IA-87-773, Forwards Trip Rept Prepared by J Greeves Re Trip to Mexico City,Per Mexican Govt Request.Trip Provided Opportunity to Exchange Licensing Info & to Assure That NRC Expertise Available to Mexico in Development of Disposal Technology
| ML20236V638 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/12/1987 |
| From: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236V375 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-773 NUDOCS 8712040435 | |
| Download: ML20236V638 (10) | |
Text
-
.h.
i NOV13 W STELLO MEM0/GREEVES/10/26/87 MEMORANDUM FOR:' Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FROM: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT GN JOHN GREEVES' RECENT TRIP TO MEXICO Enclosed for your information is a trip report prepared by John Greeves, regarding his recent trip to Mexico City at the request of the Mexican Government. The trip provided an opportunity to exchange licensing infonnation, and to assure that NRC expertise is available to Mexico in development of low-level waste disposal technology. John has briefed NMSS management on the results of his trip.
If you have any questions or would like to have a detailed briefing, please advise me.
pgnf %?L %;.<m it ,
hugh L. Thorrpson, Jr., Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety ario Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated cc: H. Denton R. Hauber DISTRIBUTION I NM55 sf LLWM rf HThompson RBernero .
MKnapp JGreeves Ptohaus MKearney JSurmeier
- SEE PREV:0US CONCURRENCE OFC :LLWM :LLWM :NM55 :NM55
. . . . . : . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . : . . . . . . . . _ _ . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . :: . . . yfg . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . :: . . . . . . . . . . .
NAME :JGreeves* :MKnapp :RBernero :HThompson : : :
l DATE :11/ /87 :11/ /87 :11/ /87 :11/j3/87 : : :
Y OFFICIAL RECORD COPY y 8712040435 871202' PDR X FOIA RESNIKOB7-773 PDR
l..
L l
TRIP REPORT l MEXICO CITY AND NEARBY LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL SITE l
On August 20, 1987, the Mexican Government requested the U.S. State Department to provide a briefing on siting activities for a potential Low-Level Waste
.(LLW) disposal facility.in Texas near the Mexican border. The. State Department asked NRC to help them with this briefing by making a presentation on the regulation of LLW and the status of LLW Compact development in the U.S. John Greaves, Deputy Director of LLWM/NMSS, represented NRC in this briefing.
The meeting was held in Mexico City on September 21, 1987. U.S. attendees (see Attachment #1) included representatives from the State Department, EPA, Texas and the International Boundary & Water Commission. The Mexican Government was represented by the Department of International Relations, Department of Energy, Department of Hydraulic Research, and the Oe>artment of Ecology (see Attachment
- 2). Two formal presentations were scheduled. Johr. Greeves made the first presentation on regulation of LLW and the status of Compact development in the U.S. The Mexican representatives asked a neber of questions about the classification of LLW, and some questions about specific sites in the U.S.
(e.g., West Valley). All questions were ans,,ered to their satisfaction.
The second presentation was on the site selection process and proposed design concept, by the State of Texas. A State representative presented information l on the three sites under consideration, primarily discussing the preferred site, which is 16 miles from the Mexican border. The proposed design concept will include burial of concrete canisters for Class A waste and below ground vaults for Classes B and C waste. The Mexican representatives were very interested in the site selection process and the groundwater characteristics of the preferred site. All questions were addressed to their satisfaction. ,
In a sumary statement, the Mexican representatives thankad the visitors for an excellent presentation and an informative dialogue. They also made two requests for follow-up activities. These included a request to be kept informed of progress in siting a new LLW disposal facility by the State of Texas, and a request to visit, within the next month, the three sites considered by Texas. The State Department and the State of Texas agreed to these requests. A site visit was scheduled for the week of October 19.
On the next day, September 22, the Mexican Government provided a tour of a LLW disposal facility 65 km northeast of the city. John Greeves and Tom Blackburn attended. The site is located near the town of Maquixco, in the foothills (see Photo #1) of the mountains surrounding the city of Mexico. The site area covers about 37 acres (see Photo #2). The climate is semi-arid, with an
! average precipitation of 25 inches per year. The disposal technology used is
! shallow land burial (see Photo #3), with selected use of small concrete vaults for higher activity waste (see Photo #4). Disposal f- limited to institutional I
i l
1 I
and-industrial. waste. A small amount of the " Mexican Steel" waste, contaminated reinforcing bars, was cis:osed of at this site and was bedded in concrete (see {
Photo #5). Most of the "wexican Steel" waste is disposed of at a site approxi- I mately 36 miles south of El Paso, Texas. More specific details on the Maquixco j site are included in the attached Fact Sheet (see Attachment #3). I In summary, the trip was very beneficial in providing an opportt.nity for j licensing information excnange with the Mexican Government. It also served to assure Mexico that NRC expertise is available to it, as it develops LLW technology.
l 4
l I
i i
l 1
.___________-___A
.. - Attachment ;
.Page 1 n,1 -
U. 5. DELEG ATION US STA'TE DEPARTMENT Mr. Edward Parsons 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -
i Dr. Allan' Allyn Davis Director of Hazardous Waste Management INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMISSION. US SECTION Mr. Narendra Gunaji Commissioner Mr. Roberto Ibarra !
Secretary i Mr. George Baumli Principal Engineer NUCLEAR REGULATIONS COMISSION Mr. John Greeves TEXAS LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY Mr. Lawrence Jacovi General Manager Mr. Ruben Alvarado Chief Engineer Mr. Thomas Blackburn
- Special Program Director l
l TEXAS HEALTH DEPA_RTMENT 1
Mr. Edgar Bailey l I
i l
l l
-w-,,-, - - , - ,-- - , , , ,--- , -- - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - , - , - - - - - - - - - --- , , - - - - - ,, , - - - - , - - - - -
Attachment 1 Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF TEX AS Vr. Charles Kreitter kreau of Economic Geology Chief US EMBASSY Mr. Roy Simpkins Science Counselor Mr. James Dudley Science Of ficer
Atta:- ent 2 Page '
DELEGACION MEXICANA 1
SECRETARIA DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES Lic. Marco A. Alcszar Avila.
Director General ce Limites y Rios Internacionales.
Ing. Carlos M. Santibsnez Mata, Comisionado mexicano ante la Comisi6n International de Limites y Aguas entre MEX - EUA.
Dr. Abraham Montes de Oca, Director de Tratados, Consultoria Juridica. (
Ing. Rcberto Rodriguez R. ,
Director de Limites y Rios.
Lic. Esther Larios Alz0a, Secretaria Particular del Director General de Limites y Rios internacienales.
Lic. Alicia Pizano \1eza, Jef a del Departamento de Cocperaci6n Fronteriza y Trabagcores Migratorios de la Direcci6n General para Am5rica del Norte.
SECRETARIA DE ENERGIA, MINAS E INDUSTRIA PARAESTATAL Ing. Miguel Medina Vaillard, Director General de la Comisi6n Nacional de Seguridad Nuclear y Salvaguardias.
Ing. Jos Ra01 Ortiz Magana, Gerente de Seguridad Radiol 6gica, Comisi6n Nacional de Seguridad Nuclear y Salvaguardias, ing. Jorge Ibarra Ma>cotte, Jefe del Departamento de Estudios Nucleares y Carboniferous, Unidad de Estudios de Ingenieria Civil, l Comisi6n Federal de Electricidad.
! Ing. Gustavo Molina, Jefe del Area del Ciclo de Combustibles de la Cerencia de Seguridad Radio!6gica.
Attachment 2 Page 2 l
1 SECRETARIA DE AGRICULTUR A Y RECURSOS HIDR AULICOS Ing. Remo Loaiza Garcia, j
Director General de Administraci6n i y Control de Sistemas Hidrol6gicos. i Ing. Rub 6n Ch5vez Guill6n, Director de Aguas Subterrsneas, Direcci6n General de Administraci6n y Control de Sistemas Hidrol6gicos.
Ing. Adolfo Urias Martinez, Director de Calidad del Agua, Direcci6n General de Administraci6n y Control de Sistemas Hidrol6gicos.
SECRETARIA DE DESARROLLO URBANO Y ECOLOGIA Arq. Ren6 Altamirano P6rez, Director General de Prevenci6n y Control de la Contaminaci6n Ambiental.
Ing. Juan Francisco Bueno Ziri6n, Director General de Normatividad '
y Regulaci6n Ecol 6gica.
I i
I.
%_ m__-mm__
. .. Attachren 3 i
)
l l
Briefing on September Mexico Trip and Site Visit FACT SHEET CN MEXICAN LLW DISPOSAL SITE Location: State of Mexico, 65 km N.E. of Mexico City, Foothills Size 15 hectares (37 acres)
Elevation: 8,134 Feet Disposal Technology: Shallcw land burial with some concrete vaults, 5 trenches 180M long, 1.2M wide, 2.5M deep Met Tower: Semi-Arid, precipitation 25 inches / year Sampling: 11 TLD's Geology: Volcanic rock and soil (soil 30M, Brecia 100M, Basalt Bedrock],
no water at 300M, local water via small ponds LLW: Trench 0 - 172 CM Rebar in Cenent Trench 1 - 31 CM Sealed Sources Trench 3 - 214 CM Filled LLW Trench 5 - 68 CM Radium Sources in Vaults, Rebar in Cement Other Items:
Goats, sheep and crops are raised on site as a test demonstration Radio on site, no phone 86 volume - compacted DAW 62 drums, non-compacted DAW 7 drums, liquid with clay 16 drums, bio-waste 9 drums, 132 Ir-192 sources.
2 Cs-137 sources, 57 radium sources
{
l Local population took over site as a result of the Rebar Burial incident.
I I I l l l 1
1
PHOTO 1 MAQUIXCO SITE IN FOOTHILLS, en km NORTHEAST OF MEXICO CITY l
g" i
-4 li
.a -
=*:.E l
- g. .
iS@. '
'~
t,= :. .j .
99030 g
..s SITE AREA PLAN COVERS 37 ACRES. TRENCHE5
~
,;,Y .3 -
ARE LOCATED ALONG NORTH BORDER OF SITE
- 4. .. -
ikd?>3q .212 .
C '7 ?a 4
.._,.= ~.' _j
- p.J
- %, F.4 14 4!. ::' L ,,
IQJ:[ I ,'f @ PHOTO 3
- u . . h .;,
. , , . y. =, "
TYPIC.AL SHALLOW LAND BURIAL TRENCH
. ?,
$. ;$i):,[, k.
- e.*
- Q;C?;V*y.Q.
- t. .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ___ _______ __ _ __ _ _ ____ __-___ ____ _______-__-________-___ _
....,_w-- --
PHOTO 4
, ,, TYPICAL CONCRETE VAULT CONSTRUCTION FOR HIGH ACTIVITY WASTE i
~ -_. .
'- -- M . , ,. - ==- .
_~
4 .
. = m.5 g- ,
\1 j
^
. a
\
A e l . .
g i . ~
,g&..
PHOTO 5 - .
s, a :
f%
" MEXICAN STEEL" REINFORCIE BARS BEDDED IN CONCRETE .q. '
g,*
s *
. a g j;
' ~
~
' .T.
. ; a . . ,f '
.s --
g L .
J . b g.
+ -
4%})
r/.
t E !.7Q+,,*H wn000h'..c?
c l'
' . x*' ; ~r Tgagi (qvcLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority Lawrence R. Jacobi, Jr. 7703 Nerth Lamar BNd. Memtes e tw kn GeneralManager f(d p' Suite 300 J hn E Seet C H P Chairman lf Austin, Teras 78752 -
EtertB Warm Ph D vice cham 6 (512)451 5292 Jim R Phdgs Segetary James P AAscm wtanJ Castwieau M o Waam L Farw Ph o September 10, 1987 . . . . - ..
)' /1 -
Michael Tokar, Ph.D. ;e- -
Division of Waste Management --
- / ' ' ' ./ -
Office of Nuclear Material -
Safety & Safeguards .
-U a 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission '- -
Washington, D. C. 20555
Subject:
Review Criteria for Alternative Methods of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal. Task 2a: Below Ground Vaults--Working Draft
Dear Dr. Tokar:
p(m[yfut crexeamb 1 h dn h *y.u I have reviewed the subject document which was distributed at the recent DOE Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management C'on'erence in Denver. - ~
My overall im-
, pression of the document is that it isNres&iptive.'y The use of the word to thould9throughout the document is tying the haiid570 the desiqrangineer andJ,e adr
[' is contradictory to the idea of using soundingineering judgement. Thie type of is i nn document can have two very-unfortuna_te results. The first is that the criteria ("O"E W"'
M(
will somehow be taken as defining gfn optiiiiuiif'd'eiTgn.2.r_egardless of site specific circumstances that require additional ~ features >not addressedJn_the criteFTa.M MaO -
k 'Thesome second is~which facilities equally as bad--that will merly complicate is the addi' design, tion of6-mm construction, tion. While I agree that the majority of the items presented _tndtheJaft cg sh-Ynd opera- deatures-ht (( [
o criteria should be analyzed and addressed, my opinion is that*t all . .fea tpfft mde {)eu A mentioned will be necessary in every case and the criteria should be(ediled to 'o LM
$h].
- make it clear that all the features addressed are not mancatory. The key to any design is tailoring the facility to function on a site specific basis, gb fedJrts %
My specific comments are as follows3 g egI[MNa$ oggsd,
- 1) The requirement that- ground concreted structures be designed in i
accordance with ACI 349 is overly conservative. These structures cannot reason-c ably be classed as "safet related structures" as the term is cm.only used. To hth l'I) apply this design that low-level standard radioactive wastesimply is much lends morecredence hazardousto than theit view reallyof is.the oppone During the discussions in Denver, you and Mr. Kane stated that if ACI 349 and ACI 318 were compared side-by-side there would be little significant difference.
k,1 i i -
^ .
~.
p .
Michael Tokar, Ph.D.
September 10, 1987 Page Two f i (btio how hnces been S
hC.Idb .%)
(g.;-d %e.h . < t.
5spc fh ore,$ortd/e (doMQUN ftged:
w6c ort a culh .H m bc.T. % .c S0 ,
0 I find this difficult' to resolve since comen cost estimeting references indi-
-hate a factor of 3 to 4 difference in cest between nuclear concrete.in-place' and comon structural concrete in-place, g fet{ related
' M *2) # TypeTheVostensible cementreason'is (sulphate resistant) to protect 1
. is specified the structure from concrete struc-for 4 ) internal degrada-T 1 rtures.
tion resulting from the leaking of acids an,d other corrosive liquids from the-MQ('C
- n M
cowaste containers. Since little or no free-standing . liquid _is_ contained in the fwaste and since there are .already waste form criteria 'in_ place 7 which are inten- s
- W O $ded to minimize these_ types of problems, the validity of this argument 'is - d ld 55 questionable. The Tcisio. ' f_ the_ type of cement to be used should be based a SSupon:the soil condi s and other environmental factorsT at each new di po
- fs i te.' N3 4 MMI g SvWet m %e W WCC, (E
) 13) The wording of the document is somewhat unclear in the discussion of J f If it is the intent of the NRC to require moisture barriers, i d 9 '. moisture barriers.particularly. the use of man-made materials for which extremely long M
lives have not been demonstrated, I would object to this requirement. The H
) hpotential for degradation of the concrete resulting from soil interactions g
) y gEshould be evaluated on a site-specific basis and appropriate methodologies for Q .
5 gu Eminimizing the problem should be designed. If the discussion is meant.only to s.p J
b a o-djacquaint people with the wide range of materials which can be used for m91sture l barriers, then the discussion is both comprehensive and usefyt l._, g o[ 3; l
- 6 { 4) . The document requires the use of epoxy coated rebar to protect the re-GJJ nforcing steel from corrosion. Chloride migration and the resulting corrosion inforcing steel is a well known and_ documented _ problem.__The_ approach that- -
s has taken in its conceptual design work has been to design all concrete .
structures assuming that the concrete would have to bear-all loads imposed on the structure. While this will result in very thick walls.and require signifi NO ,
cantly larger amounts of concrete, it is, in our' opinion, a more conservative h '
desig", basis. In previous discussions on this issue, the NRC staff has asserted L that the voids which will result when the steel corrodes will adversely affect If a concrete vault is utilized for waste k ~.the performance disposal the-types ofofwaste the facility.
which would be critical- are Class B and C.- Since "3 these wastesMJatdPto be acceptable for disposal, the vault should have i g nojeffect on perforinance. ,g gg a
- 5) A minor item is the use of the term " potable' water" several times in the de
- discussion of concrete mixes. Since this term is undefined in statute or fWmon regulation, it might be preferable to use the the terin " drinking water" which is defined, or to briefly discuss the parameters which may adversely affect con- Q crete performance.
- 6) The requirement for deflection and settlement monitoring devices is gross Rth overkill. Requiring this type of monitoring for a concrete vault and not QM requiring any similar monitoring for shallow-land burial is inconsistent. .
y g\
tae.M no.w,y m M nup + 4 p u ,e. e 6 ia f 5 % O y e h 6 d ) e re v i d }.c h .3 **d'%
Michael.Tokar, Ph.C.
t September 10, 19E'
~ Page .Three Wc v d P.
OMurnfTee{0ed en b
- It becomes clear that these criteria were prepared on aberroneous assumption which has - been stated by NRC staff on several' occasions.
That is that the -
! states and compacts wish of low-level wasta. By this I can only ' assume that the NRC to go beyond the requirements c' :D CFR 61 in disposing states and compa:ts feel that- the performance objectives contained feels .that the in the regulation are toc lax. This is totally untrue. !_ have never heard anyone who is attempting to. develop a new facility make this statement. The only reason for using concrete structures 'is to achieve a greater degree of public accep-tance.
acceptable There is no doubt and woruable that shallow-land technology from a technicalburial viewoint. . at a suitable- site. is an k -
However, because (thon.
- the public has - lest faith in any type of " landfill" technology, it will be no&q Q ' ' difficult to licerse such facilities .in many ares of tse- country. These cri-4gT,g 'teria ~ef.e_so stririgeps to be almost punitive; the states must.be punished for failing to bund dat the NRC wants built. I say this only because on more than-g.
aqt4 eso" one facility. occasion, I have been told that no one will ever license an aboveground very real.possibility. If these criteria are any indication of what is to come. thaty Design criteria should be promulgated to provide {guid- A \t,i :
t ance on acceptable design options, they should not be promulgated to constrain a inis e design to a precon:eived notion of the regulatory agency.
. ss sc.:
ore,.
In conclusion, if these criteria remain as they are, the NRC should take action h d. ',
' to' consider the waste disposal unit as the )
' the waste generator of the expense of staFilizin izing Class medium, Ia thereby relieving p ,,.,
/-
C wastes s p , g, .
Sine ly,\ / ""'
b% M% ubo%ws Yyk&.e kic l-cw.p% m)J /q / -
s,a
/
. i.
c'f#%e{~Ivar'ade,
, j
. .ll- l[f
'M P. E.
. - habs a SMSO
- ---Chief Engineer -
~~
raa cc: L. R. Jacobi, Jr. , P. E. <
- - _ - - _ . _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . - - - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ - - - . - _