ML19326D826
| ML19326D826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/26/1980 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T, NUDOCS 8007030361 | |
| Download: ML19326D826 (33) | |
Text
.
l (OROWITZscph q
pig 23 1 thru 32 1
s k'O 1 b
\\
bb ED STATES OF AMERICA 1
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
l 4
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5
JOINT MEETING e
k 3
6 0
WE R
7 SUBCOMMITTEES ON ~ WASTE MANAGEMENT AND FUEL CYCLE.
N 8
8 d
d 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
[
Room 1046 10 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.
C.
j 11 3
Thursday, June 26, 1980 y
12 o}
The meeting of the Subcommittees on Waste Management and i,,)
g 13 Fuel Cycle of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was l
14 convened, pursuant to notice, at 1:03 p.m.
2 15 5
PRESENT:
g 16 STEPHEN LAWROSKI, SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.
d 17 DADE MOELLER 5
WILLIAM KERR j
w 18 5
ALSO PRESENT :FROM THE NRC STAFF -
19 I
l Peter S.
Tam i
20 Frank Arsenault J.
J.
Davis 21 Lawrence Doyle E.
E. Held m
)
22 S.
A. Bellmund K.
S.
Kim 23 !
John Martin 24ll M.
Bell
,,/ j)
Mike Cullingford Karen Benson 25,
341.
T l
8 0070MODERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
2 I
ALSO PRESENT FROM THE NRC STAFF: (continued)
O 2
M.
Kearney E.
Regnier 3
R.
Boyle D.
Kathbun t
4 Lawrence White Ma3colm [Knapp]
e 5
6 d
6 1k7 I
- ]
8 d
ALSO PRESENT:
d 9
Carl Newton, Department of Energy g
10 Stewart A.
Sterling, General Atomic Company
=
g 11 a
p 12 O !
'3 m
-l 14 b
2 15 5
j 16
)
ti 17 I E
i M
18
=
19 g
M 20 21 A
22 V
23 i
.O 25 !
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 1
P_ 3 Q q i E Q l E G_ S,
-s
- k. ~
2 MR. LAWROSKI:
The meeting will now come to order.
3 This is an open meeting of the Advisory Committee on
(
)
s_/
4 Reactor Safeguards Subcommittees on Waste Management and Fuel e
5 g
Cycle.
8 6
1 I'm Stephen Lawroski, Subcommittee Chairman for N
R 7
Waste Management and also the Subcommittee Chairman for the N
j 8
Fuel Cycle Subcommittees.
06 9
g-The other ACRS Members present today are -- and at the oP 10 moment there is only one, Dr. William Kerr.
However,'I suspect E
11 j
that Dr. Dade Moeller will soon be joining us.
I know he is here d
12 j
because he was at a meeting at which I was present this morning.
k'J 3 13 5
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the NRC E
14 y
Waste Management and Fuel Cycle Programs, and acquire information 2
15 g
f or the Committee's report to the Congress and the Commission.
T 16
)
This meeting is being conducted in accordance with the y
17 '
g provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the 18 g
Government in the Sunshine Act.
19 l
Mr. Peter Tam is the Designated Federal Employee for 20 this meeting.
21 The rules for participation in today's meeting have
/"'T 22
\\-)
been announced as part of the notice of this meeting previously 23,
published in the "Federtl Register" on July 11, 1980.
f')
24
(.s A transcript of the mceting is being kept and it is 25.
j requested that each speaker first identify himself or herself ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 i
and speak with sufficient clarity and volume so that he or she can be readily heard.
3 We have received no written statements or requests for
(
time to make oral statements from any member of the public.
e 5
g A tentative schedule for this meeting was prepared a
3 6
earlier.
No comments were received and the schedule has thus N
8 7
become final.
Copies of the schedule can be found near the m
j 8
doorways.
O c
9 I should like to remind the Cubcommittees' members that gc 10 the purpose of this meeting is to acquire information on the z=
l E
11 j
NRC Waste Management and Fuel Cycle research programs for the d
12 Z
ACRS report.
Although actual writing of chapters of the report gg S 13 may not take place during today's meeting, I urge that members E
14 y
bear in mind the purpose of this meeting.
5 15 Do you have any questions at this time, Bill?
i 16 j
MR. KERR:
I have none, sir.
d 17 MR. LAWROSKI:
Let me say that today's part of this wx 18
=
meeting will deal with waste management.
However, I will allow U
l 19 I Mr. Arsenault a few minutes today to discuss how they are 20 organized and, in preparation for tomorrow's session which will 21 be on fuel cycle, how many pieces of the document prepared by RES
/~T 22 V
we will have to be looking at.
23 I see Dr. Moeller now has arrived.
24 I p/
l Dade, we just got through reading the preamble to the s,
25 l meeting.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
5 1
This meeting was announced to be open and therefore the 7s 2
first part of it will be open, during which I would like Mr.
3 Arsenault to tell us what things he can in an open session.
7-)
's_
4 I would like later to close the meeting so that we may be able to a
5 g
get into the detailed programs, which I understand involves numbers 8
6 that require the meeting to be closed.
n 8
7 Frank, before you begin your presentation let me say this nl 8
I will try to have the schedule proceed so that we d6 9
z-will be able to adjourn today's discussion on waste management at oh 10 E
5:45 p.m.
If there is anything lef t over to be dealt with on
=2 11 j
waste management, in the latter part of tomorrow's morning I would d
12 E
like to take up that, hopefully af ter having gotten through the
(~1 3
13 s_j fuel cycle part.
I do want to be sure that we allow enough time E
14 y
f or the waste management research program because that is the one 9
15 j
that involves the larger amount of moneys.
Therefore it should
? -16 also have a major priority in our considerations for the report to d
17 g
the Commission as well as the report to the Congress.
18
=
Frank, go ahead.
19 R
PRESENTATION ON THE WASTE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM 20 BY FRANK ARSENAULT, NRC STAFF.
21 MR. ARSENAULT:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
'T 22 l My introductory remarks, in toto, should not take more 23 !
i than about one-half hour.
Then we can get into the detailed
(~/
24 l
! discussion.
25 j.
Before getting into the waste management presentation, l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 1
in connection uth the Chairman's comments about the way in which
!s\\
'J 2
the documentation has been made available to you and relates our program to your interests, let me direct your attention to the
(
4 blackboard.
l On the left-hand side, there are three lines which 8
6 g
l correspond to three decision units that are relevant to the n
8 7
S AFER Division.
A 8
8
. The first one is entitled Siting and Environmental Research a
do 9
This includes the work in Dr. Harbour's branch.
He was part of the j
o P
10 i
Reactor Safety Research Division.
It also includes the environmental
=
2 11 g
research being done by Frank [Swannberg] in SAFER.
That is one d
12 3
decision unit.
()
13 The second line, Safeguards and Fuel Cycle Safety, is E
14 g
a second decision unit and includes the work of the Safeguards 2
15 g
Branch and of the Systems Performance Branch within the SAFER I
16 g
Division.
6 17 The third line is Waste Management and that is the third xx 18 decision unit that relates to the work of the SAFER Division.
A" 19 j
Let me start from the bottom.
20 Waste management is pretty clean.
There is a one to one 21 correspondence between our decision unit and the interests of this (l
I 22 Subcommittee, fortunately.
23 ;
There is a one to one correspondence between half of the
/~'
24 i
(-)
l second decision unit and the Safeguards Subcommittee.
- However, 25!
the environmental portion of the first division unit and the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
+
7 I
Fuel Cycle Safety Work portion of the second decision unit together
(,-
2 cover the interests of two Subcommittees -- Reactor Radiation 3
Effects and Fuel Cycle, r3
(_/
4 When we briefed the Reactor Radiation Effects Subcommittee some time ago, we extracted from those two portions of the two 3
6 decision units that material which was relevant to their interests.
e R
b 7
We intent tomorrow, when we address the Fuel Cycle Subcommittee, s
k to do the same, to extract from those two portions the material d
d 9
that would be of interest to that Subcommittee.
.7o h
I should point out that we are prepared tamorrow to
=
2 11 g
address any aspects of those two portions of the two decision d
12 2
units so that if anyone wants to raise questions concerning O3
'l j reactor radiological effects, we would be happy to accommodate.
E 14 W
Now, preparatory to these meetings we provided the 9
15 Q
Committee staff with some spread sheets that describe the three z
?
16 y
decision units in some detail.
There are three sheets, each of 6
17 '
which corresponds to a single decision unit.
Those sheets a
&w 18 provide budget data only as subtotals of various program elements
=
C 19 i j
l and they are suitable for discussion in an open meeting.
2G In addition, we have provided the Committee with 21 additional funding - details that are not suitable for discussion
(~l 22 k /-
in an open Committee meeting. The reason for these introductory 23 remarks is to call to the attention of the Subcommittee meeting I
(~T 24 i x_/
l the fact that they will have to have as many of these documents 25 as relate to their interests.
I know that some of you serve l
l
\\
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8 i
on more than one Subcommittee, so you may want to get all three.
l 2
MR. LAWROSKI:
Certainly for today I want to make sure that the Subcommittee members have something that looks like 7_
A-]
4 this (indicating), the top lines reading:
"High Level Waste e
5 g
Management," " Low Level Waste" and " Uranium. "
There are numbers 6
there, detailed numbers behind them.
_n R
7 MR. ARSENAULT:
With that attempt to get ourselves N2 8
M once again aligned between the program structure, which seems to d
d 9
7; -
change every year, and the Subcommittee structure, I will now o
10 begin our presentation of the W'aste Management Research Program.
z=
E 11 g
I will describe only the structure of the program and
'J 12 3
the rationale behind it.
I will not get into technical detail.
()b 13 8
We do not plan technical discussions since you have in the E
14 papers in front of you a considerable snount of detail on the g
2 15 g
program.
J 16 The principal Waste Management research staff is hert d
17 to answer any technical questions, and there ate a number of people wz 18 present from the Division of Waste Management and the Office of
=
C 19 g
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards who also will be glad to 20 respond to questions.
-21 MR. LAWROSKI:
May I interrupt you to allow persons I'J' 22 here to identify themselves, that is, those from RES and outside 23,
agencies.
i
('l 24 x-MR. MARTIN:
I am John Martin, the Director of the 25,
j Division of Waste Management.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9 I
This is Dr. Michael Bell, who is Chief of the High
(
)
t 2
. Level Waste Branch.
3 Larry White is the section leadet of the High Level qb 4
Waste Branch Siting.
5 Over there is Dr. Malcolm [Knapp], who is the section 3
6 leader for Performance Assessment in High Level Waste.
R b
7 Mike Kearney is with our Licensing and Integration A
j 8
Branch.
d o;
9 MR. LAWROSKI:
What about the other persons in the z
10 back of the room?
k II MR. CULLINGFORD:
I am Dr. Michael Cullingford of'the is E
I2 Waste Management staff, and this is Karen Benson, an intern 13 in Waste Management.
I4 l MR. LAWROSKI:
Who is the gentlemen in the next row back?
e i
15 MR. STERLING:
I am Stu Sterling of the General Atomic Bf I0 Company.
us h
I7,
MR, LAWROSKI:
Let's go to the side of the room and
{
18 l we'll start from the back row.
~
MR. NEWTON:
I am Carl Newton from the Department of en 20l Energy.
I MR. DOYLE:
I am F.
L. Doyle, in Waste Management Research.
l MR. HELD:
I am Ed Held, Waste Management Research.
D
-24 (v'
MS. BELLMUND:
I am Sarah Bellmund and I am in i
25 '
Waste Management Research, f
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10 I
MR. LAWROSKI:
Please talk up because the Reporter
,m 2
is trying to hear you.
3 MR. KIM:
I am K.
S. Kim, in Waste Management Research.
V 4
MR. DAVIS:
I am Jerry Davis, in Research for 5
Environmental and Waste Management.
0 MR. LAWROSKI:
Thank you all.
Now we know who is who.
R b
7 I hope we can remember.
2l 8
MR. ARSENAULT:
These are the budget overviews for the r)
}".
Waste Management Program as proposed for Fiscal Year 1982.
9 N
The program was developed in each of these areas II after considerable interaction between the Research staff and the is
{
12 Waste Management Staff.
I think this is evident from the fact
/ ] {3 V
13 that af ter having constructed the program, it was then subjected l
14 to an endorsement review process at the request of the Budget 15 Review Group, and of the program that was developed, the User il 16 Office endorsed $16.6 million of the $19.3 million proposed by
- ss h
I7 Research.
j b
IO I would point out that as a result of the endorsement A
8 exchanges we have identified a significant amount of the residual n
20 that does not need to be pursued.
But there is some of the work 21 proposed in the $19.3 million which is not endorsed by the
(')
User Office which the Of fice of Resea.'ch intends to pursue at 22
(
23 its own initiative, pursuant to the uew procedures for that type 24 i (A) j of work.
It amounts only to $400,000 of that, I believe.
In the area of low level weste, the actual original ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
11 1
program was at the level of $7.3 million, and the Research s
2 Office Director, Dr. Budnitz, reduced our office request for 3
research in this area to $5.5 million.
It is my understanding 4
that the Division of Waste Management Staff felt that this was a e
5 g
constraint imposed on the research in response to their require-N 6
ments, but one that they could live with.
I understand that the a
N 8
7 program has been coordinate'd and endorsed.
n j
8 In the area of uranium recovery, which covers millings dd 9
of uranium ore and mill tailings management, the original staff g
10 request for work here was at the $5 million level.
The Research
=2 11 g
Office Director reduced the office request for funds to $3 million, d
12 E
and all of the work proposed at that level has been reviewed,
(_)
13 g
agreed to, and endorsed by the User Office, in addition to which E
14 they feel that it represents an uncomfortable and unwelcome W
N OY constraint on the Research Office's ability to respond (,to their v
15 y
T 16 requir ements.
They feel that there is a legitimate need for 6
17 additional work in this area, and they may wish to address this wx 18 point during today's discussion.
=
19 The comments I already have made should indicate that 20 as-distinct from a few years ago, when the Committee found it 21 necessary to point to the lack of coordination between the
/
22 kJ research program and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety 23 ll and Safeguards, this year's program represents the results of j
/^T 24
\\/
extremely close and cooperative work by the staf f s of the
~
I 25 i two offices.
It has been a beneficial arrangement to both ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
12 I
offices, I think, and we have certainly enjoyed the difference 2
in environment and atmosphere over the past year'.
3 MR. LAWROSKI:
May I ask why the S2.0 million within the 4
parentheses was not in the original request, since that presumably 5
was something developed between the User and the RES?
0 MR. ARSENAULT: Yes.
R b
MR. LAWROSKI:
It seems like a later addition.
It M
8 8
seems like it was an afterthought so far as the table is concerned.
ei d
MR. ARSENAULT:
I had better go back and clarify my c
h 10 remarks.
Perhaps it would be best to follow the chronology of
.c the development of the program.
'J 12 3
MR. LAWROSKI:
Fine, but provided it does not take
('g
)
13 i
very long.
E 14 g
MR. ARSENAULT:
It will take just a moment or two and z
9 15 Q
it is worth it.
16 l g
j When the Research Office requested budget proposals d
17 !
from the staff, the RES staff, the Waste Management Research w
5w 18
=
staff put together a program and associated budget proposals 19 8
that they felt reflected the results of their coordination 20 discussions with the NMSS staf f during the past year.
21 That program went to the Office Director of RES I'I 22
(/
without detailed review and scrutiny by the Waste Management staf f, t
23
'I which was a result of this general coordination.
,/'s 24 l
(.)
When it reached the Office Director, Dr. Budnitz, 25 together with all of the other budget proposals within the Of fice I
L ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
13 1
of Research, the total sum proposed by the staff of the Office of k/
2 Research for the 1982 budget was staggering.
3 Dr. Budnitz felt that he had to limit'this budget in 4
some way.that represented his own perception of the degree of need a
5 in the various areas. So, what you see in this " requested" column h
j 6
represents the reduced levels af ter he had applied this judgment 7
to the original proposal.
Nl 8
That requested program was then subjected to detail d
c; 9
review, scrutiny, and endorsement by the User Office.
What they 10 have endorsed, then, is almost all of the high level proposals, E
j 11 all of the low level proposal, and they felt that the uranium W
y 12 recovery proposal in fact represented a constraint that they 5
O s" is fete wou1d greeene them with difficu1eies.
m h
14 That is how this program has been developed.
{
15 MR. LAWROSKI:
Is it all right with you if I ask z
j 16 Jack to add anything at any time, if he wishes?
w g
17 MR. ARSENAULT.
Of course.
i w
y 18 MR. MARTIN:
I think that is a fair representation.
I9 a
MR. LAWROSKI:
I hope that is all right with you, Frank.
M 20 MR. ARSENAULT.
At the end of this discussion, in fact, 2I I would have called upon Jack to add anything he wished.
I am J' ')
22 happy to entertain interruptions at any time.
23 I This, then, represents the overview.
I would point out
()
24 l that as we get into the program, you will find a strong linkage 25 )
between _the research proposed and the development of the regulatory I
f i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
14 l I
I program.
,_,)
t\\'
2 Indeed, our ef forts have been concentrated on developing 3
a program responsive to the current regulatory developments.
%J 4
This suggests, then, that we have not done a great 5
j deal of independent thinking within RES to determine whether or N
6 i
not research, beyond that implied by the regulatory program, a
R 7
j should be pursued.
This, of course, is a function that the N2 8
M Office of Research has and is explicitly reflected in the oppor-dc 9
7.
tunity of the office to propose work on its own initiative.
c h
We have not done that.
You will see little of that
=
E 11 g
in this program.
d 12 Z
The High Level Waste Research Program is presented
(_) m
~
d 13 g
in the documents in front of you, in a structure that corresponds E
14 g
to the current approach of the regulatory program, which anticipates x
9 15 s
that there will be independent performance criteria for the x
16 g
waste form and container, for the engineered repository, and d
17 !
f or the geologic media.
There is, in addition to the need for wx 5
18 research to support performance prevention for each of these
=
19 l
there are interrelationships between these that also require 20 some attention.
For example, the site characteristics or site 21 criteria will have to reflect not only the performance of the site
{ ~)
22 in retarding radionuclide migration; it will also have to take 23 l into account those characteristics of the site that would have
(~)
24
/
an effect on the repository design and construction activities.
25 The two items labeled " siting" reflect the fact that h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
15 I
there are'two aspects to siting.
One relates to the physical
(' -)
2 characteristics of the site that affect its perfermance and its 3
appropriateness for a repository structure; but also there is the 4
question of siting from the point of view of the environmental 3
impacts -- the question of population, probabilities of human a
3 6
g intrusion downstream, and so forth, n
%j 7
So, there is a performance as well as an environmental n
aspect to the siting.
d d
9 j
The current emphasis is on the geologic performance of the h
10 site.
7=
You will also note that this year the development of 6
12 z
risk methodologies appropriate to waste management have been b) g 13 incorporated within this decision unit.
In previe'is years they s-E 14 have been in a general risk assessment decision unit.
So these w
2 15 w
are now here, x
T 16 g
Mike Cullingford would be prepared to talk to those.
p 17 In the low level area, this to a degree reflects the i
wx 18
=
developing tendency within the Waste Management Regulatory Program 19
]
toward an approach parallel to that of high level waste -- t: at is, 20 to look at the waste form and containers and then the site and 21 I
its characteristics, and then, finally, z.t the repository.
(l 22
\\f This reflects a growing inclination to think in terms of engineered 23,
solutions to some of the problems that we have at low level
/~)'s waste repositories.
24
(_
25 MR. MOELLER:
Frank, on this, and perhaps Jack would I
i I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16 1
want to comment, there were two items that were raised in the
,3
\\_)
2 general ACRS discussions of the research budget.
One was that 3
Dr. Budnitz -- and I hope I am not misquoting, but my impression
(_)
4 was at the last monthly meeting that if you were tight and had e
5 cuts, the research in the low level waste area would be one of those b
6 which he would eliminate; in other words, that was a low priority R
R 7
item.
Along those same lines, or relating to this, several of a
j 8
the members of the Committee have asked are the problems in this d
d 9
area truly research problems or are they more political or the 10 lack of application of what we know.
j 11 Could you comment on each of those.
's j
12 MR. ARSENAULT:
I would like to respond to that and then f
(,,)
g 13 would ask Jack also to say anything he wishes.
m h
14 First, I would like more fully to characterize the 2
15 situation that you referred to.
U j
16 The Of fice of Research has been asked to propose a m
6 17 program at two budget levels, in effe;t.
One is at an established 5
{
18 funding level of $217 million, and the other was at that level s
19 which the office considered to be appropriate for a program R
20 responsive to the needs of the agency.
21 The difference between these levels was on the order
({}
22 of $60 million.
I do not have the exact figures.
I think one 23 number was $217 million and the other was $283 million or $285 t
(~'t 24 million.
There was a big difference, at any rate.
u) 25,
The decision made by Dr. Budnitz was that although we
[
\\
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
17 i
,f-)
feel that a program at the level proposed for the low level waste,
\\'
2
$5.5 million, is indeed justified ' c do the research required in 3
this area, if he were forced to reduce the overall of fice budget,
's/
4 in establishing his priorities he would feel that the contribution e
5 g
to societal risk arising from the low level waste sites is small 3
6 enough ccmpared to other sources of risk within the nuclear
_n R
7 industry, so that he would prefer to close out the low level n]
8 waste research program than to dL ish other programs to a 0
d 9
i similar extent.
That was his decision, o
G 10 z
I should point out that he also has done a structured G
11 j
or prioritized reduction of program from the $283 million down d
12 to the S217 million, and the low level waste program is, by no r,%
> d 13 S
means, one of the earlier ones affected.
It came midway or E
14 y
below midway on his priority list.
2 15 y
Now, with regard to whether or not the problems at i
16 low level waste sites are researchable,. I think by no means are 17 i y
all the problems researchable or susceptible to solution by 5
18
=
research.
Indeed, I think none of them are susceptible to i
C 19 4
solution by research alone.
20 There are a number of unanswered questions.
There are 21 a number of gaps in our understanding of the phenomena taking
-(')
22 place.
And, there are gaps in the data available to us for the 23,
purpose of devising criteria and standards that would apply j
(~)
1 24 to remedial action at existing sites or to the criteria for the 25l j
selection and construction of new sites.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18-1 Those are the questions to which our research is
/~T
\\
2 being directed.
They will be merely the tools used by the 3
regulatory staff to formulate those criteria standards and make A
4 those decisions.
5 That is my response to your issues.
I would welcome 6
any additional comments.
R 7
MR. LAWROSKI:
How about the so-called licensing needs, n
j 8
as opposed to the regulatory needs?
Can you make a distinction?
d" 9
~.
I think sometimes you folks do, too, in NRC.
There are zo h
10 certain research needs in connection with regulation, but there
=
II are others in connection with the licensing itself.
3 y
12 MR. ARSENAULT:
The distinction I make between those
) S
^
('/ 5 13 really is one of the requirement to establish for potential x_
m 14 applicants criteria to which they must respond versus the ability kj 15 to evaluate proposals to determine whether they meet criteria.
z d
I0 The same fundamental understanding of relevant w
h I7 phenomena are relevant to both.
E 3
Ib Generic data are relevant to regulatory standard setting, P"
19 g
while site specific data, not normally the subject of our research 20 program, is relevant to licensing.
21 Have I responded to your question?
(~)
22 x_/
MR. LAWROSKI:
Yes.
I just wanted to make sure that it 23 ;
was clear.
()
2 MR. KERR:
Couldn't there also be some consideration 25 i to. regulation that would involve measuring systems with devices?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
19 1
In the licensing process, you would have to recognize
/~m f
i 2
the principle that such a system existed, but perhaps be 3
less concerned with details.
.,rh, 4
MR. LAWROSKI:
Yes.
That is another aspect.
e 5
MR, KERR:
Even though the information in some sense h
6 is generic.
R 6
7 MR. MARTIN:
I would like to comment at this point that M
j 8-NMSS does not agree with Dr. Budnitz's analysis of priorities, d
of 9
We very strongly feel that if cuts have to.be taken, they should 3
5 10 not be in low 1ever waste or mi11 ea111ngs.
Whi1e, on the one
_3 11 hand, I spent most of yesterday af ternoon following with the a
y 12 Budget Review Group to maintain the high level program, if cuts Ob
(/ 5 13 have to be taken, it is our position they will just have to a
m 5
14 come out of that.
We just have too much to do and both low
$j 15 level and mill tailings are very real problems that are with x
j 16 us today that need solutions.
w h
I7 I might comment on the second half of the question.
j
=
{
18 It is my own perception that the political problem g
surrounding low level waste is probably starting to clear.
I9
\\
n 20 The State Planning Council in fact has had two meetings 21 G'overnor Riley is the Chairman of it, and Dixie Lee Ray now.
- k. s) 22 and Governor List are on it also.
They have a very real under-e 23 l standing of this problem.
{)
24 I am very optimistic that that one is clearing.
We 25 ] see many signs of states that are just on the border of being ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 I
willing to move.
,. s S
(G 2
I don' t know if you have seen the report from Illinois, 3
which came out very recently and was given to the Governor.
As
\\_/
4 I understand it, that is moving pretty smartly.
I think e
5 probably~what is needed is a piece of legislation, which is in h
3 6
final form, though I am not sure whether it will get enacted R*S 7
this year, but certainly should the first part of next year.
This j
8 will authorize states to form compacts and exclude people that are d
]"..
in the compact.
9 o
h 10 Right now the thing that is inhibiting more than within-
=
5 II state pressure is the idea that anybody who opens the business 3
g 12 suddenly gets everybody's business and there is no way of putting
(~) S 13 j
in any kind of restriction.
14 I am afraid that if we are not careful in the low
$j 15 level waste area, the political problems are likely to be z
d I0 overcome and we will be in the unenviable position of still having w
h I7 a bunch of unanswered technical stuff on waste forms and so on.
=
f 18 For example, the ACRS raised the question when we were in I9 8
Hanford last year of why in the world are we shipping these n
20 unsolidified resins (from] reactors and putting them in shallow 21
-land burial.
Well, this is a major question, and when you scratch A\\J the surface and start looking at it, it is costly.
There are 23 i
several hundreds of thousands of dollars in Frank's program
[')
24 to try to come to grips with that.
x-25 So I think I would not minimize the technical questions ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
-21 1l s
-that have been growing as people scrutinize this area.
I think
-]
2 the political problems perhaps will be solve more quickly than we 3
are able to deal with some of the residual technical stuff.
~
7-L..)
4 MR. DAVIS:
I would like to speak out' for the technical 5
j staff.
3 6
We actually support what Jack said.
We absolutely feel m
R b
7 that it would not be a very sise move to cut back either of those M
k 8
areas, of low level or containers.
d i
["-
I think that will come out in the technical aspects of 9
oh0 the discussion, if you wish, later on.
=
MR. LAWROSKI:
Thank you both, d
12 3
Frank, go ahead.
()$
13 MR. ARSENAULT:
Let me run down this list briefly E
14 because I think you may be less familiar with this nomenclature w
9 15 G
than that on the high level side.
x
-~
16 y
The first waste form and container performance, G
17 relates to the effort to characterize existing wastes, to wz 18 examine the characteristics of the products of various volume I
.]
reduction approaches that are being investigated, largely 20 by DOE, and to look at products of different waste treatment
- 21 methods, solidification techniques and so on.
I 22 These first are to characterize these products and 23 I
waste forms, but primarily with a view to determining whether I
('l' 24 l or not some criteria need to be established and what form those t
25 '
criteria should be for waste forms delivered to low level ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
22 I
(0~T waste shallow land burial sites.
4, 2
The second line, shallow land burial site characterization 3
("
relates primarily to sampling and measurement programs going on V) 4 at existing sites, looking at the characteristics of existing e
5 g
sites, and examining the phenomena that are taking place there, 3
6 same of which are pro'ving to be trouble some. The results of this a
n 8
7 effort will feed into the next, which is a review of alternative N
8 techniques for shallow land burial of low level waste and engineerin4 l
d c
9 g
approaches to solutions of existing problems and administrative S
10 and institutional approaches -- well, " institutional" is probably
=
the wrong word, but administrative and procedural approaches to d
12 3
scme of those problems in the operations part.
/rs) c k/
d 13 j
The next line deals with the requirements for monitoring E
14 of shallow land burial sites and the question of methodology, W
2 15 g
techniques, equipment, devices, et cetera, how to monitor 7
16 sites both during operations and after closing.
6 17
-Alternatives to shallow land burial is not a major wz 18
=
program right now.
We are going to look at geological 19 l
alternatives, perhaps at intermediate depths.
Ultimately, we 20 would expect to look at engineered approaches to low level waste 21 disposal and to answer the unasked question, we do not have any
()
22 plans at present to look at deep ocean disposal.
23 ;
i MR. LAWROSKI:
Does your work on the' solidification'of tt@
l' \\
\\_/
24 low level wastes, about which you just made a statement, include 25 looking at the matter of the fire hazard that is involved in the a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
23 1
use of some of these solidification techniques -- you know, the
~s
(
)
w./
2 use of the monomers, which have become with the aid of promoters and so on polymerized to. form a solid?
But prior to that having 73(-)
4 occurred, though,. dhe monomers were presumably compositions that m
5 g
are susceptible to catching on fire, and if that is near a nuclear a
3 6
f acility, it can be of much more serious concern than if it were N
8 7
some other facility.
N 8
8 MR. ARSENAULT:
I am going to toss that question to d
6 9
g Ed Held.
But, to be fair, before I do so, I am going to see if oH 10 I understood the scope of it.
=
G 11 g
Are you asking this:
with respect to those products d
12 E
of waste treatment processing --
)$
13 MR. LAWROSKI:
Not the products, but rather the E
14 intermediates that are used to arrive at the solid products, z
9 15 g
the ingredients.
I understand one of the ingredients is a 16 formaldehyde polymer.
Another, I guess, is styrene, which could d
17 g
I' be one of the ingredients, though not necessarily from the same cw 18
=
process. But those materials have a pretty high vapor-pressure 19 !
]
and they are combustible.
They have enough high vapor pressure 20 and ambient temperatures to represent a fire hazard.
21 Do I now make myself clear?
mt,)
22 MR. ARSENAULT:
Dr. Kim, can you address this?
s' 23 '
MR. KIM:
We have at Brookhaven National Laboratory
-[)
24l l
a program which is studying the flammability of not only those 25-final products but some of the materials that have some vulnerable l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
24 1
(~Y l aspect during storage and before use.
Yes, we are doing some
_V 2
research in this area.
Although the condition is not set by 3
r-us -- for: example, such as looking at what is the condition
\\._)/
4 that it should be kept under to keep the [ bitumen] to be not m
5 g
flammable or not near hardening-- we are looking at the broad 3
6 1
conditions under which those should be kept.
N 8
7
{
MR. LAWROSKI:
I am kind of disappointed that we have j
8 waited this long to get at that because the hazard is there 0
c 9
z and has been for quite a while.
Yet we have gotten away from og 10 z
some of the alternatives that were used earlier.
They would not E
11
's have made for such easy procedures, but at least things like --
d 12 j,
I forget the terms, what were same of them -- inorganic type 7_
(_/ d 13 S
of' materials were used to give at least some element of a solid E
14
- g to what otherwise would be a fluid and therefore susceptible to 2
15 y-leaking out of a container.
g 16 g
MR. KIM:
The Brookhaven program is the only existing d
17 g
l program we have now and is only looking at the cement urea 18 formaldehyde, one in two parts, aspect. I think they have not.yet looked C
19 at_ the various conditions in other types of material which are not 20 very common to current power plant applications.
21
)
MR. LAWROSKI:
I thought some of those were used way
("')
22 back.-
I am trying to remember what they were.
Can anybody 23,
help me out on this?
I thought they were inorganic.
This is
(' )
24 prior to the polymerization processes.
What were some of the 25
[
additives.that were added to the liquids?
Cement was one.
i ~
i k
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
25 1
{~}
MR, MARTIN: The most I know about-is cement or things 2
that just soak it.up.
3
. f-s '
MR. LAWROSKI:
Wasn't [merylite] clay used in this k_]
4 way once?
c 5
i l
MR. MARTIN:
Yes, diatomaceous earth, even kitty litter 3
6 was frequently used.
Urea formaldehyde unfortunately. cane 8
7
{
in rather widespread use in power reactors.
But unfortunately they l
8 are abandoning that because it does not do a very good solidification d
d 9
y job and the liquid that is still lef t over is highly acid,ic and g
10' 3
eats through the containers.
That is one of the major problems j
11 3
with proposing burial sites last year, the leaking containers.
d 12
()_h But NRR has reviewed several of what they call g.
y 13 I
topical reports or solidification schemes.
They just finished m
E 14 a
g one for.a [Dow polymer.]
I am certain that this included a fire 2
15 y
safety review, but I cannot really remember what kind of problem g'
16 w
there was.
6 17 y
MR. LAWROSKI:
Yes, I have seen the report on that.
It 5
18 does men: ion that they looked at it.
Of course, a better way k
19 8
wou.ld be to try to use formulations that avoid the problem, if we 20 can.
21 l
MR. MARTIN:
I am going to pull out some of those
(~)
22 !
l topical reports and take a look at that because I am not sure 23l we are looking that closely at it.
(") '
24 !
MR. LAWROSKI:
Please excuse this digression.
25 ;
i MR. MOELLER:
Excuse me, Frank, but you also mentioned f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
26 I
that you were not looking at sea disposal.
(9 ss-2 Did I not just read a statement in the newspaper the othec 3
day that some European country either had obtained permission b) 4 or simply was announcing that it was going out to dump so much?
5 g
I guess this was low level wastes being dumped into the North 9
6 Atlantic.
Ro" 7
What are the constraints on looking at sea disposal n
8 8
a at the moment?
By this I include ocean bed disposal -- beneath d*
9
}.
the sea, in other words.
O 10 j
MR. ARSENAULT:
I am not sure that the lack of this
=hII subject in our program represents a constraint so much as a lack c
12
-z of motivation to put it in.
( ) b ~13 g
Ed, can you add anything to that?
E - 14 g
MR. HE LD :
Well, we are following what is going on here.
m 9
15 Q
MR. LAWROSKI:
Would you please speak a little louder x
16 g
or use the microphone.
6 17 MR. HELD:
I am Ed Held in research.
There will be a
Ez 18 an IEA symposium in October on sea disposal of waste.
C" 19 l
MR. MOELLER:
Will someone be there?
20 MR. HELD:
I hope someone will be there.
But you know 21 how the travel money is going.
( )-
MR. CULLINGFORD:
I am Michael Cullingford, PAS,with 23 :
respect to high level waste.
We have scoped the problem for
/~Y 24
(_)
sea disposal and we got to the point in a sort of scoping analysis i
25 of the types of assistance that we have to look at.
I think we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
27 1
are ready to do some analysis on it.
We have not pursued it
\\]
'T 2
because it did not seem to be an option.
We have not looked at 3'
the ocean.
(/
-4 MR. LAWROSKI:
Thank you.
e 5
Dr. Martin.
b 6
MR. MARTIN:
The sea disposal question is interesting R
7 in this country in that NRC has no jurisdiction whatsoever A]
8 over that.
That was given to EPA for reasons that I cannot d
0;-
9 understand.
Nonetheless, - that agency has it.
10 Although EPA has the permitting power, nobody ever 11 has asked for a permit in the'last ten years or so, since the k
y 12 sea disposal was stopped.
()
13 I believe it is pretty much U.S. policy -- and' State u
m 5
I4 Department and EPA usually uphold this in international meetings 15 on sea dumping -- not to do it, at least at present.
- However, g
16 for certain types of waste, such as, for exanple, thermal shields, d
I7 f control rods, and perhaps reactor vessels, when the time comes x
l I
}
18 maybe they will look: entirely favorably on that.
Some of the Navy C8 19 equipment now has reached the point where they would want to 20 decommission it.
21 We really do not have much control over that and there
([
22 has not seemed to be much pressure to do it.
23 ;
The Europeans, on the other hand, have a different i
(k 24 situation.. There is a London Sea Dumping Convention that was 25,. agreed Eto by many of the. European countries, where there are 1
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
28 I
standards and an agreed to quotas for sea dumping.
Many of the
(
\\
2 maritime countries, such as Britain, France, and I think Spain 3
and Japan routinely sea dump what we would call intermediate
(~)'
4 level wastes.
We really do not have those' kinds of wastes in 5
g this country.
They would be cesium and strontium to many [ tens]
n 6
and curies per cubic foot.
R
- S 7
There are other countries, such as Norway and those who A
j 8
make their living on the sea, who are very hotly against this.
d q
9 It gets to be a very bitter issua every time we outline this as zo g
10 international waste manaaement meetings.
~
11 That is a little perspective for you.
N I2 MR. ARSENAULT:
The final item on this list is risk 3
n) y 13 -l analysis.
\\-
m I4 Now is as good a tine as any to describe the reason 9
15 for this being on here.
In the risk assessment staff within x
E I0 RES, Robert Bernero has been charged by Dr. Budnitz, and has W
.N I7 accepted this charge, to develop a capability for evaluating
=
M - 18 risk across the entire nuclear industry, fuel cycle as well as P"
19 g
reactors, to a degree which will allow comparative assessment of 20 risk for purposes of identifying principal contributors for 21 guiding prioritization and decision-making on the part of the agency.
()
22 This will be among the programs that are pursued in that direction.
23-l There also has been a discussion of the need to consider
/~T 24 4
\\ _,'
l not just accidents, but also. comparing the risks from accidents 25
! with the -- and here risk may not be the right word
- consequences i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
J
29 I
of routine operations, and the need to reflect at least the
(,,'3 -
1 2
consideration of safeguards type incidents in connection with the 3
overall and global risk assessment with regard to nuclear industry.
4 I hasten to point out that this does not reflect any g
belief on our part that we will be able to quantify that latter 5
n 6
problem.
R b
7 So, risk analysis you will begin to see creep into the sl 8
program elements across the board for us.
d 9
9 Do you want to add anything to that?
3 10 (No response)
II MR. ARSENAULT:
The final of the three program 3
y 12 elements under waste management is uranium recovery.
The three
(~T b f
\\/ 5 13 areas here are shown on the chart.
m 14 Waste characterization is there largely to indicate x
y 15 a comprehensive program, but it is a little misleading because x
g 16 we don' t have any waste characterization activities really going on w
h I7 We have a couple of projects that are described by that term x
{
18 that are closing out now.
ch l9 g
The emphasis will chif t to the question of operations
- 3 20 and how to manage these tailings in a way that will reflect 21 better our concerns.
()
22 This deals with questions such as the characteristics 23 l of tails resulting from various milling processes and how best N) 24
(
I to handle' these and adjust their characteristics so that they are 25 1 moremanageable, as well as looking at how to handle the tails a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
r 30 I
-themselves once they get outside of'the plant.
5_/
i 2
Siting, pathways, and impacts point out that this is 3
beginning to approach the problem of in situ mining, looking at
(~3 s_/
4' the way in which the materials associated with that process can 5
get into the environment and be transported when in contact with l
6 groundwater.
R*E 7
The focus here is on collecting' data and examining 3
8 methods for performing site characterizations and also for d
9 predicting the way in which these materials will be dispersed.
o h
10 Finally, the decommissioning phase looks at different
=
k II ways of stabilizing the tailings piles to reduce any long-term 3
f I2 effects.
It also includes the question of the long-term (3 S s>
5 13 phenomenon that might af fect the tails' stability, such as a
m E
I4 geological, hydrological, or meterological processes that might
$j 15 af fect the tails and distribute them.
x d
It also includes consideration of potential future A
d 17 activities by man or intrusion [ odor] into the tailing process.
xx 18 So it is a question of what happens in the long-term 19 l
with the piles af ter decommissioning.
20 MR. LAWROSKI:
Who is responsible for seeing to it that no 21 more of these tailings piles become available for use in the
- D 22 kJ construction of residences and so on?
23 l MR. ARSENAULT:
That is an easy question to answer.
(~)T 24 As soon as you ask me who is responsible, I simply point over 25 there (indicating).
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
31 I
MR. MARTIN:
Right here.
V 2
MR. LAWROSKI:
Is there some authority that goes with 3
this responsibility?
~
(D x/
4 MR. MARTIN:
Yes, sir.
5 y
- As a matter of fact, I spent the last six months of a
5 0
1978 working with our Congressional Committees getting a law passed
,n 8
7 7
to give us that jurisdiction explicitly.
There was sort of a N
k 8l screwy arrangement before tha t where the AEC and NRC never did d
g ci 9
have jurisdiction over that material.
There was always a messy go h
10 situation about centrolling it.
But it is very clear now.
We
=
II now only have jurisdiction, but it is controlled by our licenses.
E fI MR. LAWROSKI:
I remember in the old days in the AEC 13 they did not want to get involved.
14 MR. MARTIN:
That's exactly right.
It was used both x
9 15 g
as a reason for not getting involved and, later, as an excuse
=
E I0 as to why they didn' t.
It has a long history.
s h
I7 l MR. ARSENAULT:
This concludes my introductory remarks 5in 18 and describes the general structure of the program.
=
8 You have in front of you documents which describe the n
20 program in much greater detail.
MR. LAWROSKI:
That is what we wish to get into next.
MR. ARSENAULT:
Unless you-ask for additional presentation material, we would be happy to respond to questions.
MR. LAWROSKI:
Thank you.
25 !
Before I close the meeting, does any one of the Committee i'
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
32 1
members have a question to ask on i e record?
After questions,
-s
'~
2 I will close the meeting to get into the details of the program 3
for research and discussion?
4 (No response) e 5
g MR. LAWROSKI:
Let us take a five minute recess, then, d
6 to allow the Reporter to remove her equipment.
There are just N
8 7
a few people who I think cannot stay for the next portion.
I N
8 8
would ask all those not authorized to remain to please leave.
G.
6 9
Thank you all.
-zog 10 g
(Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m.,
the Subcommittees adjourned E
11 j
the public session, to reconvene in closed session in five minutes. )
d 12 3-r3 3 13
(./ 5m i
E 14 '
d Mr 15 5
y 16 I
i 17 i 18
=
19 a
.20 21 I'
%)
22
- 23 ;
/~'
24 '
o) 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1
l
\\
O NcCtEAR aEOUtATORY ComISSION This is to certify that the attached prcededings before the O
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS in tha JOINT MsN~ INT OhTi!E SUBCOMMITTEES ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND FUEL CYCLE
~ ~
- a-Date of Proceeding:
June 26, 1980 1
Docket liu=ber:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D. C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the Original transcri t thereof for the file of the Cocaission.
i Anne P. IIorowitz Official Reporter (Typed)
OV Official Reporter (Signa
)
1 0
O
--.