ML20024E996
| ML20024E996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/14/1983 |
| From: | Wise M NRC |
| To: | Fehringer D, Knapp M, Shepard R NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E995 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-1 NUDOCS 8309080081 | |
| Download: ML20024E996 (5) | |
Text
.
[f o
UNITED STATJS g
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
-l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 f
p
+....
NOTE T0:
D. Fehringer M. Knapp R. Shepard FROM:
M. J. Wise
SUBJECT:
NOTES OF JULY 12-13 MEETING 0F EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD The following are nty notes on the SAB meeting.
Each subgroup summarized its report on July 12.
Geochemistry Subgroup - Dr. Bruno Gilleti General statements 1)
Recognized problems of using generic models. Site specific models should be used to assess value of multiple engineered barriers. Specifically, the existence of high ionic strength solutions vs. low should be examined.
2)
Unsaturated zone should be leaked at -- the generic models don't cover this.
3)
Comp!cxing and chelating agents, if present, will enhance solubility. Again, generic models don't consider this.
4)
If untreated spent fuel is disposed, will be difficult to make predictions.
5)
It will be difficult to compare the waste to ore bodies when the time period of consideration is 10,000 years.
Recommendations of geochem subgroup 1)
EPA should consider both high and low lon strengths in assessments.
2)
Make addition to the containment requirement (see FR, p.
58205). Addition:
the choice of designs shall take into account the foreseeable releases after 10,000 years, and the 8309080081 830831 PDR WASTE WM-1 PDR
<3
. releases should comply with the table.
(Concerned with Ra 226 and Pb 210).
Discussion:
What is foreseeable? Example - glaciation/ climatic changes. Perhaps a 1/100 chance in 10,000 years.
Future events - one panel member suggested they (the panel) draw up a list of events.
(No definite plans made.)
10,000 year limit under question. Disposal of spent fuel makes question more difficult.
(Noagreement.)
3)
EPA should reassess solubility limits and retardation factors for some nuclides (Sr, Cs). Sandy said Am should be researched.
4)
Models should consider unknowns surrounding solubility (e.g.,
Eh,pH).
Health Effects Subgroup - Dr. James Neel not present.
Written comments may be considered in the future.
Qualitative Assurance Subgroup - Dr. Terry Lash (2nd draft - will be distributed at San Francisco meeting.) Draft does not address. issue of whether the assurance requirements should be included in standard.
The subgroup agreed on the following issues:
1)
The assurance requirements should apply only to mined geologic repositories - this should be clear in the standard.
2)
The first (prompt disposal) requirement can be omitted.
3)
Modification of requirement (f): exploitation of natural resources. The existence of resources should be considered a negative factor but should not eliminate a site by itself.
4)
TRU wastes - engineered barriers will have no benefit for TRU wastes. Does EPA standard require the same treatment for TRU and HLW?
p~ ^^
n
. The subgroup is not yet in agreement on the following, but resolution is likely:
1)
Assurance requirement (c) - optimization of each multiple barrier. Optimization doesn't make sense.
2)
Active institutional controls - monitoring.
3)
Assurance requirement beyond 10,000 years.
The subgroup is not likely to agree on the following:
1)
Assurance requirement (b) - ALARA-like requirement.
Risk Assessment Subgroup - Dr. David Okrent 1)
Expressed doubt that " reasonable assurance" could be met with the present strict release limits. Suggested increasing release limits to increase certainity in meeting them.
(The panel seemed to like this idea.) Egan said that the " median values" approach had been considered.
2)
Suggested adding a dose criterion for a limited time (e.g., 500 to1000 years).
(Basis: assure the public that x number of generations would be protected.)
3)
Compare requirements to those of other industries (e.g., RCRA requirements).
Engineering and Economic Subgroup - Dr. Frank Parker 1)
An economic analysis is now underway at ONI - should prove helpful. ONI report supports much of EPA's analysis (e.g.,
range of values, cost of disposal /KWe.
2)
Storage costs (which are very high) don't belong in disposal costs. Make relative costs appear small.
4 3)
Can't distinguish costs of different media yet.
4)
Budnet:: (sp?) recommends an analysis determining costs of implementation of requirements.
m
. Dan Egan discussed the following:
1)
Sandia/ADL analyses should be ready in August. Work has just begun, so not much to report.
2)
EPA will ask Minnesota to help in choosing a granite site.
3)
Public comments - brief overview a)
Deletion of assurance requirements b)
Accessible environment c) 10,000 year limit d)
Individual dose e)
Quantitative probabilities of release Westinghouse connenter (Bill Baer) under K to D0E.
1)
Engineered barriers - benefit is site dependent (e.g., no benefit in bedded salt). Barriers must be used to mitigate effects of human intrusion, if used at all. Cost / benefit of barriers is out of proportion. May be inconsistent w/ALARA.
2)
Existence of natural resources should not rule out a site.
3)
Definitions of TRU and HLW must be determined.
Dr. Collier - compiled list of issues to be considered and voted on in San Francisco.
1)
Need for assurance requirements 2)
ALARA 3)
Subpart(a)-managementandstorageofHLW 4)
Individual dose model (?)
5 10,000 years or above 6
Individual vs. population dose 7
Ore body reference 8
Release limits vs. exposure limits 9)
Qualitative analyses for " reasonably foreseeable" issues 10 Definition of HLW 11 Application of rule to TRU 12 How can compliance be demonstrated and assured?
13 Define " health effects" 14 Assign single numbers or ranges?
15 Any credit for dilution?
16 Benefits should be included in risk analysis (e.g., breeder waste - is added benefit proportional to added w'aste?)
. 17 Qualities of Pu - can they be considered HLW?
18 Status of society at time of intrusion 19 Discount rates 20) 1000 deaths /10,000 years - appropriate?
- 21) Use of generic model
- 22) Accessible environment Note: The above is based en nly ability to hear and write fast. Sofae points may be incomplete or confusing - sorry.
M. J. Wise 7/14/83 I
_