NMSS S. Bahadur RES B. Ott RES J. Kotra NMSS ATTENDEES FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND GENERAL PUBLIC October 21.1997 M. Phillips Science & Information, Inc.

3 October 22.1997 F. Rodgers DOE R. Andersen NEl J. York Booz-Allen & Hamilton L. Fairobent TEC M. Phillips Science & Information, Inc.

C. Hanlon DOE-YMP October ?3.1997 F. Rodgers DOE C. Hanlon DOE-YMP M. Phillips Science & Information, Inc.

i l

I A

APPENDIX IV: FUTURE AGENDA The Committee agreed to consider the following during the 96th ACNW Meeting, November 21 and 22,1997:

. Meetina with NRC's Ckator. Div!=!an of Wm.., na... nent. Office of Nu-deer Material Safety _and Safeguard = - The Committee will meet with the Director to discuss developments at the Yucca Mountain project, resources, rules under development, and l otheritems of mutualinterest.

Wasta Classification at West Valley. Hanford and Savannah River-The NRC staff 3

will brief the Committee on its evaluation of the DOE methodology for classification of i waste resulting from treatment, bulk high-level waste removal and cleaning of tanks.

Background and history will be discussed along with current status, review schedules and criteria for the classification of wastes as incidental.

. Standard Review Plan on Drv Cask Storane F.,m*v -The Committee will review and provide comments on this Standard P.eview Plan.

. HLW lasue Resolution Status Reports and Acceptance Criteria -The NRC staff will update the Committee on the progress of staff reviews related to the high-level waste key technicalissues. (Tentative)

. NRC's Division of Waste Management Priorities -The Commntee will rev'ow the Division of Waste Management's priorities and planned interactions with the ACNW for the 1998.

Prepare for Next Meeting-with the Commission - The Committee will prepare for its next formal meeting with the Commission. The Committee is scheduled to discuss items of mutual interest with the Commission on December 17,1997.

Preparation of ACN !teports -The Committee will discuss planned reports, including comments on the Stano..d Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities, comments on NRC Waste Related Research, ACNW Priorities, and other topics discussed during the meeting as the need arises.

Committee Activities / Future Agenda - The Committee will consider topics proposed 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

!. ofinformation permit.

APPENDIX Y 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.

1 ACNW Retreat

1. NRC Strategic Planning (Handout]

2. FY 1998-1999 Operating Plan, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

[ Handout]

3. Mission Statement: September 6,1995 [ Handout]

4. Background [ Handout]

5. Technical Initiatives for Next 18 to 24 Months, ACNW Retreat, October 21, 1997 [Viewgraphs]

6. Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) Survey [ Handout]

7. Setting Priorities for ACNW lasues (From 11/10/93 White Paper) [ Handout]

8. Typed Copy of Charts Used at Retreat, 'ACNW Retreat - October 21,1997 l

[ Handout] -

3 Review NRC Waste Related Research and Technical As.sistance j

9. Radionuclides Transport Research Program for the Advisory Cr ; .nittee on Nuclear Waste, presented by Sher Bahadur, ONice of Nuclear Regulatory Research [Viewgraphs]

10. Generalized Performance Assessment Process [Viewgraphs]

11. Draft Scoping Papers Prepared by ACRS Staff and Fellows for ACRS' Deliberations on the Subject of the Regulatory E#ectiveness of NRC Research Efforts in the Reactor Safeguards Area [ Handout 3-1]

12. Consideration on NRC Waste Related Research and Technical Assistance

[ Handout 3-2]

5 Committee Activities / Future Agenda

13. Upcoming NRC/ DOE HLW Meetings, Technical Exchanges, and Appendix 7 Visits l

l l

l i

i

Appendix V 2 ,

95th ACNW Meeting 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 NOTEBOOK AGENDA DOCUMENTS ITEM NO.

1 ACNW Retreat

1. ACNW Planning Session Notebook Tabi - NRC Strategic Plan

- ACNW Charter

- ACNW Bylaws

- Material Presented by Roxanne Summers Tab ll - 1997 Priority lasues for the ACNW, November 20,1996

- Revision cf ACNW Priority issues, December 28,1995

- List of Member and Staff Assignments Tab Ill - Memoranda from J. Garrick, dated 1996 Tab IV - NRC Safety Goals and Risk informed, Performance-Based Regulation by Forrest Remick

- NRC PRA Policy Statement Tab V - Self Assessment l

l Tab VI - Examples of Strategic Plans and Performance Measures l

l 4

? .

Appendix V 3 95th ACNW Meeting 1

3 Review NRC Waste Related Research and Technical Assistance

1. Status Report, Review NRC Waste Related Research and Technical Assistance

2. Memorandum to Callan and Larkins from Hoyle, dated September 9,1997, subject: Staff Requirements - SECY-97-149 Nimlear Safety Research Review Committee (NSRRC)

3. Memorandum to Onice Directors and DEDO for Regulatory Effec-tiveness from Larkins, dated October 2,1997, subject: ACRS Review of the NRC Safety Research Program and Related Matters.

4. Report, subject: Scoping Document on the Effectiveness of the NRC's Program in Research and Technical Assistance for Radioac-tive Waste Management.

5. Related sections from Minutes of the 25th ACNW Meeting, dated October 24-25,1990.

6. Memorandum to Taylor from Moeller, dated May 1,1992 and May 25,1993, subject: Review of NRC High-Level Radioactive Waste Research Program Plan (Draft NUREG-1406).

l

7. NUREGs 1380 and 1406 i

8. Memorandum to ACNW Members from Larson, dated January 25, 199e, subject: Greeves to Steindler Memo Transmitting a Revision to the Research User Need Statement for the LLW Program.

MEETING NOTEBOOK

9. Memorandum to ACRS Staff and Members from El-Zeftswy, dated October 6,1997, subject: Safety Research Program.

10. Draft Research Review by A. Cronenberg, dated October 8/9,1997, subject: ACRS Report to Congress on NRC Research.

11. Planning for Review of the NRC's Research Program, dated August 1 1997, subject: Report to Congress, the effectiveness of NRC i research. l

Appendix V 4

• 95th ACNW Meeting AGENDA DOCUMENTS - -

ITEM NO.

Tab 3 (cont'd) Review NRC Waste Related Research and Technical Assistance

12. Facsimile from D. Powers to Larkins and El-Zeftswy, dated September 17, 1997, subject: reporting to Congress and the Commission on the regulatory effectiveness of NRC research.

Tab 5 Committee Activities / Future Agenda

13. Set Agenda for the 96thACNW Meeting, November 20-22,1997

14. Set .';enda for the Out Months through January 1998

15. Meeting Dates for CY 1998

16. EDO's List of Future Meeting Topics

17. OCRWMS/M&O Meeting List and Calendar Tab 7 Prepare for Next Meeting with the Commission

18. Status Report, Preparation for Commission Briefing on December 17,1997 and reisted items l

I l

.