ML20059F970
| ML20059F970 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/10/1994 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9401180106 | |
| Download: ML20059F970 (119) | |
Text
.
M8WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW61,%WWWWAWtVWW6;iggVW;Q;VWgggggg
\\
e w
v 3
- AtisMIT At. T0:
/N Occument Control Cest. 216 Phillies E
5
?
The Public Occument ocem 3
'0VANCEO : PY '0:
3
// // [9 3
[3
- ATE:
5 3
SECY Correspondence & Recoros Branen g
FRCM:
"3 g
C n
Dies of a Cocrnission meeting transcript and relatec meeting
{
5 Attacneo are c:
document (s).
They are teing forwarced for entry on the Daily Accession List and j
placement in the Public Document Room.
No other distribution is recuested or M
reautrea.
W lA< / Cxt w c L Le,4 w,
\\
"eet,ng Tit 1e: ht<.
r-)r.
A
' Y s A. bb M W 5
un Meeting Cate:
/// O /9 4-.
Open X
Closed C
/
N U
s nl e
3 a.
Item Cescriptten**
Cooles Advanced DCS C
3 to POR Cg h
8 E
e f
h 1
1 g
- 1. TRANSCRIPT W
1 -.v A o s b
()
F.
a g
2.
e k
e 3-P~
C3 E
=>
6 k
4-C l
=d
?
3 6.
~ '
9401180106 940110' PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR.
/
I
- 00R is advanced one copy of eacn document, :wo of each SECY pacer.
~
i 8/'
l k
C1R Brancn files the original transertet, with attacnments, witneut SECY
[0 s
/
=g
- acers.
14001.c3 uu 1,
................................._......_......_,........,,.................................,,,,,,,.....................,2__________ __ __....._,mmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION
Title:
sartr1uc os sac utseixcn exooxAx os LOW-LEVEL WASTE LOC 3 tion:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND b3$0 JANUARY 10, 1994
?O003 76 PAGES NEAL R. GROSS AND C0., INC.
COURT REPORTIRS AND TRANSCR!BER$
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 l
e
l DISCLAbMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on January 10, 1994 in the Commission's office at one White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding 'as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
NEAL R. GROSS count treoartas AND TRANSCRfttt$
1313 rho 06 tttARS AYtMUt, N.W.
' (202) 234-4433 WA5HtHOTCH D.C. 1000$
(202) 232 4 600
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING ON NRC RESEARCH PROGRAM ON LOW-LEVEL WASTE I
PUBLIC MEETING l
l Nuclear Regulatory Commissica l
One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland
,l l
Monday, January 10, 1994 The Commission met in open
- session, pursuant to
- notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
Ivan
- Selin, l
Chairman, presiding.
l l
l COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission I
i KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner I
FORREST J.
REMICK, Commissioner i
E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner k
=
(
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
2 STAFF SEATED AT THII COMMISSION TABLE:
WILLIAM C.
PARLER, General Counsel JOHN HOYLE, Assistant Secretary HUGH THOMPSON, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support ROBERT BERNERO, Director, NMSS RICHARD BANGART, Director, Office of State Programs DR. MICHAEL BELL, Chief, Low-Level Waste Management Branch, NMSS DR.
FRANK COSTANZI, Deputy Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, RES MELVIN SILBERBERG, Chief, Waste Management Branch, RES 0
<J NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
. = -
3 l'
P-R-O-C-I-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
2:00 p.m.
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Good afternoon, ladies t
4 and gentlemen.
5 Today we're to receive a briefing from the 6
staff on the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Research 7
Program.
t 8
The NRC conducts low-level waste' disposal' I
i 9
research in order to support our regulatory licensing 1
10 process to provide the technical basis for review of 11 license applications, provide the basis for review of i
12 topical reports on the waste form, and to assess 13 licensee compliance with requirements. We do this for L
14 a number of reasons, a large one of which is to 15 establish new low-level waste disposal facilities 16 under the tight time ' frame of the Low-Level 17 Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act,'and also in i
18 face of the need to provide technical support to the I
19 sites and to examine other disposal methods chosen by 1
20 the states to meet the requirements of this act.
]
21 We really look forward to hearing what's 22 going on in this area and particularly to get some-23 results and to draw some connections between the a
24 results and the regulatory problems.that give rise to 25 research.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
j I
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
4 1
Commissioners?
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'd just like to 3
welcome Mike Bell back after, what, a several year 4
stint at IAEA.
a 5
DOCTOR BELL:
Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Mr. Thompson?
7 MR. THOMPSON:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 8
Commissioners.
9 Last October we briefed the Commission on I
10 the status of the High-Level Waste Radioactive 11 Research Program and at that time we promised to come 12 back and give you a
briefing.on the Low-Level 13 Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Program and that's 14 why we're here today.
15 We thought it would be helpful 'if we asked 16 the program office to provide some overall perspective 17-and background of where we are today with respect to 1
18 the low-level waste rules and regulations that we have 19 and then go into a little more detail on the Low-Level 20 Waste Research Program.
Doctor Mike Bell, who.is the 3
21 Chief of the Low-Level Waste Management Branch in 22 NMSS, who has just' joined us here from IAEA, will 23 conduct that briefing.
Then' Doctor Frank Costanzi, 24 who is the Deputy Director of the Division of 25 Regulatory Applications in Research, will conduct the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433.
WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
5 1
discussions with respect to the research program.-
~
2 The first part of the program will be 3
Doctor Bell.
4 DOCTOR BELL:
Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
5 Chairman Selin, Commissioners, I'll try to 6
briefly give you some of-the background and the e
(
7 historical perspective on the present situation and.
8 the rationale behind the staff's low-level waste 9
research program as it presently exists and some feel 10 for where it might be heading in the near future.
11 (Slide)
Could I have slide 1,. historical 12 perspective, please?
13 During the
- 1970s, there were six 14 commercial sites operating in the United States.
- 1. 5 There will be a later slide where we'll talk about 16 these in more detail.
Basically these six sites were 17 all licensed before the Commission had detailed low-18 level waste disposal regulations in place.
They~were 19 licensed under very general provisions in Part 20 that-20 basically were procedural and gave the overall 21 performance standard.
22 Problems developed during the 1970s with
?-
23 a number =. of these sites,. generally those -in the.
24 eastern-humid. climates and problems with water 25 accumulation in trenches, trench subsidence.
There NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.
(202) 234-4433
6 1
were a number of violations having to do with the 2
improper packaging of the waste that was being 3
transported to the site.
Generally record keeping of 4
the wastes that were being shipped to the site.was not 5
adequate and in compliance with the regulations or the 6
applicable agreement state regulations.since most of 7
these sites were, in fact, in agreement states and not.
8 licensed by the NRC directly.
9 Three of the sites closed prematurely due 10 to these problems, even though no significant health 11 and safety problems actually arose.
There were no 12 over exposures of individuals off-site or excessive 13 concentrations off-site.
It's just that there were 14 disillusionment that the sites were not performing as 15 designed and not living up to expectations.and the
[
16 concern that there might be a future problem.
17 As a result of'the situation, two things 18 happened.
In the late 1970s, the Commission began 19 working on a specific regulation for disposal of low-1 20 level radioactive waste which was finally promulgated 21 in 1982 as 10 CFR Part 61.
As the result of the fact i
22 that only three sites were now. receiving all of the j
i 23 waste'from-all'over the country, political' pressures 24 were brought to bear that resulted in legislation ~
25 being passed in Congress.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
7 1
(Slide)-
In 1980, the Low-Level Waste 2
Policy Act was passed which was very brief and simply 3
stated, one,'that the states were responsible for the 4
low-level waste capacity and that the states could S
discharge this responsibility by forming regional f
6 compacts.
A number of compacts were formed following 7
the passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy I
B Act. However, not much progress beyond that was made.
9 As a result, increased pressure from the three host 10 states-resulted in the Low-Level Waste Policy 11 Amendments Act being promulgated in 1985 that 12 contained a
series of milestones, a
system of 13 surcharges, financial penalties and other mechanisms 14 to try to force progress for the unsited states and 15 compacts to develop new disposal sites.
16 (Slide)
- Now, on the third
- slide, 17 basically just a brief summary of those six sites that -
18 had operated.
The sites at Maxey Flats, : Kentucky, 19 West Valley and Sheffield,. Illinois were all closed 20 prematurely.
The site at Beatty, Nevada closed only 21 a year ago under a process that was set up by the Low-22 Level Waste Policy Amendments Act' where the three 23 sited. states were given the ability to close their 24 sites at theLend of 1992 and the Beatty ' -- well, 25 essentially the governor of Nevada decided to exercise NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE (SLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(?O2) 2344433
. WASHINGTON, D C,20005 (202) 234 4433
.. =.
8 1
that option and close the Beatty site, leaving only 2
two full commercial low-level waste sites in operation 3
at the present time with the Barnwell site in South i
4 Carolina receiving waste from a good portion of the 5
site and that being scheduled to close at the end of 6
1995.
7 Now, I might mention there is one other 8
low-level waste site near Clive, Utah, operated by the 9
Envirocare Company, but it is limited in the kinds of 10 low-level waste that it can accept.
It accepts under 11 state authority naturally occurring radioactive 12 materials and then it also accepts Atomic Energy Act 13 material in very low concentrations and diffuse form, 14 such as dirt from clean-up of contaminated sites or 15 decommissioning sites.
It cannot accept the full 16 spectrum of waste saved from medical or the utility 17 instruments.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'd just like to 19 make a personal comment.
I visited the Beatty site t
20 some time within the past year and-I thought it was r
21 unfortunate that that ' site was closed and the 22 perspective for which I come is -- you mentioned some 23 of the earlier sites.
About 30 years ago for the 24 Secretary of Commerce in my home state, I headed up an 25 effort to look at whether there was a need in that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 y.
9 1
state. for low-level waste burial site and visited two 2
of the sites that have subsequently been closed down, 3
came back and recommended against both the need and 4
the suitability of that state for a site of the type 5
that I saw at that time.
I thought ---what I must 6
call fairly sloppy operations.
7 But when I visited the Beatty site, I was 8
quite impressed with, based on my visit there and so' j
9 forth, the professional nature of that operation and 10 the apparent suitability of a very arid, dry site and
)
11-so forth for that type of thing.
I don't question the' 12 authority of the state to do that, but I thought it i
'I 13 was most unfortunate, particularly when 100 yards away.
14 there's another site that I can categorize in the same 15 manner as I would categorize the low-level waste site.
16 Just a personal observation.
17 DOCTOR BELL:
Thank you.
18 The situation we have at present is that 19 the Richland site in Washington State accepts waste 20 only from the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts.
21 At present, the Barnwell site is accepting waste from 22 most of the other states in the country, but is 1
23 scheduled to close out of compact states in July of l
24 1994.
25 (Slide) So, on slide 5, I have a figure --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(702) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
10 t
1 the next one, please.. Could I have the next one with 2
the figure?
3 That shows the present situation as far as
.t 4
the compacts that have been formed and three states 5
are darkened in.
Those are Michigan, New Hampshire t
6 and Rhode Island, which are presently denied access to i
7 the Barnwell site, as is the Commonwealth of puerto I
8 Rico, for not naking adequate progress in developing 9
a new site.
So, basically, the states in the-10 Northwest and the three states in the Rocky Mountain 11
- compact, Nevada,
- Colorado, New
- Mexico, ship to 12 Hanford.
All the other states that are not darkened 13 in right now have access to Barnwell.
But'in July of 14 this
- year, the situation is expected to change f
15 significantly when the Barnwell site will close to out 16
.of compact waste, will only accept waste from the 17 states in the Southeast Region and 31 states, the 18 District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto 19 Rico will be denied access to the.two operating sites 20 until - some-new sites are developed and becomo 21 available.
22 So, this is an important situation that's 23 affecting the staff's planning and activities in the 24 coming months.
-25 (Slide)
Another important piece of NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C, 20005 (202) 2344433-
I 11
)
I 1
information that is background to our research program j
2 is on the third-figure, which shows states where by 3
state law shallow land burial is banned. As you know, 4
4 all six sites that have operated commercial have been 5
some. form of shallow land burial.
As we've gained 6
experience, especially post Part 61, shallow land 7
burial _ techniques have_been improved and enhanced.
8 But basically we're talking about disposal in earthen l
9 trenches in the ground.
10 The new site that's been developed at Ord 11 Valley in California is also an improved form of 12 shallow land burial.
However, every site that is 13 planned after that, Texas, North Carolina, Illinois, 14 Nebraska, even the states further down the road, Ohio, 15 Pennsylvania, have all banned shallow land burial as-16 its currently practiced and are looking toward a more 17 engineered form of disposal with concrete lined 18 trenches, concrete covers, in some case specially 19 engineered packages,_ even for Class A waste, to get 20 much higher certainty and the predictability of-21 performance of these new-sites that are being 22 developed.
23 (Slide)
The next slide shows the status 24 of the applications that_are under-consideration by 25 agreement states and planned by other states and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(20?) 2344433
- WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 -
(202) 2344433
12 1
compacts.
California actually,_that application is i
1 2
not under review. The license has been granted by the 3
state licensing authority, but the operation of the 4
site is being delayed because of the need ~ for this 5
land to be transferred from the Department of Interior 6
to the state.
Several lawsuits have been filed and 7
the Department of Interior has decided it does not i
8 want to proceed until these lawsuits have been P
9 settled.
10 Applications are under review in Texas, 11 North Carolina and Nebraska for sites there.
In 12 addition, there are seven sites being developed where 13 applications could potentially be submitted during the 14 second half of this decade.
Of these, two of these 15 would be in non-agreement states as we presentl'y i
16 foresee it. Those in Connecticut and New Jersey would 17 be reviewed by the NRC.
The remainder-would be in 18 agreement states and reviewed by the agreement state 19 regulatory authority.
20 At the present
- time, Michigan, New 21 Hampshire, Rhode Island and the Commonwealth of Puerto-22 Rico have no site under development and it's-unclear 23 what their future plans are.
24 All of this assumes that the compact that 25 is in the process of being formed by Texas, Vermont NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
.I
P 13 1
and Maine will, in fact, be formed and receive 2
congressional approval.
In earlier times, Maine and 3
Vermont were also unaffiliated in developing their own 4
sites.
5 (Slide)
Now, with that background, let's 6
turn to. the-Low-Level Waste Research Program.
7 Essentially before 1977, the AEC, then succeeded by 8
the NRC, did not have a specific low-level waste 9
research program. When problems started to develop at -
10 the operating sites, the first research programs that L
11 we initiated were essentially reactive programs, 12 focused on on-site studies, primarily at Maxey Flats 13 and West Valley, to try to understand. what the 14 problems were and to gain by this information to 15 improve future performance, to provide some of the 16 basis for promulgating Part 61, which occurred during 17 this time frame.
18 Then, in 1985, with the passage of the 19 Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act, we made a major 20 change in our program, in part because the Act placed 21 an obligation on the licensing bodies, 'either the NRC 22 in a non-agreement state or the state regulatory body _
23 in an agreement state, to review a license application 24 in 15 months.
This schedule that was imposed led to 25 an -- NRC to adopt a very proactive program where we I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
.mu m
r-
+ - - - -
r v
-r
C 14 1
developed standard review plans, standard format and 2
content guide, a number of branch technical positions 3
on various technical issues, and to accelerate our 4
research work into some of the concepts that ' the 5
states were considering, like the more engineered type 6
designs.
But basically it was a reactive program.
7 (Slide)
In 1988, the licensing staff 8
formulated a more carefully thought. out program and 9
developed a user need letter which it provided-to the 10 Office of Research which basically has been the focus 11 for the research program as'it has evolved today.
[
12 There we identified a number of areas that needed l
1 13 research.
The research program, or the Research 14 Office, reacted by putting together a program plan and 15 basically that is the program that's in place today t
16 that Mr. Costanzi will be describing in a lot more 17 detail shortly.
i 18 However, you should be aware that just.
19 last' month the staff has completed an updating and a 20 review of its research needs in the Low-Level Waste 21 Program area and has sent a revised user need letter-22 to the Office of Research that updates our priorities f
23 and shifts the focus somewhat.
In our present 24 program, in the work that's been going on for the last 25 five years, there was a lot of emphasis on trying to-j I
1 NEAL R. GROSS
]
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WA$HINGTON, D.C. 20005
-(202) 2344433 l
15 1
understand the source term, looking at engineered 3
2 barriers and these kinds of technical issues.
The 3
updated user need letter places much more emphasis on 4
the low-level waste performance assessment area and i
5 we're trying to move in the direction of taking some 6
of the performance assessment capability that we have 7
developed up to this point and apply it to some real 8
sites. Since we don't actually have a low-level waste 9
application in hand, our thought is to try to use it' 10 to help out with some of the evaluations that have to 11 be done under the SDMP program. The staff provides to 12 the Commission an annual update on the status of the 13 performance assessment work and we'll be giving you 14 much more detail on where we stand on development of 15 performance assessment capability and on these ideas 16 on how we might accelerate the application of the 17 methodology by applying it to some of these 18 decommissioning sites in our next update of the 19 Performance Assessment Program, which is due to come 20 to the Commission about the end of next month.
21 So, with that background now, I'll turn it 22 over to Mr. Costanzi, who will describe in more detail 23 the objectives and the current status of our research~
24 program.
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Mike, before doing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W, t
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
16 1
that, I know from what I've heard from IAEA you'made i
2 many contributions during your tenure there and I'd i
3 like to take advantage of the fact that you have been i
4 involved in this activity from an international 5
standpoint.
Are there things that you would care to 6
share with us about lessons learned or are people
'I 7
doing things we're not?
Are we doing things that 8
others aren't?
How do things look from an 9
international perspective based on your years at IAEA?
10 I'll have another one then.
It's more 11 personal and it's up to you whether you'll make it.
12 Do you have any personal comments of a senior staff i
13 member of the NRC going off for several years on an 14 international organization and participating?
What i
15 are the pros and cons of that?
16 DOCTOR BELL:
- Well, it's difficult to e
17 compare the situation because what you have in 18 virtually every Western European country and Japan, J
19 the industrialized nations who are all able to make i
I 20 good progress, is essentially a single national i
21 authority and a single national site.
It's a much
.22 more focused environment.
Basically they can focus 23 all their attention on and it's much easier-to 24 integrate the source of the waste from - the waste
^
25 generators through the packaging, the transportation NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 v-e w'n
17 1
to the disposal if you have an ANDRA who just has
'i 2
overall national responsibility.
It's a
much 3
different and I'd say a much simpler system.
But 4
basically the more complex situation that we have is 5
the tradeoff for the national policy that the country 6
has adopted giving states a
lot more say and
.i 7
responsibility in the low-level waste management.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
How about from a i
9 technical standpoint.
That's more institutional, I 10 assume.
Are there things there going that we should 11 know about?
12 DOCTOR BELL:
Well, frankly, I think'we
{
13 know about them.
I think it's probably recognized 14 that most other countries are focusing on more highly 15 engineered methods, either very highly engineered near 16 surface facilities, as in France and Spain, or 17 underground caverns, as is done'in' Sweden, Finland, t
18 being considered in Germany.
l 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Shallow land burial, 20 Mike, right?
i 21 DOCTOR BELL:
Excuse me?
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Is Japan's plans for l
23 shallow land burial?
'24 DOCTOR BELL:
- Japan, again,- "is an
[
j 25 engineered vault concept.
b NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W, l
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
18 1
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
It is?
2 DOCTOR BELL:
Yes.
I 3
Another thing you'll find in almost every 4
case is their waste sites are co-located with the t
5 disposal sites.
I think the Center de Lob is the only 6
exception to that.
But the old Lamont ' site was co-l 7
located in a major processing facility.
The Finnish 8
and Swedish sites are located at reactor sites.
The 9
Japanese site is at a major nuclear center.
The 10 Spanish site is at a former uranium mine and the 11 facilities have been used to store waste and will also 12 have a major processing receiving center there.
So,
-l 13
- again, things are much more centralized and 14 integrated.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
How about on the 16 more personal side?
Do you want to make any comment 17-or do you have any on the wisdom of a senior staff-18 member going off on what some cc usidered a boondoggle?
19 DOCTOR BELL:
Well, while it was --
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I'm not insinuating, 21 believe me.
22 DOCTOR BELL:
- Well, it was very 23 interesting.
It was not a boondoggle.
I worked hard.
l
~
24 I learned a lot.
I made a lot of contacts.
Met a 4
i 25 number of people all over the world.
I think it was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
i
^'
19 1
a valuable experience.
It's, I guess, still an open 2
question as to how well I'll be able to apply it back 3
in this system just because some of these 4
institutional situations I mean here I'm in a 5
situation where I have a lot of information about how 6
things are done around the world and what in a 7
situation where really all these kinds of decisions 8
aren't even being made within NRC, -but in various 9
state organizations.
10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Well, thank you very 11 much.
12 MR. THOMPSON:
Frank?
13 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Thank you.
14 Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
15 As Doctor Bell explained, the present Low-16 Level Waste Research Program has been formulated in 17 response to a 1988 user need letter from the Office of 18 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. That research i
19 program plan was published in November of 1989.
It-20 had received the benefit of public comment prior to 21 being finalized, and it has been essentially the basis.
22 for the research which has been conducted in this area 23 for the last four years.
24 I might point oit that this program was
'5 25 not constructed nor conducted in isolation, however.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
.(202) 234-4433 I
,_m
30 1
We have ongoing communication with the Department of 2
Energy and their low-level waste program,. and with 3
individual states, primarily through something called 4
the Technical Coordinating Committee, which we are 5
members.
It's an informal group of representatives 6
from a number of states and the Department of Energy, 7
as well as ourselves. We meet periodically to discuss 8
low-level waste research progress, needs, questions,-
9 issues, the like.
10 (Slide)
May I have the first slide, 11 please?
12 What I plan to do this afternoon is give 13 you the presentation of this program broken down into 14 discussion of five areas: the technical issues, which 15 the program is focusing on; something which, for lack 16 of a better term, I called issues resolved, which is 17 really the things that we have learned along the way, 18 the results of the research which we have been able to 19 package up and say, "Well, we've gone this far, now we 20 can put this aside and move.on to other things;" the 21 current research that is being conducted, what issues 22 we're addressing; and the products, what we expect to 23 get out of that research; and finally, and perhaps 24 most essentially, the-use, what we intend to do with 25 the results of the research, how they're going to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 '
(202) 2344433
21 i
1 useful in the regulatory program.
j l
2
'(Slide)
Next slide, please.
i 3
The objective of this program is to 4
provide performance assessment tools and data ' to 5
support development of regulatory guidance' for use by 6
the states and by the NRC in licensing, regulation and 7
closure of low-level waste disposal facilities. As in 8
the High-Level Waste
- Program, the performance 9
assessment is again the linchpin. of this whole 10 operation.
Everything that we're doing in one way or 11 another factors in or can be covered under the 12 umbrella of perfemance assessment because that is, of 33 course, ultimately the method by which the compliance 14 with the regulation, performance objectives in Part 61 15 are tested.
l 16 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Frank,' do any of the 17 states conduct research in the low-level waste area 18 and, if they do, how do we coordinate that and do we 19 share our research results with them and vice versa?
20 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
We certainly do share 21 research results with them.
As I mentioned, the 22 Technical Coordinating Committee is probably the most' 23 frequently used vehicle, since we meet with them 24 periodically. They have through that organization, as-is it the Southern states that have an 25 well as NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCA'OERS
.1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4 433
33 1
energy board?
We have received the results of-that.
2 We've discussed them across the table with the states.z 3
Their research program is, of course, not very large.
4 It's-generally focused on particular questions,
~
5 whereas ours, of course, tries to cover the spectrum 6
of issues.
7 The Department of Energy, as I mentioned, 8
does have some work ongoing. We are coordinating with 9
them as well.
10 MR. THOMPSON:
We are working with the 11 agreement states on developing, I guess, a better 12 understanding of their user needs as we develop our 13 own program, so that we try to coordinate the user 14 needs as we would see the roles and applications, but 15 we're also trying to input into the agreement states 16 their concerns of what we're developing and how that 17 would be utilized, as well as issues on timing and 18 those types of things, which they're very sensitive I
I 19 on, since they have certain license applications 20 currently under review.
21 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
I might elaborate on
{
22 that a bit.
As Doctor Bell mentioned, we now have a 23 revised new user need letter.
That has been sent out 24 to the states for their review and comments.
It was 25 done at the end of last month and comments are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
23 1
- requested by the end.of-. February.
'In the meantime,.
2
'we're of course looking at that new user need letter, 3
seeing where changes to our current program would be 4
appropriate.
Before we completely formulate that, we 5
will receive the input back from the states.
We 6
intend to then revise the program plan, send that back 7
out to the states and let them take a look at it 8
before finalizing the research program.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
How safe is it to 10 assume that if a state is conducting research in this 11 area that we would know of it, that they would have 12 informed us?
13 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
I. think.it 's pretty 14 safe.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
good.
16 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
(Slide)
The current 17 research direction, as I
mentioned performance 18 assessment is really kind of the name of the game.
19 I've broken it down for today's presentation to five 20 areas. Models. This is basically the architecture of 21 the method by which we're going to do performance f
22 assessment.
The various components, source term, the 23 site, the waste form and the effects of enhancement.
24 I intend to identify the technical issues for each of 25 these areas, what we've done and what we've learned NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
24 1
and what we're doing today, the research, what we plan -
2 to get out of it or hope to get out of it now and how 3
we're going to use it.
4 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
^
5 Under modeling, there were, I think, three u
6
- general, three fundamental issues in which we're 7
exploring.
First of all, of course, what is an 8
appropriate low-level waste performance assessment 9
modeling strategy.
What sorts of things do you need 10 to consider, what are important, what are key to 11 assessing performance?
Then there's some particular 1
12 tnings that we've learned in trying to develop and 13 apply performance assessment. One of those things has
)
i 14 to do with infiltration.
Obviously, water is the 15 primary carrier of the waste out of the facility.and 16 infiltration into the disposing of it becomes a key 17 question.
18 The second
- issue, how should the 19 variability of geochemical properties be treated in 20 performance assessment also is critical because of
(
21 certainly the sites.
Obviously a site is generally l
l 22 fairly heterogenous and the chemical properties vary I
23 both spatially and with time as well.
But in 24 addition, the fact that there's a mix of stuff that 25 goes into a low-level waste disposal facility, all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i l 1 1
sorts of chemical constituents, as well as physically 2
different constituents, that it makes the chemistry 3
very difficult, very complex. What we're trying to do
[
4 in this area is sift through all that so that we, as 5
I'll explain a little bit more later, develop or have J
6 at hand for doing performance assessment models which 7
are sufficiently realistic so that we can take care 8
and be certain that we've gotten all the important 9
components and we understand and have accounted for 10 what is the driving processes, but not so complex that 11 you can never get the data to run the models or,-even 12 if you could, that you would never find a machine big
-l 13 enough or enough time on it to run the models.
14-Some of the geochemical codes that have 15 been developed in particular are extremely complex and i
16 take a very long time and they're just not practical.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Are the performance 18 assessments generally probabilistic or not?
19 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
The performance i
20 assessments have started out being pretty.much 21 deterministic.
But we have been using.the lessons 22
-that were learned from the high-level waste t
23 performance methodologies, performance assessment.
24~
methodologies developed by Sandia to try and take a 25
.more probabilistic approach.
It's not a PRA type I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
26-1 approach and. probably will not be since this is i
2 basically a passive system.
But it is probabilistic 3
in the sense that you do a systematic sampling of the 4
variability of parameters based on the likelihood of 5
their occurrence, how often you find that particular 6
value in a particular parameter.
7 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
'I assume the 8
models take into account the various types of disposal 9
structures.
Is that true?
10 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
That certainly -- when 11 we're finished, they will.
We're still learning to 12 kind of walk before we can run and we have some 13 rudimentary characterization and structures in some of 14 the models.
We've developed some models for the 15 physical stability in the long-term of. structures, 16 particularly concrete structures.
We are now 17 proceeding to look at the ways of modeling the 18 degradation of those structures over time and' in 19 particular what effect on the local chemistry the 20 degradation products of concrete would have.
21 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
And this would 22 include modeling the infiltration into the existing --
23 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
This would include
~
24 modeling the infiltration, yes.
25 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
p NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
.(202) 234-4433
27 1
What we've accomplished so far in modeling.
2 is we've. evaluated a number of codes that'have been 3
developed for flow and transport and tried -to 4
determine whether or not they're going to do the sorts 5
of things that we think we need to have done when we i
6 do a performance assessment.
.These-were not codes 7
developed for low-level waste performance assessment, 8
they were codes that were developed for-other 9
purposes.
What we're trying to do in this whole 10 program is not reinvent anything.
If there are 11 existing models or codes on the shelf and we can use 12 them directly, that's terrific.
If we have to tweak 13 them a little, that's okay too.
But we don't really 14 want to spend a lot of effort and resources developing 15 a
code that's a
very resource-intensive and a
16 protracted enterprise and we're rather not do that if 17 something is available.
18 We have developed a code though because 19 there are some things which didn't exist and that's 20 the next item, which is the -- I'm sorry.
I'm getting 21 ahead of myself. That's coming up. Which is the code 22 for the source term called.the breach, leach and 23 transport code, which I'll talk about a bit later.
24 We've developed a
low-level waste 25 performance assessment methodology and - the branch NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISI AND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
28 1
technical position will be published shortly on that.
2 This is the-phase 1 of the performance assessment 3
methodology which we've spoken to you about before and
]
4 I'll talk a bit more about that later.
1
^
5 We've also developed a methodology for 6
infiltration into basically very simple sorts of 7
shallow land burial facilities.
Nothing as complex 8
as a vault, but just an enhanced shallow land burial 9
which is consistent with Part 61.
It's not the old 10 shallow land burial, but a Part 61 type facility.
t 11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Frank, as I sit and 12
- listen, if I didn't know this was on low-level 13 research, terms like model, source term, site, waste 14 form, performance assessment, I might think it was 15 high-level waste.
What's the relationship - for a i
16 coordination between a high-level waste area efforts 17 and our low-level research effort?
It seems to me at 18 least many of the terms are the same.
l 19 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Many of the people are 20 the same as well in the research area.
There is a lot 21 of exchange of information and ideas and techniques 22 between the two areas and that's certainly facilitated 23 within the Office of Research by many of the same 24 people working on problems.
The problems, of course, 25 are very similar.
The media is different and the NEAL R. GROSS COUR1 REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
.j (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 1
39 1
nature of the engineering is different, but what you 2
have to deal with, and in particular what-kir:ds of 3
questions the performance assessment needs to be able
\\
4 to address, are quite similar.
]
1 5
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'll bring up a 6
question later when you get into the center.
The 7
question is do we use the center at all for any of our 8
low-level waste research.
l 9
DOCTOR COSTANZI:
No.
1 10 MR.
BERNERO:
No,
only on high-level 11 because that's the way they're set up.
We looked at j
12 the possibility of using them on low-level as well and l
13 it was just too cumbersome, mechanically cumbersome.in 14 contract phase to do that.
15 But to go back to your original question, 16 there is great similarity.
We are pleased that the E
17 Of fice of Research has people with the talent to work l
18 both sides of it and we rely on that a great deal.
19 We're giving more attention ourselves to that 20 commonality of purpose.
[
21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
If it's 22 cumbersomeness of contractual nature, it seems to me 23 that's a challenge for managers to try to solve that, 24 if that's the real reason.
25 MR. BERNERO: Yes. We have a paper before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 MHOCE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 30 1
-you about the difficulties of doing work for others 2
that is other than the high-level waste program in the 3
canter, it can be difficult, yes.
But-I think working i
4 within the confines of the NRC staff, we are getting I
5 and will continue to get great benefit from the_
6 sharing of work, the same people.
7-COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
So far I've 8
heard a lot about sharing information with DOE and the i
9 states.
A question I will ask now rather than later 10 is how much advantage are we taking of the research 11 done by other countries who, in fact, are more 12 advanced in terms of using engineered structures-or 13 more highly engineered structures? You don't.need to 14 answer that right now, but you might sprinkle in any 15 tidbits as we go along.
16 DOCTOR 'COSTANZI:
Okay.
I'11 try and 17 remember not to forget that.
But we are interacting 18 with other countries in a number of programs.
19 (Slide)
Modeling issues is the next 20 slide. The first issue is what is an appropriate low-21 level waste performance assessment modeling strategy.
22 The research we're doing here is a
systematic 1
23 examination of existing hydrologic and geochemical 24 codes against benchmark calculations and field data.
25 this is both the NRC staff doing this, as well as NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON., D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
h 33 r
1 contractors.
What we're trying to do now is define 2
-the range of applicability of these codes which'do 3
address the same sorts of-things we've already.
4 discovered are appropriate.
5 The product, of course, will be the; low-6 level waste performance assessment methodology, as I 3
7 mentioned, the branch technical position, which will
~
8 then be followed by a regulatory guide.
The current-9 schedule was that the regulatory guide would be 10 available in draft form about a year after the branch
-i 11 technical position, which would be about 18 months 12 from now.
But this schedule is going to change-13 because the phase 2, which is _ going to be essentially-L
-14 developing the reg. guide, the application of the i
15 methodology to some test cases is going to be changed
'l 16 to focus on some of the SD&P sites as mentioned 17 earlier, and you will hear more about this in a paper i
18 to the Commission I think in February,-is when it's 19 due.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
You mentioned ~
i 21 contractors as appropriate.
It would be helpful if 22 you'd give us some examples of the type of research 23 providers we are using in this area.
24 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Sandia --
25 MR. SILBERBERG: Sandia, Pacific Northwest NEAL R. GROSS r
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 -
l 32 1
Laboratories, INEL, Idaho,-PG&G, Brookhaven.
i 2-COMMISSIONER REMICK:
All national labs?
3 MR. SILBERBERG:
Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Any other?
~
5 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
University of Arizona.
j 6
MR. SILBERBERG:
We have _ universities, 1
7 MIT, the University of Arizona, and we've also done 8
work with the National Institutes of Science and 9
Technology right nearby and we're also working with 10 other agencies.
We're working closely with USGS, 11 Department of Agriculture, a site there.
12 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
University of 13 California.
i 14 MR. SILBERBERG: University of California.
15 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
We basically go where 16 there is talent and capability to do the work that we-17 need to get done.
The program is very much spread 1
18 around in that regard.
i 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
)
20 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
The use, of course, is 21 obvious, guidance to the states and licensing support.
22 (Slide)
The next issue, as I mentioned 23 earlier, was water infiltration.
We, as I mentioned,-
24 had developed an infiltration methodology.
We're now 25 applying that and refining it.
You had asked the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
33 l'
- question, "Where there not any that dealt with' 2
structures?". Initially it was very simple and dealt-3 with covers, engineered covers.
We're now further 4
developing.that model to deal with structures, things 5
like vaults and bunkers, which makes the problem much 6
more complex.
7 In very simple terms, if you're dealing 8
simply with a cover and a trench, even a-lined trench 9
of some sort where the wastes are put in, you can get 10 away with the one conventional infiltration model.
11 When you start putting in structures and vaults and 12 the like and perhaps monoliths or something of that
~
13 sort, now you're at least in the realm of 2D, probably.
14 3D.
That makes the calculation much more difficult.
15 What we'll get, of course,'is a product 16 for evaluating water infiltration in the performance 17 assessment methodology. This will, of course, be part 18 of the guidance that we will provide.
19 (Slide) Well, the last modeling issues is 20 in terms of the geochemistry.
As I mentioned before, 21 the existing geochemical nodels tend to be on two 22 extremes.
Either their very simple in order to be 23 able to run the calculations but those give us 24 difficulty because they're not -- one is forced to be 25 conservative, but you're never really sure that.you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
I 34 l'
are because of the simplifying assumptions that you're 2
forced to make, mainly because of the local chemistry 3
as well as the properties of the site change both with 4
time and space.
5 or, you can go to very complex chemical 6
codes where you really mechanistically dial in-the 7
chemical interactions amongst all the species that are 8
participating, but the hope. of getting enough data to 9
ever really feed that code is slim.
And even if you 10 could, it would take an inordinate and impractical 11 amount of time to run it.
12 So the objective here is to try and take 13 existing codes to the extent that we can and fashion 14
.them in a way that we can have some confidence that 15
.We're treating the dominant processes, we're treating 16 them in a fairly realistic way, and yet there will be 17 data available to run the codes.
It will be a 18 Herculean task to get that data and they'll take a lot 19 of time.
It could be done reasonably.
20 (Slide) The next slide, the source term--
21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Am I correct that 22 the center is looking at the very same' issue of the 23 effect of concrete on the local geochemistry in the 24 high-level waste area?
25 MR.
SILBERBERG:
on the type of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 -
35.
t 1
minerals that are at the' Yucca Mountain site, some of 2
the ' equivalent of ion exchange materials.
They 3
actually focus on that because the Yucca Mountain site 4
is, in fact -- predominates with-that type of mineral.
5 Whereas in a low-level waste we're talking about clay, t
6 soils and concrete.
The center's work per se doesn't 7
deal with concrete except to the extent that it might 8
come into the engineering construction.
But at this 9
point, they're focused on mineral content of Yucca 10 Mountain.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Bore hole sealing 12 and so forth.
13 MR.
SILBERBERG:
- Well, certainly in 14 sealing, that aspect of it, yes, certainly that's 15 concrete.
But they have not yet done much on the 16 chemistry of -- mostly on bore sealing, it's been, as 17 was explained in a previous briefing, was dealing with 18 the techniques on sealing properly. That was the work 19 that we had described that was being done outside the 20 center.
But the chemistry at this-point in concrete 21 is not an issue.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just before you 23 leave the modeling issues, I'd just like to explore a 24 thought here.
You mentioned that, of course, you're 25 trying to use as much as possible codes that already NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISI.AND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
I 36' l
exist, that are on the shelf and so on and'so'forth.
2 Presumably they were' developed for another purpose.
3 MR. SILBERBERG:
Yes.
4 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Some of them.
Not all-
~
5 of them, but most of them.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Well, some of.
7 them anyhow.
When you put all these together and use 8
them in some way, you in essence are creating a model.
.l 9
The question then is not simpl.y benchmarking the i
10 codes, but validating the model.
They're not quite 11 the.same thing.
I wonder to what extent you've been 12 wrestling with that particular aspect of this.
13 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
- Well, we have been 14-writing the codes using -- you mentioned actual. data 15 that we've obtained through other work and also the 16 literature.
And the phase 2 of the performance l
17 assessment methodology development was to try - and l
18 apply these codes and see how they worked.
Again,-
19 that would be against real data.
So, there would be 20 some measure of validation, something that would give 21 us confidence that we've got the modeling right.
We 22 still intend to do that, but as I mentioned we're i
23 going to be applying to some of the SDMP sites.
But 24 that's still part of the plans.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, the concern I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
37 1
have, and it's really just a general concern because 2
I really don't know exactly how you're doing this, but 3
if you start out with a collection of codes that deal' 4
with certain aspects of a situation, you can benchmark 5
those codes individually, but how you use them and in 6
principle questions of interaction of variables that 7
are being treated in one code and another code come 8
up, and these can be very complex issues.
I' 9
I was just wondering to what extent you don't want to get bogged down in it 10 that i
11 totally, but on the other hand you don't want to come 12 up with a collection of tools which you simply are 13 applying, you are benchmarking them to some extent.
14 I don't know exactly what you mean by benchmarking, 15 but generally one interprets this to mean not a full 16 validation of the code but really to sort of pick some
{
l 17 points that calibrate the code in a certain sense for l
18 a particular kind of calculation.
19 DOCTOR COSTANZI: Well, yes. Ultimately, 20 of course, what one would love to do is to be able to 21 run a series of field experiments and make predictions 22 of the code and observations of the results and 1
23 compare the two.
But that's very difficult to do.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: It would take a long
.i 25 time.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
f
-38 1
DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Yes.
But what we have 2
done is we've.taken advantage of not only laboratory-3 work and particular lysimeter work in which wastes 4
have been placed in a soil environments and then 5
- water, a
control rate percolated
-through the 6
environment and look at the leachabil'ity.
But we've 7
also taken advantage of the fact that there have been 8
some disposal sites, particularly those at the Chalk 9
River Laboratories in Canada, where the source term, 10 the radionuclides that went in are very well known, 31 very well characterized.
The site is very well 12 characterized and we've run comparison calculations of 13 how we would think the waste would move with our 14 various codes and looked at how they actually have 15 moved.
16 The results are very encouraging.
We're 17 pretty confident we know how to do that.- Again, we ' re 18 trying to become a bit more sophisticated and easier 19 to use at the same time.
But we're encouraged that 20 we're on the right track.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Thank you.
22 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
(Slide)
The next area
~
23 is the source term.
Questions here are what are the 24 dominant chemical, physical and radiologic properties 25 of the waste itself, how do the presence of chelating NEAL R. GROSS COURT HEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE 8SLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
39 1
agents affect the performance of disposal?
This is-2 going to become particularly critical as facilities 3
become decommissioned, since chelating agents are used 4
commonly in the decontaminating solutions.
And the 5
last one deals with some radionuclides which are 6
particularly difficult to measure, which right now are 7
estimated by limits of observation.
But we have 8
reason to believe that those estimates could be one or 9
several orders of magnitude-too great and-that 10 particular things like iodine and carbon technetium 11 would tend to swamp the dose calculations when the 12 amount present is really not as great as what is now 13 going into performance assessments.
14 We have developed. a source term model.
15 This is the breach, leach and transport code that was
'16 developed by Brookhaven.
We are testing it now on 17 actual low-level waste and we hope to further refine 18 and improve the code.
This is some of the validation 19 sorts of things that we are doing because, again, it's 20 done against not only other calculations but actually 21 observations, laboratory and field observations.
I 22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Has the low-level 23 waste manifest assisted in determining source term,- or 24 will it?
25 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
The information that i
NEAL R. GROSS
. COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
.40 1
would be in the uniform manifest is no different than 2
the information which already exists out there.
But 3
what it will do is make that information much more 4
4 conveniently accessible so that right now in order to 5
get all the -- to get an adequate characterization of 6
the ways to do suitable performance assessment, we 7
have to 'go back to the disposer as well as the 8
producer of the waste, compare records and then s-9 extract all that out.
It's essentially a manual 10 process.
Whereas with the uniform manifest, all that 11 will be available will be available electronically.
12 The information will be all in one place and readily 13 accessible.
So, it will really speed things up, make 14 things much more improved.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK: What's the status of 16 the uniform manifest?
17 DOCTOR COSTANZI: We are waiting right now 18 for the Department of Transportation to come back to 19 us.
We had sent them a letter asking aL number of 20 questions as to what they felt their needs were in 21 terms of safety of the transport, since that's their 22 responsibility.
We're waiting to get back from them.
23 We ' re ' also waiting for them to publish their own 24 rulemaking in this area.
We anticipate hearing from 25 them in about three or four months.
But I have to say NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
a 41-1
.that their schedule has been slipping.
So, it 's-just 2
on hold.
3 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Is there a 4
particular hang-up, or is it just a matter of 5
priorities for them?
6 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
It's a-matter of 7
priorities, as I understand it.
The system is safe 8
now.
So this is a --
9 (Slide)
Okay.
The research that we're 10 doing is laboratory and lysimeter tests on a range of 11 actual low-level waste.
The product is 12 characterization.
One product we tend to get in.the 13 near-term, which is next year, is characterization 'of 14 Class A wastes by waste streams. This is the chemical i
~
15 properties of Class A waste.
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Is there any work 17-being done by the State of Illinois at the Sheffield.
18 site along this line?
19 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
I'm not aware of it.
20 MR. SILBERBERG:
Not that I'm aware of.
21 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Okay..The use of this 22 information, of
- course, is the development of 23 realistic source terms and the selection of 24 appropriate models.
25 (Slide)
The next question deals with the-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
42 1
complex chelating agents'in low-level waste.
- Again, 2
this is an experimental program looking at the effects 3
of chelating agents on low-level waste chemical 4
stability. We will ultimately modify the leaching and S
transport codes to accommodate the excess of chelating 6
agents which is found in decontamination fluids; 7
Again, the use is realistic source terms.
But we want 8
to make sure that the source terms that are going in 9
the performance assessments are driven by what's in 10 the disposal unit and by not something that's just 11 hypothetical.
12 (Slide) The last issue deals; with some of 13 the hard to measure radionuclides.
- Again, it's 14 laboratory work on samples of low-level waste.
the 15 objective here is to try and develop correlations 1
16 between the quantities of some of these very difficult 17 to measure radionuclides with more commonly occurring 18 and more easily measured radionuclides, so that rather 19 than putting down a limit of detection as the amount 20 of carbon-14 or iodine-129, you can scale it from 21 something else which is more easily measured and you 22 know that these always occur in a particular waste
~
23 stream in the same ratios.
24 (Slide)
I'd like to turn now to _the 25 issues related to the site.
As you might gather by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
1 43 P
1 now, chemistry plays a very large part because we're 2
back here at chemistry.
i 3
The first issue here is how should the 4
effects of organic complexants and microparticulates 5
occurring naturally in the soil be treated.
These 6
have the property of being able to mobilize 7
radionuclide and make them move faster than one would 8
first estimate.
They also have the property, in some 9
cases, of capturing them and inhibiting their motion.
10 They need to be addressed and put into the c
11 assessments.
I 12 And what are the elements of appropriate 13 unsaturated zone performance monitoring program? This 14 work is something we haven't started yet.
We plan to i
.I 15 begin.
But it will look at how would you monitor the 16 unsaturated area around the disposal area, since they l
17 need to be, according to Part 61, built above the 18 water table, either to confirm that everything is okay 19 or, if something isn't okay, to provide an early I
20 warning so that some sort of interdiction could take 21 place.
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Both of those-23 bullets seem to be questions you'd ask in the high-24 level waste repository also.
3 25 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Yes.
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
-l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
44 1
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Is research being 2
done there on those topics?
3 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Yes.
As a matter of 4
fact, the work in terms of is everything okay in i
5 properties'of the site characterization also-in the-6 materials areas, where looking at possible ways of 7
monitoring the condition of the waste packages over 8
time.
For metallic containers you could look at.
9 corrosion
- noise, electronic noise created by 10 corrosion, to see if things are okay, if the potential 11 has changed.
12 COMMISSIONER - REMICK:
Do we have two-13 different efforts going on or are they related or 14 coordinated or --
15 DOCTOR COSTANZI: We're not looking at any 16 of the kinds of materials questions in the low-level 17 waste than we are in the high-level waste.
So, they 18 are separate.
They're not really --
19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Every site would be 20 different generally, right?
21 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Every site would be 22 different.
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But questions on 24 monitoring it seems would be applicable to either one.
i 25 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Well, in terms of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005
, (202) 234-4433
]
45
-1 monitoring of the water, yes, with the' exception, of 2
course, of Yucca Mountain's fractured rock.
All the 3
low-level waste facilities-I know of have different 4
types of soils, but soils.
5 MR. BERNERO:
It should be kept in mind 6
that it would take a truly catastrophic failure of 7
thousand year packages to be able to monitor something 8
in a few centuries for the high-level waste site.
So, 9
there are substantive differences there.
The waste 10 form is also much more specialized in high-level 11 waste.
12 MR. SILBERBERG:
And the form is in the 13 rule.
14 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
15 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
The source term in the 16 high-level waste is a much easier problem to --
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK: The answer is you're 18 not doing monitoring research for high-level waste.
19 Is that right?
20 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Not of this nature, no.
21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
22 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
(Slide) Okay. The site 23 issues, we have demonstrated through our work that one 24 dimensional modeling of flow of transport is not 25 always conservative. In fact, it usually isn't by the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRfDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433-WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
- 1 way it's done.
People basically take an_ average of l
2 the properties of the site and what happens is that 3
ignores the real pcssibility and in fact the real 4
occurrence of particularly high conductivity channels, l
5 like sand lenses and the
- sort, and tends to 6
underestimate the amount of radionuclides.which could 7
migrate from the site over time.
8 We've also demonstrated the feasibility of 9
developing a site characterization program for low-10 level waste.
This is some work that we again did up 11 at Chalk River where we did sort of a blind test, 12 where we asked the contractor to go out and take a 13 look at the lay of the land and figure out where you-14 would put your wells and your bore holes to 1
15 characterize the site and'then look at the wells and 16 the borings that ACEL did 'at Chalk River, compare the 17 two and run your calculations and tell us how things 18 are migrating.- Then look at the data from the actual 19 monitoring wells and make that comparison.
It turned 20 out to be very good.
21 As would be
- expected, the predicted 22 migration -- migration was predicted to disperse a lot 23 more than is actually observed because the dispersion
~
24 is - kind of a measure of uncertainty in the whole 25 process.
But the concentrations and the extent of the -
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 6
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
- 47
'l
- migration were very close.
So, we felt very ' good 2
about that.
We felt that it w a s --
a good.
3 accomplishment.
4-(Slide)
Site issues.
How should the 5
ef fects of organic complexants --' what we're doing is 6
field observations, again at-Chalk
- River, and 7
companion laboratory experiments are identifying'the 8
controlling organic processes and compounds.
We will 9
use these in performance assessment models.
10 (Slide)
Next site issue, page 19, what 11 are the elements of appropriate unsaturated zone 12 performance program?
Again, this will be hydrologic 13 field observations, identification of appropriate 14 elements for performance monitoring to make sure 15 everything is going okay.
Or if it's not, get some 16 early warning. We ultimately provide some guidance to 17 states and ourselves to sites which we would license.
18 (Slide) -I'd like.to turn now to the waste 19 form, issues related to the mechanical stability of i
20 the waste form.
A simple question, how stable are 21 they? The Part 61, of course, has as the fundamental 22 tenet that the Class B and C waste which'contain the 23 bulk of the radioactivity must be stable.
There have 24 been branch technical positions published on the
-i 25-stability o'f waste form and this work is designed'to
~
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
' (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
]
1
48 1
assure that indeed the methods that are being used to 2
stabilize low-level waste by the industry are working.
3
.(Slide)
And, in fact!, on the next page 4
you see that one of the things that we've.done is l
5 we've actually tested, solidified low-level waste and 6
the result of those tests has led to improved industry.
7 practicc.
We've assessed the stability of 8
decontamination waste and we've published a report on 9
that and have developed a database for testing source 10 term codes.
11 We're still --
12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Excuse me for 13 interrupting, but up until now I got the impression 14 that most of the things you were talking about were 15 questions that are still out there and being worked 16 on.
Now, I see these are -- you're actually giving 17 some examples of results and use. Are these the -- am 18 I wrong in my impression that most of what you talked 19 about up to this point are outstanding questions that 20 are being worked on or are there other examples in 21 those areas that we just covered?
22 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
No, there are examples 23 of results as well.
We certainly have a lot of
~
24 questions which we're still working on, but we have, 25 I think, made a good deal of progress.
For example, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
t 49 1
we have identified a set of transport flow ' and 2
transport codes which we know will be useful in doing 3
performance assessment.
The work we're doing now is 4
fixing the
- range, what are the limits of the 5
applicability, what particular properties and what 6
kind of a site will they address, what kind of a site 7
will they not address.
There are different codes and 8
they were developed for different purposes.
9 Similarly, we have some idea now of the 10 degree of sophistication that we need in terms of 11 treating the chemical properties.
We're pretty 12 confident that we now can treat them realistic 13 treat the chemistry of the low-level waste disposal 14 realistically, but without demanding an inordinate i
15 amount of data or an impractical amount of time.
16 We have developed methods of assessing the
?
17 performance of engineered structures in terms of their l
-L 18 stability over the long-term.
We've developed codes 19 for that.
We're now exploring the chemistry of the' l
20 degradation products, how they. degrade, how long will 21 that take in terms of how that will affect the local 22 chemistry since the products of degradation-will act e
23 as -- well, essentially swamp the chemistry in a local 24' area.
t 25 (Slide)
We have done a lot of work on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEFS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433.
WASHINGTON. D C. 20005
- (202) 2344433 ~
50 1
-covers.
One of the things that we found out is that 2
no matter what kind of a low-level waste disposal 3
engineering you want to do, if you throw some dirt on 4
top of it, you've improved it.
Putting a cover on a 5
disposal facility, a vault or a bunker or the like, 6
has the effect of keeping water'out of it.
If you
+
7 keep water out of wht' ou put the wastes, you're I
8 obviously ahead of the game.
So, we've learned how to 9
do that and how to evaluate them.
So, these are some 10 of the successes that we've had his program.
11 Before I do forget, I mentioned that.we l
12 have done this in cooperation and cognizance of what's 13 going on in the rest of the world. We are cooperating l
14 with European countries and Ja in such projects as 15 Intraval, which was not just high-level waste but is 16 also low-level waste problems.
We are also 17 cooperating in the International OKLO effort. That is 18 of particular use to us because some of the natural 19 reactors occurred in bitumen and nothing inoves in 20 bitumen.
Everything seems to have been held up very 21 well.
So, we've learned a lot of information from 22 that about, again, the local chemistry and, in fact, 23 about'some of the things that you might do to further 24 enhance the isolation of the waste from the 2S environment.or by adding materials to the disposal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
. =.
51 1
unit.
2 The waste form.
As I said, we're looking 3
at laboratory tests, including the effect of microbes.,
4 since they're ubiquitous, on the actual waste, largely 5
decontamination waste, since that's the next big-6 question in low-level waste disposal. We will use the.
7 data that is going to result. from this and the 8
guidance in treating waste forms.
9 Enhancements, I've briefly talked about 1
10 just a moment ago, has to do with cover designs and 11 also with the degradation of concrete structures.
12 (Slide)
Page 24 indicates that we've 13 demonstrated that bioengineered and multiple layered i
i 14 covers can be effective at preventing water 15 infiltration into low-level waste dispcsal units and 16 also bioengineered covers can-effectively remediate 17 water infiltration.
Essentially the plants will suck 18 the water right out.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But bioengineered, 20 is it something --
21 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
You grow a plant on it, 22 yes.
f 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
24 DOCTOR COSTANZI: But I think -- were they 25 junipers? Is that what we're using? But they're very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
. ~.
2 52 1
effective at dewatering trenches.
We have -this i
2 demonstration facility out here in Beltsville.
It's 3
very interesting to vis'it. Not much is happening, but 9
4 you can see the lay of the land and how these trenches F
5 are covered.
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Too,. successful 7.
people must be attempted to cut it for biomass'if it 8
grows.
t 9
DOCTOR COSTANZI:
I guess.
Take the 10 berries and make jam, I don't know.
11 We've also demonstrated the feasibility of 12 using chemical barriers in natural soils to retard the 13 migration of the nuclides.
14 (Slide)
We developed a model, page 25, 15 for predicting the long-term service of concrete 16 structures and developed a model.for evaluating 17 radionuclide transport through concrete.
18 (Slide)
The issues that we're still 19 exploring, what cover designs will be effective 20 controlling water. We haven't finished evaluating all 21 the~ cover designs, but this project is winding up and 22 we'll be finished by the end of calendar year
'95.
23 With regard to the degradation of concrete 24 structures, we're now testing the durability and rate 25 of degradation under expected disposal conditions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REFORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
.1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
. ~..
9 53 1
We'll identify the processes, also the chemistry, and q
2 that will be used again in performance assessments.
3 MR.
SILBERBERG:
And the concrete 4
workshop.
Do you want me to - mention that, the 5
concrete workshop?
6 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Go ahead.
7 MR. SILBERBERG:
Yes.
Commissioner de 8
- Planque, you mentioned about taking advantage of 9
international experience in the area of enhanced low-10 level waste disposal.
We have reached a juncture now s
11 in our work on concrete at the NIST that we have, in 12 cooperation with the NIST, have set up a major 13 workshop at the end of January, the 31st, February 1st 14 and 2nd, where we have invited not only those people 15 who have done research and actual engineering in low-16 level waste facilities-in the United States, but.we 17 have invited people from France, Sweden, Spain and 18 Japan to participate also in a well-focused workshop 19 on getting input from across the world on how they see 20 the current state of technology in the use of-concrete 21 in these facilities. We're going to'take advantage of 22 that and that input to evaluate how we might refocus 23 our own program and, using experience from there, 24 determine how we might use their information as well 25 as enhance our own program by doing something~that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 t
54 1
~ would not necessarily be duplicative of what they've 2
done.
3 So, we think that's a major milestone for 4
the program in order to bring this experience to bear.
5 MR.
THOMPSON:
Mr.
- Chairman, that 6
completes our presentation. We'd please to respond to 7
any questions the Commission has.
8 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Rogers?
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, just following 10 up a little bit along that line, have you folks 11 thought about some specific criteria that we might 12 apply to. deciding on how we make a decision on the 13 pursuit of any particular kind of research in this 14 area?
I think I'm a bit uncomfortable to some extent 15 with some of the areas, not that they aren't important 16 things to do, but the question of who's doing them.
17 When we start looking at cover research, I thing we 18 certainly have to have an expertise in-house and be-19 able to tap an expertise in judging what our planned 20 cover program might be.
But where you draw the line
~
21 between doing the kind of work that the owner of the 22 site should be doing versus the kind of work that we 4
23 need to do to be able to judge the validity of a-24 proposal.
J 25 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Well, the particular
-l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
55 1
work that you mentioned, the covers, had'its origin in 2
the perceived failures of earlier low-level waste 3
disposal, the fact that waste had subsided and the 4
covers collapsed and the disposal units filled with 5
water.
We started looking at that because it was 6
obviously a problem.
There wasn't really anyone else 7
around to look at it at the time.
This was in the 8
Low-Level Waste Policy Act and the Policy Amendment 9
Act days, and it was a long-term project.
It turned l
10 out to be something which was very useful and the 11 states expressed continued
- interest, so we just 12 continued the work.
1 13 As I mentioned earlier, we now have the 14 new user need letter just circulating to the states 15 for their comments.
Is it responsive to what they 16 need as well, since under the Low-Level Waste-Policy 17 Act NRC does have some obligation to provide guidance 18 to the state according to the act?
We will 19 accordingly modify the research that we're doing to be 20 consistent with.those needs.
So, we feel ~that the 21 research we've done to date has certainly been 22 responded to positively by the states.
They seem to 23 be using it and certainly we've tried to do those 24 sorts of things that would be appropriate for us.to 25 do, we thought would be appropriate for us to do and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005
-(202) 234 4433
[3 1
56 1
were also useful to the states and we will continue 2
that.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, I have no j
4 doubt that they would find the work useful to them.
9 5
I guess the concern I have is one that we touched on 6
this morning in our agreement state program briefing 7
and that is that if more and more states become 8
agreement states, and I suppose in the limit they
' t 9
almost all are agreement states, they still would have 10 this great interest and yet the fees would not be 11 coming in to support it.
I think that somehow one has 12 to begin to take that into account in some way.
I 13 don't know how, but I have no doubt the states will be 14 interested in using the results of this work.
The 15 question is whether they shouldn't be supporting some 16 of it themselves and, in fact, maybe actually doing it 17 themselves.
If we're out there ready and villing to 18 do it, that's fine.
No need for them to come to grips 19 with it.
But if a state decides to take ovtsr a low-20 level waste disposal program but really plans to use 21 the results that we're developing to help them, but 22 isn't assisting in paying for it, I'm a
bit 23 uncomfortable with that.
It's an issue that I think 24 we need to watch and characterize in some way and at 25 the same time continually ask ourselves what is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 a
57 1
basis.for our deciding-to take on a particular kind of j
2 research or a piece of research.
3 MR.
SILBERBERG:
Let -me just
- note, 4
Commissioner Rogers, that some of that support in the 5
area of what you might call research for the states 6-might also come from the DOE commercial low-level 7
waste program
- and, in
- fact, we have had many 8
discussions with them over a number of years on trying 9
to encourage them to participate in this.
It is my 10 understanding
- now, as you may
- know, that the r
11 Department of Energy now is looking rather seriously 7
12 at research and development that they might be able to 13 carry. out or that even in a limit might even be 14 carried out cooperatively with us. They're looking at 15 number of initiatives and we're actually in touch with 16 them as to what some of this work might be, l
17 So, the Department of Energy, in their 18 responsibilities in the 1985 Act, going back and.
19 trying to determine how either from their own low-t 20 level waste program or from broadly across DOE how-21 they might be able to support work for the states.
1 22 Back in the case of:the cover work, it 23.
wasn't so much that -.and I admit that there's 'always.
24
. a concern about a fine line between ' who should be 25 doing it.
There, because of the experiences on why NEAL Ft. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
'(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 58-1~
covers were subsiding or failing, what have you, i
2 within the context 'of our advice from 'our user office
.l 3
as well as from the Office of Research, the concern 4
that we had was why are they failing? What is'it that 5
makes a bad design?
What should they be avoiding?
6 How should they -- what are, if you will, designs or 7
design approaches of fundamental understanding that 8
might get a cover into trouble,'might get a' site into 9
trouble?
10 So, there it was a matter of let's stand i
11 back and understand the safety significance of what 12 they're trying to do.
In that context, I think one 13 might say that our work would have justification.
14 MR. THOMPSON:
Commissioner Rogers, a lot 15 of this work was kind of started before the 100 16 percent fee issue became a problem, obviously.
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Oh, I know. I know.
18 MR. THOMPSON: As we go through ~and update 19 our user need and working with the states, we'll keep 20 that aspect in mind and be very careful that we think 21
'the. appropriate balance is drawn between what we're-22 doing and what NRR licensees are going to be obviously 23 footing the bill for and what we can work with DOE and 24 others to get that done.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And at the same NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
.a
d 59 i
1
- time, it seems.that - when making that kind ~ of a 2
judgment, you J so have to recognize that we must have 3-our own indep,ndent capability --
4 MR.
SILBERBERG:
- Yes, that's correct.
t 5
That's correct.
of making-6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
i 7
decisions on that. That has to be there.
But I think
-l 8
these are issues that just have to be continually 9
returned to.
I don't think you can settle them once 10 and for all on any particular issue.
You have to keep 11 going back and looking at it and see where it is 12 today.
13 MR.
THOMPSON:
Does it make sense to 14 continue and what's the benefit going to be and what's 15 the cost going to be.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Right.
r 17 DOCTOR COSTANZI: There's also the charge 18 in the Low-Level Waste Policy Act to NRC to provide 19 guidance to the. state in these matters.
So, it's 20 continual reexamining ---
l 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
When the Congress 22 passed that, they wouldn't pass the 100 percent Fee 23 Recovery Act at the same time either.
So, these 24 things impact each other and I just think that we have l
25 to continually examine and publicly examine what the' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
- 1 j
.~
60 1
impact of the 100 percent fee is on everything we do.
2 We have to live within that and we can't use that, it 3
seems to me, to pay for things that somebody else 4
really should be doing because that's what it's coming 5
back to.
6
- Now, the other point about the 7
presentation, I thought it was-a very interesting 8
presentation, but I would personally like to have seen 9
something about time lines on some of these programs.
10 Just where do they stand?
Do you have any 11 expectations for completion of something? Not a hard 12 and fast thing, but some idea of the magnitude of the i
13
- research, how many people are involved in the 14 individual projects and how many dollars are involved.
15 It all looks very nice, but the question is what's the 16 price tag on this and how long is it going to take?
17 of course, to some extent I can always go back and 18 look at our budgets to find that,.but it is nice to l
19 have it in the context of a presentation of this sort, 20 just to have a feeling about what we're talking about 1
21 here.
22 So, I'd like to see perhaps -- perhaps' you 23 could supply us with a little accompanying chart.
24 MR. THOMPSON:
We'll supply that.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: In terms of the work i
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 234 4433
~
n 61 1
that was presented today, how many FTEs are involved, 2
how many dollars involved, how many contract dollars 3
outside of NRC are involved?
4 MR.
THOMPSON:
I'm sure we have that 5
information and we'll be pleased to provide it.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Thank you very much.
7 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Remick?
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Going to the 9
research you have on the cover
- designs, there 10 certainly are sites in existence in France, in the.
11 U.S.,
like Sheffield.
I assume there are some EPA 30 12 year disposal sites that have been established that-13 are supposedly designed to keep out water and collect i
14 water if it does go in.
Are you incorporating and 15 looking at past experience in this research of sites 16 that are already in existence?
17 MR. SILBERBERG:
Very definitely.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
Good.
19 I must admit I guess I look at_Mr.
20 Bernero and Mr. Thompson here -- some questions, I 21 guess, about should the Center for Nuclear Waste 22 Regulatory Analysis be involved in low-level waste 23 research.
24 And I realize that it's not a question of J
25 conflict of interest in the area of low-level waste I
NEAL R. GROSS j
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l
.62 1
that the Commission faced in the high-level waste area 2
and I certainly support the idea of diverse research 3
providers and so forth, not putting all your eggs in 4
one basket, but, at the same time, I know certainly 5
within a couple years ago we were concerned because of 6
the slowing down of the high-level waste area whether 7
we could put enough resources in to have that critical 8
mass of expertise at the Center.
9 I think you agree that many of these 10 issues could easily relate to high-level or low-level 11 waste.
I wonder if we have adequt.tely considered the I
12 pros and cons, because I honestly don't know where-one j
13 should come'out on it, but I hope that the con isn't 14 that the Center is a high-level waste initiative and 15 the low-level people feel that they want to have their
~
16 own things that they manage and not have to go through 17 the high-level.
I have no indication if that's it or 18 not, but I hope that's not the case.
~
j 19 MR. THOMPSON:
That's not the case from 20 the staff's perspective.
It clearly is an issue with 21 respect to the basic foundation and the-justification ~
l
-22 for having an FFRDC for which we went through, and so R
23 it has to be a f airly narrow-scoped and focused issue.
24-Bob, maybe you have a little more on this?
25 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
We have spoken to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1
l
63 1
Commission before in a variety of papers.
2-There is an activity at the Center now, 3
for instance, to cooperate. with or. support the 4
radiation protection group in Sweden in the i
5 environmental impact of high-level waste.
6 We have sent to the Commission and urged 7
you to consent to the possibility of the Center 8
providing technical assistance to EPA for high-it's really transuranic waste performance 9
level 10 assessment and similar activities associated with 11 WIPP.
12 We previously tried to structure some-of 13 the low-level waste research program out to the 14 Center. That, as I indicated a little earlier, got to 15 be a contractual difficulty with an FFRDC.
16 We still want to get as much advantage as 17 we can for the interests of the American public, you 18 know, the synergism that' one gets with this common 19-agenda.
We do have the benefit'of the staff being i
20 common in the high-level and low-level waste programs 21 to a fairly great extent, and the more we can do of 22 that the better off we are.
23 I would be very: happy to ' edge into the
[
~
24 Center with some of this work insofa'r as we can within 25 the contractual constraints and legal constraints on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
64 1
what we do at the Center, j
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I've had some past.
I 3
experience with'FFRDCs, so I know that they can be 4
flexible.
In other words, the flexibility ~ we ' re.
5 talking about here with a single sponsor, the NRC, to 6
me is minor compared to the questions of multiple 7
sponsors, some government, some non-government, many 8
FFRDCs, the arena in which they work.
9 But I'm not arguing one way or the other.
10 I just want to make sure that we have given careful 11 thought to the pros and cons, particularly if it is a 12 question of maintaining the critical mass of expertise -
13 needed to make the Center function the way we want it 14 to and all indications are the way it's functioning 15 now, so I just throw that out.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Could I --
1 17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes, please.
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It's - something we 19 all know, but I would remind you that scientific i
20 problems don't - come with labels on them - that say 21 "high-level waste" or " low-level waste," and there's 22 much commonality in the basic underlying principles
' that are applicable to these two.
And I think that, q
24 if you can cast your work, formulate your work in such.
25 a way that you're looking at some kind of a ~ basic NEAL R. GROSS COURT. REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W, (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
65 1
question that happens to cross both boundaries, then 2
'it seems to me that there's ample justification for 3
carrying that on at the Center without having a. label 4
4 on it that says " low-level waste," because it's 5
important for both.
6 DOCTOR COSTANZI: We have been doing that.
7 MR. SILBERBERG:
Yes.
8 DOCTOR COSTANZI: In fact, to give you two 9
examples, one is the work that we did at Las Cruces, 10 New Mexico, which was ostensibly a low-level waste 11 project but the data was used for exercising some 12 high-level waste models of unsaturated zones; and also j
13 a workshop that we had recently on geochemistry in 14 which we had both our low-level and high-level waste 15 geochemists, including the Center, represented.
And 16 so, there would be this cross-fertilization because we 17 recognize that these are -- you know, chemistry is 18 still chemistry is still chemistry.
19 MR. THOMPSON:
The staff will go and 20 look -- I'll take a look at the issue one more time 21 because I know that that was the approach that we took
. 22 before, that things such as performance assessment' 23 would seem to have those elements that would make'it-O 24 reasonable to assume that the Center could do it.
I l
25 just don't remember precisely the reason that. we i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT FtEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS.
_j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
j (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
66 1
didn't go forward at that time.
It may be okay to'go-2 forward now.
My memory was that it was in the midst.
3 of renewing the contract and there were some clear 4
reasons not to go too far afield when we had other 5
opportunities such as the EPA or the Swedish to expand '
6 the Center's expertise and work load at that-time, but 7
we'll come back to the Commission with that.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Good.
9 Just one other thing I don't know'if you 10 want or are prepared to respond to, but, did you all 11 know that a year or so ago the Commission proposed a 12 rule in the low-level waste area which I perceived as 13 identification of what our licensees should expect 14 come January 1, 1996, in the low-level waste area?
15 Now, the staff has sent up in SECY-93-323 16 a recommendation that that rule not go forward._ It's 17 a very well-written document.
The primary argument 18 seems to be that it does 'not provide substantial j
19 incentive for licensees to dispose of low-level waste 1
20 versus
- storage, and in my mind-that was.not 21 necessarily the intent.
]
22 There were things in there that they were j
23 to explore, reasonable alternatives, and document that
]
24 they had, and in that way certainly encouraged that 25 they look at disposal possibilities from a-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
~
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000$
(202) 2344433 1
- i z
rI
67 1
reasonableness standpoint, but in my mind-I thought 2
the advantage of that was to put on the record for our 3
licensees what our expectations were come January.1',
4 1996, because I don't know how otherwise they know.
5 Would you care to respond.to it or would 6
you prefer not to?
7 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
Let me speak to it 8'
briefly here.
That rulemaking really at its core is 9
or was an attempt to press or to push or to encourage
'10 generators of waste to take whatever measures they 11 could to find alternatives, including measures that 12 would provoke the state in question to proceed with 13 their low-level waste site development and licensing 14 and so forth. As you could see from the analysis with 15 the paper, there's very little that we can do more 16 than we are doing to accomplish that.
f 17 I don't think there's anything unique 18 about 1996, that milestone, other than some further 19 admonitions or frowns from us.
If you look at what we 20 have now, there are states which have been denied 21 access now, Michigan, for more than three years.
1996 22 came three years ago for Michigan, and what the 1
23 generators in that state can expect I can't tell them.
24 The' process, the national process for 25 developing low-level waste, is not under our direct-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
68 1.
control.
So, what we're recommending to the 2
Commission is. don't go forward with that rulemaking.
3 Do what we can to assist the process, to promote the 4
process.
Cope with the interim storage situation as S-best we can.
6 But there's really -- I just don't see any I
7 regulatory benefit to doing the rulemaking.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'm certainly not 9
for rulemaking that is not necessary, but, as I say, 10 I really saw it as a way of telling people where the 11 NRC stands come January 1,
1996.
How do they know 12 otherwise what our actions are going to be, if.we.
13 don't put something out?
Maybe it shouldn't be a-14 rule.
Maybe it should be something else.
15 But I agree that there was that secondary.
16 effect of getting generators to
- look, put some 17 pressure on the states in trying to find alternatives.
18 We very carefully put in the word. " reasonable" 19 alternatives. I know some people interpreted that the 20 staff was going to insist that, if there was any 21 alternative, that they had to follow, but I don't 22 think that.was the' Commission's intent.
23 But I guess I'm still concerned that 24 what -- what do people know where the NRC stands comes 25 January 1,
1996.
It tells them, if I recall, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
.I
r 69 1
they should look at the safety of on-site storage if 2
they have to store.
There were some things there and 3
that's not new, I agree --
7 t
4 MR. BERNERO:
No, no.
We've already told.
5 them that and there is nothing that we can say about 6
1996 about any alternative that is meaningful to them.
7 We're not going to say "stop instantly 8
storing waste."
9 We're not going to say "we refuse to let 10 you generate any more."
l 11 We're not going to say "the state-loses 12 its compact." We don't have the authority to do that.
13 We can focus on the safety, which we have i
14 already done.
15 We can focus on encouraging and assisting 16 the states to complete the development of their sites.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Would you see in 18 anything that goes out which withdrew that proposed 19 rulemaking or that proposed rule that we would point-20 those things out so they knew that they aren't 21 guessing what.we are going to do and what we haven't 22 said and what we might say?
You say we're not going 23 to do these things,. but do the licensees and'the 24 states'know that we are or are not going to do them?
)
1 25 MR. THOMPSON: Well, certainly whatever we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, (202) 234 4433.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 -
(202) 234-4433 r -,
i 1
70 1
put out we would obviously want to do that', but we've i
2 put out generic letters clearly indicating our l
-l 3
preference for disposal when that option is available.
4 We could reiterate those.
I would see no problem with 5
reiterating.
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Well, there is a lot 7
of confusion, of course, over the existing generic 8
letter that's out there for power reactors'in this 9
area on the question of whether that is a requirement 10 or what it is, but I understand that you are planning i
11 to withdraw that generic letter.
Is that correct?
12 DOCTOR BELL:
Modify it.
13 MR. BERNERO:
Modify it.
14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
l 15 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Replace it with a blank 16 sheet of paper.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Thank you very much 18 for the presentation.
I also found it helpful.
19 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner de Planque?
20 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
I have a couple 21 of questions.
I realize it's running late,.so, if you 22 want to answer these in some other form, that's okay 23 too.
24 There is a
current agreement being m
25 negotiated between the United States and Russia on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C, 20005 (202) 2344433
71 1
some cooperative programs and some of them involve 2
looking at sites like Chelyabinsk in Russia.
And I 3
know a modeler's delight is always to find a site 4
where you can validate your model as you've done it at 5
Chalk River and I realize that some of DOE's interests 6
in this particular agreement have-to do with their 7
validation of models and determination of transport r
8 underground and so forth.
9 Are you aware of this and are you involved 10 in any way in discussing what DOE might be doing under 11 this agreement?
12 MR. SILBERBERG:
Not too much, no.
13 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
14 MR SILBERBERG: I do know that as part of 15 a,
I guess, training program or cooperative program t
16 some representatives from the Ukraine were in this 17 summer and talked to various branches of the Office of 18 Research and we spent several days with those 19 representatives in the waste management area.
20 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
21 MR. SILBERBERG:
But beyond that, I' don't 22
-think we have done --
23 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
The interest in 24 tMs particular area is with Assistant Secretary 25 Grumbly.'s group.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 i
72 l
1 DOCTOR BELL:
Conmissioner de Plangue, in 2
addition to sending the user need letter to the 3
states, we have also sent it to DOE and EPA to solicit 4
any information they may have that's relevant to the 5
user needs we've identified and we would hope that 6
things like this would cone out of that.
7 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
8 One of the interesting things about a 9
research program is its, results and you've. had a 10 focused program for five years.
I didn't get a lot of 11 feel for some of the results from the past.
A lot of 12 this had to do with what is coming up in the future 13 and what we expect.
I'in sure you have a long laundry 14 list of the successes, but sometimes the more 15 interesting parts of a research program are the 16 negatives that come out of it, the surprises that come 17 out of it, the assumptions that have been disproved 18 and the "ah-hahs" that come out of it.
Is there i
i 19 anything along those lines you'd care to just talk t
20 about in a minute or two?
21 DOCTOR COSTANZI: I think perhaps a couple 4
1' 22 of the biggest things are the fact that the one-1 A
23 dimensional modeling isn't conservative and that two 24 and perhaps three-dimensional modeling for flow and 25 transport is going to be necessary to get a realistic l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
i 73 1
pict tre.
2 I think the chemistry, that again the more l
3 simplified modeling of chemistry using partition r
4 coefficients has turned out to be not adequate, even 5
though that had been common practice for years and f
6 years and years.
That's how people did it.
It just' 7
doesn't work and one does need to do a certain amount 8
of mechanistic modeling in the geochemical codes if 9
you want to truly represent the processes that are 10 ongoing.
11 So, I think those are the two that come to 12 mind.
13 Anything that you --
14 MR. SILBERBERG:
Yes.
I think, if you i
15 actually bring all of those things together and 16 integrate all of those thoughts, that, depending on i
17 the complexity of the site, one of the important 18 things that we've learned and that has been~ coming I
19 through in messages and will continue to come through 20 in this guidance on performance assessment is that i
21 some of the more simplistic-methodologies and
-22 assumptions of the past, and I mean70s,'early '80s, t
23 will in fact not be acceptable, won't get you-there.
24 And I think the guidance that will come out in the 25 BTP, forthcoming BTP, is going to give that message.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 w
w
'y-s
.w
m.
74 1
The test cases we're doing and the 2
research that we have in a number of' volumes that will 3
back up the BTP and ultimately the regulatory guide 4
will in fact give that message that you just may not
~
5 be able to get by with some of the more simplistic
-}
6 methodologies of the past and that one will have to i
7 work a little harder because of the complexities and 8
because et the fact that we have a
greater f
9 understanding of the interaction of the processes l
10 taking place at a site.
11 So, 'if I were to use your words and say-12 "is there some negative coming out?" -- and I don't 13 think it's a negative, I think that's progress -- I c
14 think that the fact that we'll probably have.to work.
15 harder in many cases, using these things we've learned j
16 and the methodologies in an integrated fashion.
17 DOCTOR COSTANZI: I think the lesson to be 18 learned here is'that you have to be careful in making l
19 sure that the model that you chose is appropriate to 20 the site that you're dealing with
.o r the facility 21 you're dealing with and that that's the care that 22 really needs to be taken.
It's not st, inuch that the
-23 state of modeling isn't any good or that we don't know l
24 what we're doing or nobody knows what they're doing.
1 25 It's just that I don't-think that we had realized I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
75 1
before the care that needs to be taken-to make sure 2
that the models are appropriate to the problem that 3
you're trying to address, particularly the parameters 4
of'the site.
5 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
6 Just one more area.
You've been 7
concentrating today on the research associated with 8
Part 61 problems.
What about the low-level liquid 9
releases?
I understand there are some problems in 10 that area with respect to Part 20.
Are you prepared 11 at all to talk about --
12 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
Speaking of sewer 13 disposal _and things like that?
14 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: _ Yes.
15 DOCTOR COSTANZI:
No.
10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
17 MR. THOMPSON:
We are preparing an ANPR,-
18 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, that will come 19 up and hopefully focus the Commission's request for 20 public input into that area and that should be up 21 fairly soon to the Commission.
22 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
_Thank-23 you.
24 CHAIRMAN SELIN: 'Thank you.
25 I thought you did a pretty good job of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005
'(202) 234-4433
~..
. ~ _ _ _
~
76 1
mixing up results and objectives.
I would like.to-2 attach myself to Commissioner Rogers' remarks about 3
just how much is appropriate, because clearly we have 4
'in effect a client who is not paying-for the service
[
5 that he's getting.
Most of our clients pay for 6
services they're not getting, so there's something of 7
a conflict there.
In this
- case, what is the 8
appropriate amount and what questions should we be 9
answering and what's the extent?
j 10 As each 'of you pointed out in your 11 answers, you did it more in a defensive fashion, but 12 you basically pointed out that all this guidance about 13 the support we're supposed to be doing was before we 14 got into the 100 percent fee recovery area.
15 Thank you very much.
16 MR. THOMPSON:
Thank you.
17 (Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m.,
the above-18 entitled matter was adjourned.)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~'
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
t CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON NRC RESEARCll PROGRAM ON LOW-LEVEL WASTE PLACE OF MEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
JANUARY 10. 1994 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
O A4N v0 Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch 6
F 1
9
)
e L
NEAL R. GROSS cover neomes ANo vaanscamens 1333 BMODE ISLAND AYDEUE. M.W.
(208) 234 4433 wAsteM010N. 94 20005 (202) 232 4 000
~_
-m
STAFF BRIEFING ON THE-LOW LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE RESEARCH PROGRAM pa "muq fl#8[/
's If*4[
g JANUARY, 10 1994 MICHAEL J.
- BELL, NMSS FRANK A.
- COSTANZI, RES
.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " ^ - '
2 1
Michael Bell, NMSS Background and Historical Perspective L'
l e
}
c,...
n.
.,.....-.w
,,,. ~
--,,.,w.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
-9 Six commercial sites operating in 1970's (see separate slide)
S No systems. approach taken (Pre 10 CFR Part 61) e Problems developed for some SLB sites
- Trench subsidence
- Flooding trenches
- Transportation violations
- Poor record keeping S
Three sites closed due to problems I
l 1
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE CONTINUED 9
New LLW regulation - 1982 (10 CFR Part 61)
S LLW Policy and Amendments Acts - 1980,1985
- Compacts established (see separate slide) l
- Facility Planning / Scheduling (see separate slide) i hl i
2
~
-....--i..-
I
)
COMMERCIAL LLW~ DISPOSAL SITES Site Licensed Status Beatty, NV 1962 Closed - 1992 Maxey Flats, KY 1963 Closed - 1977 West Valley, NY 1963 Closed - 1975 Richland, WA 1965 Operating 3
Sheffield, IL 1967 Closed - 1978 Bamwell, SC 1971 Operating 3
COMMERCIAL LLW DISPOSAL SITES S
10 CFR Part 61 became effective Jan 26, 1983.
9 Barnwell to close to out of compact States in mid 1994 and permanently in Dec 1995.
O Richland accepting waste only from Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts as of Jan 1,1993.
4 m---
u
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __.-a
~
STATES DENIED ACCESS 0
p-,o@
_q
.. s y.
a..
~
l y_c
' - 3 b
--(
l ~~7 i-s O PR States Arranged By Compact 5
1 i
S
,N:.
S E
~s C
tc
.A a
C p
A m
o et F
C O
y B
L d
A e
6 I
g N
na E
r D
c rA s
E e
R ta m_
U t
S TU FKo s
l(llll l,i i
STATES WHERE SLB IS BANNED
[1'
~
~
-p s
~
j~h
'{ %
b
,g c-
/ m-
~
~
_r O
1%
~
States Arranged By Compact 7
l 1
l-l l
l STATUS AND FORECAST OF LLW LICENSE APPLICATIONS S
Applications under review by Agreement States CA,TX,NC,NE G
Seven potential applications 1996 - 2000' lL, OH, PA, CT, NJ, MA, NY G
No site under development MI, NH, R1, PR t
Assumes'ME and VT will join Texas compact.
8 1
9 g
v-
,m v
--,+r e
-.n
S
.i i
l 4
l FOCUS OF LLW RESEARCH PROGRAM e
Before 1977 -*-
No specific LLW Program -
S 1977 -1985-*
Reactive program focused on problems at closed disposal sites 9
1985 -1988-*
Ad hoc program focused on implem~ nting LLWPAA e
9
t t
i FOCUS OF LLW RESEARCH PROGRAM CONTINUED r
9 1988 -'1993 Focused program responsive to 1
' 1988 User Need Letter e Dec 1993 New' User Need Letter
- - Prioritization of Needs-
- Focus on LLW Performance Assessment and Decommissioning
- Application of LLW PA to Decommissioning Casework 10 i
t s
a.-
= -...
+
tw e
n k
w m
~
S a
+
w E
r R
g o
r iz P
n e
a h
t c
r s
w o
ae C
se m
k R
na W
rF L
a L
h h
w h
i
- ?
')
l
'I
=
i
~
t OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION LLW RESEARCH PROGRAM h
> TECHNICAL ISSUES.0F REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE
- ISSUES RESOLVED
> RESEARCH ADDRESSING ISSUES
- PRODUCTS
> USE 1
t
.,.-,.~:.
Y t
4 LOW LEVEL WASTE RESEARCH PROGRAM OBJECTIVE PROVIDE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND DATA TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY GUIDANCE i
FOR USE BY STATES AND NRC IN LICENSING, REGULATION, AND CLO'SURE OF llW DISPOSAL FACILITIES
-t f
?
2-3-i
= i e-v
,e-
.r-i v,ev - 1 4
e r e
.,.-e,--
.e--
v.rwr s
n-e
+m-er.
L CURRENT RESEARCH DIRECTION l
ePERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MODELS SOURCE TERM SITE WASTE FORM EFFECTS OF ENHANCEMENTS k
1 4
3 m
m m-
.+
z-m 2
1
i l
l l
l t
MODELING ISSUES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF LLW PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MODELS l
WHAT IS AN: APPROPRIATE LLW PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MODELING' STRATEGY?
HOW SHOULD WATER INFILTRATION INTO llW DISPOSAL UNITS BE TREATED BY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS?
NOW SHOULD-THE-VARIABILITY IN GEOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES BE TREATED BY j[
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS?
4
+
I 1
i MODELING ISSUES RESOLVED EVALUATION OF APPROACH AND APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS FLOW AND TRANSPORT' CODES TO LlW PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (NUREG/CR 5927.,
1993)
DEVELOPED.A llW PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION, 1994) l DEVELOPED A METHOD TO-EVALUATE:THE EFFECT OF WATER INFILTRATION ON LLW DISPOSAL l
PERFORMANCE (NUREG/CR: 5523, 1990) 5
l L
1 l-V MODELING ISSUES--WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE llW PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MODELING STRATEGY?
j
> RESEARCH SYSTEMATIC PROGRAM OF i
EXAMINING EXISTING HYDROLOGIC AND GEOCHEMICAL CODES AGAINST BENCHMARK CALCULATIONS AND FIELD DATA (NRC STAFF AND i
CONTRACTORS)
[
> PRODUCT llW PERPGEMANCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY--BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION'TO BE FOLLOWED BY REGULATORY GUIDE i
- USE GUIDANCE TO STATES AND LICENSING SUPPORT 6
~
\\
MODELING ISSUES--HOW SHOULD WATER INFILTRATION INTO LlW-DISPOSAL UNITS BE TREATED BY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS?
1
> RESEARCH ANALYTICAL STUDY EXAMINING MECHANISMS AND CONSEQUENCES OF WATER INFILTRATION-INTO
. DISPOSAL UNITS i
- PRODUCT MODEL FOR TREATING WATER INFILTRATION (CY 95)
- USE GUIDANCE FORLkREATING WATER INFILTRATION IN PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS i
7
+
l l
l l
l l-l l-L MODELING ISSUES--HOw SHOuLD THE VARIABILITY IN GEOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES BE TREATED BY l
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS?-
- RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT OF GEOCHEMICAL MODELS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE HETEROGENEITY OF DISPOSAL
- SITES, INCLUDING THE.EFFECT OF CONCRETE ON LOCAL GEOCHEMISTRY
> PRODUCT TRANSPORT MODELS AND SUPPORTING DATA
[
> USE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT I
{
8-
-.-~ --.-
-- - -- a e
e e
SOURCE TERM-1 ISSUES'RELATED TO THE CHEMICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE e
WHAT ARE THE DOMINANT CHEMICAL,.
~
- PHYSICAL, AND RADIOLOGIC PROPERTIES OF 4
LLW?
i e
HOW DOES THE PRESENCE OF CHELATING AGENTS IN DECONTAMINATION WASTES AFFECT LLW DISPOSAL?
HOW SHOULD. DIFFICULT TO MEASURE RADIONUCLIDES IN LlW BE TREATED?
9
SOURCE TERM ISSUE RESOLVED A LLW source TERM MODEL HAS BEEN DEVELOPED 1
(NUREG/CR-5681,. 1991),
AND IS BEING TESTED AND IMPROVED USING DATA FROM TESTS ON ACTUAL LLW-(NUREG/CR 5943, 1993) p 10 v
~.. - - -,-.
vn.
-w-
+ +
-w
SOURCE TERM ISSUES--WHAT ARE THE DOMINANT
- CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND RADIOLOGIC PROPERTIES OF llW?-
i
> RESEARCH LABORATORY AND LYSIMETER TESTS OF A RANGE OF ACTUAL llW PRODUCT CHARACTERIZATION, INCLUDING LEACHABILITY AND STABILITY, OF A VARIETY OF llW WASTE FORMS OVER A RANGE OF CONDITIONS (CLASS.'A' WASTES CY 95)
't 11 3
i SOURCE TERM ISSUES--WHAT ARE THE DOMINANT o
CHEMICAL,-PHYSICAL, AND RADIOLOGIC PROPERTIES'OF llW?
- USE DEVELOPMENT OF REALISTIC
" SOURCE TERMS" AND SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE-LEACHING AND TRANSPORT MODELS-FOR USE-IN PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS m
4 12 e
s e,ws w
e,,
s
,-~,
w en n
+w r
l l
i SOURCE TERM ISSUES--HOW DOES THE PRESENCE OF COMPLEXANTS IN THE WASTE DISPOSAL UNIT (E.G.
EXCESS CHELATING AGENTS IN DECONTAMINATION WASTES) AFFECT llW DISPOSAL?
> RESEARCH EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM EXAMINING THE EFFECT OF COMPLEXANTS ON
- LlW CHEMICAL STABILITY
> PRODUCT MODIFICATIONS TO WASTE LEACHING AND GEOCHEMICAL TRANSPORT MODELS TO ADDRESS PRESENCE OF CHELATING AGENTS (CY 95),
AND BYPRODUCTS OF
. CONCRETE DEGRADATION.(CY 96),
IN LlW DISPOSAL UNITS 13 3
'[
m m.
m m
m
-w a
=e w
e--
e--
,ees a -
m
.a
I I
SOURCE TERM ISSUES--HOW DOES THE PRESENCE OF COMPLEXANTS IN THE WASTE DISPOSAL UNIT (E.G.
EXCESS CHELATINGLAGENTS IN DECONTAMINATION WASTES). AFFECT LlW DISPOSAL?
(CONTINUED)
- USE DEVELOPMENT OF REALISTIC
" SOURCE TERMS" FOR USE IN PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS 4
1 14
-e r
D I
I' l
l
- SOURCE TERM ISSUES--HOW SHOULD DIFFICULT TO
- MEASURE' RADIONUCLIDES IN llW BE TREATED?
> RESEARCH LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF SAMPLES OF LlW
> PRODUCT DATA ASSOCIATING QUANTITIES OF DIFFICULT TO' MEASURE RADIONUCLIDES PRESENT IN LlW WITH QUANTITIES OF MORE EASILY MEASURED RADIONUCLIDES (CY 95)
> USE REVIEW OF CURRENT GUIDANCE ON WASTE ~ CHARACTERIZATION r
15 4
=.
, >4 i
SITE ISSUES RELATED TO DETERMINING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE llW DISPOSAL SITE e
HOW SHOULD THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIC COMPLEXANTS AND MICROPARTICULATES OCCURRING NATURALLY IN SOIL BE TREATED
-BY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MODELS?
e WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF AN APPROPRIATE UNSATURATED. ZONE PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROGRAM?
I k
16 t
i 4
l l
6 SITE ISSUES RESOLVED DEMONSTRATED THAT ONE. DIMENSIONAL FLOW AND TRANSPORT MODELS ARE NOT ALWAYS CONSERVATIVE (NUREG/CR 6063, IN PRESS)
DEMONSTRATED THE FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING' A SITEECHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM FOR llW DISPOSALM(NUREG/CR 4879, 1987) 17
i 1
. SITE ISSUE--HOW SHOULD THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIC COMPLEXANTS AND MICROPARTICULATES OCCURRING NATURALLY IN SOIL BE TREATED BY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT'MODELS?
- RESEARCH FIELD OBSERVATION OF EXISTING RADIONUCLIDE PLUMES AT CHALK
~
RIVER LABORATORIES, AND COMPANION LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
- PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION OF. CONTROLLING
- ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND l
MICROPARTICULATES (CY 95)-
> USE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MODELS 18 O
e 4
e,-_,-
m-
.w-..
w
-i4 v
r -
6. -. - -
~,--,-
4
?
^
~
l SITE ISSUE--WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF AN i
APPROPRIATE UNSATURATED ZONE PERFORMANCE f
MONITORING PROGRAM?
- RESEARCH HYDROLOGIC FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND FIELD EXPERIMENTS IN THE UNSATURATED ZONE 3
> PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE ELEMENTS OF SITE PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROGRAMS-(CY 96) 1
> USE GUIDANCE TO LICENSEES,
- STATES, AND' LICENSE APPLICANTS-I 19 t.
e a -
m vic.r-[
u e
+
e-w=-w.=
we s.w v
e.
~.-
- =
e-um
.m.
L
4 s
WASTE FORM ISSUES RELATED TO THE MECHANICAL STABILITY OF LlW WASTE FORMS AND WASTE CONTAINERS e
HOW STABLE'ARE LLW WASTE FORMS?
4 20 t
m.m sd
- m. -.
mi m-mm.
.m m m.
-m.
m
.. a.-..
m -
+ -.*
2-.
m.-
..e u
e-r,-,
ei, e.
s
'-m-w
-o
4 d
e I
WASTE FORM ISSUES RESOLVED TESTING OF ACTUAL SOLIDIFIED llW-LED TO L
REVISION OF INDUSTRY PRACTICE AND IMPROVED WASTE', FORM PERFORMANCE (NUREG/CR 0103, 1989)
ASSESSMENT.OF-THE STABILITY 0F DECONTAMINATION WASTES (NUREG/CR 5224, t
1989,. AND NUREG/CR: 5601,1991)
DEVELOPMENT OF DATA BASE FOR TESTING SOURCE TERM-CODES (NUREG/CR 5229 AND 6073, 1993)
}.
21 i
WASTE FORM ISSUES--HOW STABLE ARE llW WASTE FORMS?
- RESEARCH LABORATORY TESTS, INCLUDING MICROBIAL DEGRADATION, OF-ACTUAL WASTES'(LARGELY DECONTAMINATION. WASTES)
- PRODUCT-DATA ON OBSERVED STABILITY OF I
A VARIETY OF WASTE FORMS
.(CY 94) i
> USE GUIDANCE FOR: TREATING WASTE FORMS IN PERFORMANCE t
ASSESSMENTS AND CONFIRMATION OF GUIDANCE OF WASTEFORM STABILITY 22 O
' e G
-v-a w
-r w.
4
![ :
i
=
1 TA E
E V
T I
E)
F TT?
R O
E NT E
FNT OE C
FOI C
N EIS A
T FS M
EAL O R' S
R BRA E
T O
TS NK N
F LLO ON E
R LIP IU M
E IFS TB E
P WNI A
?
3 C
ID D
,L 2
N E
S ASA A
H NRW RTS H
T gel GLO N
ITl EUP E
EWD VI D
I E(D D
GM H
E RNU TSW TS EIH El AT VL LRl LN O L'N LU EE COR ITT RM RE WCC E
TTT UE SC ANS WRF EN HOA OTF UA WCE HSA SH SN IE.
l!
t
r D
L T
N A
DA A
C N
)
I A EW D N 2
M I
VLEO 9
E D IL R IW9 H
D D
ET ETl1 CDN E
RCOEAl RA V
EETNI GA L
EFNIDD8 NTC O
NFIGEE1 IEI S
IE NMD9 SR E
G NEEO4 U
F R
NEOORO OO EBII LR FT S
O TBEFC O
S E
INA V
/
SM U
BARTIRG YLR S
CTATOE TIO S
H LHCFR IOF 24 I
TSITE U
)
ORF FEN I
C1 T
BENDFU(
BLI9 N
VINEQ IAN9 E
TO A
IS SRO1 M
ACR NNE AUI E
H E,AHH ETN C
TRTS-CC FAA4 N
EATEEN N - 6 A
DYWIBTE D
F4 H
EA N
R ENO5 N
TLGUNGT TI E
A N
AN A
NR REILCIL RSOC TLTA RA TRI/
SPNSSES SETG NIEORTO NIAE OTVPEAP ORRR MLESVWS MRGU.
EURIOEI EAIN DMPDCDD DBM(
S l
(llllll1llllllll ll!
l
ENHANCEMENT ISSUES RESOLVED DEVELOPED A MODEL FOR PREDICTING LONG-TERM SERVICE OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES (NUREG/CR
- 5466, 1989)
DEVELOPED A MODEL FOR EVALUATING RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT THROUGH CONCRETE (NUREG/CR 4269, 1990) 25 s
=.
~
o ENHANCEMENT ISSUES--WHAT COVER-DESIGNS WILL BE EFFECTIVE AT CONTROLLING-WATER INFILTRATION AT EASTERN HUMID llW DISPOSAL SITES?
> RESEARCH FIELD EXPERIMENTS IN THE
~
EASTERN US TO TEST A VARIETY OF COVER DESIGNS 1
- PRODUCT-IDENTIFICATION OF COVER DESIGNS EFFECTIVE AT CONTROLLING WATER INFILTRATION INTO' DISPOSAL UNITS (CY 95)'
> USE GUIDANCE TO' APPLICANTS AND
-STATES, AND SUPPORT OF LICENSE REVIEWS i
26 i
i y
s-O
..L..
l 4
4 ENHANCEMENT ISSUES--HOW WILL THE DEGRADATION OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES (VAULTS, l
- BUNKERS, ETC'.) AFFECT llW DISPOSAL?
> RESEARCN TESTS OF THE DURABILITY AND i
RATE OF DEGRADATION OF CONCRETES UNDER EXPECTED DISPOSAL CONDITIONS PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION PROCESSES CONTROLLING CONCRETE DEGRADATION (CY 95)
- USE INCORPORATING THE EFFECT OF THE DEGRADATION OF. CONCRETE STRUCTURES INTO LLW I
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT i
f 27 l-
.\\
l l-
.