Trip Report, Contractor Meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland ... · NUCLEAR WASTE CONSULTANTS INC. 8341 So. Sangre de Cristo Rd., Suite 6 Littleton, Colorado 80127 (303) 973-7495 April

.)C P C .e 47�r e V-, C-1 ,

NUCLEAR WASTE CONSULTANTS INC.8 tj.t Sangre de Cristo Rd., Suite 6

.- ' - -. ^ as tfitleton, Colorado 80127;, ;< C-( (303) 973-7495

April 25, 1986 3 HAY -1 P12:00 009/PM/Meetings.003RS-NMS-85-009Communication No. 49

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionDivision of Waste ManagementGeotechnical BranchMS 623-SSWashington, DC 20555

Attention: Mr. J. Pohle, Project OfficerTechnical Assistance in Hydrogeology - Project B (RS-NMS-85-009)

Re: Trip Report, Contractor Meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland,April 14-16, 1986

Dear Mr. Pohle:

Please find attached Nuclear Waste Consultants, Inc.'s trip report for thecontractor meeting held in Silver Spring, Maryland from April 14-16, 1986.The purpose of the meeting was to review the status of activities by thecontractors and to develop plans for preparing for receipt and review of theDepartment of Energy's Site Characterization Plans. Following the generalmeetings of April 14-15, the BWIP Site Leads held a meeting with the NWC/TerraTherma personnel to discuss the status of DOE's activities at Hanford and thesteps that should be taken to prepare for the next BWIP Hydrology Workshop.On April 16, Mark Logsdon, the NWC Project Manager met informally withDivision of Waste Management staff and with staff of the Division ofContracts.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me immediately.

Respectfully submitted,NUCLEAR WASTE CONSULTANTS, INC.

t=J~~~~~~~~~~~~ W. P PI ;s c;_Docket No. _

Mark J. Logsdon, Project Manager PDR IZLPDR 6v X

Att: Trip Report - April 14-16, 1986Att. 1 - Annotated AgendaAtt. 2 - Annotated Handouts

Tibution:A A /lv-- - - -(Re'urn to WM, 623-SS) _

cc: US NRC - Director, NMSS (ATTN PSB)DWM (ATTN Division Director)Mary Little, Contract AdministratorWMGT (ATTN Branch Chief)

Lyle Davis, WWLM.Galloway, TTIR. Knowlton, DBS

8605280364 860425PDR WMRES EECNWCI ?0fP-1021 PDR

I

l

6-

M NUCLEAR WASTE CONSULTANTS INC.<JcixD~~~~~~~~~~~,. , -

- ta~G)

U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONDIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

TRIP REPORTCONTRACTOR MEETING

SILVER SPRING, MARYLANDAPRIL 14-16, 1986

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN HYDROGEOLOGYPROJECT B - ANALYSIS

RS-NMS-85-009

April 25, 1986

NUCLEAR WASTE CONSULTANTS INC.8341 So. Sangre de Cristo Rd., Suite 6

Littleton, Colorado 80127(303) 973-7495

April 25, 1986 009/PM/Meetings.003RS-NMS-85-009Communication No. 49

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionDivision of Waste ManagementGeotechnical BranchMS 623-SSWashington, DC 20555

Attention: Mr. J. Pohle, Project OfficerTechnical Assistance in Hydrogeology - Project B (RS-NMS-85-009)

Re: Trip Report, Contractor Meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland,April 14-16, 1986

Dear Mr. Pohle:

Please find attached Nuclear Waste Consultants, Inc.'s trip report for thecontractor meeting held in Silver Spring, Maryland from April 14-16, 1986.The purpose of the meeting was to review the status of activities by thecontractors and to develop plans for preparing for receipt and review of theDepartment of Energy's Site Characterization Plans. Following the generalmeetings of April 14-15, the BWIP Site Leads held a meeting with the NWC/TerraTherma personnel to discuss the status of DOE's activities at Hanford and thesteps that should be taken to prepare for the next BWIP Hydrology Workshop.On April 16, Mark Logsdon, the NWC Project Manager met informally withDivision of Waste Management staff and with staff of the Division ofContracts.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me immediately.

Respectfully submitted,NUCLEAR WASTE CONSULTANTS, INC.

'Ny'"} 4,Mark J. Logsdon, Project Manager

Att: Trip Report - April 14-16, 1986Att. 1 - Annotated AgendaAtt. 2 - Annotated Handouts

cc: US NRC - Director, NMSS (ATTN PSB)DWM (ATTN Division Director)Mary Little, Contract AdministratorWMGT (ATTN Branch Chief)

Lyle Davis, WWLM.Galloway, TTIR. Knowlton, DBS

TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -1- APRIL 25, 1986

TRIP REPORT

CONTRACT PROJECT MANAGEMENT MEETING, APRIL 14-16, 1986

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Nuclear Waste Consultants, Inc. (NWC) and its subcontractors attended the

project management and planning meeting held at the Willste Building, Silver

Spring, Maryland on April 14-15, 1986. The NWC team was represented by the

following people:

Name Position Firm

Adrian Brown Project Technical Director Nuclear Waste Consultants

& BWIP Technical Director

Mark Logsdon Project Manager Nuclear Waste Consultants

Lyle Davis NNWSI Team Manager Water, Waste and Land

Michael Galloway BWIP Team Manager Terra Therma

Daniel Stephens Salt Technical Director Daniel B. Stephens & Assoc.

NRC staff who participated extensively in the meetings included:

Jeff Pohle, Project Officer; NNWSI Site Lead

Dick Codell, NNWSI Site Lead

Fred Ross, Salt Site Lead

Neil Coleman, BWIP Site Lead

Nuclear Waste Consultants Inc

TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -2- APRIL 25. 1986

Mike Weber, BWIP Site Lead

Mike Fliegel, Hydrology Section Leader

King Stablein, NNWSI Project Manager

Paul Hildebrand, BWIP Project Manager

Mary Little, the NRC Contract Administrator, did not attend the meetings in

Silver Spring, but Mark Logsdon (NWC) met with Ms. Little in her offices in

Bethesda on April 16, 1986.

In addition, the meetings were attended by members of the Williams and

Associates team, representing Project A. Williams' team members included Dr.

Roy Williams, Dr. Dale Ralston and Mr. G. Winter (BWIP and Salt), Drs. J.

Sharp (Salt), J. Osiensky (NNWSI), and R. Parizek. Mr. Paul Davis, Sandia

National Laboratories, also attended the meetings.

The annotated agenda and handouts for the meeting are attached (Attachments 1

and 2). All agenda topics were addressed during the meeting. In the report

that follows, discussion that more than acknowledges the various topics will

be limited to those matters that require amplification or for which the

Project Officer has asked for specific responses.


TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -3- APRIL 25. 1986TRIP REPORT - 4114-16186 -3- APRIL 25. 1986

2.0 INITIAL DISCUSSIONS - APRIL 14, 1986

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

After introducing the attendees, Mr. Pohle briefly reviewed the status of NRC

plans to review the Final Environmental Assessments (FEA's). As of that date,

the best guess for delivery of the FEA's was April 28, 1986. The general NRC

plan is to review the manner in which each FEA responds to major and important

specific NRC comments. The intention is to raise new issues or concerns only

if new information presented in the FEA requires the staff to do so. The NRC

anticipates that each of the NWC Site Teams will informally review the FEA,

but Mr. Pohle anticipates little or no involvement by NWC in the formal NRC

review process.

BACKGROUND ON PROJECTS

Mr. Pohle pointed out that there are new references that will be cited in the

FEA's, but that the ability of the staff and contractors to review the FEA in

terms of the information and analyses contained in those references may be

severely limited by the time available to review the primary documents before

reviewing the FEA's. Examples of the new documents include the Groundwater

Travel Time papers currently under review by Daniel B. Stephens and

Associates, the NWC Salt Site Team.

Dr. Williams expressed a general concern about the "stochastic" models now

apparently being used by all the DOE sites to assess groundwater travel time.


TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -4- APRIL 25. 1986TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -4- APRIL 25. 1986

There was a brief discussion about technical concerns with this approach,

including issues involving the current version of the NRC's draft GTP on

Groundwater Travel Time. While agreeing that there may be concerns with

specific applications of approaches, Adrian Brown (NWC) recommended that the

Staff take great care in responding to the DOE documents in order to avoid

confusion about the NRC Staff's position on the need to address uncertainty,

which would appear to be the reason that DOE has gone to this technology.

PLANNING FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLANS

Mr. Pohle presented and discussed aspects of a memorandum that he had prepared

for M.H. Fliegel, Hydrology Section Leader, concerning preparing for SCP

reviews (Program Plan for HLW Hydrogeology Efforts in FY86 and FY87 Directed

Toward Preparing for Site Characterization Plan Reviews, Memorandum from J.A.

Pohle to M.H. Fliegel, dated March 24, 1986). A copy of the memorandum is

included in Attachment 2. In addition, Mr. Pohle placed this hydrology

planning effort in the larger context of the Five-Year Work Plan initiative,

which he invited Seth Coplan (WMRP) and Mr. Fliegel to discuss. The

memorandum identifies five objectives of the hydrology planning exercise:

1. Identification of key conditions, assumptions or interpretations in

conceptual models.

2. Identification of types of information necessary to verify the

conditions, assumptions and interpretations of Step 1.

3. Identification of information gaps.


TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 _5_ APRIL 25. 1986TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16186 -5- APRIL 25. 1986_

4. Development of WMGT "Branch Perspectives" on technical considerations

for site characterization.

5. Development of staff positions on acceptable testing strategies.

The memorandum also identifies a series of products associated with the

program objectives and discusses the roles of NRC Staff and contractor

contributions to these products. One of the products envisaged is a series of

reports, termed Data Needs Assessments, that present the results of efforts

related to the review and analysis of existing data, conceptual models

evaluations and numerical/analytical analyses. The memorandum indicates that

NWC will have the contractor lead in the development and preparation of these

reports, which will be directed primarily at Items 1-3 above.


TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -6- APRIL 25. 1986TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -6- APRIL 25. 1986~~~~~~~~

3.0 DATA NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

BACKGROUND

Adrian Brown (NWC) began the presentation on the proposed NWC approach to

conducting the Data Needs Assessments with some introductory material about

our understanding of the problem, particularly with reference to preparing the

Staff to adequately review and comment on the DOE Site Characterization Plans.

Major points of the NWC position as expressed by Mr. Brown include:

1. The NRC mandate is to -evaluate, using materials presented In a

license application, whether a proposed HLW repository will meet the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 60, including the overall EPA Standards

(10 CFR 60.112), and, if it does, to issue a license for the

operation of the facility.

2. The NRC is operating under a number of constraints which are

significant with respect to how it fulfills its mandate, including:

a. NRC will occupy the minimum amount of time on the critical path

to licensing that is consistent with protection of the public

health and safety.

b. NRC will do its utmost to avoid rejecting a license application

on the grounds of incompleteness.



c. In general, the NRC will not directly obtain field information,

except to the extent that it may be required for quality

assurance.

3. The effect of these constraints is that the NRC must have access to

information in a timely fashion. Equally important, the NRC must be

involved in the decision-making for testing at each site to ensure

that the information which is being collected includes the minimum

information that the NRC must have to reach a decision on compliance

with the licensing requirements.

4. The immediate focus of the Staff's hydrology assessments ought to be

the development of a set of evaluations that will allow the Staff to

perform an adequate review of the DOE SCP's, since these program

documents will control the collection of data that will be used by

DOE to support a license application.

With respect to reviews conducted by the NRC Staff and contractors, a specific

piece of earth science or engineering information - which may be a datum or an

analysis of data - can be considered needed if and only if one can demonstrate

that it is necessary for an evaluation that is defined in Part 60, including,

ultimately, an evaluation of the the EPA Standards that are incorporated into

the NRC Rule. Since 10 CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR Part 191 are performance

standards, this logic requires that information needs must be defined within

the framework of performance assessments: if a piece of information is not

needed to assess some aspect of performance of a geologic repository, it


TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -8- APRIL 25. 1986TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -8- APRIL 25. 1986~~~~~ _ _

cannot be considered an information need within the meaning of the NRC's

ultimate responsibility.

Investigation needs, the principal topic of the SCP process, are a subset of

information needs, since some information may be (and probably is) already

available at each of the sites. To define an investigation need, one must

first identify and document the significance of an information need, then

review the existing information to determine that the data or analysis does

not already exist, and finally demonstrate that it is feasible to develop the

required information through additional investigations.

PROTOCOL FOR HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATION NEEDS

NWC has developed a general protocol for hydrologic investigations needs that

we consider can be applied to the task proposed by the NRC Staff:

1. Identify the performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR Part

191 that are relevant to hydrology.

2. Define criteria (for success and/or failure) for assessing the system

or subsystem, based on the performance objectives in the rule.

Criteria may include levels of uncertainty which are considered

sufficient to bound performance reliably.

3. Identify the aspects of the hydrology of a geologic repository which

can affect the relevant behavior (i.e., performance).


TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 Beg_ APRIL 25. 1986

4. Develop a model (that is an analog) of the geologic repository or of

a subsystem of the repository which can be analyzed with respect to

performance. The development of the model includes the

identification of the parameters, boundary conditions and stimuli

that must be included to evaluate the model.

5. Review the data that have been collected and select the data that are

believed to be sufficiently reliable to apply in assessments of

performance using the model(s) developed in step 4. If there are

parameters needed for a model for which no -or no reliable- data

exist, then develop a set of bounding data that can be used to define

the sensitivity of the performance of the model to parametric

uncertainty. Alternatively, reformulate the model to solve for (or

find limits for) the unknown datum.

6. Analyze the performance of the modeled system or subsystem against

the criteria established in step 2, using the available data selected

in step 5.

7. If the analysis shows that the available data meet the established

criteria (that is, the modeled system clearly succeeds or clearly

fails), then there is no information need, and consequently no

investigation need.

8. If the the analysis shows that the available data do not meet the

established criteria (that is, the modeled system cannot be shown to



clearly succeed or clearly fail), then one must determine whether it

is feasible to obtain the information (either data or a new data

analysis) that would allow a determination to be made against the

criteria.

9. If the information cannot be feasibly obtained, there is no

investigation need, since no investigation would yield the required

information.

10. If the information can be feasibly obtained, then an investigation

need has been established, and it is appropriate to proceed to

evaluating the plans that are proposed.

11. When new information has been developed as a result of investigations

based on plans developed subsequent to step 10, the performance

assessment is reiterated from step 4 or step 6, as appropriate. The

iterative process ends when the information meets the criteria of

each analysis of performance that is required to establish that the

geologic repository will meet the performance objectives of 10 CFR

Part 60, including the EPA Standards of 40 CFR Part 191.

EXAMPLE: RESATURATION OF A SALT REPOSITORY BY VERTICAL DARCY FLOW

Mr. Brown presented a sample data needs analysis as an example of the way such

mini-performance assessments can be conducted. The example was the analysis

of the information needed to assess the rate of resaturation of a model

repository in bedded salt due to vertical darcy flow of water. The text for



this example, which was also included in the NWC Trip Report of February 13,

1986 (NWC Communication No. 25), is included in Attachment 2.

Discussion of the example centered on how one would go about selecting

specific problems for analysis and some of the key assumptions which were used

in formulating the conceptual model that was used. NWC's response to the

question of topic selection was that we would propose topics, along with a

rationale for their significance, for review by the Staff and other

contractors. The issue of defensible conceptual models was discussed in terms

of performing bounding calculations and the consideration of alternative

conceptual models. At the conclusion of the discussion, NWC committed to

preparing a first cut at a list of proposed topics for each site to be

presented to the group for further discussion on April 15.



4.0 WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES' EVALUATION OF NHWSI CONCEPTUAL MODELS

Dr. James Oslensky presented a discussion of major points that Williams and

Associates considered in their report on evaluations of conceptual models for

NNWSI. The W & A presentation addressed concepts of regional, intermediate

and local flow in the saturated zone, and selected areas of technical concern

about mechanisms of flow in the unsaturated zone. Dr. Osiensky showed a short

film on capillary barriers in partially saturated, porous sands.


TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -13- APRIL 25. 1986T R 683I 1

5.0 TOPICS FOR DATA NEEDS ANALYSES - APRIL 15. 1986

Mark Logsdon (NWC) began the presentations with a brief introduction on

limitations and assumptions. Key points in his introductions included:

1. The topics that were to be presented all began with consideration of

technical "open items" (ne "issues"), but are posed as questions that

are related to performance of a geologic repository with respect to

the EPA Standard for long-term isolation.

2. The topics of the morning's presentations were an initial set of

questions only. Our experience has been that new questions are

generated as work progresses on these topics.

3. The presentations would be at a "rough cut" level, intended to show

the level of fundamental questions that need to be addressed. The

hope was that there would develop a consensus that the approach and

the initial topics were appropriate for NRC analysis. NWC and its

subcontractors have ideas on how to approach the fundamental

questions, but details remain to be worked out.

Lyle Davis (Water, Waste and Land) began by presenting a series of questions

related to NNWSI. The approach and the basic questions are summarized on

Figure 1, which was presented at the meeting.

Dan Stephens (Daniel B. Stephens and Associates) presented an analogous series

of questions, which build on the performance assessment work that has already



been done for salt by SNL, DOE, WIPP and Golder Associates (GAl). The

approach and specific questions are summarized on Figure 2.

The BWIP presentations were deferred until the BWIP team meeting on the

afternoon of April 15, 1986 (see 6.0, below).

The consensus of the meeting was that the NWC approach was reasonable and

appropriate and that the initial topics were appropriate, as well. The whole

team agreed that full use of existing performance assessments should be made

and that selected members of the staff and contractors should review specific

topics and plans proposed by NWC.

NWC committed to presenting a general statement of its position in this trip

report and to submitting specific plans for review as they are developed.


TRTP RFPnRT - 4/14-16/Rfi -15- APRIL 25. 1986.... ,I-- ---- - -.- A _, _ 1986

6.0 BWIP TEAS MEETING - APRIL 15. 1986

Michael Weber, BWIP Site Lead for NRC, chaired an afternoon meeting of the

BWIP team, including NWC, W&A and SNL representatives, as well as WMGT and

WMRP staff. Mr. Weber reviewed the status of the BWIP program and proposed

discussion aimed at preparing for the next BWIP Hydrology Workshop, which is

now anticipated for June or July, 1986. The agenda for the BWIP Team meeting

is included in Attachment 2.

Mike Galloway (Terra Therma) presented a list of perfonmance-related

questions, which are summarized on Figure 3. The principal point of

discussion centered on establishing the need for regional-scale modeling of

the flow system. It was agreed by those present at the meeting that it would

be appropriate for there to be TA contractors present when SNL presents the

results of the Basalt Demonstration Task of Research Contract A 1266,

particularly for the insights that the SNL modeling presents on the

post-emplacement performance of a repository in basalt.

In addition to the topics proposed by NWC, W&A indicated that they had

concerns with respect to data needs for effective porosity and Paul Davis

expressed concerns for evaluating dual porosity and the potentially

directional nature of effective porosity and hydraulic conductivity.

There was an extensive discussion of the need for and potential locations for

information in the regional hydrogeologic setting of BWIP in relation to the

performance evaluation of a repository. This has been a matter for internal


TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -16- APRIL 25. 1986TRIP EPOR - 4/4-1686 -1- APIL 25 198

NRC staff and contractor discussion for some time, and NWC anticipates that it

will continue to be a discussion point, reflecting the differing approaches

and experiences of the NRC's BWIP team. Mr. Davis finished the meeting by

presenting some information from the regional modeling conducted to date under

FIN A 1757.



7.0 MEETINGS ON APRIL 16, 1986

On April 16, 1986, Mark Logsdon, NWC Project Manager, met with some NRC staff

and managers, including members of WMGT, WMRP and WMPC, to discuss

miscellaneous matters related to planning and project management of the

contract. Topics included:

o Planning for modeling using the INEL facilities;

o Status of USGS work at NNWSI;

o Quality assurance;

o Proposed NRC FFRDC.

In the afternoon, Logsdon met with Ms. Mary Little, the new Contract

Administrator, to review the billing procedures and the status of NWC contract

modifications and vouchers.



FIGURE 1 NNWSI APPROACH AND TOPICS

1.0 CAN FLUX LIMITATIONS IN UNSATURATED ZONE MEET EPA STANDARD?

Possible Answers: o Clearly Yes

o Clearly No

o Close

1.1 If "Clearly Yes" Then Few Or No Information Gaps Exist

1.2 If "Close" Then Engineering Solutions May Be Possible

1.3 If "Clearly No", Then:

1.3.1 Consider the likely effects of the following:

o Capillary Barrier

o Dual Porosity

o Heat Effects

o Retardation

1.3.2 Also evaluate flux limitations in the saturated zone (2.0)

2.0 CAN FLUX LIMITATIONS IN SATURATED ZONE MEET THE EPA STANDARD?

2.1 Consider Flow Through Saturated Tuff

2.2 Consider Flow Through Saturated Tuff + Carbonate

2.3 Consider Flow Through "Flawed" Geology


TRIP REPORT - 4/14-16/86 -- -~~~~19APRIL 25. 1986

FIGURE 2 SALT APPROACH AND TOPICS

1.0 COMPLETE CONCEPTUAL MODEL EVALUATION TASKS

2.0 IDENTIFY KEY PROBLEM AREAS

3.0 REVIEW EXISTING DOCUMENTS (DOE AND NRC) FOR ESCOPING CALCULATIONS ON KEY

PROBLEM AREAS

4.0 TENTATIVE LIST OF KEY PROBLEM AREAS FOR WHICH 0SCOPING CALCULATIONS" MAY

BE REQUIRED WITH RESPECT TO EPA STANDARDS

4.1 Critical Values (Or Ranges) Of Permeability

4.2 Significance Of Diffusion

4.3 Osmotic Pressures And Effects On Fluid Flow

4.4 Thermal Effects On Fluid Flow And Solubility

4.5 Occurrences And Effects Of Dissolution Zones And Breccia Pipes

4.6 Groundwater Age Dates And Geochemical Compositions Needed For

Consistency With Conceptual Models And EPA Standards

5.0 PERFORM OSCOPING CALCULATIONS- SHOWING PROBLEM AREAS MOST SENSITIVE TO

EPA STANDARDS


-


FIGURE 3 BWIP APPROACH AND TOPICS

1.0 COMPLETE CONCEPTUAL MODEL EVALUATION TASK

2.0 IDENTIFY TECHNICAL CONCERNS

3.0 REVIEW EXISTING DOCUMENTS (DOE AND NRC) FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS ON

KEY TECHNICAL CONCERNS

4.0 TENTATIVE LIST OF KEY TECHNICAL CONCERNS FOR WHICH MINI PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENTS MAY BE REQUIRED WITH RESPECT TO EPA STANDARDS

4.1 What Are The Thermal Effects On Fluid Flow And Transport?

4.2 To What Extent Are Pre-Emplacement Heads Significant To

Post-Emplacement Performance?

4.3 To What Extent Must NRC Know Hydraulic Characteristics Of Units

Below The Repository?

4.4 Given A Bulk Kv, Is It Important To Know The Distribution Of Ky?

4.5 How Many (Incl. Which Types, How Long, And Where) Long-Term Tests

Are Needed To Provide Reliable Licensing Information?

4.6 How Far Away from the Repository Can Boundaries Be Before They Have

No Significant Impact With Respect To The EPA Standard?

4.7 How Important To Evaluations With Respect To The EPA Standard Is

Dispersivity?

5.0 PERFORM "SCOPING CALCULATIONS SHOWING PROBLEM AREAS MOST SENSITIVE TO

EPA STANDARDS


ATTACHMENT 1

6-

/ ( dV/4 4{Oj j6

AGENDA

4/14/86

8:30

8:45

9:30

10:30

10:45

12:00

1:30

3:00

3:15

4:30

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Introduction

Discussion of FEA Review Plan

FY86/87 Proqram Plan

R - R - E - A - K

NWC Presentation - BWIP

NWC Presentation - NNWSI

B - R - E - A - K

NWC Presentation - SRPO

Pohle

Pohle/Al 1

PohIe/Al 1

NWC/TT

NWC/WWL

NWC/DBS

AdJorn

i / OoiV $4 -4S.f tet Aye

11IIA'16. . 41,OV W � I C-el� 0

7

AGENDA

4/15/86-

8:30 a.m.

8:45 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

10:15 a.m.

12:00 p.m.

Introduction

i%4- L(o w&A Presentation - NNWSI

B - R - E'- A - K

Follow-UP Discussion

L - U - N - C - H

Pohle

W&A/Osiensky

All

,q&IC /&m4ms5t 1 .em '. SVvvfI

ATTACHMENT 2

Documents

Trip Report, Contractor Meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland ... · NUCLEAR WASTE CONSULTANTS INC. 8341 So. Sangre de Cristo Rd., Suite 6 Littleton, Colorado 80127 (303) 973-7495 April