ML20197G625
| ML20197G625 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/29/1984 |
| From: | Roles G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Jackson K NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8406150365 | |
| Download: ML20197G625 (8) | |
Text
.
q /z.Q./ MAY 2 9 G84 PARIS TRIP REPORT DISTRIBUTION:
.WM s/f NMSS r/f WMLU r/f GWRoles MEMORANDUM FOR: Kenneth C. Jackson, Sr., Acting Section Leader LBHigginbotham Low-Level Waste and Uranium " "
Recovery Projects Branch e Division of Waste Management REBrowning FROM: G. W. Roles Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT - ATTENDENCE AT NEA MEETING, o VISIT TO LA MANCHE DISPOSAL FACILITY DATES & LOCATIONS: NEA Meeting - Paris, France (May 3-5,1984); La Manche facility (May 11,1984).
SUMMARY
A more detailed description of the trip's activities are attached. Briefly,
. the meeting in Paris involved participation in an international expert group preparing a document on acceptance criteria on disposal of long-lived radionuclides (especially transuranic nuclides). This meeting was held on May 3 and 4, and involved discussion of general concepts and principles, development of a preliminary report scope and outline, and settling on assignments for preparing draf t portions of the report. (I will prepare a section on inadvertent intrusion as an impact pathway, as well as an appendix illustrating development of transuranic concentration limitations.) These individual portions will be assembled into a draft document by Mr. Ken Bragg of NEA, and distributed to members of the expert group for their review. A second meeting to discuss the draft report is tentatively scheduled for November of this year.
A meeting was also held on May 5 with Mr. Tony Kluk of DOE and Mr. Gentil of the CEA (French atomic energy agency). This meeting lasted for most of the working day and involved an exchange of information regarding each agency's programs.
The trip to the La Manche facility, although originally scheduled for May 7, was delayed to May 11 due to a combination of factors which became apparent only on my arrival. One factor was the closure of the La Manche facility from 8406150365 840529 POR WASTE WM-3 PDR Mi Record file W ?q.::_ J _ _ _
/j /2 . 2. I nem m kd :
0FC : WMLU
- ~ ~ '
NAME : GWRoles . . . . :, :
DATE :84/05/15 : : : :3 -
g g,9-a
PARIS TRIP REPORT l
-2_ ,
t May 7 through May 9. The second factor was the presense of Mr. Terry Lash of ;
the state of Illinois, who was visiting several waste management facilities in '
4 Europe and who also wished to visit the La Manche facility. The U.S. state department. arranged that the two visits be combined for the convenience of the '
French authorities.
RECOMMENDATIONS ;
Is it suggested that a more systematic effort to technically monitor European i activities in low-level waste disposal will be useful to NRC. European
! countries are performing similar types of analyses to those performed by HRC [
for the Part 61 rule. Similarities and differences among the various l approaches should be understood. To the extent that they are similar, overall ;
support for NRC's standards and criteria are enhanced. To the extent that they are dissimilar, they should be understood so that a ready explanation is ,
available. States and compacts are very interested in engineered disposal ;
methods, and will naturally examine and compare disposal practices of countries !
who have adopted engineered methods with American approaches. !
More of a systematic interest will also help improve American participation in l tw international expert groups, and help ensure useful products. European :
representatives have generally participated in other international groups and meetings, know and routinely work with each other, and understand the nuances <
of the terminology. This terminology is often different from that used in the '
United States, and time is lost while the Americans educate themselves. This '
has a tendancy to occur repeatedly, since the American approach seems to be to '
send whoever is available at the time. -
t Another reason for a more systematic interest is that most of the experience with engineered storage and disposal of radioactive waste exists in Europe and :
Canada. The disposal facility at La Manche, for example, has been successfully :
operated since 1969, and will likely be used as a model by some state compacts for new disposal facilities located in humid environments. NRC is currently in
' the process of developing criteria for disposal of waste by alternative methods, as well as disposal of waste exceeding Class C concentrations. Both
' efforts will give heavy consideration to engineered disposal techniques. It would seem sensible to draw upon the existing experience in Europe and Canada when developing our criteria. ;
f 0FC : WHLU kd : : : : : : [
i NAME': GWRoles : : : : : :
DATE :84/05/15 : : : : : :
PARIS TRIP REPORT Finally, there appear to be some similarities in specific technical research projects performed by European countries and the United States. For example, the French have had a waste form testing program which has been ongoing for several years. It is possible that a mechanism can be set up, using the recent information exchange agreement between DOE and the French CEA as an initiating vehicle, to exchange data on these and other programs. This possibility may prove difficult to implement, but is currently being explored for feasibility with the NRC office of International Programs and with DOE.
Origine1 Signed 3y G. W. Roles Low-level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management
Enclosures:
As Stated 0FC : WMLU d: : : : : :
NAME : GWRoles : : : : : :
DATE :84/05/15 : : : : : :
PARIS ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
OF TRIP ACTIVITIES .
NEA Meeting Summary The meeting in Paris involved participation in an expert group which will prepare a documant on acceptance criteria on disposal of long-lived radionuclides, especially transuranic nuclides. A document explaining the overall charter of the group is attached, as is a list of the meeting attendants. The following countries were represented: United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Canada, and Japan.
After deciding on a meeting chairman, who turned out to be Mr. H. Richards of the United Kingdom, the terms of reference for the group were reviewed (see attachment). These terms of reference called for basing the acceptance criteria document on an earlier document entitled "Long-Term Radiation Protection Objectives in Radioactive Waste Disposal" (LTO document). The 5-man .
American delegation unanimously considered the LTO document to be very poorly written. Since it was believed, however, that the document really didn't contain anything particularly damaging to NRC or DOE programs, no real objections were made to it.
Thereafter, each country represented at the meeting presented a summary of applicable regulations and requirements. Documents submitted by each country are attached. This was followed by much discussion of approaches, principles, and strategies. This discussion mostly involved American, French, and British
' delegates, since the waste management programs for these countries were the most advanced. It is interesting to note that many of the recent revelations to come out of the Part 61 effort, such as the need for long-term waste and site stability, are considered totally obvious to Europeans, on the order of something one learns in grade school. This may be due to the high population density in Europe, which forced EuropeansEto minimize land use requirements and thus depend on a more engineered approach from the start. In contrast, the :
general availability of land in America undoubtedly contributed to the early '
notion in this country that the site alone could be depended on for ensuring safety in low-level waste disposal.
o -In calculations involving potential human intrusion, both France and Britain
- discount our notion that the presence of large hunks of waste will suggest to i an inadvertent intruder that something out of the ordinary is happening. It is customary in Europe, apparently, for building projects to encounter items of antiquity. Workers tend to ignore them since to call attention to them may result in a halt to the building project, and thus put the workers out of a job.
0FC : : : : : : :
NAME : : : : : : :
DATE :84/05/15 : : : : : :
,- --- --,-,_--m,- .- ,e- - , . - - , - - - - - . .-,-e -
w-,--, ---,,,v
-,m - _ , - - - -_w..-
PARIS ATTACHMENT A tentative report document outline was then prepared. Individual members of the group were assigned to prepare draft portions of the report document. I am to prepare a cection on inadvertent intrusion and other hypothetical release scenarios, and will also prepare an appendix illustrating development cf transuranic concentration limitations. I will also be coordinating with some of the other members of the American team on their sections.
The sections of the report will be assembled by Mr. Kenneth Bragg of NEA into a draft document which will be distributed to team members for their review and comment. A meeting to review and edit the draft document is scheduled in Paris in November.
Assessment It is suggested that a more systematic effort to technically monitor European activities in low-level waste disposal will be useful to NRC.
European countries are performing similar types of analyses to those performed by NRC for the Part 61 rule. Similariti.es and differences among the various approaches should be understood. To the extent that they are similar, overall support for NRC's standards and criteria are enhanced. To the extent that they are dissimilar, they should be understood so that a ready explanation is available. This will become more important as the compacting process accelerates. States and compacts are very interested in engineered disposal methods, and will naturally examine and compare disposal practices of countries who have adopted engineered methods with American approaches.
Another consideration is that most of the experience with engineered storage and disposal of radioactive waste exists in Europe and Canada. NRC is currently in the process of developing criteria for disposal of waste by alternative methods, as well as disposal of waste exceeding Class C concentrations. Both efforts will give heavy consideration to engineered disposal techniques. It would seem sensible to draw upon this existing experience when developing our criteria. (Also see the following Assessment section for the La Manche visit.)
More'of a systematic interest will also improve American participation in international expert groups, and help ensure useful products--i.e., products that can actually be used and cited by NRC. European representatives have generally participated in other international groups and meetings, know each other, and understand the nuances of the terminology. This terminclogy is often different from that used in the United States, and time is lost while the Americans educate themselves. This has a tendency to occur repeatedly, since the American approach seems to be to send whoever is available at the time.
0FC- : : : : : : :
NAME : : : : : : :
DATE :84/05/15 : : : : : :
PARIS ATTACHMENT
_3-Sumary At the La Manche facility, we initially met with the director of the facility, Mr.' Georges Cornec, who turned out to be sorely harried that particular day by other visitors from CEA. Nonetheless, Mr. Cornec spent the morning answering questions and also accompanied us to lunch. (Lunch turned out to be in a beautiful setting overlooking a rocky ocean shoreline, and featured fish with white wine, veal with red wine, various vegetables, bread, a selection of fine cheeses, and cafe' __ all excellently prepared. In France, the best minds are generally encouraged to go into government service rather than private industry; and apparently a lavish lunch is one of the means by which this is accomplished. French officials are also required to go first class when traveling.) There were some communications difficulties, but these were smoothed over with the assistance of an impromptu interpreter, the formidable Ms. Jean.
Most of the discussion with Mr. Cornec (and the formidable Ms. Jean) centered on waste acceptance criteria, including testing of waste forms and quality control. For example,' liquids are prohibited, where liquids are interpreted to include free flowing or dispersible solids such as ion-exchange resins. Such waste must be solidified, and at present the two most common solidification agents are cement and a sand / epoxy mixture.
Plants solidifying wastes must conduct or have performed a series of tests to demonstrate the adequacy of the solidified product. Tests include those for mechanical (structural) stability, free standing liquid content, leaching, and resistance to combustion or fire damage. The test results must be submitted to CEA for approval, and a process control program must be developed and followed by the plants to ensure that a good waste product will be achieved.
The minimum mechanical strength criterion is 100 kg/cm 2, which is imposed based on the requirements for stability of the La Manche facility. The criterion for free standing liquid is essentially zero. No allowances are made for
. condensation en route to the disposal facility. The performed on laboratory samples as well as larger 2samples. m}eaching tests Tests areare performed with " drinkable" and La Manche groundwater. Leach tests are performed for several radionulgides. The ligit for Cs and Sr, for example, is
< a/a 41 , where a is the initial activity apparently on the order of 10~and a is the activity Uleached Thereafter in one fear.0 a/ag is allowed to double every five years.
A long-term (3-4 year) testing program is also underway, in which test results are compared with a mathematical model. The mathematical model is apparently more pessimistic than the sample data. Mr. Cornec felt that the tests could be extrapolated to natural conditions.
l0FC : : : : : : :
lNAME : : : : : : :
- DATE :84/05/15 : : : : : :
PARIS ATTACHMENT Wastes shipped to the La Manche facility must be accompanied by a shipment manifest describing the waste contents. Apparently the requirements for reporting of specific radionuclides depend upon the generation source. My impression for power plants is that very little or no sampling or reporting of radionuclides is performed other than those which can be detected using gamma spectral analysis. Surrogate nuclides are not generally used as a means of detecting nuclides such as Pu-239. Mr. Cornec stated that Pu-239 would not be expected to be found in reactor wastes barring fuel failure (considered an
" accident"). Carbon-14 is also not reported in power plant waste. It is reported in waste from institutions such as hospitals, which comprise only a percent of the total volume annually received at La Manche (about 700,000 fey /yr). It was unclear whether any sampling and reporting is performed for ft Sr-90.
The radionuclide content of arriving waste packages is occasionally tested at La Manche using gamma spectral analysis on an individual waste package. This is done as a means of verifying that the waste is acceptable for disposal rather than determining precise radionuclide values. Waste generators will also frequently exaggerate the contents of a waste package by merely stating that the activity is less than the maximum values allowable, rather than providing a precise value.
The tour of the La Manche facility was conducted by Mr. Nicoli of ANDRA, with .
the able assistance of the formidable Ms. Jean. The facility is very impressive, and features considerable use of concrete as well as a controlled '
water drainage and monitoring system. Several photographs were taken of the facility which will be assembled into a folder similar to that prepared for the .
CO adian visit. These photographs illustrate the engineering details of the facility. Our attention to photographs amused Mr. Nicoli, as well as our ;
explanation that we were not actually government representatives, but Japanese i tourists.
Assessment It is believed to be useful for NRC to more closely review and better understand the French (and other country's) waste disposal system. The disposal facility at La Manche has been successfully operated since 1969, and .
will likely be used as a model by some state compacts for new disposal facilities located in humid environments. The waste form quality control and '
testing program has been ongoing since 1975, and this experience may very well be useful to NRC in developing the ability to predict long-term releases from ,
solidified waste forms. This combined experience may also prove useful during our development of criteria for disposal of waste exceeding Class C concentrations, and disposal of waste by alternative means. Development of i such criteria will include placing overall upper limits on how long we expect engineered facilities to function, and also developing test and quality control f
0FC : : : : : : -
i _____.____________.____________.____________.____________.____________.____________.___________
NAME : : : : : : :
l DATE :84/05/15 : : : : : : i t
I
g..-.
PARIS ATTACHMENT procedures which can be used by applicants to demonstrate to us that the facilities will indeed function for the specified time.
It is also hoped that a more formal mechanism can be established to exchange relevant information. Assuming that such an information exchange process can be established, a good place to start is probably in the area of testing of waste forms for mechanical strength, leaching, and other parameters. Both the French CEA and NRC have had ongoing programs in this area for a number of years. A natural follow-up to this would be in the area of disposal facility design criteria and quality control testing. This information exchange process may be difficult to establish but could possibly use the recent DOE /CEA agreement (copy attached) as an initiating mechanism. (Possible problems include equivalence of the " quality of data.") In any case, the possibility of establishing this process is being explored with the NRC Office of International Programs and with 00E.
i 0FC : : : : : : :
- NAME : : : : : : :
DATE :84/05/15
. - . . . - - -