ML20038B340
| ML20038B340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/06/1981 |
| From: | Cook R NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| REF-WM-7 NUDOCS 8112080044 | |
| Download: ML20038B340 (6) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
l TIME I DATE CONVERSATION RECORD I 1 : 00 - 4 :00 pn 9/29/81 TYPE ROUTING y VISIT CONFERENCE O TELEPHONE T
O INCOMING Locodon of Visit / Conference:
O OUTGOING NAME OF PERSON (8) CONTACTEL OR IN CONTACT ORGANIZATICN (Office, dept bureau.
TELEPHONE NO WlVH YOU 4 DOE people from the DOE j
____l___
Inspec tor Generals Of fice I
SUBJECT Excessive ~osts in DOE Waste Management Proorans
SUMMARY
E. L Heller A.,4a l ter,
Sullivan, a nd N. Del Gobbo of DOE 's Inspector Generals Office visited Eeil, Browning and "nok with the otiiec tive of understandina how the HLN disposal rule
'l't CFR f0) would af+ect DOE prnorans
+
t i :r proqrams.
The DCE representa tives ctated thev were interested only in proqrams whic h exceed $100 n'111 ion per year The/ aro tr/ino ta i d en t i f '/ wa y <, to reduce osts.
The f ollowina surra rizes va ric:us top t <
discussed at the '"Pe t i ng :
1 Bell d es' r.
the rulo lnd the ra tiona lo for i t <. perf orna nc e or,j ec t i ve s.
We nave
+,
the DOE representatives a draft
the rulo's rationale 2.
DOE wa; intero too.riraril ir
+n, et<nomy of defe"se waste lananenent a'
t.
NPr - rolo i r. do+rnv waste manaqement.
Snecifital
- e were luostioned us 2
inter:<ted in :ermanent disu' sal ur innq ten dlshisal of defense HLW by other means
+nar 100: re: ositor/ turial, and tre asLod whether or not *;RC would be involved in licensina sut h at'
/iti&
Eell indicated ne tnouoht that if the intendod storaae ga,s, f,
3 ;, g,,N greater
+m-sonr' t'+r 10f w 1u l a at t to renulate f the "L,
u4 the fac11it< and cw,+
o
~L,
+
ACYlON REQUIRED wno NAME OF PE RSON DOCUME NTING CO*(VERSAYlOP, SIGN ATU RE i DATE
/
/
w
(~!.?
'!ik y - l W er*
'I cd
/
c
'J ACTION TAKEN
-, 'gc+
.cr.g-1pa +- ?)E i rd !c a n oc<
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE l
l Al12080044 811106 ine ni n <ina CONVERSATION RECORD OPTIONAL FORM rn or-m
-vR WASTE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WM-7 pop
o 2
This position was subsequently reviewed with J, Wolf, ELD, and found not to be accurate. Bell called Del Gobbo on November 5,1981 and clarified NRC's understanding of the term long term storage of waste. He noted that the term has no specific' time associated with it/ but that it is determined by the intent of Congress when authorization of the storage facility was made, Tht.: in each case of a storage facility one would have to research the Congressional records to ascertain when NRC licensing activities would commence.
3.
The DOE representatives described ideas being considered at Hanford to dispose of HLW in a mine shaft in the side of a hill. They also discussed the disposal of Hanford wastes in the tanks where it now is stored. The waste would be solidified in this disposal scheme.
4.
We emphasized the aspects of the rule which allow DOE flexibility in de-signing the waste package and the engineered system to meet the performance objectives of containment for 1000 years and controlled ' release respectively.
We discussed aspects of the rule including the fact that there is no release criterion which applies to the waste form alone; that the entire engineered system can be used to achieve the controlled release, and that the waste package includes discrete backfill. We emphasized that conditions that must be considered in design of the engineered system and waste package are only those that are expected and that this substantially reduces the problem of designing a package to meet the contair, ment performance objective.
For example, in a basalt repository where oxygen levels are very los the proolem of pro-jeccing the corrosion performance of metal contabers is significantly reduced.
f.
s 6
3 We also emphasized the potential for the use of backfill to achieve both con-tainment and controlled release and noted that BNL has separately evaluated the potential for the use of backfill in this regard.
5.
We discussed costs associated with current waste package design concepts. We' emphasized the fact that reasonable assurance of performance is what is required for the design of the waste package and engineered system when considering whether they will meet performance objectives and that it appears that much of the costs in the DOE projections are associated with trying to obtain 100%
reliability. We emphasized that the DOE designers may be assuming the absolute and this is not required by the proposed 10 CFR 60 rule.
6.
We noted that the DOE should make known their waste package / engineered systems design criteria and assumed repository conditions, including design reliability goals, in order to allow the NRC staff the opportunity to review these criteria, conditions and goals and to comment on their adequacy and degree of conservatism.
7.
We noted that it appeared that much of the costs associated with disposal of defense wastes could be reduced by concentrating the relatively low-activity, low-heat-generating wastes in a smaller number of waste packages and that boro-silicate glass may not be the best form to use to achieve this concentration.
We noted that tailored ceramics may be better from a cost standpoint since they can be made to hold more waste per unit volume than the glass waste forms being considered.
8.
We noted this observation was consistent with observations we had heard from DOE contractor representatives in the past---that up to $1 billion could be saved on defense waste if for example, a SYNROC type tailored ceramic form were used in lieu of a glass waste form. This prnjected savings can'sidered savings
4 4
which would be achieved overall when considering all aspects of repository and waste package costs influenced by the nun'ber of packages being considered.
4,,
9.
We specifically addressed the costs projected for waste packages designed, in concept, by'WestinghousI for ONWI. *We noted that these estimates appeared to
~
be high, maybe as.uch as 5-10 times to high. We noted that a cast iron container, which DOE designers are considering, may turn out (if properly designed to take advantage of expected repository conditions, for example, expected low-oxygen, reducing conditions in a basalt repository) to be re-latively low cost.
- 10. The DOE Representatives asked how 10 CFR 60 could be prepared if the EPA-criteria were not existing. We explained that draft criteria were avail-able and we did not expect significant changes. We indicated, when asked about EPA's schedule for issuing their criteria, that the last EPA schedule identified publication for comment by December,1981.
- 11. We provided the DOE Representatives with a copy of the draft rationale for 10 CFR 60, a copy of 10 CFR rules and a summary of public comments on the
~
~
MAy,'1980 draft of 10 CFR 60.
- 12. The DOE Representatives questioned the reasor. far the definition of HLW and suggested it was not conducive to ec aomical waste management when con-sidering defense wastes. They questione.1 why " level of activity" or " isotopic lifetimes" were not utilized in establishing rules for handling wastes. We noted th'e're was some merit in their questi'ons but. pointed out that the laws governing HLW disposal. consider the current definition.
5 t
- 13. The conclusion of the DOE Representatives :was that we _were hilpful in clarifying various aspects' of 10 CFR 60 which provide flexibility to waste package and engineered system designers as well. as identifying areas where costs may be reduced in the DOE programs. They invited us to visit them downtown if we have 'a need for information they would have.
}
1 4.
i 4
--=e-,
a---y---,
e 99
,s p-w y-n qy*-ww+ayet~+-1--e-+-c.,+,w,6
-t
-5 y--*g w,-eT7v9*e ew
"'eee*
?ww---r+*e-w
-~,em
+awk r-m w
,-s F~
- n*'
M-g e
.Q -
. Q.
. c y,. -
.q q
4 4
p4dM7 d
PDK i
Distribution:
.l
.1 WMHL file 3109.1
- 4 WMHL r/f h
NMSS r/f
/V g [/ g WM r/f I
JBMartin g 97,J REBrowning MJBell FRCook & r/f MRKnapp PDR-
.MM-7
~
e,
/r Pp p / x ty c g IlLJ j
K-
'y NOV1 a gggg, ;,;
U-c. u.s. %,, %, n
~
~
s, s
\\ /
3
%77xth?,
=~'c = >.... WMH
,/,,,,WM,,[g,g,,,,,, MH g,,,,,
- = a- >.F,RCp.g.h;,1n)g,,,,RQr,qwn,i,ng,,,,, f, J,B, ),],,,,,,,,
om>..1.1/.(../.8.1.......1.1./.(.1... /.8.1..
... 1.1. /.(. /. 81....
..................j..................
NRC FORM 318110e80l NRCM O240 :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY-
}" '+32. 24 [
_